A group of revolutionary communists, also known as Revcoms, and I marched into Professor Snyder’s “Hitler, Stalin, Us” class and announced “No class as usual today — we are in a state of emergency.” 

We did not announce “no class.” We didn’t force anyone to go anywhere, much less to “evacuate,” which would imply danger. No one’s safety was put at risk, contrary to various online comments off the News’ article that we were threatening Professor Snyder.  

Our goal was to open up debate, not shout down Professor Snyder. We boldly issued our challenge to debate the past and future of the communist revolution, an invitation I’d personally delivered months ago, as the News noted. He ducked the challenge and the issues raised, including why he hasn’t condemned U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza — while at the same time he continues to drum up support for America’s proxy war with imperialist rival Russia over Ukraine. As for the claim that the Revcoms did “not engage in any sort of discussion,” some students did stay in the classroom, and a principled, substantive dialogue followed.

The News included a few quotes from me in the latter part of the article after framing the issue in terms of “evacuation” and “shouting” people down. But the article did not convey what motivated our emergency intervention: the immediate, extreme crises humanity faces — from Gaza to the stripping away of women’s reproductive rights, to looming Trump fascism, possible nuclear war over Ukraine, and a climate crisis careening towards catastrophe.  

The debate over the dangers humanity faces, and their real solution, is urgently needed — and the News can play an important role in fostering this. This is all the more important given the Yale administration’s vague restrictions on our presence on campus, despite promoting an “open campus” that protects speech and nurtures critical thinking. If the university acts to curb our presence, it would again shut down any debate over a real alternative outside the “acceptable discourse” of the current political and economic order.

RAYMOND LOTTA is an advocate for the new communism of Bob Avakian. Lotta has written and lectured extensively on the Russian and Chinese revolutions. He’s the spokesperson for Revolution Books, New York City. Contact him at: revbooksnyc@yahoo.com. 

The post LETTER 3.07: I called for opening up debate, not shutting down class appeared first on Yale Daily News.

We soon learned Yildirim’s resignation letter was only the tip of the iceberg. Her Twitter includes statements like “Israel killed their own citizens on October 7th, there was no beheaded babies, there was no raped women, there was no babies were put into an oven [sic],” “all zionists must be institutionalized. they are a severe threat to all humans [sic],” and “zionists are the lowest form of human existence [sic].” Her conspiracies and race-science-like language about Jews speak for themselves.

As DEI Chair, Yildirim’s mission was to “represent the voice of underrepresented minority students and discuss ways to improve the support and retention of graduate students.” Her comments don’t reflect this ethic: “i truly deeply hate everyone who supports this genocide i hope they suffer from worse pains than they inflicted on palestinians. I don’t wish them death, i wish them an incredibly excruciating pain that would make them beg for death [sic].” 

All of these statements were made in the months preceding her resignation, which begs the question why Yale did not step in to remove her from her position in the first place. But this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Since Hamas’ Oct. 7 killing spree, Yale has done little to quell Jew-haters who empower Hamas.

In February, signs reading “No IDF on Campus” were hung across the walls of the Yale Law School. As with Yildrim, no action was taken by the Yale administration to address these overtly discriminatory acts — not even a condemnation. 

Later that month, a statement that graduate students delivered aloud to an administrative forum at the Yale School of Drama refers to the Israel Defense Forces as “IOF” — Israeli Occupation Forces — implying that all of Israel is occupied territory and must be destroyed. The statement claims that the deaths of Oct. 7 occurred “at the hands of the IOF,” and that the atrocities against Palestinians mirror “conditions imposed on Jews in Nazi Germany” — a Holocaust comparison that compares Jews to the people who made them dig their own graves before shooting them in or gassing them down. It adds that “Zionism is a form of white supremacy” — even though much of Israel is Arab, Middle Eastern, and Black — and puts out the conspiracy that Israel’s “colonial practice is first tested on Palestinians before being exported to the brutal regimes of the world,” beginning in the “four subdivisions of occupied Palestine.” Apparently, all of Israel is occupied Palestine, and these students want to destroy all of it. Again, these events speak for themselves.

