Pope Francis publicly declared that he is in support of civil unions between same-sex couples, however, his views regrading marriage seem to remain unchanged.
By Annika Henthorn News Reporter On October 21st, the documentary, Francesco aired at the Rome Film Festival for the first time. The Pope, according to CNN, reportedly spoke of members of the LGBTQ+ community as “Children of God,” adding that “we have to create a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.” This stirred great upheaval in the Church from those opposed and those in support of it. Due to the mass confusion caused by the Pope’s statement, the Vatican Secretary of State released a statement to its ambassadors in hopes of providing clarification for the statements made. According to The New York Times, the apostolic nuncio of Mexico, Franco Coppola, posted this note to Facebook. The note’s legitimacy was later confirmed by a Vatican official. The note explained how these statements were based on two separate questions in an interview in 2019. It was incorrectly “edited and published as a single answer without proper contextualization, which has led to confusion,” according to the note. Director of Francesco, Evgeny Afineevsky claimed the Pope explicitly told him his views on same-sex union; however, it was later found that these comments originated from an interview with Televisia, a Mexican broadcaster, according to The New York Times. It is still unknown who edited these false statements. CNN argues that rather than legalizing same-sex union, the Pope was simply referring to some type of legal protection by law. The note specifically states that “it is clear that Pope Francis was referring to certain provisions made by states, and certainly not to the doctrine of the Church, which he has reaffirmed numerous times over the years." Controversy also ignited by the Pope’s comment that: "Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They're children of God and have a right to a family." This was thought by many that the Pope supported the union of same-sex unions. However, according to CNN, he was simply stating that although same-sex marriage should not be allowed, gay couples should not be discriminated against because they are still “within the family." After watching the film aired in Rome, many people were stirred by the Pope’s controversial comments. However, his views remain unchanged besides his beliefs that same-sex couples should be protected by civil law, without altering the doctrine.
0 Comments
A conversation with Professor Stephen Woolpert about student engagement during this election, and how students are using their vote to make their voice heard.
By Annika Henthorn News Reporter With the election results quickly approaching, many students have the opportunity to participate in its madness this year. However, with all the chaos that has transpired these past couple of months, voting can be an overwhelming and confusing process.To alleviate the stress of the upcoming election, Professor Stephen Woolpert has designed events and programs to educate students in the process. According to Woolpert, a politics professor, Saint Mary’s is a part of the ALL IN Campus Democracy challenge. The school received a Platinum Seal in 2018 for its notable Democractic involvement. That year, Woolpert revealed, Saint Mary’s had a student voting rate of 50%, where the average is typically 39%. Saint Mary’s is also recognized as One of America’s Best Schools for Voting 2020 as well as deemed one of the 2020 Minority Serving Institutions that stands out for voter engagement. The school has set an ambitious goal of a 75% voter turnout as well as to ensure every student is registered. In order to achieve this goal, Woolpert has “raised funds to pay a cohort of student interns to engage in voter turnout and education activities this fall.” These select students have encouraged students to register by using the customized site, TurboVote. They have also utilized Saint Mary’s social media platforms to raise awareness and announce the school’s partnership with National Voter Registration Day, September 22, and National Vote Early Day, October 24. These goals are only feasible through the participation of the students. To take a closer look into what some of the Saint Mary’s students have been doing to prepare for the election, a handful of students have been interviewed. One of the most challenging aspects of voting is simply the research to determine what candidate best suits the values of the voter. Sophomore, Cassidy Cole, has “looked at both of the candidates platforms to get an idea of what they want to accomplish in office” and “gone to multiple unbiased sources to reset the candidates themselves to see if I think they’d be fit for the position.” As easy as it is to rely on the assumptions of the media and drift in the tide of pop culture, investigating without preconceived assumptions allows the voter to really understand who the candidate is in terms of facts and unbiased research. Another interesting aspect of the election is the significance of it to the students. Danielle Miller, a junior at Saint Mary’s, has described this election as “a matter of life or death.” In her eyes as well as many other students, “whoever wins will truly determine the outcome of our nation in terms of the coronavirus outbreak, climate change, reputation, and public relations.” Without a sense of urgency and personal responsibility within the Saint Mary’s community, the voting rate would drastically fall. However, students have proved that the country’s future well-being is a priority. Miller has also emphasized that “getting to see that Millenial/Gen-Z perspective through the vote is what will shape our government for the future.” The Saint Mary’s community has an obligation to engage in the conversations of the country. Rather than being stagnant to change, students need to rise to the occasion and understand the loftiness that this election and future elections hold. As put by Mahalakshmi Murahari, a sophomore, “we are the generation that needs to bring about change and we do so by voting.” The presidential candidates visit battleground states to attempt to sway voters.
