“The Danger of a Single Story:” Is the iGen Complicit in Continuing the Single Narrative?

Nyeleti Honwana, Contributor

‘This is the 21st century after all,” is a phrase that Generation Y’ers have all uttered at one point or another. And we are proud to belong to this 21st century. We are progressive and free thinking, and we believe that all are equal and, most importantly, we are informed…or so we think. The Internet, which many of us consider our “generational head quarters” provides us with almost anything we could possibly want to know. We literally hold the world in the palm of our hands–whether it be on our Blackberries, iPhones or Androids. However, one must ask the question: what is the value of the information we receive, and how does this information influence our understanding of a people, place or occurrence?

Author Chimamanda Adichie

Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie (Purple Hibiscus, 2003) explains that as people, especially as children and young adults, we are “impressionable and vulnerable…in the face of a story.” In her speech, titled The Danger of a Single Story, Adichie tells the story of Fide, her family house boy when she was just a girl:

“The only thing my mother told us about him [Fide] was that his family was very poor. My mother sent yams and rice, and our old clothes, to his family. And when I didn’t finish my dinner my mother would say, ‘Finish your food! Don’t you know? People like Fide’s family have nothing.’ So I felt enormous pity for Fide’s family.”

One day Adichie visited Fide’s family out in the countryside and was taken aback to see the beautiful and intricate baskets that his family made. She explains that she had not imagined them capable of making anything; all she knew of them was that they were poor. That, she says, was her ‘single story’ of them; they only way she had the ability to imagine them living.

When Adichie later attended university in the United States, she was met with benign ignorance. She recalls her first run in with an American roommate, who, she says, was shocked to learn that Adichie listened to Mariah Carey and could use a stove. She goes on to say that:

“She [her roommate] had felt sorry for me even before she saw me. Her default position toward me, as an African, was a kind of patronizing, well-meaning, pity. My roommate had a single story of Africa; a single story of catastrophe. In this single story there was no possibility of Africans being similar to her, in any way. No possibility of feelings more complex than pity. No possibility of a connection as human equals.”

The image of Africans as a backward people, who spoke tribal languages and only listened to tribal music was the single story that her roommate had of Africa. Adichie’s roommate, like Adichie herself, was not necessarily ignorant, but had bought into the single story: the stereotype of a peoples. It is this lack of knowledge that led to her surprise when meeting Adichie. However, a single narrative can have much more damaging consequences than surprise. On many occasions the single story has led to hatred, alienation and violence.

Nine years after 9/11, there are nationwide stories of teens abusing their Muslim school mates. A recent example is Kristian, who at thirteen was experiencing the worst year of his life. Kristian was born in the U.S. to Trinidadian parents. An average American teenager, Kristian enjoyed “regular stuff” and was described by his father as a normal kid; he watched T.V. and played games on the computer  However, during the 2009-2010 school year, Kristian suffered long months of physical and emotional bullying because of his religious beliefs. Kristian was beaten, spat on and called a terrorist by four of his classmates. In an interview with the New York Post, he recalls one of the worst days: “They punched me…spit in my face…tripped me on the floor… [and] kicked me… And as they were kicking and laughing, they kept saying, ‘You f- – -ing terrorist, f- – -ing Muslim, you f- – -ing terrorist’.”

Kristian’s attackers were his 14 and 15 year-old classmates; classmates that once told him “You came here to burn our buildings down. People can’t get jobs because of you”. These teens were fed a single story of Islam, one of terror and hatred. Therefore they were unable to see the good in Kristian and, more importantly, unable to understand that they were more alike than they were different. Kristian’s ordeal is just one example of the danger of the single story. We must all be vigilant against a single narrative and strive to understand the wider story before rushing to judgment. Not doing so means that we allow the stereotypes to form our total opinion of people, places and events because we become prisoners of a linear narrative; we miss the context and ultimately lose sight of the complexities of that which is different and new to us. We become scared of the “other” instead of realizing that those whose lives are completely “unlike” ours are still human. They very well may be just “like” us, but if not, then ignoring the single story’ will allow us, Generation Y, to continue to extend our scope and understanding of the world, which can do nothing but improve our abilities to improve the world.

Taken to the extreme, it is this way of over simplifying our narrative and the image we create of the other, that leads to intolerance.  When you decide that all Muslims are terrorists and all blacks are thieves and all whites are racist, that is when the problem starts. Generation Y must avoid this problem if it wishes to successfully lead the integrated, mobile world of the future.



Italian Students Rally Against the Government

James Sasso, Associate Editor

Italian university students have not kept quiet about their anger against the Berlusconi government in Italy. The Italian prime minister, besides living a life of tremendous personal scandal and leading what is widely regarded as a corrupt government, has spearheaded the government’s attempt to cut spending and reign in the unruly university system. While no one, especially students, can deny the truth of the disastrous situation of Italy’s higher education system, almost every member of academia disagrees with the government’s plan to reform the system with a program known as DDL.

Students Occupy Colosseum

These reforms would, according to a student member of the protest at the University of Parma, would take away power from the students, ensure that researchers do not have the time or money to teach needed lessons and that an “outsider” of the school would overlook its spending with bureaucratic limits and regulations that would not account for the needs of the individual school. Indeed, the reforms would aim “to reorganize the governance of institutions and the system of recruiting university teachers, and to change the way funds are allocated, by rewarding meritorious institutions and forcing schools that are running a deficit to close.”

