The Impact of School Reopening Plans on Women

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world unlike any other phenomena; every day we see people and businesses making difficult decisions, trying to balance financial sustainability with health. One decision that must be made as we approach the end of the summer is how education will take place in the fall. In my younger brother’s school district, the Board of Education initially discussed using all public schools to educate elementary school-aged children in-person, and virtually educating older children who could stay at home alone. Following outrage in response to this idea, the Board of Education eventually decided to delay all in-person activities until at least January of 2021, at which time the situation will be re-assessed.

Personally, I have not come to a definitive opinion on the “best” fall plan. Children are at a lesser risk in this pandemic, and I believe that early education is critical to long-term development and mental health. However I also recognize that normal in-person education would put teachers and other school staff members at risk, especially in lower grades where children would struggle wearing masks correctly.

Although I have not yet come to a conclusion about the best fall plan, I think it is important to consider all aspects of the issue. Gender and gender bias must be taken into consideration in answering the fall reopening question. Societally, women often face the brunt of childcare. They are recognized as homemakers and not breadwinners. Should schools close this fall, many families will need near constant childcare. This responsibility will likely fall to mothers, given established societal expectations. Even without these expectations, women may differentially suffer from the increased burden of childcare. Because of the gender wage-gap, in two-parent families with a mother and a father, the mother is likely to have a lower income, and therefore it would make financial sense for the mother to become the main provider of childcare. Additionally, single fathers are far less common than single mothers [1]; families with only one adult member will struggle to balance childcare with income, and this struggle will differentially and negatively impact women. Opening schools will also present unique challenges for women. There are significantly more women that teach than men, so women will face a disproportionately higher risk with in-person education. 

It is critical to analyze all spheres of life in approaching this pandemic. Each day we neglect to follow social distancing guidelines is another day that we delay a return to normal life. This fall, students will face the consequences of our continued carelessness. There is not necessarily one correct answer to reopening schools this fall, and it will likely be a personal decision whether or not to attend school. However, it is important to acknowledge that whatever decision we make will likely differentially impact women, as they already face societal and financial discrimination. We must consider and manage all aspects of health, including the physical and mental health of children, teachers, and parents.

References 

[1] Livingston, Gretchen. “The Rise of Single Fathers.” Pew Research Center. July 2, 2013. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

The Real World: The Inaccessibility of Birth Control

BY: JULIET SCHULMAN-HALL, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

With more people stuck at home and less access to reliable forms of birth control, the inequalities of our society are being accentuated—specifically for women, and most especially for women of color. Tens of millions of people across the United States have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, many of whom can no longer afford health insurance. Without health insurance, the cost of birth control is anywhere between $240 to over $1,000 a year [1]. This cost is the reason “more than a third of female[s]...[have] struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives” [2]. The cost is not pocket change, it affects people’s lives.

Making matters worse, the United States Supreme Court ruled on July 8th that the Trump administration could “gut the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health insurance plans cover women’s essential preventive services, which includes contraceptive care” [3] allowing any employer claiming a religious or moral objection to contraception to be exempted from the requirement that contraception be included in their employees’ health insurance plans. Seven of the nine United States Supreme Court justices voted to allow employers to violate women’s rights to control their own bodies, and to strip them of access to affordable and accessible birth control. The Supreme Court’s attack on women continues, as the justices have ordered a lower court to “reconsider two abortion victories,” involving “an Indiana forced ultrasound law and a law forcing teenagers to notify parents of their decision to seek abortion care” [3]. More and more, the United States government continues to infringe upon the private lives and rights of women. 

The CDC reported that in “2015-2017, 64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception” [4]. Without a universal requirement that health plans cover contraception, many of these 64.9% of women will not be able to afford their birth control. Birth control is not only integral to preventing pregnancy but to eliminating the difficult and otherwise often untreated symptoms of disorders such as PCOS or endometriosis, among others [5]. Even if one does not need birth control for a disorder, it has been shown in a Guttmacher study that “a majority of women say birth control allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families (63%), support themselves financially (56%), complete their education (51%), or keep or get a job (50%)” [2]. Thus, the decision by the United States Supreme Court is not a small matter. It is one that directly targets and perpetuates gender inequalities in U.S. society, at a time when tens of millions of people are unemployed, and unable to afford proper healthcare. 

The most immediate and obvious result of a radical increase in unemployment and an increase in the numbers of employers who are not required to provide birth control in their health plans, will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies resulting from a lack of access to affordable birth control. Many of these unplanned pregnancies will stem from communities of color as the pandemic has been affecting these communities disproportionately. In fact, a study at the Guttmacher Institute found that a disproportionate number of women of color have lost their jobs, resulting in many having little to no access to affordable contraceptives [6]. Thus, the pandemic and ruling from the Supreme Court not only directly harms women, impinging on their rights and their independence, but is also highly likely to disproportionately harm women of color.