Yale is fortunate that Yildirim resigned from her position at what she describes as “one of the most powerful educational institutions in a country directly enabling and funding this genocide.” She was disappointed by Yale’s unwillingness to “contribute to the ongoing efforts to stop the genocide of Palestinians” — efforts which, in her view, include human torture against Israelis. So she quit. But why did she have the option? 

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Yilidrim is no different from many of her colleagues in the American Studies and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies departments. And Yale will not speak out against this hateful swath of their community. Yale American Studies professor Zareena Grewal, for instance, posted on Twitter on Oct. 7, “My heart is in my throat. Prayers for Palestinians. Israeli [sic] is a murderous, genocidal settler state and Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle, solidarity. #FreePalestine,” and reposted on Oct. 8 a news video detailing the Hamas attack, with her own caption reading, “It’s been such an extraordinary day!” In the American Studies Department, which one of us passes daily to and from class, multiple faculty office doors were marked with maps of Israel covered by the words, “From the River to Sea Palestine will be free.” In the halls of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies department, there is a poster with a caricature of Netanyahu eating a watermelon slice shaped like Israel, blood dripping from his mouth and hands, which rings of anti-Jewish blood libel. 

Yet Yildirim’s efforts are not reduced to two antisemitic departments. At the end of her resignation letter, she thanks her fellow graduate students for nominating and electing her and “for their support and leadership throughout my time as the DEI committee chair.” Yes, Yildirim was elected to the Graduate Student Assembly, a student government organization supposedly representing all of Yale’s graduate students. Rather than condemning her hate, Yildirim’s peers propped her up, and Yale’s administration continues to remain silent. 

Examples like these abound, but the message is clear: Yale fails to proactively condemn students like Yildirim — who encourage real violence against Jews — and remove them from their roles for violating university policy, instead cheering them on as champions of inclusivity.  Current university administrators are the last generation of academics empowered to shift the tide before these students take over in their roles. Without Yale’s intervention, all we can do is wait for Yildirim’s calls to come to fruition. We demand Yale not let us see that day.

SAHAR TARTAK is a sophomore in Pierson College. Contact her at sahar.tartak@yale.edu.

NETANEL CRISPE is a junior in Grace Hopper. Contact him at netanel.crispe@yale.edu

The post CRISPE & TARTAK: Yale graduate students deny Hamas’ responsibility for October 7 and compare Jews to Nazis — and it’s Yale’s fault appeared first on Yale Daily News.

What is the reason that the press has tiptoed around the motivation issue — except for Newsweek — I note that Ms. Perry voluntarily gave an interview to the “New Haven Register” shortly after the murder on the topic of her relationship with Mr. Jiang, so there is no privacy claim to shield her from press attention as to Mr. Pan’s motivation. 

Based on the facts I’ve been able to find, it seems to me that the causal and motivational details surrounding this murder are extremely relevant in today’s culture of violence and racial tensions. The underlying facts of this case are practically sui generis, yet as it has been reported, it’s just another mindless homicide. Your readers should be given the entire story.  

JAMES LUCE is a member of the Yale College class of 1966. Contact him at jaume@sbcglobal.net.

The post LETTER 3.07: Pan pleads guilty appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Chess players have to study an array of openings to win. Popular ones include the Sicilian, the Caro-Kann and the Reti. But there is one opening that stands out to me like none other: the Queen’s Gambit. 

The Queen’s Gambit can only be used against beginner and intermediate players since most advanced players know how to defend it right away. Here’s how it goes: white moves their pawn to d4, black moves their pawn to d5 and then white moves a second pawn to c4. In doing so, white is offering up a pawn that can be captured with no collateral in return. When black accepts the Queen’s Gambit, they capture white’s pawn and automatically edge one point up in the game. 

When really digging into the opening, though, the Queen’s Gambit is a sacrifice that white makes to better their chances down the line. It’s a purposeful sacrifice; an intentional, thought-out one. It’s not a mistake to move that second pawn to d4. It’s a smart offering that allows for better positioning. All sorts of items will fall into place because of the sacrifice: white’s bishop diagonals become more successful and their attack on black’s kingside flank is improved. 