These reforms had already been passed through the House in Italy and were awaiting approval by the Senate when Silvio Berlusconi’s government came into question due to his numerous personal scandals, including Rubygate where he had relations with an underage girl. The students hoped that his government would fall and thus take away the majority of Senators who would support the DDL reforms to the universities. So, as is the norm in Italy, the students decided to make their voices heard against Berlusconi and against the proposed reforms by protesting, marching and occupying buildings.

In late November, student groups at universities across Italy began to take extreme measures to voice their opposition to the DDL. In Rome they occupied the Colosseum and Senate building. In Pisa they took over a runway at the airport and the Leaning Tower. In Parma, a smaller city, they occupied a classroom of the University of Parma, but in Florence and Milan students clashed with police. Even researchers at the universities joined in by taking sleeping bags to the roofs of universities to sleep there in protest. These protests intensified as the government prepared to make a vote of confidence (one that would decide, essentially, whether or not Berlusconi would remain in power) on December 14th. In Parma, students blocked the main street, stopping traffic and singing songs to try and rally support against Berlusconi and against DDL in vibrant and active manners. They obviously cared about the situation affecting their universities and their educations.

In America what would happen in a similar situation? Republicans already are threatening massive spending cuts in public education and public funding for higher  education, but almost no students have voiced protest. Education is the backbone of a developing society and should be protected by all, especially by those directly involved such as students and educators, but the discussion of school funding goes largely unnoticed to members of Generation Y who seem not to see education as a gift. Yes the Italian university system, almost entirely public, cannot be compared to the largely private (or semi-private) system of American colleges and universities, but that should not change the level that students want to protect their education. Generation Y needs to voice its opposition to the destruction, dismantling and degradation of the American education system, not ignore it.

While the Italian system obviously has its flaws and is untenable in its current state, one cannot deny the power of watching hundreds of students march to try and protect something they feel is sacred: their ability to advance their knowledge. American students could learn a lesson from their attempts. This is not to suggest that American students should pick up pitch forks and torches and take to the streets, but perhaps that Generation Y needs to once again recognize the invaluable gift and privilege given to it in the form of public education. It should hail that gift and nurture it. It should care for it and promote it. When something threatens its existence, Generation Y should strike back instead of lauding the decreased number of teachers and homework. As politicians attack the education system with spending cuts, furloughs and unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions, Generation Y needs to voice its opposition or else face the consequences as it matures in the world’s next generation of leaders.

Are you for real?: America’s Quest for Authenticity in Uncertain Times

Malik Neal, Columnist

This simple expression has gradually crept into mainstream conversation in everything from television sitcoms to novels and newspaper articles. Subsumed within the expression of “Are You For Real” is the notion of truth, verification and, ultimately, authenticity. If something is authentic, it is certainly real in the simplest and most irreducible sense.

Etymologically, the word “authentic” originates from the Greek word “authentikos,” meaning something that had the authority of its original creator. Apparently, the original meaning of the word in English was “authoritative,” and the modern sense of “genuine” did not evolve until 18th century. Thus, an authentic person or thing is something which directly relates back to its creator, therefore, giving it the strong pull of truth and originality.

The yearning for the “authentic” has been a constant undercurrent in modern society for sometime and has accelerated significantly over the past decade. It is, of course, ever present in our popular culture, and numerous examples from the trivial to the profound appear constantly in everyday life. When one deems something or someone authentic, they believe that person or object has a ring of irreducible truth and dependability about them or it.  In a way, an authentic experience confirms one’s best beliefs about how the world really works and consciously or subconsciously incrementally adds a bit to one’s self worth. The long evolution of the concept of the term “cool” in American popular culture is closely linked with the notion of authenticity, albeit a pseudo-authenticity. To be “cool” is to be different, uniquely interesting, fashionably out of the mainstream, but most of all, to be accepted for being so.

A cool idea, person or object is not only unique in a pleasing way, but also supposedly authentic. If being cool is different, and different is unique, then uniqueness readily translates into individual self worth. The advertising industry capitalizes and feeds on this concept to an enormous degree. Everything from Ralph Lauren Polo English retro country style clothing to leather seating in one’s “classic” car is offered to make the individual owning such things feel cool, authentic and unique.

The rejection of a person, or rather a person’s behavior, or even of an idea, as not authentic, is, of course, a peculiarly human trait. This rejection is based upon emotion and the feeling that something is askew perceptually, cognitively and, ultimately, intellectually. The need for authentication is, in essence, a correlative of the quest for truth–a truth that genuinely enhances, confirms and expands one’s concept of self.

One of the unfortunate residuals of modern technological culture is a constant diversion of oneself from one’s own self. Whether due to information overload, boredom or the constant standardization and mechanization of society, this cultural fatigue finds expression in some peculiar ways. The mindless overuse of the Internet, text messaging, video games, or obsession with pornography and violence is strong witness to an existential alienation that is part and parcel of a commercially dominated and materialistically saturated society whose citizens have been reduced to consumer units in a state of what might be called terminal ennui. With self-actualization being the rare exception, and with economic stress fueling the fires of discontent, self-absorption and the need for instant gratification yield their destructive harvest rapidly. Attention spans are minimal, and tolerance and patience are virtues of a long ago and distant past. Historical amnesia and cultural voids are the rule. Never was the old Roman proverb that “A person who refuses to learn about his past is forever condemned to live as a child” more pertinent than today.