Nearly a century ago, on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, finally granting women the right to vote—half a century after black males were granted the right to vote in the Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870. A century after women’s suffrage was won, the fight for women’s rights continues [7]. Today, many women not only lack control of their own fates, but are even kept from exercising the freedom to control their own bodies. 

References

[1] Kosova, Elly. “How Much Do Different Kinds of Birth Control Cost without Insurance?” NWHN, November 30, 2017. https://www.nwhn.org/much-different-kinds-birth-control-cost-without-insurance/.

[2] Parenthood, Planned. “7 Facts You Need to Know About Birth Control and Costs.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Accessed July 16, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/facts-birth-control-coverage.

[3] Manian, Maya, Feminist Newswire, and Nan Aron. “Reproductive Justice Under Assault at the Supreme Court.” Ms. Magazine, July 10, 2020. https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/09/reproductive-justice-under-assault-at-the-supreme-court/.

[4] Daniels, Kimberly. “Products - Data Briefs - Number 327 - December 2018.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 14, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db327.htm.

[5] “Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill.” Center for Young Women's Health, June 22, 2020. https://youngwomenshealth.org/2011/10/18/medical-uses-of-the-birth-control-pill/.

[6] Lindberg, Laura, Alicia VandeVusse, Jennifer Mueller, and Marielle Kirstein. “Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 2020 Guttmacher Survey of Reproductive Health Experiences.” Guttmacher Institute, June 24, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/early-impacts-covid-19-pandemic-findings-2020-guttmacher-survey-reproductive-health.

[7] Panetta, Grace. “Today Is National Voter Registration Day. The Evolution of American Voting Rights in 242 Years Shows How Far We've Come - and How Far We Still Have to Go.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 24, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-women-got-the-right-to-vote-american-voting-rights-timeline-2018-10.

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

Historically Women’s College Graduates in Office

BY: SOPHIA CASTEN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Historically Women's College (HWC) graduates and current students have longed for equal representation for gender minorities in all facets of professional life. Specifically, representation  of women and other gender minorities in politics is dear to the hearts of many HWC attendees and alums as the United States becomes increasingly political.  In 2016, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton brought attention to the Historically Women’s College education as a proud Wellesley College graduate. 

Before Clinton’s time in office, many other HWC graduates graced the political world with their poise, worldliness, and passion for intersectional women’s rights. The first woman to become Secretary of State, before Clinton, was Madeleine Albright. Albright also graduated from Wellesley in 1959 and truly set the stage for women in Cabinet-level positions to come. Some other notable HWC graduates in office include, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Smith College Class of 1984. She became the first openly gay senator in 2013 and continues to fight for women’s rights within the LGBTQ+ community. Senator Baldwin is still proud to be involved in the lives of Smith College students and often works with them in her D.C. and Wisconsin offices. 

Coming from my home state of Arizona, former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Scripps College Class of 1993), became a beacon of hope, light, and strength when she survived an assisnation attempt in 2012. Just two years after the near-fatal shooting, Giffords became a gun control activist with a focus on women’s rights. She repeatedly advocates for decreasing gun violence because as she told The Atlantic, “gun violence is a women’s issue.” [1] Representative Giffords’ story is one of the many reasons I focused on applying to HWCs during the end of my high school career. 

Like many other women and gender minorities, I was terrified after the 2016 election. I feared for what was to come for all women and gender minorities. I thought back to the strength of Representative Giffords, Senator Baldwin, and Hillary Clinton. I also thought back to the women of color who graduated from HWCs, such as Elaine Cho, Mary McLeod Bethune, and Ruth Davis, whose legacies were seemingly obsolete after the election of Donald Trump. I was motivated to keep the legacies of HWC graduates alive and be a part of a network that continues to make history in the face of adversity. 

References 

[1] Westcott, Lucy. “Gabby Giffords Says Gun Violence Is a Women's Issue.” The Atlantic. 16 June 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/gabby-giffords-calls-gun-violence-a-womens-issue/372876/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share 

---

Sophia Casten is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in Government with a certificate in Reproductive Health Rights and Justice. Sophia is a yoga teacher and a Community Health Organizer at the Smith College Wellness Center and is committed to spreading inclusive wellness practices. Some of her interests include reproductive justice, LGBTQ+ rights advocacy, and public policy reform.

Imposter Syndrome: Who Does It Affect?

