Carlos Holguin
Number of articles: 6First article: March 4, 2016
Latest article: December 2, 2016
Popular
-
Criticisms of political correctness are no excuse
-
Ramblings of a mountain man Americans need to stop abusing the peace pipe
-
Ramblings of a mountain man Kneeling to take a stand
-
Is America ready for a strongman?
-
Ramblings of a mountain man Pursuing education takes priority over entertainment industry
Longreads
Columns
All articles
-
Ramblings of a mountain man: Pursuing education takes priority over entertainment industry
It is a common understanding that education is the key to furthering an individual’s socioeconomic standing. Individuals can also improve their socioeconomic status in the entertainment business. However, individuals cannot assure socioeconomic improvement due to the volatile nature of the entertainment business. It is just as important for a poor white person to obtain advanced technical training or a college degree as it is for their poor African-American counterparts. While minorities have been disproportionately poorer than whites, there are still poor whites who need to escape poverty, and education is the surest key to escape their situation.
Advanced education is the best way to escape poverty, though entertainment is another way to make enough money to improve socioeconomic standing. It is not feasible for all those in the lower rungs of society to become singers and athletes as a means to end the cycle of poverty. Less than one percent of all high school athletes and singers make it to the professional level in their respective sport or musical field. This means there are still many who do not make it each year even if they miss the cut by the smallest of margins. Since only a select number of people can become professional entertainers, these stars should focus the spotlight on education, as this allows for more people to advance in society. This isn’t to say people should stop aspiring to become professional entertainers, but rather should come to understand an education is just as—if not more—important.
Advanced education is a surer way for poor Americans to escape poverty. There are many more jobs outside of entertainment and in some job sectors there aren’t enough people to fill all the jobs. To obtain these jobs, Americans in almost all cases need some form of higher education, even if this means an apprenticeship and advanced technical training to become an electrician, for example. This is a shift from generations ago where workers could work in factories with just a high school degree and make enough to live a comfortable life. This is no longer the case, as many jobs nowadays are considered be high-skill rather than low-skill. This means a high school diploma is no longer the golden standard for education. Instead, the standard has shifted up some to require apprentice training or some form of college degree. To highlight this change, it might help to change the attitudes about continuing education, making it seem not like a novelty, but rather as a necessity for a professional life.
For those fortunate enough to go to college, this system isn’t perfect either, even with the introduction of legislation helping underrepresented groups gain entrance into the college system. Unfortunately, this didn’t solve the issue around actually paying for college, especially for those of lower socioeconomic status. College prices have been steadily rising since the 1980s with no signs of slowing down and some elite colleges even charge upwards of $60,000 per year. Even with financial aid, many poor students cannot afford to go to college, or if they do, they take on exorbitant amounts of student debt. This hole in the system means people of lower socioeconomic groups cannot further themselves without risking wrecking themselves financially. This shouldn’t be the case, and there needs to be some way in which public colleges and universities have ways to pay for students. This could come in the form of federal legislation change to set money aside to help those who need financial aid, to a higher degree than what the Pell grants seem to be able to handle. Also, there are many technical programs that are very expensive. Students amass a great amount of debt when they enroll in some of these programs. All those who wish to continue their education or training should have the opportunity to do so even if this means they need some financial aid, without fear of taking on massive debt.
Continuing one’s education is the key to success, and yet for so many it is so far away. There has to be a system which allows for those who need it the most to access it. At the same time America has to shift the spotlight away from making it as a professional entertainer. The future is here and advanced education or training is the key to moving forward for everyone. At the end of the day education is the great equalizer and we can all agree a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
-
Ramblings of a mountain man: Creating safe spaces fosters academic engagement for all
The University of Chicago recently sent a letter to its freshman class abolishing safe spaces and trigger warnings in favor of academic inquiry and advancement. This letter might have been well-intentioned, but it misses the mark by forgetting about marginalized groups such as minorities, sexual assault survivors and the LGBTQ community. If a college does not allow for spaces for these and other groups when needed, then academic institutions may run the risk of further marginalizing these groups while also diluting the college experience for the rest of the student body.