The false gods of a promised, but ultimately undeliverable, materialistic paradise have seduced our American society. We have forsaken our identity in the vain search for authenticity, which can only be found by the hard work of examining one’s present predicament through the lens of past experiences of others similarly situated. Rejection of past cultural achievements may be temporarily exhilarating, but is ultimately directionless and exhausting. This society has elevated self absorption to a national identity, but in so doing has failed to perform the ultimate act of self-awareness—simply looking at the surrounding world and contemplating the true marvel of its existence.

Self-awareness is the first step on the long road to discovering the authentic self and its intimate interconnection to the world around it.

A Young Conservative Woman’s View: Ashley Sewell’s “Smart Girl” Politics

Stephanie Rushford, Associate Editor

The 2008 Presidential Election marked the resurgence of conservative women back into the spotlight, with John McCain’s running mate, Vice President candidate Sarah Palin, leading the charge. In the two years since the election, many more “Mama Grizzlies” have run for public office, prompting talking heads and magazine articles to explore the dichotomy of being a women and a conservative.

Yet, while most of the media’s attention has been focused on the baby boomer’s generation of conservative women, young conservative women have been making strides in political circles and on college campuses. One conservative political group that caters to all conservative women of all generations is Smart Girl Politics. Smart Girl Politics, or abbreviated as SGP, has an annual Smart Girl Summit that showcases powerful women in the conservative movement. Some of the notable guest speakers at this year’s Smart Girl Summit were Michele Bachmann, Tammy Bruce and Liz Cheney.

Smart Girl Politics Director of Activist Training Ashley Sewell had the distinct honor of introducing Liz Cheney at the Smart Girl Summit, which she describes as “CPAC for women.” In addition, Sewell describes the sense of community that reverberates from the Summit:

It’s the chance for us to get together and talk about the things that really matter to us…It’s definitely a chance for women to meet and connect with the women they respect and look up to all year round.

Ashley Sewell

However, this young conservative activist was not always politically involved. It wasn’t until after her first job, when she saw the amount of money Uncle Sam was taking from her paycheck, that she became engaged in the political sphere. “When I was 25, I filed my tax return, I had Uncle Sam tell me that I owed another four digits, that to me was outrageous. I couldn’t believe it I got so upset.” With her feelings of anger, Ms. Sewell went to her first Tea Party, which led to a serendipitous encounter with Smart Girl Politics: “I was asked if someone could take a picture of my sign, and I said sure why not. They said they wanted to put it on their website. The next day I went to the website to make sure I was being portrayed in a way that I felt was appropriate, and it turned out to be Smart Girl Politics.”

Additionally Ms. Sewell has nothing but glowing praise for the organization, which has enabled her to have solidarity with other like-minded conservative women, “from that moment on I knew SGP is where I belonged. It was where I could get the resources that I needed to be involved.”

Yet, while Ms. Sewell is a conservative activist associated with a primarily women-led organization, like many other conservative women she does not like to be labeled as a feminist:

“Historically feminism means standing up and fighting for women. And it started out as something so great, equal pay for equal work, and that is the feminist that I identify with. But when you have the [social movement] of 1960s and 70s and everything kind of hinges on abortion; to me that a complete disservice to the word because there is far more to being a women than your reproductive organs. Until we can get a little bit of tweaking on the word itself because it has such a stigma, until we can rebrand it, I prefer to call myself a peopleist.”

Many conservative women have empathized with Sarah Palin’s ideological outlook, and Sewell understands the attraction to Sarah Palin’s brash delivery of the ‘founding fathers” ideals:

“Something that has really been a challenge for us as conservative women is for the last 30 years, and longer than that–since the ERA–women who have been involved in politics have been feminists, and feminists are traditionally liberal. When you have Sarah Palin come along and say ‘Mama Grizzlies,’ that really resonated with people [thinking to themselves], I can be an activist and a women at the same time without feeling like I am harming my gender. Because for a long time that is how feminists saw conservative women.”

One of the many characteristics of Generation Y is its ability to put partisan disagreements aside and work together for the greater good, and Ms. Sewell is no exception. Even though Sewell does not support Roe. Vs. Wade, she would work with pro-choice feminists to eradicate the many inequalities that women still face today.

“I think there are so many places women, regardless of political affliction, can work together. Let’s talk about women getting equal pay for equal work–that is still an issue today. Let’s talk about giving women the opportunity to have employment in the ‘man’s’ world, and let’s make women [understand] that they don’t have to exploit their bodies to do it. A perfect example of this is in sportscasting, [with] Pam Oliver. Why can’t we start elevating women to take those roles? Let’s start talking about education, how we can provide girls with more opportunities in math and science. Why can’t we come together as women, and say, putting abortion aside, and let’s talk about the things that we struggle with.”

Ashley Sewell provides more than just lip service in helping advance other women’s lives; recently, as Smart Girl Politics’ Director of Activist Training, Sewell met with women from Smith College for a training session–led by Sewell–on social media and politics. Sewell spoke highly of the Smith College students: “Those women at Smith College are tremendous. For them to, on such a liberal campus, be so steadfast in their beliefs. And I would say the same think about a very conservative campus… if they were a bunch of liberals. But to have that kind of courage, at that age, is phenomenal. And it was very inspiring to me.”  The experience not only left Sewell in awe of these young undergraduates; she expressed regret in not being “more politically involved” when she was in college.

