Ian Knight – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:49:28 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Ian Knight – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 #imwithher(ing away) https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/04/imwithhering-away/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/04/imwithhering-away/#respond Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:30:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1119233 Donald Trump will be the next president, and that’s what the DNC wants.

The post #imwithher(ing away) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Donald Trump will be the next president, and that’s what the DNC wants.

Wikileaks has utterly destroyed Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning on Tuesday. It has been releasing a steady stream of leaks for the past few weeks damaging the Clinton campaign, culminating in a dump of particularly vile leaks on Thursday. These most recent leaks reveal corruption that is so depressing that anyone reading them should keep tissues nearby. However, while I encourage everyone reading this to go look at the leaks, for they are more than worthy of discussion in their own right, I want to talk about something other than the leaks.

The Democratic National Committee higher-ups, establishment Democrats and their donors all conspired against Bernie Sanders to help Hillary Clinton defeat him in the Democratic primary elections. This was suspected from the beginning, but it has since then been confirmed. (I particularly enjoy how they literally encouraged atheist-bashing him.)

This is troubling on its own, but further consider the following: that DNC members knew during the primaries that Bernie Sanders had a much better chance than Hillary Clinton of defeating Donald Trump in a general election, but they had an internal preference for Hillary Clinton anyway. How the hell does that make any sense? Some might say that they were willing to take such a risk since Clinton was still projected to beat Trump by a safe margin.

This argument fails. Ignoring for a moment the plain fact that the decision to support Clinton completely disregards the interest of the people the DNC claims to represent, it was still obvious during the primaries that there was a real possibility that Clinton could lose a significant amount of support by Election Day. Any of the plethora of the scandals muddying Clinton’s past are troubling on their own, but collectively, they paint a very sinister picture of an incredibly mendacious individual that would run an even more opaque administration than is typical of the rogue state we call the U.S.

So, now the scandals are finally adding up, and Clinton is losing her lead in the battleground states of New Hampshire and Colorado, and Trump is now leading in the others (Florida, North Carolina, Nevada). Can anyone say they are surprised? Leave it to Hillary Clinton to be the only politician with enough issues to lose to Donald Trump. At least everyone still has the chance to vote for a woman though, as if Hillary Clinton, a.k.a. Goldman Sachs Goddess, represents the improvement of women’s lives (pro-tip: SHE DOESN’T).

The only reason the DNC would push for Clinton over Sanders, then, must be that a Clinton defeat (and therefore a Trump victory) would be less damaging than a Sanders victory. On its face, this fails to make any sense if you believe that the policies of Clinton and Sanders are roughly similar.

This is not the case.

Clinton’s proposed policies are politically closer to those of Trump than to those of Bernie Sanders. As I discussed in my previous article, the only real difference between Clinton and Trump lies in their level of social policies (Trump is much higher in measures of authoritarianism); economically, they are about the same. In contrast, Bernie is much more socially libertarian and economically left-leaning than both Clinton and Trump. For online readers, click here to see a visual example of this vast difference.

Here we see the true danger Sanders posed to the Democratic Party. An actual progressive representing the Democratic Party in the highest office possible would impose an expectation on all Democrats to be similarly progressive. Such a demand would not be the case were Trump to simply become president, in which case Democrats could falsely claim that they are the alternative, build up their support and try again the next election cycle. It is a disgustingly utilitarian strategy, but it’s usually successful.

So, the next time your Facebook friends and Stanford peers complain about President Trump and the uneducated white working-class subhumans who voted for him out of desperation, remember that the DNC preferred Trump becoming president over Bernie Sanders. If you supported Sanders during the primaries, be aware that Clinton is far from a match for your political leanings. If you are a Democrat, feel free to vote for Hillary Clinton (despite her extensive list of faults that would normally disqualify a person from holding public office) on Tuesday, but simultaneously realize that you should be mad as hell at the people who stole an opportunity for progress from you. The DNC stole your choice. There should be riots over this.

Donald Trump will be the next president, and that’s what the DNC wants. Don’t like it? Blame the people responsible.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post #imwithher(ing away) appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/04/imwithhering-away/feed/ 0 1119233
Concerning the election https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/21/concerning-the-election/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/21/concerning-the-election/#respond Fri, 21 Oct 2016 07:38:57 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1118363 I doubt I am the only one who feels that this presidential election is particularly polarizing. And while this election is similar to previous ones in many embarrassingly monotonous ways, polls do indicate that there is a new kind of polarization in this election, specifically the higher tendency for voters to state that they are voting against the other candidate as opposed to voting for their candidate. This sounds like an electorate’s nightmare, as it can only lead to further voter dissatisfaction.

The post Concerning the election appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I doubt I am the only one who feels that this presidential election is particularly polarizing. And while this election is similar to previous ones in many embarrassingly monotonous ways, polls do indicate that there is a new kind of polarization in this election, specifically the higher tendency for voters to state that they are voting against the other candidate as opposed to voting for their candidate. This sounds like an electorate’s nightmare, as it can only lead to further voter dissatisfaction. Since this phenomenon can hardly be described as a good omen, it is worth investigating the causes behind its emergence so that we might have a better understanding of how this election is operating and where it is going.

Donald Trump is arguably more economically “left-leaning” than Hillary Clinton, if only slightly. The difference is not enormous, but it is substantial given the traditionally right-leaning economic stances of Republican candidates. The best example of this is Trump’s unwavering denunciation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal since the beginning of the election, while Clinton has been quoted as calling it “the gold standard of trade deals” before flipping her position in an insincere attempt to sway disillusioned supporters of Bernie Sanders (it is believed that she will flip her position again once elected, according to newly leaked emails). Trump also supports increasing the federal minimum wage and has expressed no intention of attacking federal benefits programs like Medicaid and Social Security, a historic goal of past Republican candidates. He is even on record as supporting universal health care as a replacement for Obamacare. Of course, Trump is not more economically left-leaning in every way; his tax plan is far less progressive than Clinton’s, and he is not too concerned with making higher education more affordable to young Americans. Furthermore, many of Trump’s stances are notably prone to alterations, leading us to question whether his proposed economic policies would even be implemented. But overall, his political alignment on the economic spectrum is not far from Hillary Clinton’s.

However, it is not economic policy differences that are driving this election. Rather, this election seems to be more concerned with where the candidates lie on the social spectrum of politics. To elucidate this difference, I draw attention to the analysis of the candidates performed by the Political Compass organization, whose purpose is to represent political positions on a more nuanced scale than just a simple left vs. right spectrum. As they have determined according to their own measures of social issues, Trump is much higher in authoritarianism (one extreme of the spectrum) than Clinton. This might lead us to think Clinton would lie on the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e. Libertarianism). However, Clinton is actually quite high in authoritarianism as well, just not nearly as high as Trump. This is not too surprising given that Hillary Clinton is on record as proposing that we “just drone this guy” when referring to Julian Assange (i.e. the foremost bastion of holding those in power accountable for their misdeeds).