Success, to me, is a lot like the Queen’s Gambit. Yalies are ambitious. Half want to be president of the United States one day and the other half want to either run a private equity firm or be some laureate in physics and math in 20 years. But if you want to accomplish any of those things, you have to play life like you would the Queen’s Gambit. You have to make sacrifices. 

The biggest sacrifice successful people make is misery. Success takes hard work, and much hard work is incredibly, twistedly miserable. 

I got into Yale because I was a track star in high school. Then female, I was training for the women’s indoor two-mile, and my coaches made me do a painful workout: mile repeats. Mile repeats include five or six miles run only one minute apart from each other, and each mile should be run approximately one minute slower than your target mile race time. It was rainy and wet and miserable, and I ran the first repeat in six minutes. The second was at 5:55, then 5:50, 5:50, 5:45 and the last was 5:40. My coaches were yelling down my throat, and I threw up after. But I did at least 30 other workouts in that year that were just as brutal. 

Weeks later I clocked a 10:49 two-mile on an indoor track and became the third fastest two-mile runner in the state of Virginia. I graced Yale’s heavenly, Ivy-clad gates because of that time. Here’s the thing: misery — and I mean horrible, grand, sweeping misery — pays off in the long run. Misery is what builds success. Happiness doesn’t. But misery is an emotional sacrifice, just like the Queen’s Gambit. 

Scientists have long studied the dynamic between short-term and long-term rewards. The 1972 Stanford marshmallow experiment showed that children who were able to wait 15 minutes for a second marshmallow without eating the first ended up with higher SAT scores in later years. In 2011, researchers in the British Journal of Psychology found that a subject’s willingness to postpone receiving an immediate reward in exchange for future benefits was closely linked to their “health, wealth, and happiness.” Delayed gratification is so profound and well received that it has seeped into popular culture where self-help gurus like Tony Robbins push its philosophy onto audiences. 

Indeed, sacrificing short term happiness for longer term gains is what makes people successful. 

This might seem intuitively obvious to most readers. But this isn’t apparent in post graduate life: tales of mid-tier managers running amok on strip club benders and stories of bosses succumbing to pyramid schemes abound. 

My addition to the delayed gratification field of academia is that misery – and I mean the pure, unadulterated, uninhibited kind – is actually beneficial over the course of many years and produces ecstatic, happy emotions once done in repeat.

Accomplishments don’t come from happy times or joyful memories. They come from desolate work sessions and strategic planning, just like the kind you find in chess. 

So, next time you think about achieving a goal, remember the Queen’s Gambit. Move your pawn to c4. 

You won’t regret it. 

ISAAC AMEND graduated in 2017 from Timothy Dwight College. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s “Gender Revolution” documentary. In his free time, he is a columnist for the Washington Blade. He also serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him at isaac.amend35@gmail.com. 

The post AMEND: The Queen’s Gambit appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Funding for CSCU per student has decreased 21 percent since 2008, leaving schools that have been severely underfunded for longer than a decade. In order to prevent two community colleges from being shut down, the Connecticut Board of Regents (BOR) decided to merge all the individual colleges into one mega-institution, despite a opposition petition signed by 1,400 members of the CSCU community and joint opposition statements from all five unions under the CSCU umbrella.

The members of the BOR — former CEOs, venture capitalists and union-busting lawyers with no backgrounds in education — are running the CSCU system like a failing business, and it is no surprise that students and teachers are being punished the most. Tuition for students will be raised thousands of dollars, and more than 650 full-time educators along with 3,500 part-time employees will lose their jobs. The ramifications of this will mean great increases in class sizes and the cutting of special education and mental health programs, along with extreme burdens placed on professors who won’t be compensated for their increased responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Connecticut lawmakers are planning to swell the state’s “rainy day fund” from $3.3 billion to $4 billion by 2025 — apparently bailing out the state’s failing education system is not worthy of emergency funding. 

Austerity measures are taken periodically, because the contradictions of capitalism inevitably lead to underpaid workers, those who produce the commodities, not being able to afford the excessive amount of products and services they collectively create. This is called underconsumption, which induces a period of economic decline, and austerity measures are taken by governments at all levels. They raise taxes and cut government spending to balance a budget deficit. They create a vicious cycle of poverty for the working class. As the most vulnerable members of our society, austerity measures deny public goods which should be free or affordable to poor citizens, worsening their financial insecurity.  

