Conservative President = Conservative SCOTUS = Dear God, No

17 unruly GOP candidates is scary for reasons I don't think warrant explanation.
But even scarier than the overwhelming amount of stupidity and arrogance in this race, is the party's front runner--who is, honestly, and I'm being unapologetically biased, as stupid and arrogant as it gets--Donald Trump.

It's not only terrifying to think that the reality of our current political system is being molded by Trump, but it's frightening to know that, for whatever reason, his support seems to grow stronger regardless of his blatantly racist and sexist remarks. It makes you think that, perhaps, the world is ending. Maybe humanity is dwindling into irrelevancy. Maybe we will all destroy each other, by popular sovereignty, nonetheless. And maybe, we are descending into an electorate less like people and more like swine, evident by our prudent, piggish potential president.

I'm being dramatic. Trump won't win. He can't. But Trump politics are undoubtedly seeping into the rhetoric of the other GOP candidates as they try to gain relevancy. That's what's really scary. The idea that the nonsense and impracticality of Donald Trump may actually find it's way into the political agenda and public policy.

And even though that may seem like the worse thing that could possibly happen to our already ill and aging Uncle Sam, it's not. A Republican president would not only dramatically progress our good ol' uncle's disease--it would be as if no past procedures were ever even performed. As if we had never detected the tumor, let alone undergone treatment. And this aggressive disease will attack white blood cells via the U.S. Supreme Court.

The truth is, our justices are old. Old. Four of our nine justices are over 77 years old. Meaning that there will most likely, within the next five years, be a few vacancies in the court, due to resignation and, well, death.

If there is a Republican in office to fill these vacancies, I'm almost certain every justice they appoint will be conservative. (None of the current GOP candidates seem to have the moral compass which would enable them to try to balance the court.) This means that there will be an overwhelming conservative majority in the Supreme Court, in one of the most liberal and progressive times in American history. And for me, and for a lot of us, this means we will live under policy reviewed by a conservative regime for the rest of our lives. The rest of our lives. 

That should scare you, regardless of where your political allegiances lie. Political party affiliation aside, we should all agree that a liberal pull in the Supreme Court is always best. This is because conservatives are, well, conservative. They're hesitant to change; to adapt; to evolve. They tend to interpret the Constitution--an increasingly irrelevant and ill-fitting document--literally, instead of looking at modern day issues and social opinions, and allowing the Constitution to better serve today's people. It's not that liberals cannot stand firm within their beliefs, as many conservatives claim, but it's that liberals can understand that current politics operate outside of their own personal opinions and agendas. It's about progression, fairness, and ultimately, making sure the Constitution is used to push all Americans forward, instead of being used to hold them back.

This summer, we were all so proud of our court. We legalized gay marriage, we strengthened fair housing laws, protected universal healthcare. It wasn't only a day to remember, but a time to be alive. We witnessed history, and saw the nation transform into one that can now be home to more than a few of our fellow citizens who've all this time felt like they'd been squatting on Unc's property.

Unfortunately, if a Republican is in office and is able to appoint conservative justices, I'm afraid we won't have days like these for a long, long time.

Black History: Backflashes and Foreshadowing

Brave New Worlds collide and shatter
into colors and sounds unseen, unheard of.
Catastrophic histories cascade in crescendo
to tell a story that both begins and ends in heartbreak.

Exposition occurs sometime before whiplashes on our backs
turned to bullet holes in our backs,
but after chains around our wrists
turned to cuffs around our wrists.

The plot thickens in some small town,
minority-riddled,
where a line has been drawn in blood
beneath a cloud of gunpowder,
which seems to linger unwillingly in the humid southern air.

Separated, brown mothers--who promised
themselves they'd never be here--
and their children--who promised
themselves their mothers would never be here--
respond to tragedy in the only way anger manifests,
and officers begin to laden themselves in riot gear.

Somewhere,
between their meet and their disperse,
Molotov-cocktails and teargas canisters
confuse age of perceptions of Black and White
with the nuances of the Human Condition.

Suddenly,
it's not a small town,
minority-riddled.
It's more than that.

And suddenly,
you resent small towns,
minority-riddled,
for making you step outside of yourself,
and forcing you to dodge mirrors.
Avoiding the questions you know must be waiting there for you.


