Goodbye, Graduates. It Was Nice Knowing You: SMC’s Administration Bids the Seniors Farewell3/9/2021 Regardless of a change.org petition calling for an in-person graduation, Saint Mary’s’ administration fails to reconsider their earlier decision canceling the 2021 commencement and, in so doing, neglects to properly commemorate the achievements of their graduating class.
By Katelyn McCarthy Opinion Columnist Johnny shall never come marching home, nor shall he ever receive his hearty welcome. At least, not at Saint Mary’s. Anyone having listened in on phone and Zoom conversations held among Saint Mary’s’ seniors in the past few weeks will have realized that the topic of graduation has made many of them anything but happy campers. A recent petition asking Saint Mary’s to reconsider her cancellation of her traditional commencement ceremonies is indicative of this fact. Having garnered over 600 signatures thus far (a number just about equivalent to the size of the graduating class), it is clear that a significant portion of the Saint Mary’s community disagrees sharply with the administration’s sudden decision. While the College attempts to stamp a cheery face on every decision she makes regarding her response to COVID-19, doing so has masked over the glum reality in which most students have found themselves mired. Her pronouncement regarding commencement is the latest and one of the most extreme. One only graduates from college once. It is, for most students, the celebration of the culmination of their academic careers. Completing a rigorous course of study, especially under a year and a half of adverse circumstances, is a fundamentally different sort of thing than, say, a kindergarten graduation. The two ought not be treated equivocally. And yet, it seems as though they are. The solemnity of the collegiate commencement merits more than a caravan around campus. It is fundamentally dehumanizing to hold a graduation ceremony in which one is required to interact with the backs of one’s peers’ heads through the confines of a metal box penetrable only by translucent panes of glass. After having been removed from their classmates and professors for over a year, Saint Mary’s’ seniors deserve one last reminder that they are actually Gaels and not just walking dollar signs who are expediently booted out once their time is up. If Zoom school has been house arrest, then a drive-through graduation is but parole. A traditional commencement, on the other hand, is freedom. Isn’t that what a graduation, especially celebrating a liberal arts education, is all about? I, for one, would be more than happy to graduate in-person either in May or when it becomes permissible to do so some time in the future. I suggest that the administration communicate with their graduates as to what the graduates’ preferred ceremony might be, and plan from there. The College, however, has not conceded the possibility of even a postponed graduation. Instead, she has thrown in the towel. “Congratulations, graduates,” she seems to say. “It was nice knowing you. “After all you have gone through—being abruptly separated from your friends, classmates, and professors; spending over a year in quarantine staring at your computer screens so as to benefit the health of the College at large; being deprived of human connection, meaningful education, and spiritual growth in community—we would like to dismiss you quietly and with little fanfare.” This “sending off” by Saint Mary’s’ administration is contrary to the human and Christian treatment of the student that our College promotes. Saint Mary’s needs to reconsider the decision to cancel the 2021 commencement ceremonies and give our graduating Gaels the opportunity for the celebration that they deserve. Author's Note: Individuals interested in reading the petition campaigning for a traditional commencement may do so here: https://www.change.org/p/jyc3-stmarys-ca-edu-saint-mary-s-college-students-want-in-person-commencement-our-grad-class-is-small-enough?redirect=false
0 Comments
When Venessa Ramirez, Sara Mameesh, and I discovered the art of a Nazi on campus, we knew action needed to be taken to get those ideals off our campus.
