Author Archives: Arya Sanghavi

Affirmative Action

Posted on by

As college students, a topic of public controversy that I believe weighs heavily on the youth of this country is affirmative action. We live in a sad reality where we consider our society progressive and modern yet still fail to acknowledge all individuals as equal. The United States and New York City, in particular, are taking measures to correct the discriminatory atrocities that have shaped much of the western world’s history that still exist today. Such measures include affirmative action. However, in an attempt to successfully give minorities and people of color a leveled playing field, the very same system is neglecting merit and recognition from those that are believed to be “privileged”.

To project our voices on how affirmative action impacts the CUNY education system, we made a compilation of students from different campuses to embody the mixed opinions on affirmative action. Our project was divided into a video that had footage of people we personally asked about affirmative action and a poster that stood as political art.

Using a boxing match analogy, we showed how there are two unique takes on the affirmative action policy.


The link to our video cannot be posted as many of the people we interviewed were uncomfortable with having their opinions associated with their name on a public website. However, attached below are screenshots of two of the CUNY students we interviewed for our video.

 

The affirmative action initiative has been widely debated for several years in the United States and yet no one person can be proved right due to the many arguments both for and against. Being students in the Macaulay Honors program at Baruch College, we consider ourselves fortunate to be surrounded by such rich diversity. Learning from the plethora of cultures our peers bring to the table, we are able to give ourselves eclectic personalities. It will be a utopian education system the day affirmative action is not a conflict of debate and where diverse students who are like-minded have the provision to thrive collectively.

 

Group Members: Felicia Napoli, Shermeen Khan, Arya Sanghavi and Rom Raviv

 

Is Our Democracy Truly Democratic ?

Posted on by

The traditional cause for revolution is no longer needed as the American government has created democracy for its citizens. But once a society becomes democratized in its political system and more egalitarian in its social institutions, it is unlikely that it will ever undergo the type of revolutionary upheavals experienced by France in 1789 and England in the 164os. In a speech to the British Parliament, Ronald Reagan announced that the United States was about to throw its prestige and resources behind a program launched to strengthen “democracy throughout the world,” but he made no reference to the idea of democratic citizenship or any suggestion that democracy might need strengthening at home.

A democratic conception of citizenship, if it means anything at all, means that the citizen is supposed to exercise his rights to advance or protect the kind of polity that depends on his being involved in its common concerns. The liberal view was that citizenship is democratic in the United States because every citizen, regardless of cultural, social, economic, and biological differences, can equally claim the right to vote, speak, worship, acquire property and have it protected, and be assured of the elements of a fair trial. Unfortunately, the liberal civic culture never supplied any content to rights. The Constitution was not designed to encourage citizen action but to prevent arbitrary power, especially the form of power represented by the will of the majority. Among several of the states, the majority principle was being actively tested in the period from the outbreak of the Revolution in 1776 to the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The Constitution was intended to shatter the majoritarian experiment at the national level by incorporating several devices that were supposed to frustrate the natural form of democratic action: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, the Supreme Court, indirect election of the president and Senate, and brief tenure for representatives.

At almost the exact moment when the liberal theory of rights was about to be given the material form of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, James Madison, who was the prime mover of that effort, also produced what came to be the classical formulation of the liberal theory of politics. In Letter 10 of the Federalist papers, he argued that one of the sternest tests for the proposed Constitution would be whether it could control “factions,” the distinctive form of politics in a society founded on freedom. Instead of playing the role of defender of rights, the government assumed a function more consistent with the politics of interest groups, that of “balancing” rights against certain overriding matters of state. Thus when wider latitude was given to the CIA and FBI to conduct surveillance, or when First Amendment rights of the press were limited by the prohibition against disclosing the names of CIA agents, the government’s justification was that there had to be a balancing of national security needs with civil liberties, as though the setting were simply another instance of having to weigh the demands of conflicting groups.