Jaylin Paschal

#BlackWomenMatter: On Sandra Bland, Angry Black Women, and Dignity

by Jaylin Paschal
As we all know, black women are not able to express normal, human emotions or opinions without harsh backlash. Although black women are constantly provoked, attacked, and taken advantage of-probably more than any other group of people-they are also constantly silenced and shrugged off. And although we, black women, are consistently lusted over, and our features and characteristics are consistently mimicked as "high fashion," we find ourselves repeatedly being told that we are undesirable and unworthy of attention, affection, or love. Black women are expected to be silent in all situations, even those that are offensive and even those that have been escalated by the other party. Our emotions, opinions, and asserts are almost always viewed as aggressive-regardless of whether or not they were formed in our own defense. And when we, black women, refuse to respond to this abuse with the proper hanging of the head and "yes, sir" or "yes, ma'am," we are deemed as attitudinal, bitter, and angry. No one takes the time to look at why we are upset, or to examine the conditions and cultures with which we are frustrated. They just lock their doors, and shake their heads at our "aggressiveness" while watching us out their windows. There is no attempt to understand our frustration, and there is no "freedom of speech" defense working towards our benefit as we try to advocate for ourselves. Black women are denied the empathy and understanding that so many others are granted, and take for granted. Our responses are not recognized as normal human reactions, because that would require the acknowledgement of our humanity. Instead we are pigeon-holed as the "wild" and "ghetto" beings who can be found stomping around mad at the world. The world that continuously belittles and rejects us.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten "omg your attitude," or, more often "you're so angry lol" from (white) coworkers because I was not allowing management or customers take advantage of me. Whereas other (white) employees were called "strong" or "smart" for literally regurgitating what I had just said. As professor Marc Lamont Hill explained during a CNN interview, black women are often called out for having an attitude problem when, in fact, they just have a bit of dignity. And while that dignity is praised and revered when demonstrated by others, it is frowned upon and attributed to bitterness when exuded by us.

And there is no more perfect example of this than the tragedy involving Sandra Bland and a police officer that has gained nationwide attention.

Bland, who was apparently being followed by the officer, switched lanes after he pulled an erratic U-turn and began to accelerate behind her, in order to allow him to pass. (Because who wants a crazy cop trailing them, right?) Bland was then pulled over for failure to signal that lane change. (For failure to signal a lane change. How many of us would be stopped if that was regularly enforced?)

The encounter escalated quickly, although Bland did absolutely nothing illegal during the interaction. It almost seems as if the officer was picking on her, when asking her if something was wrong or if she-predictable-had an attitude. She responded honestly, explaining that she was irritated (as we all are when pulled over) but also explaining that she knew the officer had to do his job and give her the ticket. Being irritated with police officers and expressing that irritation is not illegal, as Hill also pointed out in his CNN appearance: "Cops act as if you're not completely kowtowing and being differential towards them, then somehow you're violating a law. [...] We have the right to be irritated." And we also have the right to express that irritation honestly. Honesty is not illegal. It's actually one of those traits associated with dignity.

Many will argue that Bland was then uncooperative because she did not put out her cigarette when she was asked to. As black women we are, again, expected to respond to everything in "yes, sir's," so Sandra's refusal was insulting to the officer. But, that's not illegal. In fact, there is no Texas law against smoking a cigarette in your car, therefore the officer had no right to ask her to put it out in the first place. Bland stated that she didn't have to, and she was absolutely right. Asking her to get out of her car for refusal to put out her cigarette was improper, and yet another example of the officer's misconduct. Knowing your rights and reminding others of them isn't illegal. It's an example of having some governance over yourself. It's an example of dignity.

Others argue with the "combative" monologue, mentioning Bland's refusal to talk to the cop. She told him that she wasn't going to speak to him unless it was to identify herself. Which is also correct under the law. Bland was not at all being combative. She was, in fact, 100% correct and totally cooperative. She was simply cooperating in a lawful manner that involved refusing to talk to a man who obviously had little to no respect for her. Which was, again, an example of dignity.

When asked to get out of her car, she asked repeatedly why she was being arrested. To which the cop responded "for resisting arrest." That makes no sense. You have to have a reason to be arrested to then resist arrest. What he meant by "resisting arrest" was "daring to be dignified in the presence of a white man with a badge."

Bland should have never been arrested in the first place, and yet she has died in a jail cell. Not because she didn't signal a lane change in a moment of probable confusion and anxiety. Not because she was "resisting arrest," when the original reason for arrest was nonexistent. But ultimately because she displayed humanity in an unapologetic and dignified manner. She admitted to irritation, exercised her rights, and behaved as any of us would have. Apparently a black woman isn't allowed to do that, and if she does, whatever happens to her is her own fault.

Or at least that's ex-policeman Harry Houck's perspective, as he claimed on CNN that Sandra Bland is dead "because she was arrogant." However, if that was the case, the cop would have been dead as soon as he shouted "I will light you up" at Bland when she refused to comply to an unlawful request.

Sandra Bland is not dead because she was arrogant or because she taunted the cop with the classic "angry black woman" rhetoric. Mainly because she was not an angry black woman. She was a black woman, who was angry. And rightfully so. And understandably so; humanly so. The interaction was a raw, uncut example of our own humanity and behaviors and emotion. She was dignified, and she did what I would do. And probably, what you would do. And, more importantly, she did so legally. The truth of the matter is, as Senior Editor of The New Republic Jamil Smith tweeted, "Sandra Bland did nothing unlawful in that video. Attitude and disgust with her own mistreatment was treated like a criminal offense." And the "attitudes" of black women are often criminalized, as we are denied these very human responses. As we are denied humanity. As we are denied dignity.