This upcoming January, Ms. Sewell will be training more individuals as a part of Smart Girl Politics’ SGP 101 initiative. With SGP 101, Smart Girl Politics’ goal is to get more women to run for office at the local, state and federal level.  In 2012, Smart Girl Politics will work to get these female candidates elected. This program will offer two-track training sessions with online classes and one-track training sessions for activists and other for prospective candidates. Sewell will be in charge of implementing and overseeing the curriculum of the SPG 101’s activist track. She describes a holistic approach in creating the rubric for this program:

“We have different levels that you can be involved in, depending on where you are in the process. Everything from ‘I’m angry and I don’t really know why,’ all the way to ‘I want to learn how to be a fundraiser for my candidate’s campaign.’ Taking those big questions of how can I get involved and turning them into an interactive lesson that women can then take and implement and see success. That’s what I do as Director of Activist Training.”

In addition, SGP 101’s activist track will focus on how activists effectively can  support and give time to their candidates and how to organize successfully and get out the vote and voter registration campaigns.

Furthermore, Sewell stressed the underlying message of SGP 101 was not one of partisan politics but of empowering women to become active in the political process:

“This is about really educating and empowering women to take a very active role in what was traditionally a man’s role of political campaigning.  It is done in a non-partisan way, we are not advocating for Republicans, we are not advocating against Democrats. We are taking the whole idea that women, politically, have something very valuable to offer and we are putting them in a position to take advantage of that.”

Ms. Sewell’s does not only have confidence in  the SPG 101’s female candidates for 2012, she believes that Generation Y holds the keys to a political and prosperous future. Ms. Sewell states that “one of the reasons that generation that is poised to take the reins, as an activist politically, is that they are on the very front of technology. Generation Y has the tools and the education, we are more educated than any other generation before us. We are coming out of school ready to change the world.”

Ashley Sewell undoubtedly will inspire many young conservative women to come forward, as she did, and fight for their conservative viewpoints to be heard on Capitol Hill. As much as the media makes the conservative movement (and conservative women) to be a monolith with Sarah Palin leading the charge, there is a full spectrum of what it means to be a  conservative woman in this country. Ms. Palin may have had a great impact on the past elections, and on cable news, but for Generation Y the influence will come closer to home. In Ms. Sewell words,  “It is very inspiring for someone to see a younger person take charge in a positive way. That gets more people involved as well.”

UK’s Rebellion and Resurgence of Youth Activism

Matt McDermott, Columnist

With a new government often comes sharp changes in policy, and at present Britain is realizing full well these consequences. In the coalition government’s 2010 budget, the country is witnessing an austerity package the scale of which hasn’t been seen in nearly 30 years. And voters across all spectrums haven’t taken well to the proposed massive spending cuts, especially students. 

Anger amongst students lies in the coalition’s proposal to dramatically increase tuition fees over the next few years as the government transfers the cost of courses from the state to students. Universities in England will be allowed to charge students tuition up to 6,000 pounds a year, with a top tier of 9,000 pounds in the university to ensure access to low-income students. These policies would amount to a nearly 300 percent increase in fees, up from the current 3,290 pounds per year. Effectively, the rise would help minimize the massive 2.9 billion pound cut in higher education that will go into effect with the 2010 budget. By replacing state aid with tuition fees, many courses will rely almost entirely on student fees for support.

Labor, for their part, have referred to the fee hike as a “tragedy for a whole generation of young people,” while the National Union of Students (NUS) has called the increase an “outrage.”  But in recent weeks this war of words has taken to the street with a much more active voice.  

Since early October, there have been three nationwide students protests against the tuition fees. The first demonstration, sponsored by the NUS, was expected to draw 10,000-20,000 students to London to voice their frustrations. Instead, over 50,000 marched past Parliament and through the streets of the city. While overall a peaceful protest, a select group of activists broke from the demonstration to storm Conservative Headquarters in central London and create the spectacle that was carried on international news. At the time the NUS expressed their consternation and vowed to keep the protests civil. But since the first protest, two subsequent nationwide action days have been held. At each, thousands of students in cities across the UK took to the streets. In all, over 200 students have thus far been arrested, with widespread criticism of what many see as an overbearing police presence at each event. 

The sentiment at each of these rallies has been unified. With their chants of “No ifs, no buts, no education cuts,” students have argued that education is a fundamental right that should exist as an equal opportunity for all. One protester remarked to me, “I come from a family where if fees go up I’d have to drop out of university. My family would be unable to cope with the over 18,000 pounds in additional costs.” I heard the same from many alongside her. Unlike the United States, UK educational institutions currently provide little in need-based financial aid, a reason why course fees are currently so comparably low. And while these new fee increases require some improvements in financial assistance for lower class students, it’s reasonable to question the equitable nature of the rise.

Perhaps most surprising—considering Tories ran on the very foundation of eliminating the deficit—has been the collapse of support for the coalition government. For the first time in over three years, Labour has been regaining a notable lead in public polling, garnering 40 percent (a four point lead over Conservatives) in the latest ComRes poll this weekend. The startling turnaround for the Labour Party comes at the rapid downfall of the LibDems, who have fallen to their lowest point in over four years. 