BY: Juliet Schulman-Hall, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Growing up, everyone has feelings of inadequacy. In quarantine this may be accentuated, with more competition for jobs and internships, limited face-to-face social interaction, and increased consumption of social media. Interacting through social media, such as Instagram, can make things worse, as social media often presents unrealistic highlights and high points of one's life. In reality, nearly every person struggles with feelings of inadequacy and some form of imposter syndrome. 

Imposter syndrome is the “idea that you’ve only succeeded due to luck, and not because of your talent or qualifications” [1]. This term was coined by two female psychologists named Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes in 1978. They theorized that only women were affected by this syndrome, however, since then, research has disproved this claim. Even still, prior to researching imposter syndrome, when I discussed the syndrome with a small group of friends, all of us had thought that women suffered more from imposter syndrome than men. In reality, this may have been more of a commentary on how society forms and distorts one’s own perceptions of reality. Men are characteristically seen as less emotional and are socialized not to speak as often about their insecurities. Women, who are characterized as more emotional, find it easier to discuss their insecurities and may do so with more freedom. 

To better understand the ways in which imposter syndrome may or may not affect different groups of people, I crafted a survey that asked how often one feels inadequate, why they think this way, and so forth, which I presented to sixteen people. The results were surprising in that everyone had relatively the same insecurities, regardless of multiple external factors, including sex, race, and school attended. It is important to note that this was a small sample size of sixteen college students with nine of the people identifying as female. However, as I will highlight later, the results of this survey were consistent with many of the general conclusions about imposter syndrome arrived at by other, more established research that relied on larger and more sophisticated sample sizes and methodologies.  

The general conclusion from this survey is that people tend to have feelings of inadequacy one to three times times a week. This is consistent across gender, race, and kind of college (ie. historically women’s, co-ed, etc.). An intriguing note is that all of the men who responded wrote nothing or little in response to why they felt inadequate, perhaps tying to the societal expectation that men aren’t supposed to discuss their feelings. There were two major reasons as to why the participants feel insecure. The first is that the individuals do not feel smart enough, despite being at a top school. Individuals noted that they feel as though they shouldn’t be at their college. The second is insecurities about one's body—this was a recurring answer for women and those who are genderfluid. Body image is difficult to deal with as social media reinforces what a ‘perfect body’ is supposed to look like. All insecurities mentioned in the quiz stem from comparing oneself to others. 

As evidenced by academic studies that I viewed, and as reinforced by the results I found, there are small differences between the way in which men versus women experience insecurities and portray them. However, it is important to note that everyone “doubt[s] their abilities and ha[s] a persistent fear of being exposed as a fraud” [2]. This is something that society reinforces in a multitude of ways. Insecurities are a part of human nature, however, as one study points out, one needs to learn and have “the confidence and/or courage to embrace vulnerability” [3]. What one shows others is often not what is happening in one’s life. Social media influencers have begun to display this through the multitude of photos they take as well as noting their insecurities during the photoshoot. This is a great start in demonstrating that life is imperfect and it is unrealistic to expect to achieve perfection—a movement that should be extended past social media and into the real world.

References

[1] Abrams, Abigail. “Yes, Impostor Syndrome Is Real: Here's How to Deal With It.” Time. Time, June 20, 2018. https://time.com/5312483/how-to-deal-with-impostor-syndrome/.

[2] Nedegaard, Randall. 2016. “Overcoming Imposter Syndrome: How My Students Trained Me to Teach Them.” Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping 22 (4): 52–59. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=126936993&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[3] Cowie, Megan, Logan Nealis, Simon Sherry, Paul Hewitt, and Gordon Flett. Perfectionism and academic difficulties in graduate students: Testing incremental prediction and gender moderation, November 23, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.027.

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

American Abortion Access in the Time of a Pandemic

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

About one quarter of all American women will use abortion services by the age of 45 [1]. Access to safe abortions is a human right; the ability to determine whether and when to have a child has significant implications for the economic, social, and political equality of women [1]. Despite its essential nature, the right to receive an abortion has faced new restrictions in the age of COVID-19.

Many individuals are arguing to end abortion services during the pandemic, but these arguments do not stem from the desire for safety. Rather, they serve as a continuation of the long-standing debate concerning the morality of abortion. According to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, some argue that reproductive healthcare services interfere with hospital resources that should instead be going to COVID-19 patients in critical condition [2]. Others argue that providing reproductive healthcare services is not consistent with social distancing [2]. Both of these arguments are misguided. Most reproductive healthcare occurs in an “ambulatory setting,” and thus does not take away from the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [2]. Delaying reproductive healthcare might actually increase the demand for hospital resources, as pregnancies resulting in termination at later stages face significantly higher risks of complications [2]. Additionally, reproductive healthcare settings are taking steps to mitigate the risk of contagion by offering telemedicine, enhanced hygiene protocols, and infection screening prior to appointments [2]. Like all medical environments, practices providing reproductive healthcare are effectively minimizing the risk of infection and ensuring maximum possible social distancing [2]. These truths have not prevented the restriction of abortion access, however. Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have supported the cessation of both medication and surgical abortion, using a much more insidious argument: that abortion procedures are “elective” or “nonessential” [1].

