Issue 2
Where Does All the Humanities Hate STEM From: Gender’s Role and What’s to Be Done
Caroline Blake, Delaney Single, and Francesca Lesinski, Editorial Board
April 19, 2024
The debate over the importance of STEM versus humanities has persisted for decades, transcending all levels of education from high school and beyond. Many STEM kids describe a common experience that at some point in their academic career they come to be considered a ‘genius’ among their peers, getting tracked down during their free periods to assist with math homework or lab reports. For humanities kids, however, their assistance is rarely requested, and if it is, it’s typically attributed to inadequate teaching by educators because there’s no way that the half-assed essay you submitted at 11:59 pm earned you a failing grade. Where does this long-standing academic hierarchy come from? Well, there’s a reason you probably hold Albert Einstein in higher esteem than Jane Austen.
The notion that STEM subjects require more intelligence and foster more success emanates from the longstanding exclusion of women in STEM fields, which has forced women into the humanities, and labeled humanities subjects as lesser areas of study. The deeply rooted sexism in the divide between STEM and humanities begs the question asked by The Eagle: “If humanities fields were always dominated by men, would a STEM degree still be the only way of proving one’s success?”
This patriarchal system of valuing STEM over the ‘lesser’ humanities fields is harmful not only to women in humanities but also to women in STEM, who are continuously forced to prove themselves to reach even a fraction of the success of their male counterparts. While women have made progress breaking into STEM fields in the last decade, men still dominate the workforce, holding 65% of all employment. This gender discrepancy creates a potentially problematic outlook for women in both fields, as those succeeding in STEM are deemed the “few who beat the odds,” while those in humanities are viewed as the majority or those who took the ‘easier’ route.
Although it may be true that women in humanities do not have to overcome the same barriers that women in STEM do, to imply that their work is in any way ‘easier’ is to disregard both the importance of humanities as a whole and its contributions to society, a reality underscored by the recent decrease in popularity of humanities subjects.
According to the Cornell Undergraduate Research Journal, enrollment in undergraduate humanities courses plummeted a whopping 30% from 2005 to 2020, while enrollment in engineering and technology courses skyrocketed. According to The Eagle, degrees in humanities “constituted less than 10 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded as of 2020.”
While some of this decreasing interest in humanities might be due to women’s gravitation toward STEM, spurred by those fields’ increasing inclusivity, much of this decline undoubtedly arises from the core belief, driven by historical sexism, that humanities subjects are less intellectual, less realistic, and less remunerative than STEM subjects.
The way to resist the impending ‘death’ of humanities is not to force women to stay in those fields in order to keep them alive, but rather to revive the humanities by acknowledging that its value to society is equal to STEM’s.
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute and Chair of the Committee on the Integration of STEM, humanities, and the arts, David Skorton, suggests that one method to increase recognition of these undervalued fields is to take an interdisciplinary approach that bridges the gap between humanities and STEM. This approach is already being used in higher education. For instance, Carnegie Mellon University’s Entertainment Technology Center is a collaboration between Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science and the College of Fine Arts, teaching computer science students how to apply their skills to fields like gaming and filmmaking. This collaboration, along with other similar interdisciplinary projects, has shown massive success in supporting the “development of written and oral communication skills, teamwork skills, ethical decision making, [and] critical thinking…educational outcomes that many employers are asking for today.”
Although it is unfortunate that in today’s society, humanities must be linked to STEM subjects in order to gain the respect and value they deserve, realistically, the integration of STEM and humanities fields serves as the best strategy for both keeping the humanities alive and encouraging collaboration between these two fields in the future.
Supreme Court to Make Monumental Decision on Abortion
Molly O’Brien, News
April 17, 2024
On March 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the case of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) versus the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), a collective of anti-abortion groups. The case concerns Mifepristone, a drug used in most medical abortions.
Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, was first developed in 1980 and came into use in France in 1987. The drug was brought to the United States by a woman from the United Kingdom Leona Brenton who was stopped and interrogated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Benton intended to import a single dosage to administer an abortion. Petitioners in the case filed suit in the District Court in New York to promptly return the drug to Benten; however, it was stayed by the court. Ultimately, Benten lost her case, but the legal proceeding brought Mifepristone into the national spotlight. Benten’s case started the movement to overturn the FDA’s ban on the drug. In 1993, after being elected, President Bill Clinton ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate Mifepristone’s use for medication abortion. Despite the FDA’s recommendation for approval, legal and manufacturing challenges delayed the drug’s approval until September 2000. In 2019, the first generic form of mifepristone in the United States became available, manufactured by GenBioPro. Since its approval, Mifepristone has been responsible for over 6 million abortions.