Their collapse stems from their appeared snubbing of university students, who were their key base of support in the past election. While LibDems vowed to oppose a tuition fee increase during the election, their position changed dramatically once they joined the coalition government. It’s now expected that Nick Clegg will lead the LibDems in voting for the tuition fee increase, or at best abstaining altogether from the vote—in either case reneging their core campaign promise. In fact, most of the vocal protests over the last month have been an attack of Clegg and his failure to live up to campaign promises.

There is a direct correlation between the rise in protests and the national mood. In an poll released this week by YouGov, university students now strong support Labour, 42 percent versus 26 percent for Conservatives and 15 percent for Liberal Democrats. These numbers are shocking; in advance of the election, the same poll showed students backing LibDems by 45 percent, followed by Labour at only 24 percent. In essence LibDems have lost 30 points in the last few months amongst students, their core constituency. 85 percent of students are “sympathetic to the protests against the tuition fees,” and a rather high 27 percent are in favor of using violent action (akin to the direct action against the Conservative party headquarters in the first student protest).  If an election were to be called today, the UK Polling Report and other independent agencies predict Labour would regain an outright majority in Parliament.

For students though, their fight may come to an abrupt close. A vote in the House of Commons is expected this Thursday, and it seems Conservatives have more than enough votes for passage. The true fight may simmer until the next election is called.

Toilets, Youth Leagues and Politics: When the Private Becomes Hideously Public

Nyeleti Honwana, Columnist

“There was widespread controversy earlier this year when it emerged that 50 households in the low-income settlement of Khayelitsha, Cape Town had been provided with unenclosed toilets, leaving residents deprived of their rights to health, safety and dignity” The Social Justice Coalition

Women standing next to open air toilet, in plain sight of all passers-by, Khayelitsha; Cape Town

Khayelitsha, one of the largest and most derelict townships in South Africa:

Located in the Cape Flats, just outside the bustling city of Cape Town, Khayelitsha is home to over 400,000 people (as of 2005), the vast majority of which live below the poverty line. While in Cape Town, I came across a story that made me think rather differently about youth and politics. Just a few years ago, in the zone of Makhaza, answering “nature’s call” was a humiliating and sometimes dangerous ritual for hundreds of families who did not have toilets at home. Begging to use a neighbor’s toilet, using a makeshift plastic bucket or waiting in line for hours to use one of the four available public restrooms in another zone, were the options available to Makhaza dwellers.

However in 2007, the Democratic Alliance (DA), – Cape Town governing party – provided fifty homes with open-air toilets in Makhaza. This sparked outrage in the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) who immediately approached the Human Rights Commission expressing their disgust with the open air toilets and calling them a violation of human rights. The ANCYL went so far as to declare war on the Cape Town municipality and demanded that they provide covers for the toilets. When interviewed, the Mayor of Cape Town, Dan Plato, said that “we were never approached by the residents…asking for assistance to cover the toilets.” In fact he says that the toilets were installed on the grounds that the residents themselves would find the materials to cover them; a statement that is denied by the residents of Makhaza to this day.

Dismantling the Zinc Toilet Covers

Soon after the ANCYL’s involvement and the onslaught of press coverage, the Cape Town authorities provided the residents with zinc covers for the toilets, which to their horror further enraged the ANCYL. Groups of young people went from house to house destroying the covers on the grounds that the zinc used was of the lowest available quality. Seeing this as a ploy by the ANCYL to gain support in the area, the DA ‘”emporarily” removed the 65 toilets whose covers had been destroyed.  This led to mass outrage and culminated in a number of protests led by the ANCYL. Residents burned tires in the streets of Makhaza and, together with the ANCYL, took the city of Cape Town to court. The trial began on November 24th, the day I left Cape Town.

While the involvement of young people in local politics in Khayelitsha cannot be denied; one might ask, in what way is this zeal affecting the wider community? In the DA run city of Cape Town, some have argued that the ANCYL seems to be nothing more than a political party vying for support, while trying to tarnish the name of its opponent–a ploy that will go far in the coming local elections of 2011. However, what started as a somewhat noble quest to get proper sanitation facilities for people in desperate need of them has become a political battleground for supremacy, leaving the poor people of Khayelitsha in as dire straits as when the “toilet crisis” began. In an interview with non-profit organization Intern Africa, resident of Khayelitsha, Andiswa Ngabi, expressed her discontent with the current situation, saying that “We are not happy…we are complaining about toilets without covers. Now, instead of doing what we want, they [the DA] just take off the toilets. We’re feeling that [the] government destroyed us.”

The crux of the matter is that residents of Makhaza continue to live without toilets, covered or otherwise, a problem that is not exclusive to Cape Town. The Khayelitsha toilet scandal should be used as a plateau on which differing parties can come together to discuss the eradication of this social ill but, unfortunately,both parties are more interested in playing the blame game than in finding an adequate solution. It seems to me that the city of Cape Town needs to acknowledge the wrong doing on its part. Mayor Dan Plato’s stance that they have done “nothing wrong” is evidently ludicrous upon seeing the pictures of the toilets in Makhaza. Whatever their intentions were, there are glaring problems with sanitation conditions in much of Cape Town, and the local government must take the lead in the rectification of this. Ultimately, whether the ANCYL was correct in tearing down the covers of the toilets or not, it is important that the municipality have the trust of its constituents and provide safe and hygienic facilities for them to use. Today there are almost 4,000 bucket toilets still in use around Cape Town.

