NDSJ Facing History

Voting is a vital part of our democracy, and we encourage everyone who can to do so. Every vote makes a difference when there are nearly a quarter of a billion Americans at voting age. Each vote represents one voice, and silence can only mean that we have given up on our country, despite the many who have fought for us to have this right.

Donald Trump, a New York businessman, started his campaign with claims that Mexican immigrants are “rapists” and “criminals”. He’s started many arguments, including but not limited to with a judge, Miss Universe, Fox News anchor, and family of a fallen Muslim soldier. Additionally, Trump has been accused of sexual assault and was caught on camera referring to women using sexually offensive terms. He wants fewer restrictions on guns, less immigration, and ban abortion with some exceptions, all while claiming that he “doesn’t believe in climate change”.

Hillary Clinton, a previous Secretary of state, was cleared by the FBI after recently using her private email for official purposes. She wants to take in more refugees, supports the  LGBTQ community, and is a longtime supporter of renewable energy and climate research.

Aside from the presidential elections, Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez are two Democratic candidates running for representation of California in the US Senate. They share many of the same values, especially towards immigration, climate reform, and healthcare. There are also multiple contentious issues in this year’s propositions including cigarette tax, marijuana legalization, and the death penalty.

Transgender men, who formerly presented as female, have a unique perspective on the role of gender in society as they have lived on both sides of the spectrum. Trans men, particularly ones who pass (are not identified immediately as trans), have spoken of the increase in professional respect that they faced after the transition. They found their successes blew up and their mistakes often minimized, and their word was worth more in the workplace than it had been before. They were assumed correct until proven otherwise, whereas they recalled it being quite the opposite as women. Not only that, but they were privy to many of the belittling discussions of women that went on in the workplace- men offhandedly criticizing the looks of female coworkers or calling them demeaning names. They have found themselves moving up the ladder to managerial positions far more quickly, and are much sooner given more authority.

On the flip side, these same trans men also reported a loss of intimacy and increased fear, showing the bad on both sides of the gender standards. Male nurses have noticed that female patients are less open about their personal lives with them than they were when the nurses presented as female also. They were less likely to be confided in by these women and more likely to be viewed as a threat. As men, and often especially men of color, they are more likely to create fear in women. Children are advised to “go find a mommy” if they get lost- the men are inherently less trusted, more likely to be run away from, and trans men noticed this as well. They were more likely to fear the police and being perceived as a criminal- particularly those of African American descent- as a man, even as they no longer felt as concerned walking the streets at night. This unique perspective shows the double standards facing both men and women in and out of the workplace.

Economic issues are a huge factor that has been brought up during the presidential debates and briefly by the candidates. There are of course both pros and cons of raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $12. Although it can give over 35 million workers higher pay, according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute, it can also slow hiring and lead to higher prices in stores, restaurants, and other services. Here in California, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to gradually raise the state’s minimum wage to $15, joining New York and undoubtedly changing many lives. While workers in poverty will see a $20,000 to $30,0000 increase in their annual wages, this measure may cost California $4 billion dollars a year and impact employment rates.

What do the candidates say about it? Both candidates do not strongly stand by a definite viewpoint; however, Hillary Clinton has been more clear. Clinton stated before she would support raising minimum wage to $12 an hour as opposed to $15, advocating for low-income workers by the Democratic Party’s platform. She also supports state or local attempts, such as in California, and New York, to raise it even higher than 12 in big cities. Donald Trump, on the other hand, previously stated in the fall that he was opposed to increasing the minimum wage, but he now claims that the minimum wage should be at $10 with the final decision in the state's’ hands. He has been visibly avoiding this topic, which makes his opinion on this matter unclear. Why does this matter? Low-wage industries are where many jobs can be found. In 2015, the jobs with the highest employment were retail salespeople, cashiers, and fast-food workers, accounting for 11.3 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office found that even a minimum wage to $10.10 could lift around 900,000 people out of poverty. Furthermore, the rise to $10.10 will raise average family incomes below the poverty line by 2.8 percent. Contrary to popular belief, a large portion of low-wage jobs are not taken over by teenagers trying to earn extra money. Almost half of fast food restaurant jobs are taken over by adults over 25, and ¼ have children. In addition, there are around 1.7 million people who work below minimum wage (ex: tipped employees) and 21 million people who work just above minimum but below $10 an hour.

Written by Emily V. and Rabab K. 

He was an important figure in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s and is still a civil rights activist today, more than fifty years later. Although both Dr. King and he made significant advancements for the black community in the 60s, he admits that there is still a long way to go. Dr. Clarence Jones lastly shared that he did not attend the event to speak with us because someone had invited him to do so; he came to the event because Martin Luther King Jr. wanted him to.