By Melanie Moyer Associate Editor It started with a sunny afternoon and a quiet courtyard. The three of us maintain a small, socially distant bubble in the name of COVID-19 safety, which has let us delve deep into conversations we are all passionate about. It was during one of these conversations that we began discussing the strange statue that watched us as we enjoyed our quiet evening. We were curious as to why a naked little boy would be holding a falcon, and, to better understand the art, looked up the back story of creator Fritz von Graeventiz. Venessa was understandably speechless with what appeared on her screen. How does one go about telling their friends that they were in the presence of art created by a member of the Third Reich? Our trio is united on the common ground of fighting for marginalized groups and derive much of our passion for social justice from personal experiences. Seeing the face of Hitler, a man who led a movement that took the lives of over six million people and created ideals that still plague our society with racism and intolerance, sculpted by the same hands that created the statue in front of us was sickening. It is impossible to deny the repulsive history of an artist once you see a picture of him sculpting a giant eagle and swastika. The Saint Mary’s campus and community mean so much to all of us that it was devastating to think about how long this artist and his ideals resided on campus without the student body knowing. Our call to action came from solidarity with the Jewish community and the rejection of our culture’s pattern of not holding people accountable for terrible actions. That evening, we emailed a trusted professor about what our next moves should be, and she advised that we created a petition to get support from fellow students. On Tuesday evening, we made the petition and were overwhelmed with the immediate response. After receiving over 500 signatures in the first few days, we got a much-anticipated response from the school about how they would handle our discovery and demands. Our petition demanded not only the permanent removal of the statue but also an apology, an explanation for why it had been bought for the school, and a replacement with a piece of art that celebrates the Jewish culture and its prosperity. The school has yet to respond to these demands or take public action towards fulfilling them. They have only “temporarily” taken down the statue. In translation, they have only “temporarily” rejected the presence of Nazi ideals on campus. One of the most significant conversations going on in the world of art, music, and literature is whether we should separate works from their problematic creators. Many of my literature classes have grappled with the issue of whether or not we should be reading the books of men who have sexually harassed or abused women. I know many people who no longer listen to Michael Jackson or R. Kelly because of their abusive behavior. Overall, most can agree that it is problematic to support abusive artists when they financially benefit from it, but we are still caught up in the debate of whether their work should be appreciated in the same way when no financial transaction is involved. The case of “Falcon Boy” is unique because the artist and his estate do not profit from the statue remaining on campus, though it should be noted that if this statue was bought from the artist or his trust, there is a chance that institutional funds could have supported the Nazi. Further, the statue has no surface-level ties to the Nazi regime and has no iconographic ties to the group. Some have tried to argue that the statue is harmless because it depicts the deceased younger brother of the artist, implying that we should feel ashamed for denying the familial history of the artist. In this case, we must recognize that artistic production will always be an extension of the ideals of an individual, otherwise art would have no connection to the social world we live in. The art we make is in constant conversation with our lives and responds to our experiences and hopes for the future, and thus, a piece of art will always stand for the character of the individual who made it. We do not want the expression of someone who even sympathized with, let alone participated in, the Nazi regime on our campus. For the sake of Jewish students on campus, as well as those who come from other groups targeted and murdered by the Nazi party—we cannot forget that Hitler targeted Black people, the Roma and Sinti, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people with mental and physical disabilities, women, and so many other groups—these ideals cannot be on our campus. Fritz von Graeventiz does not belong in our inclusive community. We have often been met with the argument that this statue somehow represents the history of the Holocaust, and, by demanding its removal, we forget our “shared history.” I, and so many others, am tired of the eurocentric and colonialist belief that European history must be the dominant history in education and cultural attitudes. I do not deny that we must learn from the Holocaust and the rise of the Nazi regime in Europe, especially as we recover from a presidency that teetered on fascism and invited racist, sexist, and xenophobic beliefs into our political discourses and legal decisions. However, it is infuriating that those who advocate for “shared history” are really advocating for the celebration of times when white supremacy ran rampantly through our society and justified the murder of millions of people. If we want a piece of art that teaches its viewers about the Holocaust, the murder of two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population, and the terrors of World War II, it should not be an ambiguous representation of a Nazi’s deceased younger brother. Many have told us that “Falcon Boy” represents history, but I wonder how a piece of art can represent or teach us about history when there is no explanation accompanying it. How can the struggle of those who fought during World War II be represented when the observer has no idea what they are looking at? Every museum that responsibly features historical art and artifacts from the lowest points in human history has explanations along with their work, but the display of “Falcon Boy” lacked this integral aspect. What can be learned when there is no direct message about war being conveyed? Ramirez, Mameesh, and I knew that when we went public with our discovery we were making ourselves susceptible to the opinions of the general public. We knew that people get uncomfortable when groups of diverse and empowered women target the structures of power and privilege that exist in the United States and beyond. Our petition was ridiculed with trolls and we received emails from ‘Boomers’ and ‘Karens,’ but we also received an overwhelming amount of love and support from our community. It is still hard to fathom that over 1,300 people stood with us and that we had our pursuit featured on several news outlets. Our intentions have always been to make the Saint Mary’s community inclusive for all, and we will continue to fight for this with this endeavor and others so long as we are students here. We hope that this petition shows the power of our voices when we come together, and urge supporters to keep fighting for our demands to be met. Although a Commencement Ceremony is unlikely to occur this Spring students should have been given input on the College’s decision to cancel the ceremony, not notified of a decision through an email.