#SandraBland #SayHerName


First published on web.insightmag.org

The #BlackLlivesMatter Movement: Why There is an Emphasis on Black Lives

by Jaylin Paschal

When the #BlackLivesMatter movement came about, many, mostly non-black, especially white, people misinterpreted the message and took offense. I don't know if the entitlement is the problem, or the ignorance, or just the desire to be included. But I am going to try to explain the movement in this post.

That being said, I realize that anyone who would be offended by the statement "black lives matter" in the first place, as if it is untrue, is probably extremely closed minded anyways. I am, more than likely, talking to a brick wall. The truth about brick walls are that they will never change, or be moved, until you take a sledgehammer to them. All I can do is take a sledgehammer to the mentality that allows you to argue with me when I claim that my life, the lives of my family and friends, and the lives of black beings all over the world matter.

I originally titled this article "#BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter" but that's not exactly the point of this. That title was far too combative, and this article is not about conflict as the "versus" would have implied. This is not argumentative. This is explanatory.

We say "black lives matter" and there is always someone who cringes and asks, "don't you mean, all lives matter?" And frankly put, no. That's not what we meant. That is what we know to be true, and what we believe in our hearts, but that's not what we meant. In fact, we shout "black lives matter" because we are so compelled to believe that all lives matter. 

And if we believe that all lives matter, but see that black lives are being treated as disposable and insignificant, how could we not shout "black lives matter"? How could we not focus on the group that is suffering the most from everything the movement against systematic oppression is fighting-institutionalized racism, police brutality, mass incarceration, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc.?

Yes, all lives matter, but no, all lives do not suffer from the evils listed previously which we ultimately seek to rid the nation of.

And I'm sure this is the part when white people will send me the picture below like, "Actually, even more white people suffer."

If you're one of those white people, you are a part of the problem. Understand that there are millions more white people than people of any other race in this country. Which means that when you consider the rate of killings by percentages, as you always should, you will see that although the black population (12.6%) is significantly smaller than the white population (63.7%), black people are killed by police almost 3 times more frequently. More than 5 times smaller, killed 3 times more frequently. Don't send me this picture. Delete this picture, and then curse the media for using numbers to misrepresent an issue and "discredit what has happened to black people".

We say "black lives matter" because you can kill a black teenage boy with Skittles and tea for "looking suspicious" and not be penalized. We say "black lives matter" because a black man can be killed for touching a gun being sold in a Wal-Mart. We say "black lives matter" because a black 12-year-old playing in a park can be shot dead within two seconds of cops' arrival. We say "black lives matter" because the justice system acts as if they do not. There is a pattern of injustice towards African Americans. A pattern that can be ignored,  but not denied.

The truth is, if any of the previously mentioned victims had been white, they would either not have been killed in the first place, or their murderers would be behind bars. That is the difference. White lives are valuable, therefore killing innocent white people is unjust. You get in trouble for hurting or harassing white people. The same cannot be said for people of color. We know white lives matter, and the justice system knows that, too.

This is not to say that white lives, or all lives, do not suffer.  We all suffer. But from what? If the evil is systematic, then you should be on board with the "Black Lives Matter" movement, as we tackle systematic demons. But if not, understand that there is a difference between being offended and being oppressed. Not all struggles are struggles of oppression. And if your struggle is not oppressive--restrictive, but not oppressive--rejoice in that fact. Be glad that there is no need to rally for your life. (I will never understand why some white people seem to want so badly to included in oppression or struggles for freedom.)

That is why we say "black lives" instead of "all lives." Not to be exclusive, but to send attention directly to the issue the movement is focused on. "All lives matter is true as an AXIOM, but not as a social and political MOVEMENT. In the political and social landscape, black lives need #BlackLivesMatter as a MOVEMENT to save us. People aren't seeing the difference between a belief/axiom and a movement." (Alex Montgomery, @sohamist)



Furthermore, if you truly believe that all lives matter, you would not be offended by an emphasis on black lives. Just as you would not be offended by the statement "gay lives matter." In fact, you'd probably grab a rainbow flag and shout it with them. You would not pollute a protest with your own agenda and phrase, just as you would not scream "ALL DISEASES MATTER" at a cancer fundraiser. In fact, you'd probably donate to the cause, because it is a necessary battle.
If you are, somehow, offended, you are the problem. You are the brick wall.

Note that there is no reason to be offended, as nowhere in the statement "black lives matter" do we suggest other lives don't, or that black lives matter more. Changing "black" to "all" is just spitting on all of the black lives lost to unjust murders and turning your back on a movement rooted in positivity.