The restriction of abortion care is always negative, but is particularly dangerous during this pandemic. The classification of abortions as “elective” suggests that women’s equality and autonomy is expendable [1]. It also implicitly questions a woman’s judgement to make decisions concerning her own body. In medicine, an “elective procedure” is one that can be delayed without consequences [1]. Considering the increasing risks associated with delaying abortion, and maximum limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed legally, abortion is in no way “elective,” and classifying it as such will mean that “many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all” [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this might mean that families will face the undue financial burden of an additional child, or that women will face an unplanned pregnancy resulting from intimate partner violence, which has increased as a result of quarantine orders [1]. 

Restricted access to abortion care is particularly harmful to women of color. Many women of color already experience limited access to abortion [3]. Women of color face income inequality, which means that they are more likely to be covered by Medicaid and in turn impacted by the Hyde Amendment, which bands federal funds for abortion care in Medicaid [3]. Women of color also face explicit racism; anti-choice organizations have targeted Black and Latina women with the false rhetoric that they devalue human life, even in the womb [3]. Restricting abortion access, which is already restricted to women of color, as a result of this pandemic, which also disproportionately impacts people of color, will significantly harm minority American populations.

We cannot sit idly by while women, and especially women of color, watch their rights fade away. Abortion is undeniably an essential healthcare service. Those who argue that the COVID-19 pandemic warrants restricted reproductive healthcare are either misguided or ill-intentioned. 

References

[1] Bayefsky, Michelle J., Deborah Bartz, and Katie L. Watson. “Abortion during the Covid-19 Pandemic—Ensuring Access to an Essential Health Service.” New England Journal of Medicine (2020): 382. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008006. 

[2] Kushnir, Vitaly A., Banafsheh Kashani, and Eli Y. Adashi. “Reproductive healthcare during a pandemic: a New York state of mind.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2020). Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.005. 

[3] Mhatre, Nikita. “Abortion Restrictions Hurt Women of Color.” National Partnership for Women and Families. April 25, 2019. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-impact/blog/general/abortion-restrictions-hurt-women-of-color.html.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

Finding Your Purpose, Changing the World

Photograph by Katrina Hajagos.

BY: ELLIE BROEREN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

“It’s important to be honest with yourself and the people around you about what you need to do to feel like you’re maximizing your potential and to really work hard to figure that out.”

-Dr. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward

In this historical moment, with racial injustice flourishing and COVID-19 rates spiking, focuses have shifted from the individual to the community. How can we help the majority of people in a community? Sometimes, focusing on your individual strengths is the best way to help others.

One of the most profound moments of my high school career was an off-hand comment by my 10th grade English teacher. While talking about how unhappy her husband was with his job at a plastics factory, she told us that we would never be happy in a job where we are not helping people. I have just finished my sophomore year of college and that comment still resonates in my head today. It solidified something I had known for a while—I am going to be a doctor and use my skills to help other people. 

So when I was tasked with analyzing the interview of Oregon State Senator Dr. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, I was ecstatic. I could not wait to hear about her journey as both a physician and politician. Towards the end of the interview, Dr. Steiner Hayward was asked what she has learned from the lives of her mother and mother’s mother. Her response struck a familiar chord within me. She stated: “When I think about the meaning of life, I think it’s about figuring out what gifts you’ve been given, . . . and how you use that to make the world a better place”. 

Dr. Steiner Hayward has clearly found her gifts and is putting them to great use. She says she knew she was going to be a doctor as early as 4 years old. As a medical student and practicing physician, she was always involved in organized medicine, which works to help patients. And as she progressed in her career, she realized that if she was going to make Oregon the healthiest state in the nation, she also needed to advocate for education, transportation, and the many other factors that contribute to the health and wellbeing of a community. From establishing Oregon’s Coordinated Care Organization systems to more efficiently deliver healthcare to working to raise the legal tobacco purchase age to 21, Dr. Steiner Hayward has worked tirelessly towards this objective as a state legislator.  