Since this difference in stances on social issues is the more dominant dispute defining this election, we should expect alignment on the social spectrum to be a primary factor in determining which candidate a voter chooses. Research into the beliefs of voters shows that people higher in psychological traits associated with authoritarianism are far more likely to vote for Trump over Clinton. Furthermore, the same research determined that authoritarianism was the best single predictor of support for Trump among many other metrics, including education level, race, income, and other demographics. Evidence suggests that this election is an opportunity for people high in authoritarian beliefs to assert themselves. Trump supporters see him as the “law and order” candidate, ready and willing to restore order, although it is not quite clear to others what the chaos is.

For a good example of Trump appealing to these people high in authoritarian beliefs, at the third and final presidential debate last Wednesday, Trump refused to affirm that he would accept the election results if he lost, simply responding “I will look at it at the time”. Although this implies that Trump could stage some populist coup in the case of defeat, such an uprising would be put down immediately and would be supported by almost no one, and especially not by those in power who control our armed forces. But it is clear that Trump has no intention of doing so. Rather, Trump simply seems to be appealing to people high in authoritarian psychological traits, who love the idea (consciously or unconsciously) of a strong leader refusing to give up on the nation he has sworn to make “great again”.

Of course, it is worth stating that authoritarian tendencies (or lack thereof) are not a perfect determinant of who voters prefer, as there are several other important factors. For example, males with low education are particularly likely to vote Trump, apparently due to real wages declining enormously for that demographic in the past two decades. In contrast, real wages for women with low education have not been nearly as heavily affected, and wages have actually increased for both men and women with high education. Moreover, people who feel like they don’t have a political voice are incredibly more likely to vote for Trump. This should not be too surprising, as low income Americans not having any real political influence is a pretty well documented reality. The people who comparatively have a lot of political power (e.g. Stanford students and faculty) probably can’t relate directly to such sentiment, but if we want to understand why many Americans support Trump then we must be aware of our insular privilege as elites of the future, both socially and politically. Given our relative economic security, we are not desperate for radical change as Trump supporters clearly are. Perhaps Trump’s most enticing qualities are his astoundingly novel contempt for the political establishment and his unwavering promise for rapid change once put in power. Therefore, it is pretty clear how the combination of decreasing wages and a lack of political influence for a large sector of Americans is driving them to support a nationalistic, authoritarian candidate, especially when his opponent represents the political Establishment that they rightfully abhor for ignoring their problems.
The purpose of this article is not to justify supporting Trump or any other candidate. Rather, I want to show that denigrating Trump supporters as stupid, violent, and morally reprehensible is not constructive in any way whatsoever. Doing so is just one more distraction preventing us from exposing the political impetus driving the Trump campaign. Anyone who wants to prevent the embodiment of authoritarianism from entering office should acknowledge the plight of Trump supporters and demand that their issues be addressed. Unfortunately, I do see such ideas being expressed by anyone.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Concerning the election appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/21/concerning-the-election/feed/ 0 1118363
The problem with Michael Brown https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/the-problem-with-michael-brown/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/the-problem-with-michael-brown/#comments Fri, 29 Apr 2016 06:59:57 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1114374 In the weeks immediately following the shooting of Michael Brown, when not all the facts had come in, it may not have been wise to assume a preexisting narrative, but it was certainly excusable; people are emotional, especially regarding a subject as triggering and politically significant as that of police brutality against black people. What […]

The post The problem with Michael Brown appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In the weeks immediately following the shooting of Michael Brown, when not all the facts had come in, it may not have been wise to assume a preexisting narrative, but it was certainly excusable; people are emotional, especially regarding a subject as triggering and politically significant as that of police brutality against black people. What is not excusable, however, is an ignorant refusal to alter a narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The shooting death of Michael Brown in August of 2014 remains prominent in the American collective consciousness. Treated as a spark of injustice against black people, the outcry that poured forth rightfully demanded investigation into Darren Wilson and why he believed he had to shoot an unarmed black teenager dead. Therefore, the Department of Justice conducted a federal investigation into the shooting that concluded in March of 2015, at which point a report was released on the matter. The results found therein are astoundingly inconsistent with the commonly believed notion that Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality. Yet the disproved notion continues, unadulterated, to spread throughout the collective consciousness as fact.

How can this be? How can it still be acceptable for people to directly compare Michael Brown to substantiated cases of injustice against black people such as Eric Garner and Walter Scott? Any sane individual would say that this is an instance of cognitive dissonance on a massive scale. In such cases, the reason for a piece of misinformation’s persistent  refusal to be corrected is, in all likelihood, a simple result of its innumerable repetitions through instruments of social media. It is an especially prominent factor when the repetition is made by a person of huge social influence. I’m referring, of course, to the comparison of Michael Brown to Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner that was made by Beyoncé in her recent short film Lemonade.

An act such as Beyoncé’s serves to propagate a narrative that has been shown to be false. This will ultimately only do damage to the campaign for black liberation that her film seems to represent, by delaying the death of a dangerously incorrect mythology that trivializes the factor of truth in working to end the oppression of black people. Given the astronomical level of influence Beyoncé commands with regard to the general public, and particularly young people, it is extremely irresponsible for her and her collaborators on the film to knowingly promote misinformation, especially concerning a topic of such importance. State-sponsored violence against black people is not a light matter, and therefore tackling such a serious problem requires the use of examples that are credible, and unfortunately the case of Michael Brown does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, restating this fiction in the film format should not result in popular approval. The public should be more intellectually rigorous than to be lazily coerced into ignoring the facts surrounding Michael Brown’s death. This means accepting evidence and pointing out injustice where it actually exists, a task that Beyoncé has flouted in order to latch onto the regressive popularity of the false narrative surrounding Michael Brown.

Of course, denying the former story regarding Michael Brown is understandably not the central concern of black liberation movements right now, as it is not necessarily in their best interest to admit that they were wrong about something. Nor do I ask these movements to make it their central focus, as that would obviously be distracting and misaligned with the true intention of such movements. For example, the same report released by the Department of Justice also found evidence of massive institutionalized racism within the Ferguson Police Department that results in the routine violation of the constitutional rights of black people in the area. This perfectly demonstrates the need to talk about racism in Ferguson, but it does not necessitate association with the illegitimate case of Michael Brown. Moreover, I think it is worth admitting, when it comes up, that the original interpretation of the shooting death of Michael Brown was incorrect and spurred by emotion rather than evidence.