By Victoria Vidales Editor-in-Chief On January 28th the Office of the Registrar sent an email to all Saint Mary’s students notifying them that the 2021 Commencement Ceremony had been canceled. Undergraduate and Graduate students for Saint Mary’s classes of 2020 and 2021 will not be given a traditional graduation ceremony, instead, be divided amongst a weekend for a drive thru ceremony. Although a Commencement Ceremony is unlikely to occur this Spring students should have been given input on the College’s decision to cancel the ceremony, not notified of a decision through an email. To be clear, I am not advocating for holding a standard commencement ceremony in the Spring if our country remains in the same situation that we are in now. The joy of a commencement ceremony is not worth the health risks of my fellow graduates, our loved ones, and the thousands of people we will run into contact with after the celebration. I am being critical of Saint Mary’s administration’s approach to handling this situation, which seems to not consider the needs of their students. In the email addressed to Saint Mary’s alumni and graduating students the Office of the Registrar announced that the traditional commencement ceremonies will be traded with a drive thru ceremony, and an online website. The email claimed that this trade was necessary to respect the “ongoing health crisis, and in order to ensure a commencement experience that is inclusive and accessible.” The Office of the Registrar continued, claiming that although the “[College community] cannot celebrate in our usual fashion, we hope that these events will honor our students, our traditions, and will offer families and friends the opportunity to celebrate.” While the announcement of this decision was expected, the early, and method of the announcement were disappointing for graduating students. To begin, the announcement of the cancellation of the commencement ceremony was an early call to make by Saint Mary’s administration. To have decided in January that a commencement ceremony will not take place at all in May, is not only premature with the immense progress our country is making with vaccinations, but seems to be a cop out by administration to not forfeit the expenses, and time that it takes to plan a commencement ceremony. Saint Mary’s administration is not even attempting to hold a commencement ceremony at a later date, instead, choosing to throw in the towel on uncertain circumstances as a way to not deal with the instability. The possibility of holding a graduation in the late Summer, or early Fall, is not being entertained, which would provide some more months to provide change. Saint Mary’s administration is not waiting for time to settle, instead, choosing to dismiss the classes of 2020 and 2021. With the direction the College took it seems as if administration is more interested in preserving school funds than honoring their graduating students. Recently, students have been notified that Saint Mary’s administration is preparing for on campus instruction in August, and requiring first year students to once again live on campus. If the administration feels confident that health and safety guidelines will permit rising occupancy, and in person instruction in the late summer, is a commencement ceremony at that time so far-fetched? Regardless of these criticisms, the handling of the email was in poor taste as well. The email was not signed by specific members of the Saint Mary’s community, but instead, wiped away as a letter sent automatically on behalf of the Registrar’s Office. They were not called to a virtual townhall, invited to Office Hours with the president, or given a chance to voice their concerns. Students expect emails such as this to contain information regarding adding and dropping courses, and paying their statements. They do not expect to learn that their commencement ceremony is being canceled. The email makes no mention of President Donahue’s opinions, as he is absent from addressing his students. Although President Donahue is retiring this summer as of now he is still the leader of the College, and still holds the responsibility for any actions the College takes. As our campus leader he should have written or prepared a video for graduating students, letting them know the decisions on the table. Instead, he has not attached his name to an announcement, leaving the decision process to the Board of Trustees. These actions would have showed Saint Mary’s students that there is acknowledgement for the deep disappointment this announcement would bring. The majority of graduating seniors have been attending Saint Mary’s since their first year of college. For four years they have stood by this institution, paying the high cost of tuition to receive an incredible education. For the administration to seemingly “dismiss” their graduating students from this institution at the conclusion of this year is a betrayal to the community they have asked us to support. The College leaders have asked the graduating students to stand by them for four years, yet, in the students’ moment of need, the College leaders have refused to stand by them. Saint Mary’s graduates deserved more respect from the higher ups within the Saint Mary’s community to inform them of their change in commencement respectfully, not be told through an email, as if their accomplishments were afterthoughts. However, this year it seems as if Saint Mary’s administration believes that students have become so normalized with major life events being canceled, a simple email will do. Although a welcomed change from Trump, President Biden needs to be held accountable for promises his administration has made. Biden’s presidency is not an opening to lack of political activism, but instead, a sign for a need to continue.
