By: Annika Getz

Amy Coney Barrett is the newest member of the Supreme Court (the replacement of Ruth Badger Ginsburg). Many would argue that her election to the court is in itself, against the rules of our democracy, saying that we should have waited for the presidential election before replacing RBG.

However, aside from that, many people have concerns about Barrett herself, and the possible threat she poses to LGBTQIAP+ rights.

Barrett has been asked about gay marriage several times, and each time, she evaded the questions, saying she wasn’t permitted to answer them. This concerns many LGBTQIAP+ members and allies.

Barrett frequently says she “Doesn’t have any agenda” with regard to queer rights. Many are worried that she doesn’t seem to feel the need to try to end the discrimination and oppression against LGBTQIAP+ people.

Barrett also often refers to people in the community as having a “sexual preference.” This is a term used frequently by anti-LGBTQIAP+ advocates, and very much suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, which of course, is incorrect. Sexual orientation isn’t something that people can change about themselves. To suggest that it is completely invalidates that part of a person’s identity.

The court is currently looking at the Fulton vs. Philadelphia case, which discusses whether or not faith based child welfare organizations can refuse to work with gay couples. Many are concerned about what the court will decide, as it is made up mostly of conservative Christians, including Barrett, who many worry could be inclined to vote against LGBTQIAP+ rights.

It could be argued that this would fundamentally be unconstitutional, as the First Amendment enforces Separation of Church and State (many people argue that the term Separation of Church and State wasn’t actually in the constitution, but according to American United, “…the concept of church-state separation certainly does. If you doubt that, just read the writings of Jefferson, James Maddison, and generations of U.S. Supreme Court justices tasked with interpreting and applying the Constitution”).

Separation of Church and State ensures that the government cannot hold one religion superior over others religions, or groups of people. This means that they would not be able to constitutionally allow for child welfare organizations to discriminate against LGBTQIAP+ people. Many worry that the court will overlook this, and allow it anyways. Barrett herself seems to be leaning to vote against the rights of LGBTQIAP+ people.

So, Barrett may say that she’s not against the LGBTQIAP+ community, but she often contradicts herself, and the concern that we in the LGBTQIAP+ community are facing is a legitimate one.

The fact that this is even a debate is concerning in itself. One’s sexual orientation is a part of their identity, and it’s infuriating that some people in this country think that anyone else’s identity is a political issue.

By: Quentin Miller

I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Trump has made some very sketchy statements about race/ethnicity in the past, but just how bad is his racism? Here’s a list of things he has said publicly about many different races and ethnicities, organized by said races and ethnicities (all following facts have been checked by ‘USA Today’ and PBS.)

Black people: 

• Implied that laziness was a trait found in lots of black people, insinuating that black people are to blame for systemic issues.
• Referred to black protesters as thugs.
• Claimed that a group of black men should have been executed before proven guilty (The Central Park 5 case).
• Used, and continues to use, the term “the blacks”.
• Asked what black people have to lose, saying they don’t have jobs or money.
• Supported “stop and frisk” policies, which allowed police officers to pull over anyone for seemingly no reason, which increased police violence against minorities by a disproportionate amount.
• Said that areas of high amounts of black populations are “like hell”, saying that getting shot is very common in these areas.
• Asked a black reporter if the CBC are her friends. 
• Asked why the Civil War was necessary, implying that slavery is somehow not a big enough motivator.

Hispanic people:

• Referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug dealers, and overall criminals, then corrected himself by saying “some” are good people.
• Tweeted a picture of him eating a taco salad and captioned it “I love Hispanics”
• Claimed that immigrants (while he did not say Hispanic immigrants it can be inferred by the previous talking points in his speech) were stealing black jobs, trying to turn black people against immigrants.
• Claimed he would force Mexico to pay for a wall to stop illegal immigration, further demonizing Hispanic immigration 
• Referred to immigrants as animals.

Asian people:

• Called the coronavirus the Chinese virus. 
• Called the coronavirus the Kung Flu

Muslim/Middle Eastern people: 

• Temporarily banned immigration from the Middle East.
• Says that we should have more white immigrants from places like Norway and less Middle Eastern immigrants escaping from actual wars 

Jewish people:

• Refused to acknowledge Jewish people during a speech about the Holocaust.
• Apologized for not acknowledging Jewish people, also claimed he was the least anti- Semitic person ever.

By: Olivia Knafla

The death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment, has been a very controversial subject for quite some time. There are many arguments both for and against the death penalty, and in this article we will be exploring both sides and their reasonings.

The first argument that we will be looking at revolves around the following idea: many people who would otherwise commit a violent crime are deterred from doing so as they don’t want to risk execution. However, there is no real proof of this situation ever taking place, or at least any that has been recorded to date. I won’t stay on this topic for too long, however, it was worth mentioning as it is commonly brought up in debates between whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

The death penalty also presents a financial issue. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DIOC), it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life. It’s not necessarily the execution itself that is so expensive (sometimes reaching the millions), but instead, the extensive trial leading up to it.