Another example of austerity measures burdening the working class is after the 2008 recession in the United States. Forty-three states cut higher education spending, 31 states cut health care services and 44 states cut employee compensation. According to a 2020 study from the Center of Law and Social Policy, quite a few states used the budget crisis and lack of federal aid to underfund social security nets and “actively implement anti-worker policies.” The study highlights the Florida unemployment insurance system, which “was essentially designed to limit benefits and deny claims.” It continues, “Nine other states cut the duration of unemployment insurance benefits after 2011, leaving their systems woefully underfunded and unprepared in today’s crisis.” The report goes on to emphasize that the states with the worst unemployment services had the highest concentrations of Black and Latinx workers in low-paying jobs. Austerity measures are one of the primary factors that maintain institutional racism.

In the case of CSCU schools, rising cost of living and stagnant wages make it difficult for students of working class families to pursue public higher education as tuition increases. With college enrollment declining, the schools run deficits to cover the cost of under-enrollment and pass these costs back on to the working class by cutting education spending and raising tuition. These measures inevitably force more students out of the public higher education pool and perpetuates the cycle. Even worse, the CSCU spending cuts are not unique to Connecticut public universities. There is a nationwide trend of slashing budgets for higher education. 

Although it is very unlikely that the ruling elite who control the BOR have a shred of sympathy for anyone outside their wealthy clique, these austerity measures are not taken because of their disdain for the students and teachers being affected by their policies. They are taken because the government is an organ of class control: it is run by capitalists to serve their interests against the interest of the workers. Such is the nature of the state under capitalism. While thousands of students and teachers have been kicked to the curb, Connecticut saw its defense spending increase by $3 billion in 2022 per the orders of the White House, so more weapons can be sent to fund imperialist wars and genocides.

A system that is incapable of educating its populace or increasing their standard of living is not fit to continue. Let’s be clear: the resources are available to cover this $140 million deficit. Simply pulling a fraction out of the “rainy day fund” or public expenditure on defense could cover the deficit easily. It is time to stop begging the capitalists for piecemeal reforms to problems they can easily solve. Instead, we ought to consider who decides where state funds are disubstituted: the capitalists or the people who have to foot the bill for the problems their system created?  

SEBASTIAN WARD is a sophomore in Timothy Dwight College. Contact him at sebastian.ward@yale.edu.

The post WARD: A Lesson in Austerity Measures appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The Myanmar Spring Revolution began when the Tatmadaw, the military of Myanmar led by General Min Aung Hlaing, staged a coup d’etat on Feb. 1, 2021. Waves of organized resistance began with healthcare workers boycotting state-run hospitals. Protestors, consisting mostly of Gen-Zers and civilians, proceeded to stage numerous protests that were initially non-violent. But as the Tatmadaw became violent against civilians, they struck back. The Tatmadaw responded with social media blackouts and mass arrests. After three years of turmoil, protestors are now faced with a new conscription law that forces all men ages 18 to 35 and women ages 18 to 27 to serve at least two years in the military. This new conscription law endangers many civilian leaders and protestors as they are forced to face the reality of becoming human shields against their own people.

Dr. Moe was born and raised in a small village in Myanmar and came to the Ivy League at the invitation of the MacMillan Center and the Council on Southeast Asia Studies. Considering himself as an academic, advocate and activist, Dr. Moe’s studies delve into the intersection of religion and politics in Myanmar and broader Asia. 

 “The aim of this current course is to invite students to explore untold stories, exercise curiosity and discover new interests in Asia, especially the Southeast Asian religion, politics and identity,” Dr. Moe said. 

When he’s not teaching, he speaks at academic universities around the world, joins grassroots anti-coup resistances and meets with some U.S. senators to advocate for aid and awareness of the struggles of the people of Myanmar. In my class, he informs us on the revolution’s causes and its experiences. Dr. Moe has also grounded the class in “lived experiences,” he says,  intersecting politics and religion — rather than the common academic and philosophical perspectives. Many students were unaware of the Myanmar Spring Revolution before taking this class, which I believe is indicative of mainstream media’s lack of recurring coverage on these protests.