By Brent Dondalski Opinion Columnist Donald Trump’s four years of presidency resulted in some of the most appalling moments in modern American history. Whether it be the horrifying mishandling of COVID-19 that lead to over 500,000 deaths or telling white supremacists on live television to “stand back and stand by,” there rarely seemed a day that felt “normal.” However, Donald Trump did not invent our capitalist healthcare system nor white supremacy. He certainly exacerbated these problems, yet he was often acting as a symptom rather than a disease. Under the new Biden administration, we cannot revert to our country’s old “normal” when the country’s issues were more passively accepted because Trump wasn’t around to make them obvious. The Biden administration should be held to the highest of standards in crafting policy that fundamentally changes America’s deep-rooted flaws, and to demand anything less is to do ourselves and other Americans a disservice. Looking at how he incited a coup and tried everything he could to overturn a perfectly legitimate election, another Trump term could have meant the end of American democracy as we knew it. The 2020 election felt like a car speeding towards the edge of cliff, and successfully voting Biden into office was what ultimately hit the brakes. But now it is time to get this vehicle on the right road. I am glad Biden is president instead of Trump. I am not glad Biden is president in general. The Biden Administration and their Democrat colleagues have not given me much to really be glad about. They told me and my fellow Americans that we would be receiving a $2000 stimulus check “immediately” after inauguration. I have yet to receive mine. On October 28th 2019, current Vice-President Kamala Harris tweeted she would “end all for-profit detention centers,” referring to the Homestead immigration facility where instances of child abuse and prison-like conditions were reported. Just a couple days ago the Miami Herald reported that the Biden administration is planning on reopening Homestead. General Lloyd J. Austin III is on the board of directors for Raytheon, an extremely wealthy and powerful defense contracting corporation that has made billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, many of which were used to strike civilians in Yemen according to The New York Times. Joe Biden named Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III to be secretary of defense. As I wrote this very article it was reported the Joe Biden just launched an airstrike in Syria, which he did. I could dig into Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s past records for more objectionable policy choices, but to do so would be redundant at this point. Many of the issues I had with Donald Trump, in terms of policy, I also have with Biden and other moderate Democrats, albeit in a reduced capacity. But these issues don’t belong to Trump or to Biden; they belong to America. America’s history of economic disenfranchisement, xenophobia, and imperialism are structurally entrenched into our society and surgically uprooting them through strong redistributive policy is the only way we can truly solve these problems. Biden and the entire Democratic Party must be concerned with more than being a friendlier face than Trump and the Republicans, because as of now they are still upholding hegemonic power structures that harm people. Biden even said himself on the campaign trail that “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change” if he’s elected. I cannot imagine a more disheartening statement from a politician. Biden would not be president if it weren’t for the hundreds of thousands of young progressive activists who turned out to vote for him despite his problematic record and moderate policy platform. Just take a look at the Path to Progress Instagram account, formally known as Settle for Biden, which amassed nearly 300,000 followers in its campaign to convince young progressive voters to do just as the name suggests. Biden’s disappointing start to the presidency is a slap in the face to all the voters who voted for him despite their reservations, which at this point appear somewhat justified. However, this is also the historical trajectory of politicians and the people they govern. Rarely do politicians willingly hand the people what they need. The people have to demand it, whether it be through organizing, protesting, building a strong community, getting directly involved in politics, or all of the above. This is why I am calling on all Americans, especially those who voted for Biden, to demand more from him and his administration. In the previous four years people have brought signs to protests that infamously read “if Hillary were president we’d be at brunch right now.” Similarly, I read a popular tweet the other day that read “I have no idea what Joe Biden did all weekend and it's f*****g glorious.” I understand the relief of not having Trump’s volatile and destructive behavior in the White House anymore, but this attitude will only make our country’s issues worse. We cannot ignore Biden simply because he isn’t Trump or because he is a Democrat or because we voted for him. If you’re a person of privilege you may feel reassured by Biden’s civil presentation and his familiar presence, but to the single immigrant mother who lost her job in the pandemic Biden’s friendly face is inconsequential until she gets that stimulus check that is rightfully hers. From there, it needs to be an uphill battle towards ending poverty, providing health insurance, crafting humanitarian immigration policy that actually aims to help people, and so much more. Biden is president now, we don’t have to settle anymore. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Cowardly Left His State to Escape to Mexico With His Family While State Was Freezing and Citizens in Need