The need for safe spaces has evolved as the college landscape has developed over the last half century. In this time, colleges increasingly accepted larger numbers of minorities and women. More recently, as a result of the gay rights movement, the stigma around being LGBTQ has slowly been lifted and nowadays—in many parts of the country—it appears safer to announce one’s sexuality. Across America’s college campuses, communities have been created, and have served numerous purposes. These include: a place where the students feel free of criticisms, where they don’t have to explain and/or defend their identity to others, where they don’t have to fear being ostracized and where they can safely decompress and exchange their experiences. These safe spaces are similar to release valves as they allow the students to sound off if they need to. Thus safe spaces don’t inhibit academic curiosity, but rather enhance it by allowing students to recharge before they rejoin the larger student population.
There are stories that are best left on the shelf and don’t need to be aired out for all to see. These stories can revolve around traumatic events related to a family’s acceptance of sexual identity, family violence, the struggles of impoverished communities, sexual assaults and harassment. These stories often are painful for the storyteller and often their scars run deep—I would know. To not give the students with these stories space to meet others with similar stories may increase their vulnerability and marginalization. As an example, one in four women and one in six men will experience sexual assault in college. Communities of sexual assault survivors absolutely deserve a safe space to meet. Without it, they may struggle—alone—to find ways to move forward with their lives.
It is also important to remember the goal of a college, which is to help foster an environment where intellectualism does not only exist but also flourishes. To properly create this environment, a "one size fits all" policy may run counter to spurring a rich, healthy environment in that different groups of students have different needs. As an example, colleges don’t have different athletes using the same locker room, for feasibility and logistical reasons. This strain of logic can be applied to the many different minority and LGBTQ groups on college campuses. By giving these groups a space on campuses to meet, they are granted the same opportunity to gather. This is similar to the way various science and literature clubs are set up, with the exception that these groups are not shaped up by interests but rather by shared experience. If these experiences aren’t allowed a space to thrive, then the story of the college campus runs the risk of becoming stunted.
College is a place where students with diverse experiences and backgrounds come together and knit a quilt from thousands of different colors of thread. Yet the University of Chicago has decided to remove some threads and tatter the quilt. In doing so, they are limiting the college experience for both the general student body and the students who aren’t allowed safe spaces. They say, "College is supposed to be the best four years of your life," but not if the college administrators’ decisions make you feel like you don’t belong.
-
Ramblings of a mountain man: Kneeling to take a stand
Since late August, a number of high-profile American athletes have used their platform to protest the racial inequality apparent in the treatment of African-American males by police and the criminal justice system. From sitting to kneeling to raising a fist to interlocking arms during the national anthem, N.F.L. athletes—like many other famous professional athletes before them—are causing a national stir and igniting a ferocious debate about free speech, criminal justice reform and the disparate and harsh treatment that they and their African-American brothers endure at the hands of oppressive systems.
While one U.S. presidential candidate believes there has never been a worse time to be an African-American in this country (he must have slept through civics and the lessons on Jim Crow and slavery), I do believe that it must be an unsettling time to be an African-American man in America. As a proponent of free speech and using historical context and lessons, I stand by these athletes’ choices to not stand for the national anthem.
The history of this country is tied to racial inequality. America’s original economy was founded on enslaving those of darker skin. Essentially, blacks worked for nothing and whites spent decades making profits from others’ hard work. This system allowed whites to create a system out of Social Darwinism, which still holds to this day. Even when minorities were freed, their status as second-class citizens prevailed as they were kept away from the “society whites” through racist laws which once again allowed whites to further enhance their economic standing at the cost of minority citizens. In turn, a system of oppression materialized, backed by laws that perpetuated discriminatory practices, resulting in minorities, to this day, struggling in their pursuit of the American Dream. When one realizes the economic disparity created by systemic social inequality, it becomes clear why minority athletes speak out against these systems of oppression.
Let’s take a walk down memory lane. Some of the greatest minority athletes of the 20th century protested the racial inequality both during and after the civil rights era. Jackie Robinson—number 42, who is celebrated annually by Major League Baseball—took part in active protests during the Civil Rights era. This is the same Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier in baseball and who could have been cut from the team for his actions. These athletes—despite the unknown risks to themselves, their families and their livelihoods—protested so the next generations could have a better life.
John Carlos raised his fist in defiance at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City during the Civil Rights movement. He did this to protest the unfair treatment blacks were receiving under the separate but equal laws.
Muhammed Ali—Mr. Float Like a Butterfly and Sting Like a Bee—was sentenced and lost his boxing titles because he would rather consciously object to the Vietnam War than serve in it. He would later go on to reclaim this title and establish himself as the greatest boxer to ever live.