In 2023, medication abortion accounted for 63% of all US abortions, with Mifepristone being used for two-thirds of them. Medical abortions are done in the clinic using medications, such as Mifepristone. The medication blocks the hormone progesterone and begins to end the pregnancy. Then, 48 hours later, patients take Misoprostol to fully terminate the pregnancy. Not only does Mifepristone work to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but it also works to help patients who are experiencing a miscarriage, as it prepares the body to empty the uterus. Many scientists conclude that Mifepristone is both effective and safe; however, it is now classified as a “dangerous drug” by the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) under the FDA.
The case began five months after the overturning of Roe vs Wade. Opponents of abortion initially won a ruling last year from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee in Northern Texas. If passed, the ruling would have revoked Mifepristone’s approval entirely. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept the FDA’s initial approval, but it reversed changes made in 2016 and 2021 that eased conditions for administering the drug. The Supreme Court put the court of appeal’s altered ruling on hold before agreeing to hear the case.
The court heard the case on March 26, 2024, listening to almost 90 minutes of arguments. The judges reached a consensus that abortion opponents lacked the legal right or standing to file a lawsuit. This ruling would maintain the existing rules and regulations, enabling patients to obtain Mifepristone by mail, bypassing the requirement for a doctor’s appointment, and use the medication to induce abortion up to ten weeks into pregnancy.
If the court opts for the no-standing route, it would avoid heightened political attention to the issue. The ruling, which is expected as early as the beginning of the summer, could affect congressional and presidential races this November.
Another abortion case is already in the works. The judges are expected to hear arguments on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The act allows hospitals to do emergency treatments regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. The case is to decide whether abortions are included in the word emergency, and if it can be done in states where abortion is outlawed.
Trump Trials: What Makes Him Different?
Louisa Corbett, Opinion
April 17, 2024
On May 25, 2023, Donald J. Trump made history as the first former president of the United States of America to face indictment. Trump has been indicted in a total of four criminal cases—two federal and two state—and faces a total of 88 criminal charges. The most severe charges entail a maximum of 20 years behind bars. Despite Trump’s ongoing legal troubles, and his prior convictions for defamation and sexual battery in two civil cases against E. Jean Carroll, Trump still leads Biden in 2024 election polls.
Typically, when U.S. presidents become embroiled in scandal, their political careers suffer: Richard Nixon resigned from office after Watergate, and Bill Clinton was formally impeached following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But today, Trump’s legal hardships seem to increase his popularity. Polls from 2019, before any criminal charges against Trump had arisen, showed him trailing behind Biden significantly. Recent 2024 polls suggest the opposite: he leads Biden 46% to 45.2% as of April 3rd.
What sets Trump apart from other political figures? Why do scandals, civil and criminal charges, and implications of treason seem to bolster Trump’s appeal among potential voters?
According to The New York Times, Trump has built a religious infrastructure around his 2024 campaign. At the end of his rallies, Trump will play reflective music and deliver a roughly 15-minute speech that resembles an altar call, “the emotional tradition that concludes some Christian services in which attendees come forward to commit to their savior,” according to The New York Times.
Though Trump refrains from directly referring to himself as a messiah, many of his followers are making that connection themselves.
“He’s definitely been chosen by God,” one supporter said.
Another noted that “both the former president and Jesus had been arrested by “radical, corrupt governments.”
Trump displayed comfort in implying his connection to Christ. On March 25th, he posted a comparison of him and Jesus on his social media platform, Truth Social: “It’s ironic,” Trump wrote, “that Christ walked through His greatest persecution the very week they are trying to steal your property from you.” On March 30th, another post of Trump’s called the criminal cases against him a “crucifixion.” With his online comments, Trump draws connections between his battle with the justice system and Jesus’s struggle against all evil.