By Riley Mulcahy Opinion Columnist Like the words of the classic James Taylor song “Mexico,” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas needed a reason to go, that reason turned out to be the fact that the state of Texas was freezing and his citizens were in dire need of assistance. Instead of remaining with his constituents, Senator Cruz and his wife Heidi decided to go with their preteen daughters to Mexico. When questioned about his decision, Cruz claimed that his daughters wanted to go to Cancun and that he was just “trying to be a good dad.” Leaked text messages show that Heidi Cruz complained about the “freezing” weather, shared the family’s plans to stay at the Ritz Carlton Hotel and invited her friends to tag along. Cruz’s blatant disregard for human life is atrocious. While his family was traveling to Mexico, trying to vacation and have a good time, Texas was in a state of emergency. Power outages and freezing conditions left many without a place to live, and Cruz could not be bothered to help. Instead of organizing with fellow Texas Republicans Governor Greg Abbott and fellow Senator John Corbyn, there was no sense of organization. Cruz’s former Senate race rival Beto O'Rourke and New York City Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to do Cruz’s job for him and raise more than 5 million dollars, according to CNN. The lack of connection between Cruz and his constituents highlights the deepening divide of the partisan nation we live in and the real economic discrepancies that should not be present in 2021. Cruz used his position of power to flee a dangerous situation while Texans froze to death. According to The Wall Street Journal, the death toll will take months to determine, however, causes of death that have been determined include hypothermia and carbon monoxide. Cruz’s impromptu trip is not just a reflection on him; instead, it reflects what Republicans view as good leadership. While Cruz’s actions directly affected millions of Texans, it also showed the recent lows former President Trump has brought to the party. The notion that a leader would flee when he is needed most is unfathomable; however, it has become the norm in the Republican party. When COVID-19 was threatening the lives of millions of Americans nationwide, Trump took the moment to tout ineffective drugs (i.e., Hydroxychloroquine) and claim the virus is a hoax. Still, millions of Americans supported the Republican Party. According to NBC News, during the January 6th capitol riots, Cruz’s campaign asked for donations: during an insurrection. Instead of condemning white nationalism and hatred that was present on that infamous day, Cruz took the time to get donations from his supporters. Cruz’s lack of compassion is astonishing, however, it is not surprising if you look into his record. In 2013, Cruz came to fame after he completed a 21-hour filibuster, protesting the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Let that sink in, a person who tried to block millions of Americans from getting health insurance left the country after losing power and cold conditions during a national pandemic. Good leadership should not be determined by a flashy slogan or a charismatic leader. It should be based on the person’s morals, values, and how they treat people. Cruz, time and time again, has shown that he cannot express empathy for others and deflects blame whenever possible. Instead of owning up to his mistake, he pointed to his fatherhood and daughters as an excuse for why he left Texas during a national emergency. A good leader does not leave when the going gets tough, they rally the troops and help out when they can, and from O'Rourke's and Rep. Ocasio Cortez’s example, he most heartily could have helped out the great state of Texas. Texas will have a vital decision to make in 2022, support Cruz and his arrogance or find a new path forward. Although the traditionally red state would be challenging to flip blue, it is not impossible. President Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton by three percent and came within six points of former President Trump. Time will only tell if Texans will hold Ted Cruz politically accountable in the future, however, until then Cancun Cruz is here to stay. With the politicization of COVID-19 mask wearing, and changes to guidelines every which way how can the American public know if they are protected enough?