This admission does not detract from the credibility of Black Lives Matter or any other activist movement; it is only an acknowledgement of the intense and sustained attention that is demanded by such matters. When such acknowledgements are able to be made without denying the integrity of the movement, the room for doubt or mistrust evaporates. Furthermore, it is especially important that people like Beyoncé, who task themselves with representing black liberation, do not propagate misinformation simply because it is popular to do so. Rather, they should aspire to serve as sources of credible information.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight@stanford.edu.

The post The problem with Michael Brown appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/the-problem-with-michael-brown/feed/ 5 1114374
In defense of Gabriel Knight https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/10/me-ay-in-defense-of-gabriel-knight/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/10/me-ay-in-defense-of-gabriel-knight/#comments Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:59:01 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1113413 NOTE: I do not have any familial relation to Gabriel Knight, as might be implied by our shared surname. I mention this only to discourage anyone from assuming that my argument is based in any part on such a relation. It goes almost without saying that the collective opinion regarding Gabriel Knight’s comments at the […]

The post In defense of Gabriel Knight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
NOTE: I do not have any familial relation to Gabriel Knight, as might be implied by our shared surname. I mention this only to discourage anyone from assuming that my argument is based in any part on such a relation.

It goes almost without saying that the collective opinion regarding Gabriel Knight’s comments at the ASSU meeting last Tuesday is one of condemnation. According to the plethora of articles (and their comment sections) that have come out denouncing Mr. Knight, the consensus seems to be that his remarks were anti-Semitic. At this point, it would definitely be difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince anyone otherwise, simply because of the homogeneity of opinion concerning him. But it seems to me that there are certain aspects of this story that have largely been ignored which may serve to lessen the severity with which Mr. Knight is condemned. I wish to bring attention to these points as I notice them, at the risk of my own credibility being destroyed. That being said, I additionally want to stress that I am not trying to defend anti-Semitism in any form, as will probably be claimed. Rather, I only want to suggest that the idea Mr. Knight was trying to communicate was not anti-Semitic in nature.

“‘Jews controlling the media, economy, government and other societal institutions’ [is] a fixture of anti-Semitism that we [inaudible] theoretically shouldn’t challenge. I think that that’s kind of irresponsibly foraying into another politically contentious conversation. Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

– ASSU Senator Gabriel Knight ’17

I’d like to begin by unpacking the quote given above. In the first sentence, Mr. Knight ostensibly disputes the idea that Jews “controlling” societal institutions is anti-Semitic. Ouch. This statement seems indefensible by itself, but let us keep going. He goes on to say that challenging such an idea is precisely equivalent to questioning “potential power dynamics” as part of a “politically contentious conversation.” In my mind, this sounds like Mr. Knight is referring to a political discussion about disparity in power among differing groups of people (e.g. ethnic, religious, etc.). This gives the impression that his first sentence on its own was not communicative of the intended point, which is different from the notion of a Jewish conspiracy commonly espoused by anti-Semites.

Noting the different impression received from the rest of the above quote compared to that of the first sentence, it is unlikely that the focus of Mr. Knight’s statement was to give credence to the myth of a Jewish conspiracy, as he communicated in his letter to the Stanford Daily: “I do not intend to support or employ any language or tools that have historically been used to elicit hate and violence against a people.” Rather, it appears that he attempted to use the language of the clause (“Jews […] institutions”) as a springboard by which to introduce the notion that such language could potentially be used to stifle valid discussion of differences in political power. Since I think we all agree it is especially important to advocate discussion of privilege and power in the modern world, I disagree that raising a point like that is inherently inappropriate.

However, this is not to say that Mr. Knight’s suggestion was totally appropriate to the situation. The language of the clause is intended to condemn a very real form of hate speech (i.e. validating the Jewish conspiracy) that has historically been used with grave consequence. As such, to attack the language of the clause was surely unwise, for it seems like an assault on the spirit of the clause. This, I’m sure, no one doubts. Therefore, Mr. Knight’s intention should not have been realized in his challenging the clause itself (a move which has unsurprisingly ended his political career). Rather, he should have suggested adding language that would prohibit the use of the clause to suppress legitimate discussion of power dynamics. Doing so would certainly not have been contested and would have succinctly communicated Mr. Knight’s reasonable reservations about the clause in a way that would not have been interpreted as anti-Semitic.

Keeping in mind what Mr. Knight should have done instead, we are left to consider whether he deserves the intense censure that has been directed at him for his statements. Can it be argued that such statements indicate a lack of the tact desired or perhaps expected of an ASSU representative, regardless of their intentions? I think so, and such an observation is certainly worthy of consideration in deciding whether to vote for Mr. Knight in an ASSU election. However, do the same statements confirm to the world that Mr. Knight is an anti-Semite? Not at all. Do they mean he should be looked down upon as a cretin who validates the rhetoric of Nazis? Again, no. In reality, I think Mr. Knight simply wanted to communicate a fairly valid point about a piece of proposed legislation and unfortunately misworded his statement in a way that sounded anti-Semitic. I base this on my analysis in the second and third paragraphs.

This story has been tantamount to a witch-hunt executed under the guise of a brave assault on bigotry. Anyone who believes that Gabriel Knight is an anti-Semite based on his comments is ignoring the details that detract from such a view. Furthermore, anyone who delights in the possibility that this story will harm his career prospects (a practice that I have witnessed frequently in the last few days) is simply indulging in masturbatory schadenfreude. In closing, I hope that I have at least demonstrated that some doubt is worthy in the case of Gabriel Knight’s perceived anti-Semitism.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post In defense of Gabriel Knight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/10/me-ay-in-defense-of-gabriel-knight/feed/ 36 1113413
Up like Trump: An analysis of the Donald https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/up-like-trump-an-analysis/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/up-like-trump-an-analysis/#comments Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:59:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1111566 These days, everyone seems to have an opinion on Donald Trump. Elitist billionaire turned presidential candidate, Trump has seized the attention of the nation by becoming the front-runner of the Republican Party candidates. Despite never having held political office, Trump claims that he has the business experience and audacious attitude necessary to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT […]

The post Up like Trump: An analysis of the Donald appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
These days, everyone seems to have an opinion on Donald Trump. Elitist billionaire turned presidential candidate, Trump has seized the attention of the nation by becoming the front-runner of the Republican Party candidates. Despite never having held political office, Trump claims that he has the business experience and audacious attitude necessary to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” If by “GREAT” Mr. Trump means, for example, a society where all citizens can earn a living wage, freely exercise their civil liberties without fear of retaliation, and reserve the right to even a modicum of political power, then it is worth noting that America has demonstrably never been great. But you, I and Mr. Trump himself know that this is not what he means. What does he mean then? Are my friends right about him? Is Trump really a super-villain poised to become the next head of state? In order to answer these questions, all we need to do is examine Mr. Trump’s positions on the issues.