Throughout the nineteenth century and down to the New Deal, property rights, rather than civil or political rights, dominated American politics-even the issue of slavery was formulated as a matter of rights of ownership. But in the twentieth century, especially after World War II, it has been the civil rights of citizens that have been contested, not only in the courts and before administrative tribunals, but in the arena of interest-group politics. Rights to abortion, sexual freedom, freedom from censorship, public education free of religious influences, rights of privacy against sophisticated surveillance, affirmative action quotas-these and a multitude of other issues are an indication of how profoundly politicized rights have become, how unassured their status is. Beginning with the New Deal, liberals argued that political rights were formal and ineffective if citizens did not have jobs, social security, unemployment compensation, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, access to higher education, and, in general, a decent standard of living. or more than three decades the thinking behind as well as the substance of public policies dealing with the poor, the unemployed, and racial minorities, have treated them as having a pariah status quite unlike other interests.

The tacit assumption of interest-group politics has always been that there was one common element among farmers, workers, employers, and teachers, etc.: they were all productive in one way or another. Those who are poor, unemployed and members of racial minorities can be treated differently, in ways that are divisive, that render them incapable of sustained political action. They are “targeted” by specialized programs that, in effect, fragment their lives.

The practical task is to nurture existing movements that can provide constructive forms for rejectionism and make it genuinely political. The most important of these are the grassroots movements that have become epidemic throughout the country. While it is of the utmost importance that Democrats support and encourage political activity at the grassroots level, it is equally necessary that the political limitations of such activity be recognized.

 

– A.S

RE(ACT)

Posted on by

“United we stand, divided we fall.” In times of crisis, it’s imperative that a nation comes together as one collective unit. But in the 1980’s AIDS crises that we faced, the country was anything but supportive. Ignorant to the thousands of deaths of gay men, society carried on living their lives pretending that others were being deprived of this option. However, the ACT-UP organization took a stand and spoke for those that were being suppressed.  Consisting of both victims and those who were trying to make a difference, the ACT UP group used non-violent protests to project their voice over all those oblivious to the seriousness of the situation. Furthermore, they conducted these protests in “sacred spaces” to efficiently convey their message and to catch the attention of the nation.

Often seen as controversial, the use of “sacred space” was a critical piece of the ACT UP movement. They invaded hospitals to talk about how such institutions served to care and cure-all withheld treatment from those suffering from Aids. Furthermore, they stormed Catholic churches accusing them responsible for metaphorically and quite literally killing the LGBT community.  In a space where countless are worshipping God and praying for others, it was necessary for them to acknowledge the pain being inflicted upon gays. Moving from religious institutions to political institutions, the ACT UP organization stood loud and proud on the front lawn of the country’s home: The White House. Pouring the ashes of those that were lost to the unfortunate disease, ACT UP reminded the government that they needed to be responsible for their actions and needed to start taking care of all their citizens. Though unconventional, the approach the ACT UP group used was pivotal in showing the blatant disregard the nation was showing when their people needed them the most.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, ” In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” Using words instead of actions can seem anything but empowering and a slow way to instill change. Nonetheless, all wars are not fought by guns. The ACT UP movement stood as inspiration for many peaceful protests to come after. Using media coverage, they effectively reached all minds even those trying to “forget”. It’s not always about winning, but more importantly, being heard and showing the world you’re not scared to speak up.

My group’s topic is affirmative action. ACT UP lives as a perfect example of activism around my topic. Using non-violent means such as peaceful protests. Similarly,  like the ACT UP group, the affirmative action community is greatly diversified and has strength in numbers. Taking away from the ACT UP strategies, affirmative action protesters should seek help from media coverage to bolster their cause and amplify their voice. Most importantly, the ACT UP group teaches all that to make a difference, one should not stick to the ordinary means but be bold in trying to reach the minds of those that refuse to listen.

– Arya Sanghavi

Young Lords – Extra Credit : Arya

Posted on by
  1. What is the legacy of the Young Lords party? 