“Myanmar news has been replaced by other conflicts,” Dr. Moe told me. “I wish the international community could come together stronger and protect the people of Myanmar … at least they have to reject the coup as the hegemonic and illegitimate government.” 

A couple of students I spoke with also expressed feelings of disbelief about not knowing about the revolution. “Myanmar Diaries” captures the civilians’ lived reality: a young child getting bullied in school because his father works and hasn’t joined the movement; an unconscious protester getting beaten up and dragged by the military. Myanmar’s reality is often buried or nonexistent in Western media outlets, as they fail to cover much of what is actually happening. 

In a hyper-polarized time, Western media creates echo-chambers of duality, placing significance on only one topic at a time. Perhaps this calls for a diversion of attention away from Western media to social media. Social media is an instrumental platform that has the potential to spread information and lived experiences. 

“Myanmar didn’t have access to the internet for a long time because of dictatorship,” Dr. Moe told me. “While Twitter is used by some political elites, many young and old people from all walks of life use Facebook today. Facebook has become a platform for social movement against this military coup.”

It is a platform for media equality that should be widespread. While I was talking with one of my classmates, Hameeda Uloomi ’26, about the role social media plays in this context, we pondered on if social media is an effective enough tool. She thought so, citing Elon Musk giving access to Starlink to all countries as an example to follow.

 It is necessary to approach social media posts with caution. Because social media doesn’t come with a vetting system that is capable of sifting misinformation and disinformation from accurate facts, the truth gets muddled. And when perception changes according to social media posts, strong public opinion has the opportunity to shape politics and voter choice for international diplomatic relations. Truth cannot become the victim. 

As I reflected on this documentary, I began to realize social media’s power in offering first-hand experiences. It is ever important to crowd social media with the lived experiences of protestors, who are living embodiments of the struggle for justice and human rights. We must actively search for these stories. These stories hold power in documentaries, videos, poems and more. It is our role as students attending a prestigious university to be an advocate — whether it be through artwork, circulating Facebook fundraisers and organizational events, sharing coverage on the protests or urging our senators to co-sponsor and support S. res.20, a resolution condemning the Myanmar military coup. In a highly digitized world, we must be prepared to uplift other people’s voices. 

Three years later, Myanmar civilians are still fighting. In Dr. Moe’s words, “I would urge the community of local and global citizens to remember the fallen heroes, resist the coup, and revive our hope for the future of democracy in Myanmar,” Dr. Moe said. “One of the most important things to do in human life is to tell the untold stories of others.”

EMILY KHYM is a first-year in Benjamin Franklin College. Contact her at emily.khym@yale.edu. 

The post KHYM: Amplifying the Voices of Myanmar Protestors appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Musk, for his part, has denied the Journal’s reporting, writing on the platform formerly known as Twitter: “After that one puff with Rogan, I agreed, at NASA’s request, to do three years of random drug testing. Not even trace quantities were found of any drugs or alcohol.” I will leave evaluating the accuracy of that second sentence as an exercise for the reader.

One of my best friends from home is an Army Ranger. He gets regularly tested for illegal drug use, as do all government employees and contractors. Elon Musk is, among other things, a government contractor. SpaceX’s Dragon rocket is the only NASA-approved vehicle for taking astronauts to the International Space Station and has received billions in government contracts. Starlink, a network of satellites deployed using SpaceX rockets, is by far the dominant player in the field; its units already make up over half of all active satellites, and Musk plans to put thousands more into orbit. 

Given his alleged drug habits, pattern of openly flouting federal securities law and business interests in China, the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote that “government agencies should at the very least consider whether it is wise to renew their contracts or sign on to others.” 

Ukraine, for instance, relies on Starlink for its defense effort against Russia’s invasion. According to a recent biography, Musk deactivated Starlink service near Crimea in September of 2021 to thwart a Ukrainian attack on the Russian navy, because he did not personally approve of the operation. He later confirmed this on Twitter. The New York Times reported that Musk has restricted where Starlink is available in Ukraine depending on how battle lines shift and his personal assessment of Ukrainian tactics. 