By Riley Mulcahy News Reporter Today’s presidential election marks the conclusion of the most talked-about election in decades, and the candidate’s President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden make their last pleas to try to convince voters to vote for them. A record number of registered voters have taken advantage of early voting, with more than 90 million votes already cast. Compared to Trump’s victory to Hilary Clinton, the number is two-thirds of the 120 million votes in 2016, and states are reporting a higher percentage of voter turnout than four years ago before election day. Both campaigns have made a concentrated effort to hit key swing states, including Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. According to NBC News, at a rally Trump held last Friday in Michigan, Trump touted that the reason why there have been spikes in COVID-19 is that “of a scam being carried out by doctors who are padding the numbers to pocket money from the insurance agencies.” This claim has not been proven, and Trump has also been saying that the United States has tested more, and that is the reason why the country is seeing more cases. In Minnesota, Trump held a socially distant rally with 250 people allowed to attend. The event was a rarity for the Trump campaign, which has regularly hosted what many have considered to be “Super Spreaders” events because of the lack of adherence to local laws regarding physical distancing and mask-wearing. The president also made it a point to call out Laura Ingraham of Fox News in Iowa for wearing a mask, accusing her of being “very politically correct.” In a particularly jarring incident caught on video in Texas, Trump supporters can be seen ambushing a Biden-Harris bus, with the van travelling from an event from San Antonio to Austin. The audio captures the group saying they are “here to escort you out of Texas.” The Biden-Harris campaign accused the group of Trump supporters of trying to run them off the road. Both Biden and Harris were not on the bus, however, the incident has raised concerns over voter intimidation and the safety of voters on Election Day. Trump responded to the video via Twitter, merely retweeting the video and commenting “I LOVE TEXAS.” Critics of the President argue that this was the President’s latest attempt to incite violence and disorder. When asked to condemn the white supremacy group Proud Boys in the first Presidential Debate, the President addressed the group and told them to “stand back and stand by.” In recent weeks, the President has been repeating falsehoods about the voting process, making some question the integrity of the election. Although polls show Biden appears to be in the lead in battleground states, supporters are apprehensive to believe polls. The election may be too close to call on Tuesday night due to the different procedures of voting in each state. Some do not start to count the ballots until the day of the election, while others have been processing votes since early voting started. Democrats have led early voting numbers; however, Republicans are more likely to vote on Election Day. Trump has urged his voters to not rely on the mail-in ballots, citing false claims that mail-in ballots lead to voter fraud. In a year that has been dominated with election news, it is hard to believe that it will come down to a few key states. Trump and Biden have travelled across the country a countless number of times, persuading voters to vote for them. Racial injustice, COVID-19 and the results of the 2016 election has stressed the importance of voting to millions of Americans nationwide. Editor-in-Chief Victoria Vidales interviews Professor Nolan Higdon about his new book The Anatomy of Fake News. Dr. Higdon describes the growth of fake news, the causes of its continuation, and how students can take control of their own news sources in order to remain informed news viewers.