By Emmanuel Simon Opinion Columnist The greatest superheroes wear masks. Batman wears a mask, Spiderman wears a mask, Superman doesn’t wear a mask, (and if he did, maybe kryptonite wouldn’t be his weakness!) But have you ever heard of a superhero who wears two masks? According to the CDC and other ‘experts’, you can be a superhero by wearing, not one, but TWO masks. You can be like Batman and save lives by just putting on two masks. But wait! How is Batman or Spiderman going to chase after the bad guy if they are wearing masks beneath their mask? They’ll get a notable COVID symptom: shortness of breath! Perhaps masking while fighting bad guys isn’t a good idea after all. We want to prevent COVID symptoms, not chase after them. As a society, we too seek to be heroes by putting on masks. According to U.C. Davis’ research, wearing one mask protects a person from getting the virus by 65% (give or take a few depending on the mask). But, by wearing two masks, a disposable mask underneath a cloth mask, you can protect yourself from getting the virus by 90% (give or take a few). According to these ‘experts’, if you really want to be safe from COVID, you should protect yourself by wearing two masks. Wearing two masks to protect yourself from COVID doesn’t sound like a crazy idea at all, right? If it helps to prevent the spread of COVID isn’t it well worth it? On the other hand, you might be wondering, why not three? Wouldn’t three masks prevent the spread of COVID even better than two? Why not wear one disposable mask underneath two cloth masks? But if three masks prevent the spread of COVID more than two, does four masks prevent the spread of COVID more than three? And so on. I don’t see why not, do you? Certainly, different masks appear to offer different levels of protection. For example, one N95 offers more protection than a cloth or disposable mask. However, it is claimed that wearing a disposable mask underneath a cloth mask offers around the same protection as an N95. If that’s the case, would wearing three masks, a disposable under two clothes for example, be even more effective than wearing two masks or even an N95? Is it worth ditching the N95 for three or four masks if that means slowing down the spread of COVID even more? After all, aren’t we told to wear masks for the safety of ourselves and others? Perhaps wearing three or four masks is an act of charity! At this point, one probably has more of a chance suffocating by wearing four masks than by dying from COVID-19. Breathing is important, so perhaps if four masks make it hard for you to breath, just wear three. Problem solved, right? Not quite. Let's consider the following situation. Suppose our fictional character Karen attempts to wear four masks in order to reduce the probability of her getting and/or spreading COVID. After putting on the fourth mask, she finds it very difficult to breath. Karen takes off one mask so she can breathe better. However, having three masks on, she again finds it difficult to breath. Karen therefore takes off another mask, wearing two. For some reason, Karen finds it difficult to breathe with two masks, so she decides to wear only one. Again, (perhaps because of health reasons) Karen finds it difficult to breathe with one mask, so she wears none. It seems that places that mandate masks are inconsiderate of those who can’t wear one comfortably. You may be wondering what the point of all this is. Well, it seems to me that our friends who recommend wearing more than one mask are destroying the credibility behind wearing masks. Ever since the pandemic started, COVID has been used for political purposes. To the perspective of some, the decision and reasoning behind wearing two masks is merely arbitrary. If a person is going to wear two masks since two masks are better than one, a person might as well wear ten masks since ten masks are better than two. Where are we going to draw the line? In his Inaugural Address, President Biden noted the need for unity amongst all Americans. Politicizing COVID will do the very opposite. Given the arbitrariness behind double masking, the promotion of such appears to be a political tool. Now, if the ‘experts’ or some other person wants to double mask, they can go for it. There’s no one stopping them. After all, it’s their body, their choice! But let's be consistent. The Star-Spangled Banner should be played at national sporting events as a sign of countrymen striving for unification as one American nation.