More importantly, Elon Musk has enormous business interests in China. My former boss, Matt Yglesias, has written at length about this — but I’ll give you the short version. Tesla is building more and more of its cars in China and its new factory in Shanghai is its largest in the world, expected to produce over half of its cars worldwide. Most of Musk’s cars are sold in China, and  Tesla is exempt from the normal requirement that companies selling cars in the Chinese market must be joint-owned by a Chinese firm. 

As Tesla’s ties to China have deepened, Musk’s publicly stated views on the Chinese government have morphed from critical to effusive — praising China’s infrastructure and COVID-19 response and advocating for incorporating Taiwan into a “special administrative zone,” similar to Hong Kong. We all know how well that turned out. 

As Matt points out, none of this is surprising at all. The Chinese market is very large and very lucrative. Western firms want to get a piece of it, and the price of doing business is staying mum about the Chinese government’s human rights abuses. So the NBA, Apple, Mercedes and John Cena toe the CCP line because business is business. The only difference between them and Musk is that none of them controls infrastructure critical to American defense policy. 

Musk’s China ties are already shaping the way he runs Starlink. In an interview with the Financial Times, he “says Beijing sought assurances that he would not sell Starlink in China.” The New York Times has reported that Taiwan is reluctant to use Starlink because of “tremendous concerns” over Musk’s business interests in China. 

Which brings me back to the Post’s editorial. They are of course completely correct about the drugs and the erratic behavior and Musk’s business interests. But their solution is lacking. The United States government should do more than review its contracts — it should nationalize Starlink. Ketamine habit aside, Elon Musk has a massive conflict of interest and cannot be trusted to put the national interest over his own bottom line. Uncle Sam can and should resolve this conflict by buying Starlink, for a fair price.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, so the question of how exactly to go about with nationalization must be left for another day. But I do know a thing or two about politics, and given his recent rightward turn, if the Biden administration took my advice, Musk would undoubtedly cry political persecution. “Clearly, the White House is targeting me for my political views and public criticisms of the president!” Conservatives’ belief in a “two-tiered justice system” that holds Democrats to a lower standard would be bolstered, which would further erode public trust in the rule of law. But a Republican administration would be less vulnerable on that front. So if Donald Trump wins this fall, he should do more than talk the talk on China — he should walk the walk and nationalize Starlink.

The post SINGH: Nationalize Starlink appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Jokes might appear in our daily language or be referenced in order to support the delivery of another joke. For example: “You never see two pretty best friends in the same relationship stage.” It is, of course, completely possible to get through a conversation without a single reference to TikToks or reels. But we college students spend time with friends and classmates in various settings. We inevitably run into these jokes, which have become a universally relatable point of humor for people who may not know each other very well. Social media’s reach has allowed inside jokes to be shared across the globe, spread by word of millions of mouths. 

I’m not trying to condemn this phenomenon. It’s only natural to seek kinship and membership within a social group. And viral jokes are the latest chapter in humor’s illustrious history. It’s a tradition that dates back to radios, television, newspapers, village rumor mills and traveling traders or entertainers. But today’s scope of virality is unmatched. Am I laughing at this joke because I think it’s funny, or because millions of people have laughed at the same joke?

These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Although humor is subjective, there is a certain science to it. Irony, sarcasm or silliness are typical components of a funny joke. I’m more concerned with the jokes that make up “Gen Z humor.” 

What I have noticed about Gen-Z jokes is that many people often encounter the punchline before the joke’s set-up. Before I saw the video of the young man saying, “I ain’t never seen two pretty best friends,” I came across multiple references to it in person and on social media. I was confused by it until I received an explanation. And I still don’t find it funny. 

This has been my experience for a lot of viral jokes, like the “rizz” face and “you’re telling me a shrimp fried this rice.” And if I’m interpreting the search engine “most commonly searched” topics correctly, then I’m not alone. There are many who are confused by the latest trending joke and have had to look it up or ask in the comments, “Explain please,” “I don’t get it.” After we get the joke, some of us go on to spread it by referencing it in person or repeating it online, prompting a cycle that ensures more people are laughing at the same joke. But how many people actually found it funny in the first place?

