Category: Politics

Several days before the Nobel Prize Committee awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the current Colombia President Juan Manuel Santos, a referendum took place in Colombia that rejected the peace deal made by Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). This result put the Nobel Prize Committee in an awkward position, as the committee awarded Santos “for his resolute efforts to bring the country’s more than 50-year-long civil war to an end,” yet the millstone on the peace journey was just rejected by Colombia’s population. Though people rejected the peace deal mostly because they were unsatisfied with the conditions set in the peace deal, such as releasing FARC officers who are currently in custody, the rejection still reveals the immaturity of peace in Colombia and poses questions on Santos’ legitimacy of the award.

Besides the awkwardness from the referendum rejection, people also question whether Santos’ contribution is significant enough to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The conflict between Colombia government and FARC could be traced back to 1960s, when the left-wing revolutionary force was established in the wave of communism in Latin America. The conflict was brutal and inhumane, and claimed the lives of more than twelve percent of Colombia population. However, due to the relieved tension between United States and Latin America countries, as well as the diminishing power of FARC that could no longer stand for more aggression, a peace deal seems to be inevitable to resolve the conflict that both parties could no longer support.

The Nobel Peace Prize endorses those who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” yet it has been criticized for being too political. Some critics believe that the reasons for awarding is based on the contemporary significance, which makes the prize lack eternality. Current president Barack Obama has been awarded “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” only nine months after his presidency, and it is doubtful how the committee could examine the effectiveness of his international diplomacy in such a short period of time, as the increasing tension in Syria and the rise of ISIS raise more questions of the legitimacy of his award.

A political Nobel Peace Prize does not endorse its original purpose, as it is supposed to endorse some higher stakes that go beyond contemporary politics. It should be more humanitarian, more cosmopolitan, and more inclusive. In terms of this year, the Syrian Civil Defense organization, which was nominated but not awarded, may have been a better choice, as the group continues humanitarian rescues in the most dangerous country with no assistance from other political groups. Getting rid of influences from politics and political norms is hard for the Nobel Peace Prize, but it is necessary to keep the prize’s eternal significance.

Perspectives of a Math Major runs alternate Wednesdays. To contact the author to submit a piece of your own, email submissions@columbialion.com.

Photo Courtesy of Alixx Lucas

Dear Donald,
sometimes I have to thank you

sometimes I have to thank you
for bringing them down
because you expose those who also wish to
bring them down

Dear Donald,
sometimes I have to thank you
for dismissing our pain
for laughing our pain
for stabbing our pain
because you expose those
who wish to do the same

Dear Donald,
your hands are far too small

far too small to carry the weight
of this country
far too small to hold the hand of a mother
whose son’s been shot in cold blood in the street

Dear Donald,
sometimes I have to thank you for reminding me
of this country’s ailment
constantly making natives feel like foreigners
consistently fighting to keep foreigners out

Dear Donald,
who are you protecting?
what are you protecting?

Are you protecting America?

“Make America Great Again”
When was America great?

Were we great when we defiled eachother?
Were we great when we persecuted eachother?
Were we great when we enslaved eachother?
Were we great when we fought eachother?
Were we great when we killed eachother?

“Make America Great Again”
you say

I’m not interested in that America

But
Dear Donald,
sometimes I have to thank you for reminding me of what America is
who it protects
what it protects
and all that needs to change

Alixx is a junior in Columbia College studying Neuroscience.

The Lion is Columbia’s only publication with an open-submissions policy. To respond to this piece or to submit one of your own, email submissions@columbialion.com

The Sexual Respect Initiative runs through October which is Relationship Violence Awareness Month, so it’s important we cover sexual assault. We’ve gone a long way since the 90s where there wasn’t a unified definition of sexual assault across the University. Yes, I know, this is absolutely bizarre, but it speaks to what was many times an insufficient system of addressing sexual assault during the same time period where America got tough on “super-predators” and drug crime. This has started to change in this new millennium, and one of the forefronts of that change has been on college campuses.

In April of 2011, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education (OCR) released a guidance letter which stated that “sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX” and importantly that, “Title IX requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.” This is critical because schools found to be in violation of Title IX are at risk of losing federal funding, otherwise known as the Pell Grants, work-study funds, and research grants that a lot of colleges value. In response to this and increasing attention towards sexual harassment and assault in this decade, colleges have revised on-campus disciplinary proceedings to be more in line with the desires of the Obama administration, and by any indication, this doesn’t seem to be a one shot deal. The Democratic Party, in its party platform stated that they “will provide comprehensive support to survivors, and ensure a fair process for all on-campus disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal justice system.”

However, some would inquire what a “fair process” looks like. For as long as this has been an issue, the OCR has come under fire from some civil-rights advocates for using the threat of Title IX to develop processes unfair to defendants. Namely, the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education has criticized OCR’s insistence that campus proceedings be determined on a preponderance of the evidence standard, its expansive definition of sexual harassment, and in New York, the standard of affirmative consent pushed by a Democratic state government. Of five years of OCR investigations revolving around Title IX, very few have actually ruled in favor of defendants, and when they did, it was for blatantly violating written disciplinary as mandated by the OCR. Assuming Hillary Clinton’s administration would be a continuation of Obama’s, there’s no discernable reason why she would stray from the currently criticized course.

