27 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Re-evaluating Putin
The Western world’s fear of Russia has been ever present in the last century. Americans felt that the Marxist ideals that created the Soviet Union were a threat to our existence, forever driving a wedge between the two countries. Even when united in opposing Nazi Germany, America’s alliance with the Soviet Union was tenuous at best. The Cold War that followed ratcheted tensions still higher, as the world teetered on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Americans grew to fear and loathe the image of “the Russian.” The Cold War, of course, has ended, but a hundred years of ingrained animosity is not so easily dissipated. Casual “Russophobia” effortlessly weathered the end of the Cold War, and our cultural impressions of the country remain sharply negative. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared Russia “our biggest geopolitical foe.” Russian characters in the media have remained uncomplicated villains, with Rocky’s Ivan Drago giving way to Call of Duty’s Vladimir Makarov. Americans remain distrustful and vaguely contemptuous of the Russian Federation, with many believing it to be no more than a Xerox copy of the Soviet Union it replaced. Nothing more exemplifies this attitude than the media’s recent treatment of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Putin’s impassive demeanor, history as a colonel in the KGB and over-the-top macho persona have made him a target for derision by the West since the day he took office. Russia’s offer of asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Putin’s criticism of our support for the rebels in Syria certainly did nothing to repair his image with the American people. However, it was the Winter Olympics in Sochi and subsequent invasion of the Crimean Peninsula that recently brought anti-Putin sentiment to a boil. Before I go any farther, I want to make this clear: I wholeheartedly oppose many of the Putin administration’s policies. Russia’s recent effort to stamp out so-called “promotion of non-traditional sexual relations” by criminalizing the free speech of LGBT activists is a human rights violation unbecoming of a first-world country. Putin’s territorial expansions into Chechnya, South Ossetia and Crimea have likewise been ham-fisted bullying worthy of harsh criticism. With that said, I find it impossible to write Putin off as inept. Many of his other policies have benefitted Russia and the world immensely and thus must be included when discussing his quality as a world leader. Vladimir Putin took control of Russia in 1999, when Boris Yeltsin resigned in the middle of a national depression and government default. Over the next eight years, the Russian economy saw an incredible rebound, averaging a gain of 7 percent per year. Putin’s policies sextupled the Russian GDP and massively expanded the middle class. Russian wages tripled; unemployment and poverty were halved while murder and terrorism rates plummeted. Although Russia has also made plenty of mistakes internationally, there remains much to commend. Russia became a member of the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s, signaling a desire not to fight the new era of globalism, but to participate. Putin signed both the Kyoto Accord and the New START missile treaty, and Russia is neatly meeting its targets for both. More recently, the Putin administration defused the Syrian crisis with a much-needed compromise. When Washington seemed bent on a protracted war that would needlessly kill thousands of people on both sides, it was the Kremlin that stepped in and negotiated the destruction of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapon stockpiles. Finally, I believe that Putin and his government deserve the benefit of the doubt in their actions due to the circumstances of the new Russia. In times of great crisis for a nation, even Americans have condoned authoritarian measures we would otherwise scorn. Would we have tolerated the Sedition Act or Abraham Lincoln’s internment of war protesters had these acts not occurred during the most uncertain times in American history? Perhaps this double standard is what Putin himself was referring to when his New York Times editorial warned that “[i]t is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional.” Only cult members honestly claim to share all political opinions with their leaders. It’s perfectly possible to disagree with some of Vladimir Putin’s policies — which, I repeat, I do — but we ought also to recognize the positive contributions he’s made to Russian life. Only then can we accurately judge him.
Unionization for Notre Dame athletes?
Much of the buzz on Capitol Hill this week centers on a lobbying effort to unionize scholarship college athletes who participate at private educational institutions. The Notre Dame administration will probably initiate as much of an adversarial role against these developments as it has about the so-called healthcare mandate that requires insurance coverage for contraceptives. The potential Notre Dame unionization nightmare began when Northwestern University football players, led by graduating senior quarterback Kain Colter, petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for the right to unionize — and won. He and other athletes walked the halls of Congress for two days this week to garner support and educate lawmakers of their concerns. The visits came just a week after the NLRB Chicago regional director ruled that Northwestern football players on scholarship are employees of the university under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore have the right to vote to determine whether they can form a union. At present, major income-producing sports like football and men’s basketball are eligible under that NLRB ruling. Even though the issue is not directly before lawmakers, Colter said, “We’re up here raising awareness. Congress is an important part of the chessboard.” Colter helped co-found an advocacy group, National Colleges Players Association (NCPA), which supports better health and safety guarantees for athletes, especially efforts to reduce the risk of brain trauma. Currently, the NCAA has no legal obligation to assure medical treatment for athletes, particularly after they leave school. After Colter and his fellow athletes visited with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Brown said, “The right to fair treatment is why all workers, no matter the job or venue, should have the opportunity to unionize.” For those whose knee-jerk reaction might consider a collegiate athletic union as a silly proposition, a number of factors bolstered the athlete’s assertions while Northwestern University’s carefully-prepared and laid-out case fell flat before the NLRB. First, the university hinged its presentation on past case law that now makes it difficult for Northwestern to find legal precedents for its appeal. Their critical precedent citation involves a 2004 Brown University case in which graduate assistant instructors were considered students, not employees. Northwestern argued that the graduate assistant rule also governed football players. But the ruling explains in detail why Northwestern is wrong and why the Brown ruling does not apply to scholarship athletes. Absent other case law, Northwestern has no other precedent upon which to base its assertions. Secondly, the NCPA provided compelling arguments proving that the football players generate enormous revenue