Under the Constitution, every U.S. citizen is granted the right to a fair trial, meaning that oftentimes death row inmates require very experienced lawyers. On top of that, DNA testing is a common thing to be used in these trials, and it’s not exactly cheap.

Outside of the trial, death row inmates spend their entire stay on death row apart from general prison populations. They stay in special buildings, which require additional upkeep and guards. From the DIOC again, it is stated that these buildings alone cost states millions more annually than what it would have taken to sentence these inmates to life imprisonment.

All this being said, for those against the death penalty, this presents a solid case for their argument, saving both money and human lives. However, many people who are in favor of the death penalty argue that justice cannot be thought of in financial terms. Some people believe that the money is worth spending to rid the world of criminals who have committed the worst of crimes, and many people have expressed that opinion on online forums such as Reddit and Quora. 

The final issue we will be looking at today is that of false conviction. This is possibly the most spoken about, and it presents a great controversy among people.

It is estimated that 1% of the US prison system, or roughly 20,000 people, have been falsely convicted. However, when we focus solely on death row inmates, that percentage only increases.

A study by The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that roughly 4% of people on death row were, and are likely, innocent. As of July 2020, states have executed 1,516 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. If you calculate 4% of that number, that leaves you with 60 people who were executed after being falsely convicted.

For those against capital punishment, this is enough evidence to get rid of it altogether. And while false execution is a serious risk and is not something to be overlooked, many people in favor of the death penalty believe that this is a risk worth taking.

On top of that, the trial leading up to the execution of an individual is quite thorough, with years or even decades between sentencing and execution. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of death row inmates in the United State die of natural causes while awaiting their execution date.

To conclude, there are many arguments that are both for and against capital punishment, and many people who believe in the statements for both sides. There are plenty of reasons to take one side or the other, but it seems that the controversy of this issue will not be going away anytime soon.

When it comes down to it – is it moral to punish somebody by taking their life? That’s for you to decide.

By: Olivia Knafla

A term that you may have heard, or seen circulating around social media lately, is “ACAB.” In fact, this summer, the term hit a spike of popularity in regards to Google searches about it. But with so many more people interested (and critical), there are bound to be some misconceptions, or even simple questions, about what it means, and hopefully I can help use what I know, and have learned, to help clear those up in this article.

Does ACAB mean all cops are bad?

No. In reality, it means ‘All Cops are Bast***s’, meaning that they are bastardized by the position of power that they are put in, and that the policing system in America is inherently corrupt.

It also means that choosing to become a police officer, and to support the system, makes that person complicit. So, while not meaning that each individual officer is a bad person, it does mean that they are still supporting a system that has historically oppressed people of color.

Why do people say that the police force was built upon racism?

The answer to this question is simple – because it was. According to ‘Mapping Police Violence,’ the beginning of policing in America dates back to times of slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Mostly (but not limited to) the South of the United States, created what was dubbed as the “Night Watch,” groups of white people whose job was to track down runaway enslaved individuals and return them to their slave owners. These people would also enforce laws that furthered discrimation against black people. At the time, the job of these Night Watchers was comparable to bounty hunting, and sheriffs would oftentimes go as far as torturing the enslaved people who they captured. 

In the Reconstruction era, the police force helped Southerners in ex-Confederate states to keep the power that they had, as people would use the police force to ensure that white Americans could maintain their rights while at the same time creating what is known as “Black Codes” and vagrancy laws, which would allow police the arrest freed black Americans for small, and even non-existent, crimes. While they were no longer “Night watchers,” they were now slave catchers, who would later reform into the police that we know today. This allowed former slave owners to legally re-enslave any black person by “catching them” for a crime that is either minimal or non existent. 

Even today, ‘Mapping Police Violence’ shows that black people are 3 times more likely to be killed by police than white people are. To be more specific, while the white police homicide rate is 2.5, the PHR for is 3.8 for hispanic people and 6.6 for black people. Even when looking at unarmed killings, black people are still 1.3 times more likely to be killed by police than a white person is. 

What do people mean when they say they want to defund or abolish the police?

Firstly, it should be noted that defunding and abolishing the police are two very different things. According to Brookings.edu, defunding the police means, “reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality.” 

The act of defunding the police has some potential benefits which can reduce both police violence and crime, focusing on de-escalation of what could otherwise turn violent, as well as an entirely new approach for non-violent calls to 911. In short, the act of defunding the police and reallocating some, not all, of their funding to serve the community could result in less violence and killings by police officers.