Hearing this advice, and her story ignited a flame within me that has existed for a while; this flame has been dimmed recently by uninspiring classes, family illness, and a disrupting global pandemic. However, this flame is my gift; my way to give back to the world is to become an OB/GYN and fight to change how women’s health is handled. To take women’s pain seriously and to advocate for more (ethical) research on the female body and especially to fight to lower the absurdly high maternal mortality rate for women of color, specifically Black women. Dr. Steiner Hayward’s interview has inspired me to keep fighting for this dream, even when life gets tough and messy, and I believe it will inspire other women to discover their gifts and make the differences the world has been waiting for.  

Ellie Broeren is a rising junior at Middlebury College, majoring in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and minoring in Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies. She is passionate about women’s health, reproductive justice, and sex-positive education. In the future she plans to be an OB/GYN and will work to improve women's health for all.

Persisting for Animals

Photograph by Katrina Hajagos.

BY: JULIET SCHULMAN-HALL, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Laughter resonates in the room at the Falcons annual dinner in South Bend, Indiana, as politicians roar at the sight of a plush toy dog held between the hands of a politician squealing about the importance of protecting animals. They stand in front of dinner tables elegantly set, mocking the passion and hard work of the South Bend City Councilwoman Valerie Schey—this was a dinner she did not attend. 

Valerie notes that this mockery does not compare to the many stories of female politicians who have been harassed. However, there is an intriguing sensitivity that revolves around her being a female politician advocating for animal welfare as one of her many key issues. 

Animal welfare is not a winning issue in politics. The love humans hold for their beloved pets often does not extend to the protection of other animals, even to those within the same species. One of the reasons for this sensitivity revolves around the fear, according to Valerie Schey, that if a politician fights for animals, they will not fight for their constituents. 

Valerie’s voice raises slightly as she is reminded of the persistence she needed during her time in office to make any difference in the lives of animals. With a low grumble in her laugh at the preposterousness of her colleagues, she states that it took an overwhelming amount of time to even be able to start an animal welfare committee: two years to be exact. Her council was not trying to make revolutionary laws that completely altered humans’ lives, but rather was trying to change legislation around breed-specific laws and mitigate the high euthanasia rate occurring in animal shelters around South Bend. Even at the outset of this committee, certain women around her did not support Councilwoman Schey, including the city council attorney who refused to work with her as she thought this committee shouldn’t exist. The committee, in the eyes of many of her colleagues, was a distraction from the work she needed to do for her constituency. What they failed to recognize was her dedication to the lives of those in South Bend—not only animals, but also humans. 

In 2016 Valerie left office and since then she has been running a nonprofit called Care of South Bend. She has been spending her time providing free spay and neuter clinics, vaccines, and more for low income pet owners in the area of South Bend. Her dedication to animal welfare remains strong despite the difficulties she had in office; persisting with patience and humility, her voice will remain unwavering. 

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

Messages from IGNITE’s Young Women Vote Summit

BY: Bella Levavi, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

On Monday, June 22, the organization IGNITE  put together a three-hour summit to get the nonpartisan message out that the younger generation, if they take it,  has the power to shift the electorate by mobilizing and voting in mass numbers. They made their point through panels, speakers, Q and A sessions,  infographics, and social media campaigns that Generation Z has the numbers to make a difference. 

IGNITE  is an organization focused on creating a generation of politically active women who have on the ground experience of political organizing to eventually be ready to run for office in the future. Its goal is to take the male domination out of politics and to give women the confidence to chase public office. The organization creates programming for women as young as kindergarten up until college age. This year IGNITE  organized mobilization campaigns for the 2020 election, and made this summit in tandem with that program. 

The summit started with Indiana’s Republican Congresswoman Susan Brooks giving a keynote address. Brooks stressed the importance of voting as well as registering to vote. She said that many campaigns focus on registering voters, which is important but taking the step to go to polls on voting day is crucial. Brooks suggested that young people should get to know their representatives, especially on a local level, and let them know about the issues they care about. 

There was then a brief interlude where IGNITE  fellows asked the audience to call our representatives to speak our opinions about the bill S.1540, the Election Security Act of 2019. This act would work to correct complications in the 2016 election to ensure a more free and fair election in the future.

Next was a panel filled with BIPOC women who spoke about their experience running for local office. Christina Haswood, a Candidate for Kansas House District 10, told stories about how she was often the only indigenous person and only women at political meetings. She grew up in Section eight housing and relied on other social services and felt that gave her qualification to make decisions about such services, despite her young age of 26. Mya Whitaker, a Former Oakland City Council member, spoke about the importance of knowing your audience when running for office. She said that you have to explain your stances simply to be accessible to all.  Karla Garcia, Dallas ISD District 4 Trustee, spoke about talking to people about the issues they care about. In her campaign, she would ask people what they wanted to see changed and would tell them about how their desires worked into her platform. These three women shaped an inspiring narrative of what you need to gain the confidence to run for office and how anyone can run a winning campaign. 