Contrary to what your Facebook feed may claim, Trump’s policies are not any more extreme or dangerous than those of the other Republican candidates. Even the most cursory comparison of their actual policies is enough to determine that Trump is actually the least extreme of all the Republican candidates. This is not saying much, however, as both the Republican and Democratic parties have shifted so far to the right in the past few decades that any true “moderate Republican” would fail to mobilize enough conservative voters to win any given election. This forces us to wonder how Trump could seem like the most extreme (and therefore most popular) Republican candidate without actually being such.

Trump is not popular for his policies, but for his bold (and sometimes even witty) rhetoric. He is, after all, a salesman, and salesmen are trained specialists when it comes to manipulating you into signing on their dotted line. (Now that I think of it, nearly all politicians are salesmen in that regard). Trump may be openly hateful of his enemies; he may be openly racist, xenophobic, and sexist; he may be openly indifferent to the suffering of others, but he does have one thing going for him: he is blunt. There is such apparent sincerity that comes with Trump’s stunts and scandals that it sways the hearts (and, therefore, the minds) of the American people and in this way substance ceases to be a matter worthy of account. This is why Trump can be the most moderate of the Republican candidates and still arouse the most passion on the Right, to much revulsion and mockery on the Left.

Now that we have a better understanding of the realities of a Trump candidacy, I must next point out that there is a disturbing schism between how the political Left regards Trump and how they should regard Trump. Not only is fear of Trump a pronounced topic of conversation these days, there are a myriad of articles and videos saturating the internet foretelling utter Armageddon at the hands of The Donald. This fear is discernibly irrational, as discussed above, which leads me to my next point: the population pays more attention to rhetoric than to actual stances on issues. This is a misaligned focus; if we care about policy rather than minutiae, then we must not allow ourselves to fall for Trump’s tactics. Just as Trump’s rhetoric undeservedly sways the Right, so too does his rhetoric undeservedly arouse the excessive contempt of the Left. This indicates a completely skewed state of how we interpret politicians and their meaning.

To clarify, I think it is important that we surely not agree to the truly absurd, albeit common, request that we simply stop talking about Trump. Such a proposal completely ignores the very important question of why Trump is so popular and resonates so powerfully with the masses and thereby shrugs off Trump supporters and their grievances as illegitimate. The truth is that the grievances of the American people, including Trump supporters, are legitimate and worthy of consideration. For example, Trump exploits the very real fears of American mediocrity, immigrants, terrorism, a failing economy, etc., in order to bolster his popularity. It goes without saying, however, that addressing grievances should not be equivalent to manipulating their espousers through fear tactics and wistful dreams of American exceptionalism. Rather, the political process should be altered in such a way that the concerns of Americans are addressed, argued over, and responded to in a reasonable way.


If anything, Trump’s popularity is an example of the practical dysfunction of one of the most important aspects of the political process: selecting candidates based on policies. Policy and substance should trump Trump; if we are prone to support or denounce our candidates purely based on their rhetoric and not their actual policies, then we are doomed to elect salesmen forever.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight@stanford.edu

 

The post Up like Trump: An analysis of the Donald appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/25/up-like-trump-an-analysis/feed/ 4 1111566
Stanford students open for DJ Khaled in surprise performance https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/05/stanford-students-open-for-dj-khaled-in-surprise-performance/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/05/stanford-students-open-for-dj-khaled-in-surprise-performance/#respond Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:48:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1110367 Around 3:00 PM yesterday afternoon, Snapchat user djkhaled305, the handle of prolific Snapchat savant and world famous musician DJ Khaled, uploaded two back-to-back, ten-second videos announcing a surprise promotional event at a location less than a mile away from the Stanford campus. The two videos, whose screenshots can be viewed below, reveal that the event will […]

The post Stanford students open for DJ Khaled in surprise performance appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Around 3:00 PM yesterday afternoon, Snapchat user djkhaled305, the handle of prolific Snapchat savant and world famous musician DJ Khaled, uploaded two back-to-back, ten-second videos announcing a surprise promotional event at a location less than a mile away from the Stanford campus. The two videos, whose screenshots can be viewed below, reveal that the event will be held at 3000 El Camino Real at 3:30 PM. The event will take place presumably on account of “fan luv” [sic] from DJ Khaled, who is currently on a three-day tour of the Bay Area and is set to perform at Pier 70 in San Francisco on Friday night.

DJ Khaled 1DJ Khaled 2

Given the event’s proximity to Stanford, organizers decided to invite a number of Stanford student DJs to open for DJ Khaled. Undergraduate Sophomores Michael Becich, Josh Fagel, and Jose Serrano were all selected to perform after being contacted on LinkedIn by organizers. According to Becich, the event, entitled “Guac Bowl” on account of the encroaching Super Bowl 50 this Sunday, is open to the public and Stanford students are encouraged to attend. Becich went on to say that he, Fagel, Serrano, and other unnamed individuals on campus have been in contact with Guac Bowl’s organizers for the past few days and have been trying to keep relevant information “under the table” until today. According to Becich, Pharrell Williams is also rumored to attend the Guac Bowl event, since he is set to perform alongside DJ Khaled tonight in San Francisco.

When asked for comment on their invitation to perform at the event and their DJ experience, the three students gave the following responses.

Becich: “As amateur artists, we are blessed be on the same stage as him. This opportunity comes along once in a millennium.”

Becich has also performed at various locations on campus, and notably was the head organizer of the 2015 “FroSoCo frat party” AKA PhiPsiChi.

Fagel: “LinkedIn is the key to success. I’m really hoping to meet DJ Khaled. I’ve always dreamed of being in one of his snapchats [sic]. I’ve only played at frat parties before because it’s more of a hobby than a part time job to me, so this is quite exciting for me.”

Serrano: “I’ve performed at Mausoleum, Sigma Nu events, DM, and Snowchella.”

Serrano went on to state that it is “a great opportunity to be opening up for Khaled because he is a producer that has worked with many talented artists. Having him share his words of wisdom and success will only make our DJ careers so much more amazing.”

The post Stanford students open for DJ Khaled in surprise performance appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/05/stanford-students-open-for-dj-khaled-in-surprise-performance/feed/ 0 1110367
Freedom of expression in 2015 https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/freedom-of-expression-in-2015/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/freedom-of-expression-in-2015/#comments Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:59:25 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1108166 Continuing the trend of the hour, Yale University has been rocked in the past few weeks with students’ demands of retribution over the matter of free speech. Ironically, it escapes many young self-identifying Liberals that freedom of expression is a most basic Liberal ideal, as a frighteningly large fraction of students feel that speech they disagree with should be met with censorship or even punishment.

The post Freedom of expression in 2015 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Continuing the trend of the hour, Yale University has been rocked in the past few weeks with students’ demands of retribution over the matter of free speech. Ironically, it escapes many young self-identifying Liberals that freedom of expression is a most basic Liberal ideal, as a frighteningly large fraction of students feel that speech they disagree with should be met with censorship or even punishment. I feel it is vastly important to clarify this issue in the context of recent events at Yale, to elucidate a better understanding of the principal value of protected freedom of expression on college campuses.