By Victoria Vidales Editor-in-Chief Dr. Nolan Higdon’s book, The Anatomy of Fake News: A Critical News Literacy Education, analyzes the development of the fake news phenomenon in American media. Dr. Higdon hopes that young people will read his work, and use the arguments, and tools provided to become more critical, and educated news viewers, deciding where the credible news sources come from themselves. Dr. Higdon explains in depth how much of journalism has deteriorated, losing the high credibility earned in the 1970s with the influences of multinational corporations. Dr. Higdon argues against censorship as a solution, instead arguing that education, and continued research are the tools necessary to combat false information. “I wrote this book to really paint the picture for people that if we are really going to address fake news this is how to do it comprehensively” Dr. Higdon stated. During the race for the 2016 presidential election the term “fake news” became one of Donald Trump’s main calling cards. This development can create the illusion that the concept of fake news is one that Trump has created himself in an effort to gain supporters, and turn them away from the press’ critiques of him. While effective, Dr. Higdon argues that the origins of fake news began far earlier than Trump’s first presidential race, and instead originates in the 1980s, a time long before Trump entered politics. Following the high in credibility that most journalists earned following the coverage of the Vietnam War, and Watergate scandal many newspaper, and media groups fell under the ownership of multinational corporations, who had their own interests to protect from news coverage. Dr. Higdon claims that these corporations looked at journalism “as a business” and made decisions in order to limit on the ground journalism. Very few corporations led to heightened competition, and journalism became more focused on maintaining viewership, then covering real news stories. Dr. Higdon argues that corporations saw that stories regarding inner conflict received the most interest, and therefore chose to cover them more frequently, specifically, stories about political divisions. These decisions regarding coverage leave several topics that could be more pertaining to the American people out of their news outlets. Dr. Higdon claims that as a result of this coverage, “[The American people] get a very limited scope on what’s going on in [the] world, and even the scope [they] get is highly distorted.” Journalism also suffered from significant deregulation in the 1980s that Dr. Higdon argues also contributed to the decline of credibility, specifically, removing the Fairness Doctrine, which required journalists to have counterviews in their work, and the removal of the Communications Act, which limited the amount of news organizations. Following failed coverage of several economic challenges, particularly, the Recession of 2008, and the growth of political journalists, Dr. Higdon believes that all of these factors created a level of long building distrust between the American people, and the American media. While a strong advocate against fake news, Dr. Higdon is also extremely opposed to censorship as a solution, citing the involvement of censorship by the government in American history to stop groups advocating for civil rights, and social change. Seeing a slippery slope, Dr. Higdon believes that “when you impower an institution to censor it usually goes farther than the intended target.” Seeing the support from younger generations, particularly Left leaning young people, Dr. Higdon hopes that they will realize how censorship has been used as a weapon throughout American history against various groups. Dr. Higdon believes that the solution to fake news is through education, for people to look at news sources critically, challenge themselves to read and listen to a broad range of news outlets in order to decipher the truth. In Chapter 6 “Fighting Fake News: Solutions and Discontents” and Chapter 7 “The Fake News Detection Kit: The Ten Point Process to Save Our Democracy” Dr. Higdon outlines his approach to solving the fake news dilemma, and how using these solutions can help repair the Democracy in the U.S. For himself, Dr. Higdon chooses to get a broad range of news sources in order to determine which stories are credible, and are providing their readers with the truth. Dr. Higdon frequently reads both corporate and independent press sources, foreign and domestic, and progressive and conservative, staying away from a solely one sided news sources. Dr. Higdon claims that in regards to knowing which specific journalists to listen to he, “makes a list of who has done journalism well consistently over time even when they are going against the status quo.” Dr. Higdon claims that “If you really care about Democracy you have to care about journalism.” He claims that people should remove political commentators from their sources for factual news, claiming that they are part of the problem in fake news, not the solution. He recognizes that although fake news may never be completely gone, with research and study people can become more aware of detecting fake news, and keeping themselves informed of the real news. In regards to higher education’s role in fake news Dr. Higdon believes that schools can have a role in educating students on how to detect fake news. Dr. Higdon claims that schools should be teaching “non journalism students what journalism is, and explaining to students what journalists do. Without this knowledge, students cannot be expected to recognize fake news.” Dr. Higdon also provided advice to aspiring journalists, claiming that they should not be discouraged to follow a career into journalism, but instead have the power to change the actions of the media in a positive way. Dr. Higdon advises that young journalists should “try [their] best to build a career without compromising [their] principles’ and hopes that ‘one day that we live in a world with enough young journalists who are using these tools to grow as a whole to take attention away from these current corporations.” The American people have the ability to decide which news sources to read, and view. Dr. Higdon hopes that people will use the skills outlined in his book in order to educate themselves on how to become a critical viewer of the media. *Editor’s Note: Special thanks to Professor Nolan Higdon for this exclusive interview. His book The Anatomy of Fake News is available through the University of California Press. Professor Nolan Higdon is a Communications professor for Saint Mary’s College of California and California State East Bay. How California changed from being a swing state for Republican politicians to becoming a consistent Democratic Party supporter.