Congresswoman Lauren Underwood, of my home state Illinois,  then gave a Q and A. She spoke about how people think November is just a presidential race, but she stressed that everything is on the ballot for this election. Not only will this ballot contain elections for many different seats according to where you live, but this election will dictate the outcomes for issues you care about most. She said that while names will be on the ballot, climate change, gun violence, and police brutality are all on the ballot as well. She said to get to know the issues you care about and speak to the people running now to get them to enact these policies 

Next was a workshop explaining how to run Instagram and Facebook campaigns for people running for office effectively. This workshop gave instructions that can be applied directly to real work in the field. The workshop gave tips on how to set up social media accounts and how many posts a day to get the most clicks and views.

Valerie Jarret then gave a talk on how the civil rights movement was a long and slow process. She emphasized the excitement of the Black Lives Matter movement right now, but explained people need to vote and organize for a long time for there to be structural change. 

The summit closed with actress Francesca Reale and founder of Space to Speak Maya Siegel, both under 25, speaking about the power they have in their social media to educate young people. They both have social media platforms that they use to get other young people passionate about social change. 

The summit was a good mix of tangible information filled actions young individuals can perform and information about larger ideas that involve getting out the vote and what women have to go through to be in elected office. The summit gave me additional perspectives of what all the women on the Power in Place website have to go through to be in the positions they are in today. My biggest takeaway is that running a campaign and getting out the vote is no easy task and takes a lot of time and effort, but a change in politics, even at the local level, is a change worth fighting for.

---

Bella Levavi is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in Government and English. She is involved in Smith's newspaper the Sophian and the college radio station. She is passionate about vegetarian co-ops, writing, and social justice

Two Women on the LGBTQ+ Community and Representation

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month. This month celebrates all of the progress made toward equality for members of the LGBTQ+ community, but also serves as a reminder of the prejudices that still exist. To honor the month, I created a survey for women within the LGBTQ+ community concerning representation. Two women, both who identify as bisexual, anonymously answered this survey. Woman one is 20 years old and defines her membership within the LGBTQ+ community as “bisexual.” Woman two is 21 years old and has known she is bisexual since sixth grade, but kept it to herself “until the LGBTQ+ community seemed to emerge around [her] toward the end of high school;” all of her romantic relationships have been heterosexual, so she has found it difficult to truly feel like a member of the LGBTQ+ community. 

When asked about representation in media, woman one discussed that there has been increasingly more LGBTQ+ representation, especially in television. Two bisexual characters that stood out to her were Petra from Jane the Virgin and Diaz from Brooklyn Nine-Nine. She believes that these two shows adequately represent the women and do not tokenize the female characters by “making their sexuality a huge plot point.” Woman one is correct that representation has increased; according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), comedy is no longer the most LGBTQ+ inclusive genre [1]. Woman two discussed the other end of media representation, and wrote that “bisexual women are hyper-sexualised to [an] extent that is not seen with bisexual people of other genders.” Concerning other members of the LGBTQ+ community, woman two believes that media representation is very low, evidenced by the vast majority of commercials and advertisements that feature only straight, cisgender couples. Woman two is correct; according to GLAAD, only 12.8% of films released in 2017 contained LGBTQ+ characters [1]. Of these films, a majority featured only gay men, often excluding women from the narrative [1].

Concerning representation in politics, both women believe that there is much more work to be done. After discussing Kyrsten Sinema, United States Senator from Arizona, as the first openly bisexual Senator and as a role model, woman one argued that, despite marginal improvement, “a handful of elected officials doesn't nearly represent the LGBTQ+ community in actual American society.” She emphasized that, although it is great to see representation increasing, it is also important to see this change reflected in actual policies and legislation. Woman two agrees that representation is dismal: she wrote that female representation in politics is extremely low in comparison to women’s contribution to the general population, and that the representation of LGBTQ+ women in politics is “little to none.” Both women are correct; Power in Place recognizes that, at the current rate of progress, we will not achieve political gender parity for nearly 500 years. 

After asking the survey respondents about representation in media and politics, I asked them where they felt the most influential; I was curious to see if younger women within the LGBTQ+ community find that politics is a less welcoming atmosphere than other spheres of life. Woman one had to think about this question for a while. She came to the conclusion that she feels most influential among her peers because they “genuinely and constructively listen to [her] thoughts and [they are] able to engage in productive, intellectual conversations.” She has found that older adults are often overly confident that their views must be correct given their experience or arrogance, or both. Woman two wrote that she feels “the most influential in [her] closest circle of family and friends;” beyond this sphere, she does not feel like she could be very influential at all. 