As racial issues have escalated across the country, notably at University of Missouri at Columbia, the Yale campus has erupted in controversy regarding minority students and the hardships they face. Noting the racially tense climate, the Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email out to the undergraduate student body the week before Halloween stating that while Yale students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” students were encouraged to “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespect, alienate or ridicule segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.” After some students expressed concerns regarding this email, Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis felt compelled to send a separate email to the Silliman community voicing her view of the issue of cultural appropriation through Halloween costumes, which has become an increasingly touchy subject. In the email, Christakis challenged the notion that some costumes should be off-limits for drawing on cultural elements outside of the culture familiar to the wearer, and argued that colleges should be a place where freedom of expression is protected even if it is “obnoxious […], a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive.”

Christakis received a huge backlash for her email, with more than 700 students signing an open letter criticizing her opinion as “offensive” and “inviting ridicule and violence onto [minority students].” Realizing the seriousness of the open letter, Christakis and her husband, Master of Silliman College Nicholas Christakis, invited all of the signers to lunch in order to further discuss the contention. This ostensibly earnest response was met with scornful rejection by most students. An article in the Yale Herald even demanded that Christakis “stop instigating more debate.” Such a statement is contrary to the spirit of thoughtful discussion that should be encouraged on college campuses, which is likely the reason that the article containing it was later removed from the Yale Herald’s website.

A few days later, over 100 students gathered outside Silliman College to protest Christakis’s email. To the protesters’ surprise, Nicholas Christakis met with them outside in the courtyard, soon becoming surrounded by the students, who accused him of racism and cultural insensitivity. Christakis eventually apologized for “causing [the students] pain” but maintained his determination to “stand behind free speech […] even when it’s offensive,” citing his long history of protecting students’ rights to freedom of expression on college campuses. However, the students did not accept the apology Christakis offered, instead condemning him, one student even yelling “who the fuck hired you?!” and vehemently asserting that Christakis “shouldn’t sleep at night.” This student also notably stated that Christakis’s position as master is “not about creating an intellectual space,” but rather “creating a home.” It is this former statement, as opposed to the latter, that is exemplary of the key flaw in the way of thinking of these protesters: The job of a residence administrator is indeed about creating a “home” away from home; however, it is plainly foolish to create a false dichotomy and also say that it is not about creating an intellectual space. The primary reason for attending college is to live in an intellectual space where your opinions, whatever they may be, are allowed to be challenged. It is only when one’s views are challenged that one can grow as a person, and so all ideas, good or bad, must be allowed to be debated and explored. Colleges are intended to be the bastions of free expression for this precise reason, so when you threaten this vital function of institutions of higher learning, you are undeniably damaging the culture of intellectual development that should be your focus.

Even more absurd is the students’ demand that both Erika and Nicholas Christakis be removed from their jobs as Associate Master and Master of Silliman College, respectively. Allow me to make this clearer: some protesters were offended by the fact that two administrators, whose duty it is to help foster the intellectual development of their residents, opined that freedom of expression (even when offensive) should be protected, as ordained by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and therefore seek to punish them for exercising this right. This is a farce. Not only does this reek of a perversion of the Liberal ideal of freedom of expression, it also goes directly against the freedom of expression policy of Yale itself, which holds that “Yale’s commitment to freedom of expression means that when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated.” These students are of course guaranteed the right to criticize others, but in refusing to tolerate the comments of their residence administrators they are doing themselves and their community a shameful disservice by discrediting the cherished right to freedom of expression that they themselves rely on in order to safely protest the issues that matter to them in the first place.

Another issue is that it is especially crucial that protesters and activists in general act as promoters of personal rights, for they must work to set the example they wish others to follow. So, it becomes a serious problem when activists are the ones calling for administrators to be fired over moderate opinions, let alone extreme opinions. On that note, it is also incredibly inappropriate for activists to forcibly remove members of the press from a public area under the excuse of a promoting a “safe space,” as was witnessed during the Mizzou protests this month. It is deplorable for anyone to stifle the constitutionally protected right of a person, especially on a college campus. However, those who actively support the silencing of others are much more culpable than the individuals who actually impose the silencing, for they are the ones who permit and promote such heinous attitudes as acceptable. If we value freedom of expression at all, then the appropriate response to such behavior is condemnation, which unfortunately is not already the case.

Such a basic tenet as freedom of expression was championed nearly 300 years ago by Voltaire’s proud proclamation that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” and likewise espoused in the 20th century by modern intellectual Noam Chomsky: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” However, a recent Pew report showed that an astounding 40 percent of Millennials support government suppression of speech that is offensive to minorities, despite such a practice being irrefutably unconstitutional. (It is worth noting that speech threatening violence against others does not qualify as protected speech, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.) This demonstrates a growing predilection of young people to censor ideas they deem unpleasant, which poses a danger to the future of free speech; if we do not take these threats to protected rights seriously now, then we are apt to forsake them. It is for this reason that I encourage the students of Stanford, Yale and everywhere else to safeguard freedom of expression for everyone, not just themselves, even when the idea being expressed is offensive.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Freedom of expression in 2015 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/freedom-of-expression-in-2015/feed/ 3 1108166
Un-ironic, Wise Old Man advice https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/27/un-ironic-wise-old-man-advice/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/27/un-ironic-wise-old-man-advice/#comments Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:59:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1105797 I receive a plethora of emails every week from fellow Stanford students asking me for guidance. I try my best to listen considerately and respond with only my most thoughtful counsel, but I almost always end up giving the same suggestions. So I’ve decided to make a list of my top ten pieces of general advice for all the confused souls out there, especially for all my fellow Liberals at Stanford. Listen up, kids.

The post Un-ironic, Wise Old Man advice appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I receive a plethora of emails every week from fellow Stanford students asking me for guidance. I try my best to listen considerately and respond with only my most thoughtful counsel, but I almost always end up giving the same suggestions. So I’ve decided to make a list of my top 10 pieces of general advice for all the confused souls out there, especially for all my fellow liberals at Stanford. Listen up, kids.