Do you have a choice on this issue? Perhaps. The Republican Platform gives us the following: “The Administration’s distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.” This sounds like genuine concern for a lot of the issues FIRE is trying to address, but here, the messenger is compromised. This is the party, after all, of Donald Trump, who advocated in Hofstra University for the continuation of stop and frisk, a police tactic whose application was ruled unconstitutional by a judge. This is the same Donald Trump who said of bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami’s receival of legal testimony “His case will go through the various court systems for years and in the end, people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been. What a sad situation. We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people.” This is the same Donald Trump who refused to apologize for his behavior towards the Central Park Five, who he accused of raping a woman after authorities found the actual rapist and gave the five men settlement money. One must ask if Donald Trump is as concerned about due process on college campuses as the Republican Party Platform says it is, then why isn’t he concerned about due process anywhere else? This is on top of the release of a tape where Donald Trump bragged about using his star power to grope women, the latest in a string of anecdotes where Trump was described as a misogynistic harassment machine. Is it possible for someone who has repeated sexually harassed women to appoint people responsible for tackling it?

In summary, one can assume a vote for Hillary this November means more of the same, investigations into universities and strongly worded requests to change. One could assume a vote for Trump would be for a different course, but whether that course is towards due-process, law and order, or more of the 90s is anyone’s guess.

Ufon’s mini-series, Columbia and the 2016 Election, will run through the November 8th Presidential Elections.

The Lion is the only Columbia publication with an open-submissions policy. To respond to this piece or to submit one of your own, email submissions@columbialion.com

If you have been living under a cave for the past year, you might want to keep hibernating. Presidential elections have always been contentious since the results determine control of an entire branch of government for four years.

This year, things have gotten rather grim. With two of the most disliked candidates in history running within the much-maligned two-party system, sitting at home sounds like a sweet release with few real-life consequences. After all, even if America picked the worst candidate and they implemented terrible policies as president, a university in solidly liberal New York is the perfect bubble to ride out that storm, right? No. The sentiment is nice, though.

For the outside world, this election obviously has implications for economic, social, and foreign policy and you should take the time to look those up on your own. However, whoever wins the presidency could have a direct effect on admissions, disciplinary, and financial aid policy here at Columbia for four years. To put that in perspective, if you’re reading this before the election as an undergraduate, this election determines policy for the rest of your time as an undergraduate at Columbia. The goal of this article and this series: Columbia and the 2016 Election, is to convince you, a student of Columbia University, that this election has direct consequences for you as a student here. For higher education, this election is a choice between Hillary Clinton’s maintenance of the status quo with minor adjustments or the radical shift of a Donald Trump administration, and those are two two different realities for Columbia and how it interacts with the federal government. Whether or not you vote this November, it’s critical as a student voter to understand these hyper-local factors as well as other factors that may be on your mind. With that, good luck with midterms, and watch this space.

Ufon’s mini-series, Columbia and the 2016 Election, will run through the November 8th Presidential Elections.

The Lion is the only Columbia publication with an open-submissions policy. To respond to this piece or to submit one of your own, email submissions@columbialion.com

The Chinese community has been cheesed off recently by the Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, as the correspondent Jesse Watter came to Chinatown in Manhattan and asked stereotypical and racist questions. Social media exploded after the segment was broadcasted on national television, and Chinese protesters gathered demanding an apology. Yet, Bill O’Reilly remains standing by Jesse Watter and refers the outrage from the public as an “organized campaign.”

I watched this footage. I asked the same question as Ronny Chieng does on the Daily Show: how is this thing news? And among all the disrespectful things he did in Chinatown, what I find the most shameful is the moment when he questioned two old Chinese people who couldn’t understand English. He thought it was funny to show some awkward silence when talking to someone who didn’t understand the language, but what he actually did was challenge the most basic and fundamental respect and politeness this society values.

Language is important in shaping a community and identifying a community member. Common language is the basis for communicating, sharing opinions, collaborating and even debating. However, people are forgetting the fact that speaking is fundamentally an ability, just as walking or seeing. It should not be taken for granted that everyone in this country has enough language proficiency to express his or her opinions and utilize speaking as a way to defend his or her rights. As in O’Reilly Factor, when facing a man asking racist questions in a language they don’t know, the old Chinese people could not, even if they wanted to, retaliate the ridicule imposed on them. They could only respond to Jesse Watter with an awkward smile, half friendly and half puzzled.

And it is not them to blame. If we can respect people who can’t walk, if we can respect people who can’t see, why can’t we respect people who can’t speak? We have made great effort to make our facilities and infrastructures accessible to people who have special needs, yet it seems that we forget how to make our society accessible to those who have difficulties in speaking for their rights. We have emphasized making an environment comfortable enough for those who have physical disabilities, yet our community is shying away from those who can’t express their opinions properly.

The barrier of language may be more deep and severe than the barrier of race and identities, but there is less awareness of it, because the victims suffering from this do not have a voice and cannot confront the injustice they face, and so we may never hear their stories. It is difficult to protect their rights and keep them from bullying in terms of language. We can only count on our conscientiousness and our humanity. But for a civilized community, it is necessary.

Perspectives of a Math Major runs alternate Wednesdays. To contact the author to submit a piece of your own, email submissions@columbialion.com.