I cannot speak for the survey respondents beyond their own responses, however I think it is critical to remember that what some may consider representation is in reality clouded by its actual impact on individuals. Descriptive representation does not necessarily translate into actual changes, and both the type and amount of representation affects individuals’ perceptions of their impact on their environments. 

References

[1] The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Overview of Findings.” 2018. https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/overview.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

Qualified Immunity: Why do we care so much about protecting police and so little about victims of civil rights violations?

BY: PAIGE REDDINGTON, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Have you ever wondered why police are able to get away with firing a weapon with no consequences in response to mild situations? Why these instances are rarely brought to light, or not tried in court against officers? What specifically protects police officers in these instances, and allows them to frequently abuse their power? It is more than just inherent bias and institutional racism within the justice system—there are specific rights in place protecting police officers, which allow them to frequently act in accordance with their racism and bias, without facing adequate consequences. Meet qualified immunity, a doctrine inherently defending police officers’ decisions, often regardless of what the decision is. 

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine which protects police officers from having legal action taken against them. This doctrine responds to section 1983 of federal law which states the right to sue officials who have violated constitutional rights [1]. The purpose of qualified immunity is to balance public officials’ power so that they cannot take advantage of their power while performing their duties, but at the same time protect them from being held liable when they need to make essential decisions in order to perform their job [2]. This doctrine stands regardless of the violation of someone’s civil rights. The only exception to this protection of police officers is if their action violates “clearly established” law.  In order to decide if the action violates a “clearly established” right, courts question if a “reasonable official” would think that the defendant’s action violated the victim’s rights, applying law in effect at time of the incident, rather than current law at the time of the court’s consideration. If the action is not deemed as a violation of “clearly established” law, then the victim is unable to take the officer to court to try them [3].

The present-day ideals of qualified immunity were established in the case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). In Harlow, rather than previously examining the officer’s “subjective good faith,” they decided to use the standard of “clearly established” law, which was defined as actions that “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” This change did increase protection for police officers, but also, as claimed by the court, steadfastly prevented police from acting in an unruly or exploitative way.

However, this raises several issues that prevent victims from obtaining justice. Victims whose civil rights have been violated in new, unique ways that have not previously been tried in court are unable to bring the violation to court, since the court needs victims to indicate a past, similar ruling that demonstrates the current violation as “clearly established.” As a result, even if this new violation becomes a repeated issue, it remains unqualified to be tried in court. This specifically sets up the legal system so that justice can never be served in new cases of violations with public officials, and, as a result, prevents and discourages victims from attempting to defend their rights. 

In Pearson v. Callahan (2009), the court ruled that, when considering a case, only the “clearly established” qualification must apply, when previously in 2001, it was decided that first the court should consider if the conduct infringes on a constitutional right, and second if it is clearly established. Now even if conduct infringes on someone’s constitutional rights, if it has not been taken to court previously, it is not considered clearly established and cannot be tried in court. Another obstacle the “clearly established” qualification brings stems from the definition of a “reasonable officer.” In 1986, the court decided that the situation must now be judged by “any reasonable officer” in order to be “clearly established.” According to Harvard Law professor Scott Michelman, this means that the action must be so clearly wrong that any officer—even the “least reasonable officer”—must recognize it as a violation. 

Many victims do not even attempt to bring their case to court, because there likely has not been a prior court case similar to their case, since qualified immunity was established in 1982. It creates obstacles for victims attempting to achieve justice, to the point where striving to take legal action has too many steps and costs, causing excessive effort, depletion of financial resources, and overall exhaustion. These costs of just attempting to achieve justice in the legal system outweigh the benefits of actually achieving a positive outcome, especially when the odds that victims can even bring their case to court is so low. Victims may not have the legal resources to research and discover whether their case is “clearly established” or know how to defend that it is “clearly established,” since this doctrine is so specific and rooted in legal history.

Supporters of qualified immunity argue that this doctrine is essential for police officers as it allows them to make instantaneous decisions when their duty calls for it, such as in life or death situations [4]. Supporters also claim that police officers would be responsible for a large sum of legal expenses every time legal action is taken against them, and the exhaustion that these cases would bring to police officers would detract from the attention they bring to their actual duties of handling important public issues. The Supreme Court argues that few people would decide to go into positions of governmental office if they did not have protections like qualified immunity. Essentially, the Supreme Court contends that you cannot take legal action against police officers if they were not aware of the law at the time of the violation—hence, the “clearly established” law distinction.