By Katelyn McCarthy Opinion Columnist There is one trait we Americans have inherited from our immortal wordsmith, Thomas Jefferson, that stands out among the others: spunk. It is ingrained in us that, because governments are created so as to secure for the individual his inalienable rights, “whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” While most Americans do not advocate the overthrow of our government, a decent chunk of the populace does support the overhaul of elements of our shared culture. The latest example of this cultural purification is the now-reversed decision by the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban, to cease playing the Star-Spangled Banner at home games. Lauded by some and criticized by others, Mr. Cuban stated that his reasoning for initially ceasing the anthem’s fanfare was due to the fact that “In listening to the community, there were quite a few people who voiced their concerns, really their fears that the national anthem did not fully represent them, that their voices were not being heard. So we've had a lot of conversations about whether or not we should play the anthem.” Mr. Cuban turns an ear to the argument that, since some players and fans choose to kneel in protest during the playing of the anthem, the song should be avoided to best appease people. But doesn’t doing so devoid a protestor of his ability to protest? In a way, I think that the fact that one can kneel during the anthem (or burn a flag, as well) is indicative of America’s greatness—only a country that is truly free respects her people’s right to disrespect her. We are lucky to live in a country that lets us hate her. Not all people are so fortunate. Others assert that the national anthem needn’t be played at sporting events because it does not inhere in athletics. While it certainly is objectively true that sports and the Star-Spangled Banner are not blood-related, there is something to be said for tradition. The anthem began to be sung at sporting games during World War I and World War II. It is in times of national crisis that the anthem has been sung with the greatest zeal. If our time is one of crisis, which I think few would deny, then to come together in a reminder of our shared brotherhood seems like a beneficial strategy. Yet another criticism levelled against the national anthem is that the third verse contains a remark regarding the comeuppance of the “hireling and slave” who chose to fight with the British against the American forces. (It is not clear whether this phrase refers to enslaved African Americans or to British mercenaries, but I shall entertain the former understanding, as it is the reading which those who oppose the anthem prefer). While the third verse is not sung at sporting events (nor, so far as I am aware, anywhere), the very fact of its virtually unknown existence is cause enough for some to pile the anthem onto the ash heap of history. A final, broader complaint against the song is that it is indicative of a country closed to those who are not of European descent. To play it reinforces old prejudices of white superiority and alienates the rest of the American population. America, then, is racist, through and through. Interestingly enough, an unofficial fifth verse, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., was added to the Star-Spangled Banner during the Civil War. It reads as follows: When our land is illum'd with Liberty's smile, If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory, Down, down, with the traitor that dares to defile The flag of her stars and the page of her story! By the millions unchain'd who our birthright have gained We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained! And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave While the land of the free is the home of the brave. Holmes recognizes here that his America had not yet achieved her ideal of liberty but that true republicans would stand firm until she did. America faces adversaries, sometimes from within her very ranks, but she is not they. Perhaps those who dislike the anthem might find some solace in knowing that, while there are bad actors in every avenue of life, there are good men, too, and to define America by her baser parts is a cruel slight against the nobler among her. In focusing on the good, Holmes was able to sing of his country, fraught though she was with division and prejudice. Can we do the same? Will we choose to concentrate on the evils of the third verse, or the nobility of the fifth? Is our flag adamantine, or does she ripple with the flow of the wind? Will we strangle her, the emblem of liberty, even if as yet imperfectly attained, or will we advance her further against the throes of bondage that the warm rays of freedom might shine more perfectly upon her? Shall our shoulders broaden into those of giants, or shall they wither with the atrophy of despair? In other words, do we want to give up on our country, or shall we strive to make her better? We can abandon her, fail to sing her praises where they are rightfully due while pointing out her every flaw, or we can bask in her freedoms while simultaneously expanding them. Loving America and hating racism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the one cannot be had without the other. So, perhaps we should use our Jeffersonian “spunk” not to work against our nation but to better her, to push her forward along paths yet untraveled while being sure that it is she, and not some messy amalgamation of individuals, for which we stand. In so doing, I think that we can best become one people, united and truly free, able to lift our voices in one song and under one flag. |
STAFFMadison Sciba '24, Archives
October 2023
Categories |