This religious comparison is what makes Trump different from his opponents. For one, his followers largely don’t love him in spite of his criminal cases, but rather because of his criminal cases. By casting himself as a Christ-like figure, Trump depicts himself as fighting for the very soul of the country. So, when Democrats come after him in the courtroom, even if Trump is found guilty, he can victimize himself. And this strategy works: most all-in Trump supporters believe the justice system treats him unfairly.
“They’ve crucified him worse than Jesus,” a woman reporting to the New York Times said.
So how does this Christ comparison come into play in the courtroom?
Trump has never owned up to any proven or alleged wrongdoing. Even after a jury ruled against Trump in his defamation and sexual battery cases versus E. Jean Carroll, Trump did not admit to the sexual assault. In all four ongoing criminal cases, Trump has pleaded not guilty, even after his co-defendants accepted plea deals and pleaded guilty. His denial, according to The Washington Post, is a strategy: it allows him to continue his campaign as a wrongfully convicted victim. That vision of Trump as a victim is what keeps him ahead in the polls.
But, this religious victimization complex, a strategy The Guardian calls “Darvo,” which stands for “denial, attack, and reversal of victim and offender,” could also carry a danger.
Let’s call to mind the recent blockbuster Dune: Part Two, in which the protagonist led a people into war and slaughter because they believed him to be their savior. Similarly, after the results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump’s inflammatory nonacceptance of his defeat on social media provoked his loyalists to lead an insurrectionist attack on Capitol Hill in his honor. January 6th occurred without implicit direction from the former president; his nonaction was enough to spark a small rebellion. With the religious following Trump has now cultivated, the consequences of his actively suggesting revolt could be much more severe.
In attempts to quell the dangers Trump could incite, Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s hush-money case issued a gag order against the former president. On March 15th, Merchan cited Trump’s “threatening, inflammatory” statements as reasons to prohibit Trump from speaking about witnesses concerning their roles in the case.
Not even two weeks after the issuance of this order, Trump violated it on March 27 by posting incendiary and false comments on Truth Social about Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan. According to Trump, Loren Merchan posted photos on X of Trump behind bars, but upon further investigation, it was revealed that the accused X account did not belong to Loren Merchan and that she had never posted such photos. In response to Trump’s violation of the gag order, Judge Merchan tightened the restrictions: Trump now cannot speak about the judge or district attorney’s families. Merchan also rejected Trump’s argument that his outburst was purely political with the statement that Trump’s behavior “merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are ‘fair game’ for defendant’s vitriol.”
As the date, April 15, of Trump’s trial for this hush-money case approaches, Trump has tried to stall by challenging the gag order. But Merchan has denied this effort. Political experts agree that every delay in Trump’s trials is a victory for his self-victimization strategy: Trump and many of his loyalists operate under the notion that as long as he is not found guilty, he is not to blame. But though Trump’s hush-money case is on the horizon, the chances of all four criminal trials occurring before elections in November are unlikely. How big a role the justice system will play in November’s elections is yet to be seen, but it is clear that every day will count as prosecutors race to schedule court dates before election day.
More “Nones,” less Nuns: Is Christianity on a Decline?
Marguax Ip-Geisler, Opinion
April 17, 2024
“I am a devout Christian.” These are the words my mother has eagerly anticipated hearing from me throughout my whole life. Despite being baptized, receiving my first communion, and getting confirmed, I still find myself uncertain.
Christianity was the faith I was born into, as my father, an agnostic, never voiced his beliefs in opposition to my mother's. Throughout her entire life, my mother has remained steadfast in her devotion to God and has instilled the responsibility of upholding her spiritual legacy.
Christianity has historically been one of the most commonly practiced religions in North America. According to CNN, 64% of Americans currently identify as Christians. However, growing up in a Christian household, I never truly identified with the religion. After talking to many of my Christian peers, I can confidently say I’m not alone in feeling detached from my identity as a Christian. This seemingly shared experience led me to wonder: will Christianity eventually die out?
After some investigation, I discovered that church leaders and experts have been cautioning against the decline of Christianity in America for a significant period. They predict that the American church might end up like churches in Western Europe: grand Gothic cathedrals devoid of people, church buildings repurposed as skate parks and clubs, and society growing increasingly dissuaded from organized religion.