and quoting from the ruling, “great benefit” of the “immeasurable positive impact to Northwestern’s reputation [from] a winning football team.” They proved in this first round of the process that amateur athletes do not play merely for the glorified love of the game. Athletes proved that they are the workers of a huge commercial enterprise — not merely students grateful for the opportunity to participate — and were already being paid for their services through scholarships. They further proved that they were dependent upon their employer, the university, and therefore were entitled to form a union. Finally, the athletes’ chronologies demonstrated the hour-by-hour, day-by-day rigorous control that coaches have over each scholarship player’s life, which the NLRB concluded was like an employer has over an employee, not the kind of control a school has over a student. The NLRB ruling, in fact, dedicated nearly half of its 24-page ruling to address these details. The athletes provided overwhelmingly detailed descriptions of their practice schedules, workout requirements and how coaches closely supervised all facets of their lives. They cited how coaches approved living arrangements, controlled their use of social media (players must be connected to a coach), dictated dress codes and instituted certain restrictions on off-campus travel. Coaches also oversaw the registration of automobiles and demanded copies of each player’s study schedule. What part of the Northwestern athletes’ assertions is untrue for Notre Dame players, or for that matter, any player at other NCAA institutions? We can joke that the ND women’s basketball program should be included in our list before the men’s team with its “one-and-done” reputation, but joking and bias have no place with the subject of safety. Bias against unions also has no place in this matter. It is ironic that recently the anti-union culture and general fervor of the southern states overshadowed efforts to better workers’ compensation through a management-labor partnership board at the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant in Tennessee, like at every VW plant worldwide. Even the Republican governor threatened to withhold $300 million of incentives from VW if the plant unionized. Such closed-eyed ideological opposition prevents the students from better representation in the name of political purity. Just like it is long past time for a playoff system to determine the football national championship, guaranteeing collegiate player benefits is long overdue as well. If it takes unions to better care for our current “chattel” athlete, so be it. A modern society demands innovative thinking without old stereotypical or ideological bias. Unions are good for society when they operate properly. Give the Notre Dame athletes the dignity they deserve.
Drowning: a story on sexual assault
I remember as a kid, my cousins and I used to have underwater contests to see who could hold their breath the longest. Having asthma, I usually lost — except those times I cheated by coming up quickly to breathe and back under to pretend I had been holding my breath the entire time. I found something exhilarating in the feeling of sucking in the sweet, precious oxygen after experiencing the burning sensation from not being able to breathe. I could never imagine, though, what the feeling would be like if you thought you might never inhale oxygen again. Drowning is such a terrifying experience, but the thoughts and anxiety one feels as they are drowning are significantly worse than the feeling of the water rushing into your lungs. I had read a Fear Street novel in elementary school where R.L. Stein described a young woman’s drowning experience until her lungs burst (probably not the book I should have read at 8 years old, but whatever). The idea has stuck with me over the years and every time I find myself underwater, that is my first thought. In my life, I have experienced the feeling of drowning three times. The first was on a family vacation in Yosemite National Park. We went rafting and crashed into a fallen tree; the jolt pushed me over and into the river. I was tossed around beneath the thrashing of water on rocks until my father pulled me back into the raft. I was safe, but couldn’t shake the panicked feeling of not knowing if I’d see the surface again. The second experience was during a snorkeling excursion on a vacation in Hawaii. A wave washed over my snorkel, and I inhaled salt water. Choking and sputtering, I couldn’t catch my breath as more waves continued to wash over me. I thought my lungs were going to burst … like a firework explosion or that bird from Shrek by Fiona’s singing. Time seemed to drag on, and I was certain I would never stop drowning. Thankfully, my lungs were fine and I made it back on the boat where my seasickness calmed my nerves and upset my stomach. The very last time I experienced that feeling was when a friend sexually violated me at a party last year (and right now sharing this publicly for the first time). I managed to suppress and forget that awful night until the issue about rape made its way into my classes after shocking statistics sparked an online protest against rape culture. On March 27, Brazil’s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) announced that 65 percent of Brazilians believe women deserve to be raped based on their clothing choices. In response, nude pictures of men and women with the phrase #NaoMereçoSerEstuprada (which translates to #IDontDeserveToBeRaped) are dominating social media, earning the support of Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff. Many friends back in the United States have been asking me about this movement, since I am studying in Brazil, and while I only know of a few classmates that have participated in the protest, it has definitely become a part of the larger public conversation. Given my articles and involvement on campus at Notre Dame, I find myself oddly silent and distant from this topic in Brazil. I stand firmly in my belief to speak out against injustice, but have had the most difficulty understanding how to actively live that out. I continue to create every excuse to avoid being labeled a rape victim; the guilt is much easier to accept since rape culture would say it was my fault anyway. Despite my friends’ amazing support and encouragement to report the incident when I was ready, I was drowning in guilt and shame. The single moment my human dignity was violated and taken from me stretched into a timeless expanse of panic, shortness of breath and fear that everyone would blame me, or worse, say I deserved it after drinking too much or wearing a skirt. Witnessing the strong support from many Brazilians against rape culture, I feel I can finally share my story. Most people don’t blame others for drowning. They understand how some circumstances render others unable to swim toward safety — the current was too strong, he didn’t have a life jacket, she didn’t know how to swim and fell in the deep end. I pray we can change the conversation about rape culture by sharing more survivors’ stories rather than blaming them for what happened. The psychological and physical effects are traumatizing enough as it is. I knew how to swim, but the current was too strong, and although my friends and family are incredible life jackets, I still drown because society would prefer to blame me and other survivors for going swimming. “Não mereçi ser estuprada” — I didn’t deserve to be raped. No one does.