Lastly, as young people involved in politics, it is our job to ensure that our influence works only for the betterment of our community. In this instance the ANC Youth League used their popularity in Makhaza destructively. I would agree with those who advise ANCYL leaders to put party politics aside and use their power to negotiate better terms for sanitation facilities in Khayelitsha.

Can the New Republicans Live up to the Hype?

James Di Palma-Grisi, Columnist

The Sharron Angles and Christine O’Donnells of the Tea Party are dogmatic and simplistic candidates parroting the same talking points that, by even the admission of Alan Greenspan, will not work in our current economic climate.

So what will happen once these people (or, perhaps except in the cases of Angle and O’Donnell) are elected? We see what happened to Scott Brown — he compromised his conservative principles to do something popular with liberal Massachusetts voters, and his support dropped sharply.

Seeing this example (and being from areas far less liberal than Massachusetts, in most cases), the other Tea Party candidates probably will not take this route. Instead, they either will stick to their conservative principles (and become regular Republicans) or will take a free-wheeling, anti-lobbyist approach and find themselves without funding or backing at all.

That is to say, while they are conservative, they may or may not represent the elite interests that funded their campaigns and organizations. If they don’t, they will be marginalized candidates in the next election cycle, and if they do, they will lose the credibility they had with their constituency. Crucially, the latter only will happen if the voters find out where the money is coming from—something that will be quite clear once the votes on key provisions in bills, or the attachment of earmarks, are made public.

In Congress, in other words, there can be no hiding behind opaque organizations—the Tea Party will be on record, and their ideological purity will be brought into question the same way Scott Brown’s integrity was called into question when he voted liberal on the financial reform bill.

But, stopping Obama’s agenda may be the real purpose behind the Tea Party, and it can almost certainly accomplish that feat.

Now the question for us: what will we do about it? Does Generation Y have a stake in the President’s agenda, or does it have more of an interest in hearing that it’s capable of doing great things?

Gen Y certainly has lost interest, for the most part, in the elections by having turned out in disappointingly low numbers in the 2010 Midterm Election. It has, instead, turned back to pop music and all the other things youthful. Suffice to say it is no longer as politically active as it once was, and is by several metrics horribly narcissistic.

So there is a danger here. This generation could be manipulated rightward by the same promises of power and purity that Candidate Obama offered them in 2008. All that is needed is a potent and communicative leader. Being the Right, there is not much there for young people, and finding a youthful leader would be as easy as finding a natural head of hair at the Republican National Convention–it is the party of the elderly and the established, those who think the world is just fine as it is.

Whether this danger is benign or not remains to be seen. That is to say, whether Gen Y is pulled rightward in large numbers, numbers large enough to impact an election or as an afterthought (which seems likely if they continue to only turnout as much as they did in 2010) has not been determined yet. But surely this is not the only point of entry for Gen Y–there must be strings to pull other than narcissism. Such is the task of political analysts and campaign managers.

The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act: A Look at recent Anti-Bully Measures around the Country

Stephanie Rushford, Associate Editor

Rutgers student Tyler Clementi committed suicide in September

Two New Jersey lawmakers Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Rush Holt are proposing new legislature that would require federally funded universities and colleges to implement an anti-bully program in their respective schools. The Tyler Clementi High Education Anti-Harassment Act was named after the Rutgers freshman student who committed suicide in September after an online video was posted of him sharing an intimate encounter with another man. This proposed legislature would require colleges to adopt policies that prohibit the harassment of students on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender, race and other factors. In addition, the government would provide funding to these schools to establish anti-bullying programs or expand the ones that are in place. Furthermore, institutions would need to distribute these policies to students, and notify bullied students of counseling services. Senator Frank Lautenberg stressed the importance of anti-bullying legislature:

“The tragic impact of bullying on college campuses has damaged too many young adults, and it is time for our colleges to put policies on the books that would protect students from harassment. While there is no way to eliminate the cruelty that some students choose to inflict on their peers, there should be a clear code of conduct that prohibits harassment. It is vitally important that all students have the opportunity to learn in a safe and secure environment.”

While the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act would federally require universities and colleges nationwide to adopt anti-harassment policies, many states have recently passed similar laws. Over the summer, Governor Paterson of New York signed the Dignity for All Students Act into law. The law requires New York Schools to revise their code of conduct and establish anti-bully policies—which would include bullying related to sexual orientation—and organize school training programs on anti-bullying policies for school employees. Lastly, under the new law, schools would report any instances of bullying to the state education department. At the press conference, Governor Paterson explained the government’s role in preventing bullying at schools:

“Every student has the right to a safe and civil educational environment, but far too often young people are ruthlessly targeted by bullies. Bullying and harassment have disrupted the education of too many young people, and we in government have a responsibility to do our part to create learning environments that help our children prosper.”

Surprisingly, New York’s new anti-bullying law does not mention how schools should deal with cyber-bullying.  The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act includes language to cover harassment via the web, like in the case of Facebook, and electronic messaging, like in the form of a menacing email or text. This past August, the state of Missouri added language to its existing anti-bullying statue to included cyber bullying. Missouri is only one of 11 states that has anti-cyber-bullying laws in place, notably Arkansas’ anti-cyber-bullying legislature allows for school officials to intervene even if the cyber-bullying did not occur on school grounds.  In New Hampshire, their anti-bullying law covers cyber bullying and harassment related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Overall, although directed at primary and secondary schools, 45 states in the nation have some sort of anti-bullying law on the books. Recently, Senator Bob Casey introduced the Safe Schools Improvement Act, much like the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti- Harassment Act, a law tha would require federally funded primary and secondary schools to “adopt codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment, including conduct based on a student’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion.” Furthermore, this piece of legislature would compel states to compile data on the incidences of bullying their schools and report them to the Department of Education. Currently, this bill is in the Senate Committee, and most likely not reaches the floor of Congress before the Holiday Recess.