However, the reality is that very few qualified immunity cases actually involve these life or death situations where the officer was acting out of necessity. The Cato Institute reported that the Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing eight various cert petitions involving qualified immunity, yet the “overwhelming majority” of these petitions do not demonstrate any direct harm to the officer where they would need to make instantaneous decisions for their own protection. Justice Clarence Thomas, an originalist, criticized that qualified immunity has been used to exercise “free-wheeling policy choices” which the court does not have the power to actually make. Qualified immunity even stunts the ability for constitutional law to develop over time, as important cases are unable to be tried because they are not qualified as clearly established—this is particularly important as new innovations and technologies advance over time, raising new questions that remain unaddressed due to this doctrine.

The qualified immunity doctrine does not even rid police officers of the financial burden of legal expenses. UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz reports that police officers only bore 0.2% of the burden of expenses, due to police indemnification. As a result, officers’ financial costs rarely come out of their own money. Meanwhile, many victims are discouraged from even attempting to bring a case to court, because of its exhaustion of resources with a small chance of positive outcome. Even though in 1976 Congress allowed lawyers representing victims of civil rights violations to recover, this is not applicable in cases that have been denied due to qualified immunity. As a result, many victims are unable to even find lawyers to represent and fight for them in the first place.

While the elimination of this doctrine could discourage people from becoming police officers, it is more likely to discourage people who want to abuse their power from becoming police officers. Qualified immunity reinforces what Justice Sonia Sotomayer refers to as a “shoot first and think later” mentality, which involves being less concerned with the consequences of firing a weapon. The removal of qualified immunity would not ensure that victims win cases against police officers. Rather than discouraging and preventing victims from obtaining justice, the removal of qualified immunity would simply allow them a trial in court, and discourage officers from abusing their power due to the increased  likelihood of consequences. The removal of qualified immunity would eliminate just one of the many obstacles for victims of police brutality on the path to fighting injustice. 

On June 4, the Supreme Court reviewed a number of petitions involving qualified immunity, but it took a pass on resolving qualified immunity for the time being, due to less than four votes agreeing to come back to it then. This now puts the issue in Congress’s hands [5]. Recently, Representatives Justin Amash and Ayanna Pressley have proposed an Ending Qualified Immunity Act, which calls to make additions to section 1983 in order to limit the amount of immunity granted to officials, discouraging them from unfairly exercising their power [6]. Senator Cory Booker has also proposed a framework for police reform that would rectify qualified immunity [7]. If you are wondering what can be done in the meantime, you can sign a number of online petitions calling for the end of qualified immunity, spread information about qualified immunity to family and friends, or, if you have the financial means, donate to organizations working to end qualified immunity, like the Institute for Justice.

Resources:

Donate to Institute for Justice

End Qualified Immunity Petition

Qualified Immunity Needs Legislative Reform Petition

Congress: Qualified Immunity Petition

Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash’s End Qualified Immunity Act

Chair Bass, Sen. Booker and Harris, and Chair Nadler’s Justice in Policing Act of 2020

Sen. Mike Braun’s Qualified Immunity Reform Act

References

[1] Leef, George. “Qualified Immunity -- A Rootless Doctrine The Court Should Jettison.” Forbes. Last modified March 21, 2018. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2018/03/21/qualified-immunity-a-rootless-doctrine-the-court-should-jettison/#3692c38231c7

 [2] “Qualified immunity.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity#:~:text=Pearson%20v.%20Callahan%20.,established%E2%80%9D%20statutory%20or%20constitutional%20right.

[3] Sobel, Nathaniel. “What Is Qualified Immunity, and What Does It Have to Do With Police Reform?” Lawfare. Last modified June 6, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

[4] Sibilla, Nick. “New Bill Would Abolish Qualified Immunity, Make It Easier To Sue Cops Who Violate Civil Rights.” Forbes. Last modified June 3, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill-would-abolish-qualified-immunity-make-it-easier-to-sue-cops-who-violate-civil-rights/#8d2cd096fbc9

[5] Dwyer, Devin. “Supreme Court won’t revisit qualified immunity for police, leaving it to Congress.” ABC News. Last modified June 22, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wont-revisit-qualified-immunity-police-leaving/story?id=71374240

[6] “Reps. Pressley, Amash introduce bipartisan legislation to end qualified immunity.” U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. Last modified June 4, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://pressley.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-pressley-amash-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity

[7] Silva, Christianna. “Cory Booker Wants To End Qualified Immunity For Police Officers.” NPR. Last modified June 7, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/07/871713872/cory-booker-wants-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers

---

Paige Reddington is a rising senior at Amherst College majoring in English. She is an Arts and Living Writer for the campus newspaper The Amherst Student, a staff editor for the commentary magazine The Indicator, a member of the Reproductive Justice Alliance, and runs cross country and track for Amherst. Her interests include writing, social justice, and intersectionality.