  1. Ride a motorcycle to look cool and feel alive, even though getting into fistfights with emasculated, middle-aged men at local dive bars on weekends would probably provide the same sense of thrill without the need to risk your life every time you go to buy cigs at the convenience store.
  2. Let’s be real. This is Stanford. Focus exclusively on getting rich at the expense of others and leave your sense of ethics at the door (I’m looking at you, Future Pharmas of America). You can worry about all the social and political issues that affect poor people after you join the one percent, because the best way to help other people is to worry about yourself first and foremost.
  3. Cigarettes are bad for your health, but marijuana has no negative consequences and will actually make you smarter and a harder worker. Furthermore, weed is totally non-addictive. It is purely my voluntary choice to smoke it every day and spend thousands of dollars every year on a dried herb that makes me feel good temporarily even though working hard and improving my character would prove to be an infinitely more beneficial investment of my money, time and effort.
  4. Guys: stop jelqing ASAP. It gives you nerve damage. Instead, just wait for eight-inch bionic penises to flood the market of the neo-Capitalist future. I give it 10 years, tops. Til then, just focus on obtaining as much wealth as possible in order to make yourself more attractive. Oh, and start lifting weights (this is real advice; go to the gym).
  5. Bernie Sanders is a good guy and genuinely wants to help people, which is why he is organizing an election campaign instead of a popular movement among young people that will sustain itself after Hillary Clinton inevitably becomes president. Bernie 2016!
  6. I heard Mike Brown, a 6-foot-4, 290-pound black man, stole cigars from a convenience store, assaulted the store clerk and charged at a police officer who then shot him to death in self-defense. Naturally, we should use Brown as the prime example of police brutality against black people for our racial equality movement, even though all the available evidence and reliable witness testimony validates the police officer’s account of events. (Yeah, I said it. It’s about time someone did.) Then we should arbitrarily shut down bridges and highways as though that will actually convince people to join our cause instead of just make them pissed off that they’re going to be two hours late to work. That makes sense. We are not shooting ourselves in the foot at all, and any white scum who try to persuade us to pursue a more reasonable form of protest with effective historical precedent need to check their privilege. I care about people, which is why I scream “burn everything down” and “shut this shit down” any chance I get at a Black Lives Matter rally and villainize the people whom I want to start caring about the social movement I represent.
  7. Want to get invited to the headquarters of a major tech company like Google or Facebook? No problem: Simply take a standard digital alarm clock from the 1980s, remove its internal electronic parts, throw them into a box without actually doing anything too complex or intelligent and bring your brand new invention to school.
  8. I am a proud feminist, and it is for this reason that I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, because the pointless achievement of a female president no matter her track record or the efficacy of her policies certainly outweighs actually improving the lives of women.
  9. Any liberal who criticizes the questionable tactics and generally childish behaviors of other liberals and not just those of conservatives and moderates is a threat to all that is good. We do not need to acknowledge our own faults or unreasonable beliefs, and anyone who encourages us to do so is a fascist who just doesn’t get it.
  10. Monday through Saturday I will proudly proclaim that freedom of speech is an unalienable right by which open debate in a forum of ideas can guide us to truth in the human context. But on Sunday I will say fuck that shit and call the Political Correctness Gestapo to confiscate your Confederate flags, shut down your newspaper for publishing a moderately positioned op-ed, and demand retribution for your Kanye West-themed party. I stand for liberal ideals, which is why I try to stifle the Constitutionally protected rights of others. I have no idea what cognitive dissonance is, but if I did, then I would probably deem it an incredibly bigoted notion.

And remember: never improve, stay smug and keep that stick up your ass.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Un-ironic, Wise Old Man advice appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/27/un-ironic-wise-old-man-advice/feed/ 9 1105797
Response to ‘Islamophobia and the White moderate’ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/21/response-to-islamophobia-and-the-white-moderate/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/21/response-to-islamophobia-and-the-white-moderate/#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:59:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1105423 On Monday of last week, an article entitled “Islamophobia and the White moderate” by Osama El-Gabalawy appeared in The Stanford Daily in response to my article on the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. In his article, Mr. El-Gabalawy claims that the opinion I expressed “obstructs our pursuit of justice,” framing his argument through a quote by […]

The post Response to ‘Islamophobia and the White moderate’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On Monday of last week, an article entitled “Islamophobia and the White moderate” by Osama El-Gabalawy appeared in The Stanford Daily in response to my article on the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. In his article, Mr. El-Gabalawy claims that the opinion I expressed “obstructs our pursuit of justice,” framing his argument through a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. concerning the White moderate. It is the White moderate, Dr. King asserts, “who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’”

This comparison of the opinion expressed in my original article to the sentiment of the White moderate in Dr. King’s quotation is incorrect. In fact, Mr. El-Gabalawy’s dismissal of my request for evidence showing how Islamophobia played a role in Ahmed’s arrest is antithetical to the approach employed by Dr. King and other activists during the Civil Rights era.

To claim that I am analogous to the White moderate referred to in Dr. King’s quote is quite absurd. The White moderate sought to prevent a subjugated people from causing too much tension or unrest within society. I do not promote this at all, and I think that it is despicable to imply that I personally value some vague concept of “order” in society over the struggle for equality. All I have done is point out that the claim that Ahmed’s arrest was Islamophobic in nature is unsubstantiated, which is far different from advising social justice advocates to “wait for a more convenient season.”

As I state in my original column, it is vastly important that advocates of a social movement ensure that the examples of injustice they provide be validated. If you as the reader consider this a foolish assertion, then I invite you to imagine how the Civil Rights movement would have swayed the White moderate had Martin Luther King, Jr. relied on instances where racism was not visibly the primary factor for his examples of injustice. The power that came with the organization of the Civil Rights movement was directly fueled by the clarity and pervasiveness of the examples of injustice they exposed. This is why I ask to be shown how the event is discriminatory in nature before accepting such a claim.

However, Mr. El-Gabalawy states that my request for evidence that Ahmed was a victim of Islamophobia “will never be met because the issue at its core is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of acknowledgement of evidence.” He then frames my argument by saying: “Ahmed’s actions provoked the teacher’s response, but that same line of logic resulted in the acquittal of the police officers who mauled Rodney King on video, inciting the LA riots.” This is an unfounded analogy. The use of excessive force against Rodney King was clearly unjustified given video evidence. The same cannot be said for Ahmed’s arrest, for which there is no convincing evidence that finding his device suspicious was unjustified in the context of zero-tolerance policies. Despite this, Mr. El-Gabalawy requests that I “indulge the Muslim community with a link between evidence and justice,” which I am happy to demonstrate.

It is a problem when the examples we use to point to an injustice are dubious. Dr. King knew this, which is why he used non-violent protest to demonstrate great injustices against Black Americans; when the protesters marched at Selma in 1965, they were met with intense police brutality. This shocking violence was televised and so apparent to its viewers that it became impossible for the White moderate to deny or write off the severity of the suffering endured by Black people. However, the case of Ahmed Mohamed does not reflect such clarity. There are strong examples of injustice against Muslims. It just so happens that the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed is not one of them, as there is discernible room for doubt that Ahmed’s device was considered suspicious specifically because he is Muslim, which I discuss at length in my original article.