All of these athletes became legends when they took a stand during the peaks of their athletic careers, using their First Amendment rights to publicly stand up against the racist systems of oppression.
The athletes who have protested in the last couple of weeks play in the N.F.L. As they use the only platform they have—as overpaid entertainers—their messages are resoundingly clear: minorities are more likely to be killed by police officers than their white counterparts and they are also more likely to get harsher penalties for similar crimes committed by their white counterparts. While he may have only been the second string quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers at the time, Colin Kaepernick came to understand these harsh truths, and decided to use Sundays when millions of Americans are glued to the TV screen to send a nonverbal signal against these injustices. The basic premise of the argument is, “Why should I show allegiance to the country which still actively oppresses me through various means?” and “By protesting the symbol that is supposed to unite our country, will people wake up to our harsh realities and spur real change?”
Not only am I proud of these athletes, but I also stand with them as a Mexican-American citizen whose people have been similarly oppressed. Perhaps their actions will spur revival of the Civil Rights movement. One can only hope that all of the Americans who revere and worship athletes will be open to their message. Racial equality in the United States is still the goal, but it has been thwarted by oppressive systems. There’s no touchdown dance happening outside of the stadium if you are an African-American male.
-
Ramblings of a mountain man: Americans need to stop abusing the peace pipe
Throughout history, Native Americans have always been given a raw deal by both the government and private interests. This needs to end. Native American ways and lands need to be respected and not seen as things that can be trampled over for selfish reasons. Hopefully this incident in North Dakota will be one too many and show that US Native Americans matter too. Chief Joseph puts it best: “The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.”
Carlos Holguin is a member of the Class of 2019.
-
Is America ready for a strongman?
This current presidential season has been saturated with rhetoric that has not graced American politics for a very long time. If one is to believe the rhetoric of Donald Trump, then both the United States and the rest of the world is one giant dumpster fire. Trump has branded himself the calm in this storm and one who has the temperament and backbone (and most recently the stamina) to endure turbulent times. In doing so, he has adopted the historical arguments of strongman leaders throughout the world.Donald Trump has centered his campaign around this notion, betting voters will be overwhelmed by his showmanship and bluster instead of looking at the substance of his message. This approach has worked as “The Donald” trounced more than a dozen other candidates to become the Republican nominee.His next hurdle is to beat “crooked” Hillary Clinton using the same message, candor and bullying tactics. While the post-Democratic Convention polls are trending downward for The Donald, the world remains on edge because of what his potential presidency represents for America and the global stage. While counting out Trump at this point in the election cycle is foolish given that he is within striking distance, the question I ask is: Would all of America benefit from a strongman president?History informs us that other strongmen have led some of the greatest nations. Hitler came to power in Nazi Germany, blaming the country’s problems on those who were not of the Aryan race, and then used this excuse to commit one of the worst genocides the world has seen in recent history.Closer to home, Americans elected Andrew Jackson as the seventh president, and he rallied them against the “savage” Native Americans of the Southeast. This action created the Trail of Tears and led to one of the largest genocides of Native Americans in North American history.Augusto Pinochet came to power in Chile, creating fear about communists who waited in the wings, silently plotting to take over the country. By creating hype around the communists, he was then able to label any type of dissent as communist. This led to a genocide of many democratic freethinkers including priests, media and students.These three leaders are considered strongmen because of the rhetoric they used and the way they wrongly united people; they unjustly perpetuated stereotypes and classified marginalized groups as dangerous. In short, strongmen are treacherous to the concept of a civil society because after they rise to power—even through democratic means—they abuse their power to do things that should not be done. And while no one can predict the future, history can teach us that strongmen should not be given power to carry out their warped visions.Trump has been doing the same thing by uniting Americans against peoples of Latin-American origin and Islamic faith. His bombastic rhetoric leads his followers to believe these groups are the ones who are slowly eroding the fabric of America. He plays on their inner fears by rallying his supporters against the ‘other.’ Many of his supporters feel emboldened by his rhetoric and have been documented committing hate crimes against minority groups across the nation. Trump’s strongman arguments are usually simplistic in nature, relying on emotional manipulation. Yet when asked about how these groups are actually hurting America, Trump and his supporters grasp for straws and rely on shouting nationalist and populist slogans, denigrating “those people” and using bullying tactics.In every single instance the boogeyman hasn’t—and still to this day—doesn’t exist. It is a fictitious ploy used by all of these strongmen as a means to create a scapegoat everyone can blame for the shortcomings of the country.Americans shouldn’t fear people of Islamic faith as the Quran tells followers to act in a pacifist nature, and Americans shouldn’t be angry at Latin Americans as they often work jobs many Americans are too proud to do. It may be worth it for Trump supporters to consider that the boogeyman doesn’t exist in the world, but rather Trump is the mirror reflecting those fears.So no, Mr. Trump, America does not need you. What makes us strong is the way we come together as a country, understand our differences and negotiate a middle ground for the common good to weather the storm. Your divisive rhetoric does the opposite, playing on the fears of those who feel they have been wronged by a boogeyman. You cannot hope to truly lead this country if you cannot first unite it. The most ironic part of all of this is that the dumpster fire is Mr. Trump and the rest of the world is calm when compared to him.