Mozambican Youth: Apathetic or Aware?

Nyeleti Honwana, Columnist

While in the developed world the internet has become the main vehicle of social networking, in developing countries, texting is the thing. In Mozambique for example, having Facebook or Twitter is not nearly as useful as having free SMS (texts).

With Mozambique as, arguably, one of the most stable African countries today, one might ask, why wouldn’t the youth be apathetic, I mean why even ask the question? Well it comes down to history. Mozambique, independent for 35 years, has seen three generations of young people during its independence, each making a substantial contribution to its history. The first, Generation of the Liberation Struggle (1963), fought for the freedom of the then colony. The second, Generation of the 8th of March (1977) were communist comrades, anti-tribalism and fought for the continued unity of the country during the civil war. The third (and current) has been dubbed the Generation of Turn Over/ Change by the President. They are supposed to bring the new wave of development in the country–getting involved in politics and social issues and promoting health (HIV/ AIDS is a major problem in Mozambique).

But this generation has been the most socially and politically uninvolved generation in the history of the country. The name Generation of Change is more a running joke than anything else because it is largely believed that Mozambican youth are politically disengaged and apathetic. However, on Wednesday, September 1st of this year, Mozambican youth in the capital city of Maputo showed, in big numbers, their profound disappointment with the economic policies of the government organized through the extensive use of texting.

Youth Rioting


Mozambicans have seen the rise in prices of basic services and commodities in the past months, as the value of the national currency dropped tremendously. On August 27th, the national public news channel announced that on September 6th the price of bread would rise by one metical, the equivalent of 0.03 dollars. With 70 percent of the population living below the poverty line, this increase seemed to many the final straw.

In the days leading up to September 1st, a number of texts were sent out anonymously telling people to protest against the high cost of living (including rising bread, fuel and milk prices) and as a demonstration against the President, who is largely perceived as having  done shockingly little to improve the standard of living of poor people. The texts varied from rallying cries, spoofs of the national anthem and radical denunciation of the President himself.

On Wednesday morning, Maputo was a ghost town. Shops remained closed, gas stations were abandoned and the infamous “chapas” (mini-buses that serve as the city’s number one form of public transportation) were nowhere to be seen. It was evident that the protest had begun. At 9:00 AM reports started coming out describing hundreds of people, led largely by young men, marching on the outskirts of the city, making their way to the city center. What they found waiting for them were police forces armed and ready to open fire. From 10:00 in the morning to passed midday, distant gunfire could be heard throughout the city. The protest lasted three days, and each day brought with it a new wave of texts rallying supporters and urging them to continue the struggle. When the dust cleared, thirteen people had been killed, 300 injured and 224 arrested, according to the Health Minister.

The protest was reminiscent of 2008, when rioters and armed forces clashed on the streets of Maputo, resulting in four deaths and over 100 people injured. After these riots, the government abandoned its plans to raise fuel prices. This time around, the government   insisted that the price hikes were irreversible. However, just a week after the protest, they went back and reversed the decision. In other words, the youth protests once again forced the government to reverse an important policy decision.


In view, the riots showed two key things: first, that the President, Armando Guebuza, who won a land slide victory in 2009 with 79 percent of the vote, is not as popular as he believed; and second, and most importantly, that the youth have the power to effect change, be it in a positive or negative way.

After the riots, it became evident that purely through  text messaging Mozambique’s capital had been held at a standstill for the better part of three days. Because of the looting and vandalism of shops and cars, the government was quick to pin the riots on troublemakers and marginalized youth. As a consequence, days after the riots, all text messages sent to and/or from  pre-paid SIM cards were banned. On September 15th the government issued a decree announcing that all users of pre- paid mobile phones must register their sim cards, “in order to prevent criminal abuse of mobile communications.”

Today, mCel and Vodacom, the only two mobile network providers have little over a month to register all their pre paid customers. With 2.8 million pre paid customers alone, Vodacom’s Managing Director has dubbed this task “mission impossible.” The government may be doing what it thinks is the best way to deal with the discontent in the country, but registering their SIM cards is not going to stop young people from texting! So I put this to you: Is Mozambique’s youth apathetic or aware?

Reactive Failures

James Sasso, Associate Editor

In a recent New York Times article  (published in the weekly New York Times magazine on November 12th), conservative David Frum expounds on the challenges facing Republicans in their new challenge of leading the country forward out of its currently troubled state. The main roadblock to their success: themselves. “Too often, conservatives dupe themselves,” he says in reference to how many have dealt with questioning about the source of America’s current economic crisis. While Frum’s article is specific in his criticism of Republican’s closed-minded, impulsive response to the Democratic legislation, his deeper warning about emotionally charged, “closed-system” politics should be learned by politicians across the country.

Ha! How could you ever be right?