I will try to address the other major points that Mr. El-Gabalawy makes in his article. First, he expresses concern that the police did not evacuate the school but rather placed Ahmed in a room alone with his device. As the Irving Police Department discusses in its press release, Ahmed was held on suspicion of possessing a hoax bomb, which does not necessitate evacuation as it is a waste of time and resources. The duty of police in the case of a hoax bomb is to assess whether the suspect intended their possession to cause alarm. Ahmed was assessed not to have intended to cause alarm and thereafter released without charge, so there is no discrepancy in procedure. Next, Mr. El-Gabalawy notes that minority students are disproportionately more likely to be affected by zero-tolerance policies. This is true, but Mr. El-Gabalawy fails to clarify that the study he provides only focuses on how Black and Hispanic students in particular are affected, while Muslim Americans and other groups are not mentioned. As for the reported comment of a police officer on the scene, this occurred after the police were already called and therefore does not indicate Islamophobia affecting the suspicions of the school officials. If the officer made such a statement, it reflects on his personal bias and not that of the school officials, which is the matter at hand.

Mr. El-Gabalawy goes on to claim that “several cases have been documented where students brought homemade clocks to school without incident,” linking readers to an article which claims to provide five instances where seven students who built clocks were not judged suspicious. However, the article and Mr. El-Gabalawy both fail to acknowledge that these students all built their clocks as projects for science fairs and contained no electronic parts, with the exception of one student who built an electronic clock as part of her “industrial tech” class. These instances are far different from Ahmed’s case, in that he self-admittedly brought his clock to school for his own purposes and not for any school-related function, such as a science fair. Ahmed also showed the clock to his engineering teacher, who complimented him on his work but then told him to put it away and not show it to anyone else. This implies that Ahmed’s device was at least somewhat suspicious in appearance, as his teacher did not want Ahmed to cause alarm by carrying around a box of electronic parts that had no school-related purpose. By comparing Ahmed’s case to these wholly irrelevant instances, Mr. El-Gabalawy is falsely obfuscating the facts that explain why Ahmed’s device seemed suspicious to school officials and therefore misleading his readers.

Mr. El-Gabalawy also criticizes me for disapproving of the fact that Ahmed was invited to Facebook, Google, and the White House, stating that these facts are “irrelevant.” Perhaps I was not fully clear in my reason for mentioning this. The purpose in doing so was to point out that such publicity stunts further compound Ahmed’s status as the poster child of victims of Islamophobia by treating him as such. Such a status, in my mind, should be unquestionable. There should be no ambiguities in that person’s victimhood. So, when we treat Ahmed’s arrest as the prime example of Islamophobia in the U.S., it does damage by leaving too much room for doubt where there should be none. Therefore, I hold that Ahmed’s promotion in media is certainly relevant, as it further denigrates the cause of achieving religious equality by trivializing what constitutes discrimination. So, if Mr. Gabalawy still shames me for advising that the power of social media be used more cautiously, I recommend he research its significance in the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement as just one example.

Another point that I’d like to make is that it is, of course, entirely possible for a Muslim American student to be unfairly suspected of possessing a bomb. However, it is not unreasonable to expect such a situation to have evidence showing how Islamophobia played a role. A reasonable standard of evidence would be along the lines of whether the Muslim student was singled out for doing something that other non-Muslim students do as well. For example, if non-Muslim students brought a device similar to Ahmed’s to the same school without consequence, then that would constitute evidence that Islamophobic sentiment played a role. There is no instance of this in Ahmed’s case. Perhaps if Ahmed merely brought his clock to school as part of a school project, then that would also be evidence of discrimination, as there would be no reason to consider Ahmed’s possession of his device suspicious. However, this was also not the case. Acknowledging trends of discrimination is one thing. To point to an individual event and decry it as Islamophobic in nature without due evidence is fundamentally different, as any statistician will agree.

I think there is another issue related to Ahmed’s arrest that remains largely unaddressed. Historically victimized communities are not exempt from standards of evidence when they make claims. I must stand by this belief, as it is indeed possible to elucidate the severity of discrimination without relying too much on disputable examples. As I mentioned, there is precedent for this. Therefore, I do not believe it is too radical for me to suggest that we use more discernible examples of injustice against Muslim Americans lest the integrity of the movement for religious equality become muddied. If we use Ahmed’s arrest as our example, then we no longer care about convincing people. If we do not care about convincing people, then we do not care about effectively improving the situation.

This is why I contend that Ahmed Mohamed should not be hailed an icon of the fight against Islamophobia. I advise those who disagree with my contention to seriously ask themselves what reason they have to believe that Ahmed’s school involving the authorities was Islamophobic in nature given the context of zero-tolerance policies. Unless they can answer this question, they have failed on a fundamental level of critical thinking. But what do I know? I’m just a White Liberal.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Response to ‘Islamophobia and the White moderate’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/21/response-to-islamophobia-and-the-white-moderate/feed/ 17 1105423
America’s gun sickness https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/13/me-kk-americas-gun-sickness/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/13/me-kk-americas-gun-sickness/#comments Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:00:28 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1104762 Consider for a moment that we live in a country where there exists a legally obtainable weapon that allows a single person with malicious intentions to kill or injure multiple people in a crowded place within a few minutes, perhaps seconds. In fact, the U.S. is plagued with the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the developed world at over 33,000 deaths per year, more than a third of which are homicides.

The post America’s gun sickness appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Consider for a moment that we live in a country where there exists a legally obtainable weapon that allows a single person with malicious intentions to kill or injure multiple people in a crowded place within a few minutes, perhaps seconds. In fact, the United States is plagued with the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the developed world at over 33,000 deaths per year, more than a third of which are homicides. Moreover, 1 in every 78 deaths is caused by a firearm (excluding cases of legal intervention). It is clear from these statistics that there is a very serious gun issue in the United States that requires our attention, notably with regard to mass shootings; as of Sept. 8, the United States is averaging 1.05 mass shootings (defined as incidents in which four or more people are shot) per day in 2015. Given the clear severity of the issue, I think we can all agree that something must be done to curb these frightening numbers.

Even in the wake of the recent school shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, there remains a steadfast resistance to efforts of gun control. For example, the phenomenon of “campus carry” is becoming more acceptable in certain places. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, recently approved legislation making campus carry legal throughout the state. Proponents of campus carry allege that an armed campus will not increase the risk of shootings but, in fact, lower it. They argue that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This myth is known to be false and has been debunked through numerous studies, including a study by the Stanford Law School that concluded that “the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge […] is that aggravated assault rises when [Right to Carry] laws are adopted.” Furthermore, studies have shown that areas with fewer gun owners have less gun violence, and, conversely, areas with more gun owners have more gun violence, thereby directly opposing the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. Given this, it is statistically more likely that policies such as campus carry will increase the rates of gun violence at schools, not reduce them as its supporters maintain. This has spurred one professor at the University of Texas at Austin to quit his teaching position in fear of the prevalence of concealed weapons, further drawing attention to the issue of campus carry.