Carlos Holguin is a member of the Class of 2019.
-
Criticisms of political correctness are no excuse
The fallout over the “tequila” party is not going away any time soon with the article on both Barstool and Turtleboy being put out into the public sphere, and the subsequent reaction on Yik Yak afterwards.
Everyone has the right to an opinion, including those people who have attacked Bowdoin students who have spoken out against this latest act of cultural insensitivity. You certainly have a First Amendment right to free speech. I applaud you for taking this right to heart. The right to one’s opinion that may differ from others is one of our most precious rights that we enjoy as American citizens.
I will quickly address both Barstool and Turtleboy. Both of these blogs are home to xenophobic, sexist and racist articles. These websites are the breeding holes for those who feel emboldened by the New Yorker with the “huge” combover and orange glow tan who spews hyperbolic vitriol. Donald Trump stands for this bigotry which has become common in this current election cycle. To have to appeal to websites this far on the fringe discredits your argument. For the students who agree with the articles, this rest of this article is going to be tough for you to hear.
On Yik Yak some of you crooned with pleasure about the articles from above. We all have the right to an opinion, and I cannot say yours is not valid. I can say this though. The arguments presented in these pieces are not even original. Conservatives have not had an original idea since Barry Goldwater ran for president in the 1960s. I know it’s hard to believe this, but this racist verbiage about “political correctness” was actually created by conservatives, and is quite frankly older than most of the bloggers using it to pour attacks on people who “just need to stop being so sensitive to people’s attempts to having fun.”
Although the use of this term dates back to at least the 1700s, its current pejorative meaning, used by the right wing to attack liberal ideas and social trends such as racial differences, was first coined in the late 1980s to attack, ironically, institutions of higher learning who were, in the eyes of many conservatives, trying to force “liberal ideals” on all students. It was a reaction to nontraditional courses studies introduced in the 1960s and 70s, e.g., Chicano, Black and Women’s Studies, that were turning college and university campuses into anti-establishment hotbeds, according to many conservatives. The pendulum had swung too far to the left, and now it was time to turn things back to their proper place.
This process is still taking place today. Haven’t you heard, it’s time to “make America great again?” Unfortunately, any attempts by university administrators to rein in acts of blatant bigotry here at Bowdoin and other institutions of higher learning have resulted in attacks by people who are tone deaf to the meaning of their deeds and words, and who defend themselves by attacking the “political correctness” of people “trying to infringe on their First Amendment rights.” It’s the same old tired argument, just a different day, month, year, decade, heck, century.
Political correctness would not be an issue if instead we focused on respect of one another. In simpler terms I am saying we should live by the golden rule, “Treat others how you wish to be treated.”
Others took to Yik Yak talking about how minority students are being “coddled” and are “overreacting” to incidents of this nature. I will give you points for creativity because you are shifting the focus away from the perpetrators of the event. By saying we are the issue, you are putting the blame on us minorities. There is just one problem with this sort of thinking: we are not the ones who perpetrated this incident. We are the recipients of acts of this nature, which, I would add, are unprovoked by us minority students. Instead, let’s put the blame where it really lies. It lies with the students who decide to appropriate and mock my culture. I’m not saying I’m blaming those who went to the party, I’m not. I’m blaming those who did not use the foresight before donning the attire they did, and laughing at people they don’t understand. They are the ones who rightly deserve such blame which seems to be put on us minorities when events such as this one occur.
I know this will probably fall on deaf ears. It’s okay, I do not expect this article to solve the problem overnight. On a happier note, I leave you with this. Going to college is supposed to expand one’s horizons, not cement one’s bigotry.
Carlos Holguin is a member of the Class of 2019.