In the Midterm elections Democrats were trounced largely due to a combination of a horrendous economic situation and the Republican propaganda-like campaign where they attacked Democrats (mostly President Obama) for failed policies that they claimed only would worsen the current economic climate. The problem, whether or not the Democrats’ efforts to stave off an economic depression worked, however, is that Republicans were in the same situation two years ago when Obama and the Democrats swept into office riding a wave of anti-Republican sentiment about the dismal economy. When asked about the cause of the collapse, one which economists largely agree lies in the hands of a combination of Bush decisions, such as the wars and tax cuts, Republicans tend to retreat from the answer instead of accepting responsibility and offering alternative solutions because:

It’s an uncomfortable memory, and until now Republicans have coped with it by changing the subject and hurling accusations. Those are not good enough responses from a party again entrusted with legislative power. If Republicans are to act effectively and responsibly, we need to learn more positive and productive lessons from the crisis.

Frum uses the rest of the article to provide four economic “lessons” that he believes, and rightfully so, Republicans in office should learn. These lessons, while economic at face value, express two more psychological messages that could very well allow Washington to function: patience and open-mindedness. Patience means, in this sense, the ability not to use office as a reactionary post, but rather a place where one takes an issue and considers it intelligently before coming to a conclusion. Open-mindedness means exactly as it sounds; that Republicans (and I believe all politicians) need to pay heed to the legislative ideas of the opposing party.

While Frum never explicitly mentions reactionary politics in his op-ed piece, one can assume the warning in his discussion of economic policies. For example Frum mentions TARP and its public perception. TARP was a Republican policy under George Bush, but under President Obama the “bank bailouts” have become a rallying cry for conservatives. As such,

Republican officeholders who want to explain why they acted to prevent the collapse of the U.S. banking system can get no hearing from voters seized with certainty that a bank collapse would have done no harm to ordinary people.

Republicans, however, who denounce TARP and any other sort of “government meddling” found themselves in a very electable scenario during this mid-term. This is what Frum would call “reactionary” politics because instead of focusing on the intelligence behind a piece of legislation, or the long-term effects of such legislation, the elected officials only care about the immediate emotions of the electorate. This kind of governance leads not to effective policy solutions (generally, there are exceptions) but instead to emotionally driven, short term remedies, which only serve to pacify the populace in the short term but to fail to cure the problem in the long run. It would be almost as if one took Robitussin to  try and cure pneumonia; sure the cough will be gone, but the disease will continue to eat away at the body.

Because we know that Obama is the Joker....

Politicians should instead (and this was their original purpose) look beyond the “fads” of majority thought and use educated responses to serve long term problems. In other words, the new Republican officials who rose to power on the wave of anti-democratic sentiment will find a similar fate awaiting them in 2012 if they do not take REAL steps to fix the economy instead of only short term measures to patch the cuts. Their reactionary calls to repeal Healthcare and permanently extend the Bust Tax Cuts while somehow continuing to pay for rising Medicare costs make ZERO sense. These cannot happen in tandem in America’s current economic state. Republicans cannot satisfy themselves by mollifying the public by acting on their waves of anti-government sentiment. They need to sit down, think and decide in which way they can best stimulate the economy, regardless of how it will make the citizenry feel. This is the role of a true politician. One would be brave enough to earn a spot in JFK’s Profiles of Courage by standing up to the electorate and making policy decisions based on what he saw as best for the country as a whole. These decisions do not arise out of emotional responses but intelligent thought processes. Be patient, Republicans. The country needs it.

In tandem with patience comes open-mindedness. Frum, when discussing Republicans’ refusal to admit blame for the economic crisis, states that Republicans, “wrap themselves in closed information systems based upon pretend information.” That is, the Republicans refused to acknowledge that their system of thought, their  political-economic belief structure could be wrong. In some way they were right because it was not their policy decisions that had caused the economic downturn but some outside forces.

This kind of thinking is extraordinarily dangerous for a politician (and not limited to Republicans). A politician needs to understand that he does not hold all of the answers, that he cannot solve the nation’s problems on his own. If he does not hold all of the answers this necessarily means that he is not always right and therefore has the ability to listen to others and LEARN. A politician, who is meant to look out for the well-being of his constituency, should look towards others for the solution to an issue if he does not have it and since it is nearly impossible for one person to have THE SOLUTION to a certain issue, politicians should constantly look towards others when making policy decisions.

This would represent open-mindedness. Frum means that politicians should not ignore the beliefs of the other party simply because they are of the other party. Democrats and Republicans can learn from each other. Both have valid ideas. If Republicans, however, waltz into Washington with an air of arrogance, with an air of superiority (as some might say the Democrats did in 2008) they will find a hostile world where it is nearly impossible to make functional policy decisions. Government should not be partisan; it should not be a debate between diametrically opposed ideas. Instead it should be a discussion where each participant brings different thoughts, but where each thought is welcomed and conversed. This allows the sides to both display the intelligent aspects of their beliefs and to combine them into a more coherent and useful policy. One cannot achieve comprehensive policies with a closed mind.

And unfortunately it is precisely the closed-minded, reactionary politics of the Midterm Election that drove Generation Y away from the polls. In the two years following 2008, Generation Y watched perhaps the worst two years of partisan fighting, useless bickering and closed-minded politics in the history of America. Politicians did not try to govern but instead to embarrass the other side and please the emotionally charged populace. There was no discussion in politics, only finger pointing which never leads to any real progress. Generation Y is a progress oriented generation. Why should they bother to vote for a government that makes no progress?