While participating in viral trends can be fun and community-building, there is value in being more intuitive with our humor. I’m not trying to say I’m too cool to laugh at what my friends are laughing at — one of the most wonderful things about laughter is that there is no limit to what can kindle it. If I find a viral joke funny, I will laugh and share my enjoyment with those around me. However, some of my fondest memories are of cracking up with my friends at nonsensical things that we keep building on, such as an extreme mispronunciation or an awkward moment in class, and carrying forward funny moments until they become our own established inside joke. Even just making eye contact with my friend during certain situations and knowing we’re thinking the exact same thing is enough to make me smile. I will always treasure the nights my roommate and I spent staying up until 4 a.m., laughing until the girl on the other side of the fire alarm door finally knocked on the wall for some peace. 

I want to be more honest with myself with what I do laugh at; I want my sense of humor to come from authentic amusement instead of laughing at the latest, ultra-relatable joke. We can be more original; we can find a delight in the unexpected and enrich our happiness that much more.

BIANCA NAM is a senior in Saybrook College. Her column “Dear Woman” traverses contemporary feminist, progressive issues. She can be reached at hyerim.nam@yale.edu. 

The post NAM: The Standardization of Humor appeared first on Yale Daily News.

When my cousin gave birth just a year ago, she also had a difficult time. Throughout the course of her pregnancy, her doctor told her the baby wasn’t progressing as much as they expected him to, especially with how far along she was in her pregnancy. A few weeks before her due date, they encouraged inducing her labor. She wanted to give the baby some more time to see if he’d be able to grow on his own, but at 39 weeks she decided to go through with being induced. While this may have been the doctor’s professional opinion, complications arose following her induction. Two days later, the baby still wasn’t here. Her doctor attempted to use a Foley Bulb to help her cervix dilate, but she described it as being an extremely uncomfortable process. When this didn’t work and the baby’s heart rate began to drop each time she contracted, she was rushed into an emergency cesarean section. 

Unfortunately, their stories are not a unique experience for many Black women. My mother and sister happen to be among the “luckier” mothers who got to walk out of the hospital with their babies; some Black mothers never leave the hospital, Black women far too often have to beg for doctors to do their job, and when doctors fail to follow through, it can have life-threatening consequences. 

This phenomenon is part of a larger systemic issue that has deep historical roots. For example, dating back to the 19th century, notorious figures in healthcare like J. Marion Sims performed nonconsensual and experimental procedures on Black women to make advancements in the study of gynecology. Enslaved women like “Anarcha,” “Betsey” and “Lucy,” the only three of his subjects he named in his scientific journals, were forced to undergo medical operations, restrained to the operating table and given no anesthesia because it was a commonly held belief that Black women didn’t feel pain in the same way white women did. 

Centuries later, Black women are still being dismissed by medical professionals because of racially biased myths and are facing life-threatening consequences because of it. Even affluent Black women aren’t immune to the effects of medical racism. 23-time Grand Slam champion Serena Williams recalled how doctors and nurses were quick to dismiss her concerns following the birth of her daughter as she described her shortness of breath and history of blood clots. She knew that it might’ve been a sign of something more serious and insisted she needed a CT scan and heparin, and when doctors gave in after she persisted, they found that she did, in fact, have blood clots in her lungs that required life-saving surgery before they traveled to her heart. 

It shouldn’t take Black women to get to a point where they feel like they’re dying, or actually die, for medical professionals to do their job. These women have entrusted their doctors with saving them and instead have to take charge of their own health and save themselves. The legacy of our medical system is marred by its racist roots, and it’s about time they confront and rectify it for the health of all Black women who’ve been victims of it. 

I’m writing this piece not because this story hasn’t already been told or because these experiences are unique to my mother, cousin or countless other Black women whose stories haven’t been told — but I’m going to keep telling this story anywhere I can until someone starts to listen to us. 

JA’JUAN REFUGE is a first-year in Silliman College. Contact her at jajuan.refuge@yale.edu. 

The post REFUGE: Bearing witness: the harrowing reality of Black maternal healthcare appeared first on Yale Daily News.