The New York City Young Lords Organization was founded by a group of mostly Puerto Rican students from SUNY-Old Westbury, Queens College and Columbia University. They were inspired by the Black Panther Party (BPP) and a group called the Young Lords in Chicago, Illinois. Representing the Puerto Rican community of New York City, the young lords served as a group that acted as a voice for those who were too afraid to speak out. They decided to focus their energy on the communities in which they had actual roots: the Puerto Rican communities on the Lower East Side and in East Harlem. They continued to build an autonomous student movement, while at the same time training students to be community organizers. They educated themselves so that they could empower others. They encouraged further studies and literacy for all. The Puerto Rican communities in New York were always overlooked by the city sanitation departments and other government services in general. Furthermore, healthcare was a major lacking feature in these communities. They organized the Health Revolutionary Unity Movement (HRUM), a mass organization which was made up of Puerto Rican and Black medical workers based in Gouverneur Hospital on the Lower East Side and other hospitals in Harlem.

   2.  Why do they matter for today?

The Young Lords fought for all Latinos. They made it their mission to guarantee and protect their born given rights. Many are oblivious to the existence of the Young Lords and what they did for their people, even new generation Latinos. Forgotten in the history books, their legacy is forgotten. But for those who are aware of them, realize that their actions left an impact that changed the lives for many to come. They matter now more than ever because the Young Lords serve as an inspiration for those hungry for change but don’t know how. While the organization may have corrected many of the political and social atrocities imposed on to the Latinos, the discrimination still lives amongst them. In neighborhoods where Latino families have been living for generations, gentrification is occurring and people are getting kicked out of their homes. Moreover, struggling to keep their families fed and a roof over their heads, Latinos are restricted to low-income jobs and unskilled labor by the racial restrictions of many white collared jobs. Looking up to authoritative figures such as the Young Lords, these kids have a path paved for them to instill change in their communities.

3. How does the film frame the answers for those questions?  

In the film, there are many characters with each person contributing a unique perspective to the young lords legacy. Mateo is an elderly male who’s wife just passed away. He’d lost his purpose in life, but soon after finds it in teaching oblivious about the Young Lords at a class in a community college. Milly, in my opinion, represents the epitome of the Latino struggle. She is a young adult who has to work long hours to help provide for her family. Her father is a janiotor who is very controlling and restricts her from many things. The low budget setting and cast for the movie was surprisingly fitting for the message trying to be conveyed. In the scene where they first learn about the Young Lords, one of the girls says it’s all bullshit as “nothing has changed.”, but Mateo quickly points out that her speaking out is what the Young Lords empowered their people to do. The movie shows the transition from a bunch of individuals unsatisfied with their life coming together as one unit under the eyes of the Young Lord.

 

 

Were We Better Off Without The War ?

Posted on by

The face of New York City’s landscape was completely changed politically, geographically, economically and socially post world war one.

Once the war was declared and the United States had allied themselves against Germany, German immigrants were torn between supporting their home country or their new home. Choosing allegiance was difficult for immigrant families as they wanted to avoid criticism from White American citizens, but at the same time wanted to be patriotic towards their native land. Prominent German Americans such as George Sylvester Viereck, a poet, continuously defended Germany and raised funds for relief. After it was discovered that he was under Kaiser’s payroll, the poetry society of America revoked his membership. Soon after, Theodore Roosevelt declared all hyphenated Americans devote their loyalty to the American cause without hesitation. The Germans were generally known for their achievements in science, literature, etc. But the war tension made people look at them with suspicion, even the loyal Germans. To avoid scrutiny and hatred, famous German institutions such as The German Hospital and Dispensary became “Lenox Hill Hospital”. Furthermore, German- speaking churches switched to the English language.  Like the Germans, many other ethnic groups felt the pain of war and returned to fight for their native country. Jewish New Yorkers, who fled Russian Persecution were not eager to support Russia in the war. While most Americans encouraged the war, there were also many who opposed the cause. Jewish anarchists living in East Harlem printed circulars criticizing America’s intervention in the war. In August 1918, they were arrested under the sedition act and were deported to Russia. The Irish Americans were not in favor of America’s alignment with Britain as the British suppressed Dublin’s Easter Rebellion of 1916. They thanked Germany for supporting the cause of the Irish freedom.