Abolishing the police is different from defunding the police. A statement from MPD150’s, a group from Minneapolis in favor of police abolition, Arriana Nason said in a statement: “We’re not abolishing help. We’re abolishing police. That’s very different. We have to do the work to imagine something different and to listen to what people in different neighborhoods and communities want.”

The idea behind police abolition is that access to well-paying jobs, affordable housing, healthy food, education, and health care is the way to combat police issues, all while taking steps towards a police free future. As of right now, a police free future is unlikely to be something that happens in the short term, but it is possible that some of these ideas may be tested soon in Minneapolis after a city council vote to dissolve the city’s police department resulted in a veto-proof supermajority.

How can I learn more and educate myself?

Something as simple as a Google search will get you lots of information, just be sure that the information you are reading is unbiased and reliable. There is much more to know about ACAB and the history of policing in America than what is stated in this article, so I would definitely urge you to look into it yourself if you feel so inclined.

For more information, please visit:

• “Anarchy And ‘Acab’: Why The Turn Of Phrase?” www.theransomnote.com/musings/articles/anarchy-and-acab-why-the-turn-of-phrase/ 
• “‘ACAB’ and the History of Policing in America.” registerforum.org/12197/opinion/acab-and-the-history-of-poulicing-in-america/
• Mapping Police Violence, mappingpoliceviolence.org/ (Database)
• “What Does ‘Defund the Police’ Mean and Does It Have Merit?”  www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/.
• “What Abolishing the Police Could Actually Look like, According to Experts.” http://www.insider.com/police-abolition-what-does-it-mean-how-does-it-work-2020-6.
• What Does ACAB Mean? And Where Does the Phrase Come from?, www.vice.com/en/article/akzv48/acab-all-cops-are-bastards-origin-story-protest.
• “What I Mean When I Say I Want to Abolish the Police.” www.independent.co.uk/voices/acab-abolish-police-george-floyd-protests-cops-a9543386.html.

By Irene Cohen and Ellie Mulvaney

Exceptionalism. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines this word as the condition of being different from the norm.

In the context of a nation, it becomes an ideology, one that believes that a particular country or region is inherently different than its counterparts, and significantly more remarkable.

In America, this conception affects how we live and develop, but the question is; is this more helpful or harmful?

To start, let’s take a look at some benefits of American Exceptionalism. One key benefit is the ability of exceptionalism to foster entrepreneurship in up-and-coming generations. According to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 84% of children are earning more than their parents as of 2017. This can partially be attributed to the desire of many Americans to reduce international reliance and produce the majority of products in the country. This strengthens the workforce, and actually creates jobs in the nation, given the exceptionalist mindset leads to highlighting “made in America,” as superior to overseas production.

A second contributing factor to the increasing entrepreneurship comes from the belief that America presents opportunities for everyone. In the assumption that America is, indeed, exceptional, comes the theory that America is so outstanding that anyone can create something out of nothing in this country. The validity of this statement is arguable, and no answer can be absolute, because it’s so subjective, but this positive reinforcement and encouragement can give citizens a drive to push themselves up on the socioeconomic ladder.

American Exceptionalism, in certain instances, can also lead to a constructive patriotism in its citizens. As an effort to maintain the reputation, or rank, of the country, Americans may strive more to improve conditions within. This can include policy reform, like firearm restrictions, education, environment, and economic affairs, as well as judicial undertakings and criminal justice. The more inspired a person is to improve their nation, the more likely they are to vote, protest, etc. to make a change.

On the flip side, American Exceptionalism is not all positive. American Exceptionalism often creates the idea in many of its citizens that Americans can do no wrong. This leads to them believing that they should have the final say, not anyone else. This is clearly illustrated by many poll findings of a majority of Americans thinking that U.S. soldiers should not be tried internationally for war crimes, unlike Europeans who do think their soldiers should be allowed to be tried internationally for war crimes. Another instance of this decision making bias is Americans being much more opposed to letting international organizations decide what they should do regarding global warming, starkly contrasting the opinions of other Western countries’ populations.

Another drawback of American Exceptionalism is that it does not foster a good sense of community. An August, 2004, Pew and Council on Foreign Relations poll found that while most Americans thought that they were not respected as much globally as they used to be, that same poll found that Americans did not rank improving foreign relationships very high on their list of international goals. This poll shows while Americans acknowledge that they don’t have the best relationships with foreign countries, they feel as if that is not a necessity. American Exceptionalism breeds the idea that you only need to look out for yourself, you don’t need to work with others to get ahead in life.

After looking at both pros and cons of American Exceptionalism, it is ridiculous to think that one could objectively answer the question, is it more helpful or harmful? Like everything, people have their opinions with their own reasoning behind it depending on their values. Some may think that American Exceptionalism benefits us more than hindering us, but someone else could think that it was harmful. Both opinions are valid and have many points to back up their statement, and that is why you can’t objectively say whether it’s good or bad.