On September 20th, Dr. Clarence Jones, a personal attorney, advisor, and friend to Martin Luther King Jr. spent his afternoon at Notre Dame High School to speak to SLG Facing History members from all over the Bay Area. Dr. Clarence Jones spoke briefly about his life growing up, and how he became a key figure in the struggle for civil rights in the 1960’s.

Dr. Clarence Jones grew up as the only child of two domestic servants. Growing up, his family did not have much money or his own home; he and his family lived in the house where his parents served. He shared with us what it meant for him to grow up as a young black boy. He never saw or identified himself by the color of his skin, until he was eleven. One day, some white boys his age yelled hateful and vulgar words at him. After this incident, he ran to his mother crying; she gave him some advice that he has never forgotten and has shaped him into the man he is today. She said to him: “You are beautiful”. She told her son never to forget these words and to ignore whatever anyone else told him. Later in his life, though he knew he was being treated differently because of his skin color, he did not take the insults to heart, and he became a lawyer, which was the reason he was given the opportunity to meet Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In his first encounter with Dr. King, he was not particularly enthusiastic about working for him, he had no interest in the civil rights movement at that moment. After all, he was a young black lawyer who had a career and no intention of getting involved in a preacher’s movement. However, he was convinced to go hear Dr. King speak at a nearby church. After listening to him talk, and after Dr. King indirectly addressed him in his speech, Dr. Jones was utterly impressed and agreed to help him with the movement. This was the decision that changed his life.

Dr. Clarence Jones helped draft the iconic I Have a Dream Speech, and assisted drafting the agreement with Birmingham to desegregate department stores. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the one of the most significant civil rights activists in the 60’s; however, many people are not aware of the significant work of Dr. Clarence Jones and other men who contributed to this movement.

After his speech at Notre Dame High School, he answered questions from the student leaders. One of the questions asked him what his opinion of the Black Lives Matter  movement is. He said that he has directly spoken to leaders of the present day movement, and he commends what they are doing.

Pro-gun

An important aspect of gun rights is the ability to use these weapons as self-defense as per the interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to a study conducted by the CDC, “guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and most firearm incidents are not fatal”. In fact, the study reports that non-fatal incidents in the United States that involve weapons or firearms happen 100% more than fatal incidents. Another study, called the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, spanned 48 states and involved 5,000 interviews. According to this study, guns or other firearms were used for defense in between 2.2 to 2.5 million times annually in the United States. Those who take a “pro-gun” stance generally argue that rather than being used as a tool for murder, guns have actively participated in the saving of lives. Another implication of this evidence is that people generally feel more secure knowing that they can use their firearms for defense in the appropriate situation. One of the biggest arguments for gun rights is the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 74% of the American population believe that this amendment gives people the constitutional right to own firearms. Many people supporting gun rights turn towards the Second Amendment, as it allows people the use of firearms for the purpose of self-defense and security in their persons and homes.

So how much of the American population is “pro-gun”? A public opinion survey in 2014 conducted by Rasmussen concluded that 53% of the population oppose stricter gun laws. The implication is that the majority of the population is content with the generally “pro-gun” status quo. Two more surveys from the year before concluded that just 19% of the population believes that gun control would reduce crime and 71% of the population believes that gun control would not solve for mass shootings.  

Anti-gun

The recent mass shootings in the United States have reignited calls to change the Second Amendment. According to Bloomberg, gun control activists argue that the original text of the second amendment was misinterpreted because of the lack of historical context as it was reinterpreted centuries after it was ratified. With the proper changes, the Second Amendment actually says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.” the difference being the small phrase that distinguishes from times of war and times of peace. The rewritten Second Amendment now states that the use of firearms becomes a right during times of war. According to the New Yorker, “Arms are military weapons. A firearm is a cannon that you can carry, as opposed to artillery so big and heavy that you need wheels to move it, or people to help you.” The implication is that the original interpretation no longer applies to a society in which almost anyone can own and physically carry a gun. For this reason, those who take an “anti-gun” stance desire to rewrite or repeal the Second Amendment.

Federal Candidates’ Views on Gun Control

This issue has also become a significant topic in the upcoming 2016 election. Trump has taken a stand in favor of the Second Amendment and has even been endorsed by the NRA (National Rifle Association) on his opposition to gun control. His view stems from the idea that only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns and therefore will be defenseless in violent circumstances. Trump also repeatedly claims “Well, the gun laws have nothing to do with this. This isn't guns. This is about mental illness” and that the mentally ill  who don’t have access towards and hospitals should not even have access to guns. However, Trump does still support a ban on armed weapons, as well as longer waiting periods for gun purchasing and sentences for crimes caused by guns.