The war greatly disrupted immigration to America from Europe. Before the war began, there were about 1.2 million immigrants. During the war, only 110,330 people arrived on American soil. Numbers began going back to normal after the war ended. However, Congress then passed the National Origins Act, which limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. After the war, German influence had diminished. Many moved from Brooklyn and Queens to sections in Manhattan. This was made possible by the ever-expanding subway. Moreover, innovation was sparked and new laws enabled buildings with self-operating elevators to replace old walk up tenements. Queens and Bronx were changed to give way to garden apartments as getting to work was made easier by mass transportation. With new Schools and hospitals, almost everything was being constructed. Jacob Ruppert built Yankee Stadium right opposite Harlem, South Bronx. While most “ghetto” immigrant neighborhoods were mixed, East Harlem was taken over by the Jews and Italians. The Irish started moving to nicer neighborhoods and left the slums of lower Manhattan. Following the path of the upward moving Irish, the Jews traced their footsteps and migrated to the Bronx for a better way of life. Neighborhoods such as Fieldstone and Riverside in the Bronx were closed to the Jews because of anti-sematic laws. While the Italians weren’t as successful as the Jews, they started moving away from the congested mulberry blend.

Even though European migration was reduced following the war, the Black population drastically increased. In 1930, the Black population was about 327,706 people (4.7% of NYC’s population). A number of Blacks worked as domestic help in the homes of affluent white residents. Many Whites became anxious at the black influx into Harlem, “their neighborhood”. From Harlem emerged a new artistic output stressing a unique Black culture. Black people had to pay more for a three-bedroom apartment than White people had to- about eight dollars more per month. Incomes started to rise for the Germans and Irish post war. Germans moved into skilled laboring positions and the Irish were given jobs on the city’s payroll through politics. Irish women started gaining influence in teaching at schools. However, political power started shifting away from Tammany Hall and the Irish when Hyman Schorenstein became the first democratic Jewish district leader In Brownsville. After the war, Athletics were reformed too. Immigrants who weren’t allowed to participate before, played in the big leagues for baseball. While many Jewish and Italians lacked the facilities to improve their game, players like Hank Greenberg and Joe DiMaggio revolutionized the game and became idols to millions of immigrants. Most Jews made the big money and attained great fame through the sport of Boxing. Many Jews on the other hand sought out to become educated.

Through the city schools such as Hunter, Jewish women started to become recognized as teachers. But because of the anti-Semitism that occurred in New York City, schools such as NYU and Columbia restricted Jewish enrollment. A vast number of immigrants and their American offspring indulged in illegal activities to make ends meet. Quite a few of the Irish involved in politics started taking bribes. Also, the enactment of national prohibition opened the door for ethnic bootleggers. From Brownsville, came Murder Inc: A combination of Jewish and Italians who specialized in killing rival gang members. The roaring twenties did little for the Black community. They remained poor and discriminated against. After a lot of pressure, Edward Johnson became the first Black elected to New York State’s assembly. Blacks then started to move away from the Republican party to the Democratic party. Like the Black’s, Puerto Ricans in 1917 didn’t see much progress. They were employed largely in unskilled labor.

New York’s Asian population remained largely isolated from the ethnic groups. Chinatown was a bachelor society, with six men for every women. However, passing the area off as “opium dens” Chinatown became a tourist attraction. The Japanese generally settled in NYC in Brooklyn. They worked in the food service industry and others worked for the Japanese government. Indians who settled in NYC formed a Pan Aryan Association, which focused on ending British rule in the homeland. The Orthodox Jewish community was growing with the creation of Jewish day schools, yeshivas. New York City also received a lot of Ukrainians including about five thousand exiles from the communist revolution in the Soviet Union. New York City also inhabited the nation’s largest Greek population.

It’s evident that the war changed lives drastically for the immigrants in New York. For the Germans, Italians and Irish it was a period of prosperity where they moved into more refined neighborhoods. Jewish women were gaining importance out of the household. While it was a period of advancement it was also a time of turmoil for people of color as they were treated unfairly. The exclusion of specific people from high paying jobs and adequate housing really makes us contemplate the life lived in the 1900’s. It makes us feel that some are luckier than others being born into a certain religion or having a specific skin color. It’s scarring and still exists in some parts of “modern” New York today.

– A.S