By James Molnar News Reporter As we begin Election Day, there is little doubt about which way California in the Electoral College is going to vote. Known widely for being one of the most liberal places in the world, the Golden State voted strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and has not elected a Republican in a statewide election since 2006. What many people don’t know, however, is that California’s identity as a blue state is a relatively new tradition. For many years, California was a reliable Republican stronghold. In fact, from 1952 to 1988, the state voted for a Republican in every single presidential election, except for one (1964). Starting in 1992, the state changed in an almost piecewise fashion, and has voted Democrat ever since. What caused this dramatic change? In the 1990s, California’s immigrant population grew by 37% or 2.4 million people. The state now has more immigrants than any other. Studies indicate that these immigrants generally have a leftwing preference. A poll by Pew Research found that immigrants in California are about twice as likely to lean Democrat than Republican. In addition, the immigrants of California are mostly here legally and 52% are naturalized citizens, meaning that they can vote (Public Policy Institute of California). It is not only an influx of people which has recalibrated California’s demographics in recent years, but also a considerable exodus of members of the working class. According to the Sacramento Bee, California experienced a net loss of about 800,000 people living near the poverty line to other states. The plurality of these people moved over to Texas, a longtime red state. The significance of this emigration is that the working class, particularly the white working class, are a key Republican demographic. A Pew Research poll found that 64% of whites without a college degree voted for Trump in 2016. This leftward shift is not present equally in the whole of California but is rather concentrated in the coastal areas. The Bay Area especially votes overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Alameda, Santa Clara, and our own Contra Costa counties are among the most liberal in the state. These blue areas tend to be more ethnically diverse, with whites accounting for a minority of the population. Much of the interior, especially the far north, of California, meanwhile, remains staunchly red. This includes counties such as Modoc, Lassen, and Shasta, which all voted Republican in the last presidential election. These counties have not been as affected by immigration as much of the state and whites still comprise around 80% of the population, compared to the California average of 37%. Though the land area of the state is split roughly evenly between the two parties, it is the much greater population density of the blue areas which results in their electoral dominance. It is plain that racial and economic demographics have played a central role in the political transformation of California. In the state, they have swung far enough in one direction, so as to render the electoral result a foregone conclusion. In the country as a whole, however, the balance of these demographic factions will be pivotal in determining the outcome of one of the most contentious elections in U.S history. By Lenin O’Mahony
News Reporter On October 26, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and sworn into the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Justice Barrett’s confirmation gives the Supreme Court a heavier conservative leaning, with six conservative leaning justices to the three liberal leaning judges. This change in the highest court in the nation has many Democratic Party leaders in America seriously concerned about cases involving healthcare, abortion, and LGBTQ+ issues. Justice Barrett is just the fifth female justice to serve in the history of the Supreme Court, against the 109 total men who have served as Justices in the history of the court. She is just 48 years old, and is the mother to seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti, and her youngest biological child has down syndrome. Justice Barrett, along with her husband, are both practicing Catholics. Justice Barrett attended Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, graduating top of her class from Notre Dame, among other honors. Throughout the Senate hearings debating Justice Barrett’s confirmation, many Democrats expressed great concern about her ability to separate her religious faith from the law and constitution. Justice Barrett however, was careful to express in her swearing in ceremony speech, that her personal beliefs and faith would not interfere with her ability to carry out her responsibilities defending and interpreting the constitution and the legality of cases that go before the court. Her insistence in being able to perform as an unbiased Justice has done little to appease many concerned citizens and members of congress. Supporters of Justice Barrett however, were quick to celebrate her confirmation as a great victory. Many supporters had clothing, signs, and flags bearing the phrase “The Dogma Lives Loudly Within Me” a phrase initially used to critique how clearly one could see Amy Coney Barretts religious beliefs in her life. The phrase has since been embraced by the Catholic community and by supporters of ACB, and was quickly commercialized through the internet. Throughout the entire process of making Justice Barret a member of the Supreme Court, Democrats have voiced concerns about the hypocrisy of how quickly Republicans have pushed to confirm Justice Barrett, when those same Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016. This was at a time when President Obama had ten months left in office, however Republicans argued that the next Justice should be decided by the next president, and it would be unfair for a President in his last year of office to choose the replacement judge. Contrasted with the confirmation of Justice Barrett roughly a week from the election, it is no surprise that Democrats felt the situation was unfair. |
StaffMadison Sciba '24, Archives
November 2023
Categories |