Hilary, on the other hand, believes that it’s wrong for the gun industry to avoid accountability when lives of Americans are endangered because of the products they manufacture. She is seen as an ally in the fight for gun control due to her claims that it should be much harder to access a gun. This plan involves more stringent background checks, federal gun-tracking information for local police, and state/city local gun laws. Clinton essentially wishes to eliminate the idea that a gun can be bought “anywhere, anytime” and to avoid giving guns to the wrong individuals who do not have proper justification.

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaigns, Donald Trump has made his views on immigration incredibly clear. He has expressed on numerous occasions his belief that Mexicans as a conglomerate are criminals, and that he wishes to build a wall- and make Mexico fund it, no less. He has made his threats of deportation - potentially of all 11 million undocumented migrants, depending on the day - even worse with his unchecked offensive and dehumanizing rhetoric.

All that was suddenly turned on its head last week, when he accepted the much-criticized invitation from Mexican President Peña Nieto to a joint news conference. Contrary to his usual style, Trump mostly followed his campaign’s prepared remarks and subdued tone, avoiding his frequent ad-libbed aggression in an attempt to appear more presidential. Even behind the more even tone, the differences remained apparent, as the two leaders directly contradicted on issues such as free trade - as well as whether the topic of paying for the wall came up at all. (Trump claimed it did not, while Peña Nieto reported that he expressed his refusal to pay.) No actual justifications were given for Trump’s previous offensive remarks, nor was he directly challenged in any way for them- an attitude that has garnered disdain for their president from much of the Mexican population. Peña Nieto not only did not ask for a public apology to the people, but he also stated during the press conference that Mr. Trump’s previous comments about Mexicans had been taken out of context, therefore causing still more outrage and disbelief.

Mere hours later, Trump had already flown back to Phoenix - where he contradicted most of the reassurances of cooperation he had given Peña Nieto in a speech that attacked undocumented migrants as a whole as rapists and murderers. He also claimed once again that Mexico would pay for 100% of the wall’s cost, despite having apparently not even mentioned the issue while in Mexico. Both Trump and Peña Nieto sent various tweets contradicting each other on the terms they discussed based on the infamous wall.

The combination of these two appearances - one a seeming conciliatory one aiming to regain lost Mexican-American support, and the other one to retain racist white support - yields a highly contradictory and unclear picture of what he would actually do as president. The obvious part is that he will continue giving undocumented migrants and their rights absolutely no respect, and given the overall negative reaction to his visit in Mexico, he is unlikely to regain that support.

On August 12th, Louisiana was ravaged with floods. It is more than two weeks later, and they are still dealing with the aftermath. In one week alone, the state was hit with 6.9 trillion gallons of rainfall. More than 31 inches of rain fell within 15 hours. The catastrophic flood devastated Louisiana, the worst disaster to strike the US since Hurricane Sandy, which was four years ago. The floods have damaged over 40,000 homes, leaving thousands homeless. People are left without electricity and struggle in the hot weather. Many residents go home to find their belongings soaked and destroyed from the water. On top of this, at least 13 people have died across 5 parishes. The floods have undoubtedly been one of the most devastating natural disasters in all of Louisiana history.

The floods came right in the thick of the presidential campaign, giving candidates a chance to create real change in the state. Presidential candidate Donald Trump came just a week after the floods began, while President Barack Obama did not arrive until August 23rd. The President was met with a lot of criticism because he did not cut his family vacation at Martha’s Vineyard short to meet with the victims in Baton Rouge. He waited a week after the flood before arriving. President Obama meets with flood victims almost 11 years after hurricane Katrina and so he promised the federal government that he would support the victims. “These are some good people down here, they got a lot of work to do and they shouldn’t have to do it alone,” he said. The federal government has given more than $127 million in aid to this cause. Some people were thankful he didn’t come when the rescue operation was in full swing, because it would have delayed the aid.

This tragic event will have a slow recovery and will stay in people’s minds for a long time. "Thousands of people in Louisiana have lost everything they own and need our help now," said Brad Kieserman, the Red Cross' vice president of disaster services operations and logistics. Many people are taking action to help the people in Louisiana. Volunteers are called to clean up mud inside houses. The US Coast Guard, National Guard, local emergency responders and neighbors have helped rescue more than 30,000 residents and 1,400 pets.