But again, I am more than likely talking to a brick wall. And when it comes to brick wall mentalities, their only hope is destruction. When the old, oppressive bricks are finally rubble, they can be cleared away and there will space to rebuild.


First published on web.insightmag.org

Freedoms, Flags, Fires: Wright State University Students Protest Injustice

by Jaylin Paschal

College students have a reputation. Wild. Careless. Lazy.

What people tend to overlook is the passion young people have. The hunger for knowledge. The fearlessness. The willingness to start a fire. 

All it takes is one spark to set a campus ablaze.

For Wright State University, that spark turned to flame on April 24.

I sat with students and concerned citizens Tommy DiMassimo, Will Kellum, and Jordan Ross, to discuss the issues and mainly, to listen.

When these students and others decided to exercise their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, they set out with a very clear goal: stand in solidarity with Eric Sheppard (if you don't know, read up) and ultimately contribute to the dismantling of white supremacy.

The students went to the campus's center with a desire to begin an important and necessary dialogue. They displayed their ideas on a sign which read,
"I STAND... 

• with Eric Sheppard and the preservation of First Amendment Rights.
• for all men and women in service to their country.
• for the accountability of the media and other social institutions.
• justice, equality, tolerance, and diversity.
• upon the belief that higher learning should provoke students to question social norms, mainstream values, and power structures.
• [upon the belief that] the "American" spirit is a revolutionary spirit.
• on the American flag because there's no thing MORE American than that."

The protest began with students only holding the sign. When they recognized the lack of interest from their peers, they decided to actually stand on an American flag, as Eric Sheppard, Valdosta State University, did and is now being persecuted for--a statement that definitely brought attention to the stance.

Unfortunately, the attention was not geared toward the unjust oppression of Freedom of Speech, the "rampancy of racism," or the frequent loss of black lives, but to the flag. Not the human beings, the stars and stripes. This was not only a disappointment to the protesters but a shameful display of insensitivity and lack of humanity.

"This is not the tragedy. They'll make more flags. It's not that easy to make more black people," DiMassimo expressed.

Once students noticed the protesters standing on the flag, many were angered. "Nigger" was spat out, a protester was threatened to be lynched, and another was told he would be "put in a coffin with a flag draped over it." These threats were dished out both in person and online. Other messages included "if you don't like America, go back to where you came from" and "get out of my college, better yet, my fucking country."

Some called the protesters "terrorists," to which Kellum responded, "we are terrorists to the white privilege system".

Of course, the local news covered the protest. And our media outlets never fail to let us down. Instead of defending the Constitutional rights to speech and protest, bringing the issue of racism and white supremacy to light, or even condemning threats and promises of physical violence, they painted the protesters as the problem. The "angry" protesters "disrespected" and "threw down" the flag. The story became about the (white, as they only interviewed white students) bystanders' discomfort, instead of the dead, or soon to be dead, (black) men the protesters were fighting for.

The problem is, you can yell "black lives matter" and no one will even look your way. But if you whisper it while upon a flag, they'll pay attention. Not to the issue that matters to you, but to the piece of cloth beneath your feet. Flags matter to people. Black lives don't. The responses and threats the protesters received prove that to be true.

Imagine a nation in which citizens cared about black people as much as they cared about the flag.

"Replace 'black man' with 'flag'. Next time a black person gets shot, we need to say 'cop shoots American flag'," said DiMassimo.

Although it is understood that the flag is often a symbol for freedom (for white people), it must also be understood that the same flag is, ironically, a symbol for oppression. A powerful and deadly force exists in this nation "under God" that is too often ignored. The systematic oppression in America is what allows institutionalized racism, police brutality, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc. to plague the lives of citizens of color every day. Standing on the flag is not standing on your idea of freedom, it is simply asking: "Freedom for who? Liberty and justice for all?" It is challenging the notion that a black Valdosta student can be hunted for expressing his basic, inalienable rights.

To those who disagree with this act and means of speaking out against injustice, ask yourself, would you be paying attention now if they hadn't stepped on that flag?

To those who believe there is a "better way" to get the point across, like singing Kumbaya and participating in group hugs, wake up. Love is necessary but action is what's effective. As DiMassimo said, "there's no thinking and loving your way out of racism."

And finally, to White America, still in denial of privilege, insistent on supremacy and blind to the bloodshed of fellow citizens-fellow human beings-, your burning will provide light and heat for the rest of us.

If I am to be completely honest, I must express that there is both fear and excitement in me as the flames continue to spread, not only through Fairborn, Ohio, but through the nation. People think of the word "fire" and fear the possible destruction. What they fail to realize is that fires often clear out the debris, allowing a healthier world to grow in its place. Fires will mean out with the old systems, old ideals, old institutions, and old power structures. In with the new.

First published on web.insightmag.org