Regarding the issue of privacy, this is a country where the NSA is allowed to spy on every American citizen far beyond the limit of what most people who value their privacy find acceptable, all in the name of curbing terrorist activities, which account for very few deaths per year. In contrast, the unbelievably high number of deaths per year attributed to gun violence is not allowed to be politicized, let alone subject to governmental recourse, even though the measures necessary to reduce gun violence would be far less invasive than anything like the NSA. Rather, gun control places reasonable restrictions regarding what kinds of guns a person can have. Given the huge issue of gun-related deaths, is it really that crazy to think that we should increase gun restrictions? That we should deny that possession of automatic weapons serves no reasonable purpose other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible? That the example provided by countries like Australia shows that it is indeed possible to better the situation?

Consider that the modern gun has evolved drastically from a much more primitive weapon used during the lifetimes of authors of the U.S. Constitution. Further, consider that putting forth legislation to control the availability and legality of different kinds of guns is hindered most severely by the refusal of a frighteningly large portion of U.S. citizens and representative officials to admit that there is a very clear difference between these weapons. Any reasonable person would agree that it is comical to equate the individual killing power of the modern gun with that of an 18th-century musket. That is, it would be comical if it weren’t happening right now on a massive scale, thereby gifting us with enough of an excuse to turn a blind eye to the gun violence epidemic ongoing in this country.

The Founding Fathers may have provided us with the Second Amendment, but their arms were very different from ours. I think we urgently need to decide precisely what constitutes arms since it has become dangerously ambiguous. Note that this does not mean outlawing guns entirely, but rather using a neutral position regarding the urgent matter of public safety as a lens through which to better view the situation. This is an issue of our time, not the 18th century, so it will not do to use 18th-century arguments. It would be insane to allow this epidemic to continue unchecked when it is possible to implement simple gun control that will alleviate a deadly phenomenon unique to our country. However, in order to cure our gun sickness, we must refrain from denying it any longer.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post America’s gun sickness appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/13/me-kk-americas-gun-sickness/feed/ 5 1104762
This is not Islamophobia https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/28/me-kk-this-is-not-islamophobia/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/28/me-kk-this-is-not-islamophobia/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:00:26 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1103892 On Monday of last week, 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was arrested and interrogated by police after being suspected of constructing a hoax bomb and bringing it to school. Clad in a NASA T-shirt, the teenager and self-proclaimed future engineer maintained that the device, which consisted of a circuit board with wires leading to an electronic display all within a small briefcase, was a clock and nothing more.

The post This is not Islamophobia appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On Monday of last week, 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was arrested and interrogated by police after being suspected of constructing a hoax bomb and bringing it to school. Clad in an NASA T-shirt, the teenager and self-proclaimed future engineer maintained that the device, which consisted of a circuit board with wires leading to an electronic display all within a small briefcase, was a clock and nothing more. Police then escorted him to a juvenile detention center, where his fingerprints and mug shot were taken. He was later released without charge after police decided that he had not intended the device to be mistaken for a bomb. Ahmed’s arrest has been sharply criticized by the public as Islamophobic in nature, allegedly spurred by the prejudiced belief that Ahmed’s being Muslim made him a potential bomb threat. However, this argument falls apart when one examines the incident in the context of the zero-tolerance policies upheld by most schools, which are the true cause for the arrest. For this reason, treating Ahmed’s experience as a serious case of unfair discrimination against Muslim people is unwise and ignorant of the situation as a whole.

In recent years, we have witnessed the establishment of “zero-tolerance” policies, which are rooted in a desire to protect students from possible threats to their safety, as many argue it is usually better to err on the side of caution. For most people, including the mainstream media, this answer has been sufficient justification for the policies’ implementation. This has produced a climate where nibbling a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, playing with an airsoft gun at one’s own home and using a Hello Kitty bubble blower shaped like a gun are all heinous enough reasons for schools to take disciplinary action against students. People are so accustomed to these extreme reactions that it seems overly protective measures have become the norm. As a result, many schools continue to use metal detectors, employ drug/bomb sniffing dogs, station security guard and codify zero-tolerance policies, all without protest from the student body or general populace. Because “to protect the children” sounds like a good reason to most people.

However, Ahmed’s arrest and subsequent release without charges since has spawned a social media explosion of support for him and his family, as well as a surge of critics pinning the cause of the incident on Islamophobia, which they purport has infected MacArthur High School, the police department and the culture of Irving itself. This argument is problematic, since any student who brought Ahmed’s device to school would likely have faced the same ordeal.

It is very clear to everyone now that Ahmed intended no harm to anyone. However, the same could be said for any one of the plethora of students arrested or punished under zero-tolerance policies for innocuous behavior in recent years. When a teacher sees a student with a briefcase full of wires and electronic parts, it arouses suspicion, no matter the student’s race, religion or name. Even if it may appear obviously harmless to an engineer, a device like Ahmed’s looks like a potential bomb to a teacher. It is within reason to expect school officials to intercept the student in such a situation, which is exactly what happened: When questioned by his English teacher after the device beeped in class, Ahmed responded that it was simply a clock. However, in the mind of a teacher charged with reporting possible threats (a requirement of a zero-tolerance culture), simply stating that the beeping, wire-filled briefcase is a clock without explaining further is not enough to assuage the fear of a potential bomb threat. Therefore, the choice to alert the principal and call the police was clearly the right one.

For this reason, it is unlikely that Ahmed was arrested for any reason other than the fact that he brought something to school that the average teacher imagines looks at least somewhat like a bomb. Until evidence surfaces showing a direct link between the teacher’s suspicions and a mistrust of Muslims, it is ill-founded to consider this a case of anything besides the natural result of the employment of zero-tolerance policies in an attempt to avoid threats to student safety.

Furthermore, the surge of support for Ahmed and his family is creating a religious discrimination issue out of an ordeal unrelated to the victimization of Muslims. It is important that advocates of social justice point to the legitimate problems that concern them, or else they become an easy target for criticism, thereby impeding their real goals. That being said, an invitation to the White House, an invitation to Facebook Headquarters and even a request for Ahmed to intern at Google are all perfect examples of how this issue has been extravagantly overblown to the point where a 14-year-old who built a basic digital clock is treated as a hero. In reality, he is simply a victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Ahmed deserves an apology for being falsely arrested, of course, but his arrest itself is not indicative of anything other than a culture of zero-tolerance in schools. By labeling Ahmed’s experience as a prime example of Islamophobia, we are trivializing legitimate cases where Muslims face unfair discrimination or even lose their lives. If we are to improve the situation at large, then we must be prepared to judge real bigotry against Muslims for what it is and Ahmed’s experience for what it is not: Islamophobia.

 

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post This is not Islamophobia appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/28/me-kk-this-is-not-islamophobia/feed/ 88 1103892