The number of immigrants in the United States is higher than in any other country. This demographic transformation is referred to as the “Browning of America,” a recognized phenomenon signifying a projected shift in population that will result in white individuals becoming the minority in the United States by the year 2045. Some scholars argue that those predicting the American church’s decline often overlook how the influx of Christians from the Global South will revitalize the religious landscape of the country. If White Christians embrace this change, Christianity could experience a resurgence in America. However, if they do not, the future may not look promising for the Christian majority.
The convergence of Black and Brown Christians migrating from regions such as Latin America and Asia intersects with contrasting development: the rise of the White Christian nationalist movement that erroneously asserts that the United States was established as a White, Christian nation. This movement exhibits hostility towards immigrants who are not of European descent. Christian nationalism claims that the United States is a Christian nation and advocates for the country's laws to be based on Christian principles. This evangelical ideology has led many people to believe that the biggest challenge to the future of Christianity in America is not the declining attendance from US civilians, but rather the church's inability to adapt to the rapidly growing number of immigrants.
The Covid pandemic also significantly affected church attendance, as church membership in the US dropped below 50% for the first time in history. As of November 2022, 20% are attending in-person services less often.
Church leaders in the US have also expressed concerns about the growing number of “Nones” – individuals who identify as atheist, agnostic, or having no specific religious affiliation. Approximately 30% of Americans now align themselves with this group. While the Christian population has been experiencing a gradual decline, the number of “Nones” has been increasing. Interestingly enough, most of these “Nones” were actually raised in a religious household, usually Christian. Over time, they have distanced themselves from religious institutions.
Though 64% of the American population still consider themselves Christian today, this figure represents a notable decrease from 50 years ago when 90% of Americans identified as Christian. The rise of those who do not affiliate themselves with any religion may eventually become the majority.
Christianity has experienced a continuous decline over many years. In order to address this issue, the church must adopt a more inclusive approach, respecting the beliefs of “Nones” and welcoming those who are immigrants. By doing so, Christianity can potentially create a more accepting and diverse environment within the church. While this transformation may not receive unanimous support, it has the potential to foster a church welcome to everyone.
The Downfall of SNL: Unpacking the Once Iconic Show’s Fall from Graces
Madeleine Wu, Entertainment
April 17, 2022
For over 3,890,000 Americans, Saturday nights are devoted to one activity: watching Saturday Night Live (SNL). This comedic hour-and-a-half production attempts to delicately handle all political and pop culture happenings, while simultaneously ensuring a good chuckle. Whether through Michael Che and Colin Jost’s Weekend Update or renowned skits like Pete Davidson and Timothee Chalamet’s Skeet skit, SNL never fails to deliver—that is until recently. A NewsWeek poll demonstrates this decline of SNL, finding that only 1 in 5 Americans think SNL is funny. One user on X comments, “How is this show still on TV? I actually felt embarrassed for how unfunny it is. It's so bad it's cringy.” Writer for the Suffolk Journal Alexis Crochiere continues this notion by adding, “With bad jokes and unfunny celebrity hosts, SNL needs some work.”
The creator and producer of SNL famously notes, “Everyone always remembers it being better when they were younger, and they just think it's always worse compared to that.” Although there is some truth to that, there is still an unyielding consensus throughout all generations that SNL has gradually declined in the quality of its content. Many attribute this gradual decline to the turnover of comedians. SNL is notorious for being one of the hardest jobs to land among comedians, as you cannot apply for a job on the show, but rather are sought out directly by staff members, particularly producer Marci Klein. That being said, Klein’s ability to scout talent is unparalleled, producing some of the most prominent names in Hollywood, such as Tina Fey, Will Farell, Jimmy Fallon, and more. However, recently, SNL’s most prominent comedians have stepped off the show. Beloved cast members such as Pete Davidson, Aidy Bryant, Kate Mckinnon, and more have all left the show leaving a cast of inexperienced comedians. Although SNL always experiences cast members departing the show, this particular new “generation” of replacements seems to lack charisma and wit. A user on X comments, “some of these new snl cast members are... bad.” However, who’s to blame these new comedians because without the mentorship of more experienced, successful cast members, this new “generation” has less guidance.
Another cause of SNL’s steady downfall is their content. Especially in an election year, SNL’s content is predominantly political. SNL, a traditionally liberal institution, refuses to portray more than one perspective. Their jokes are often seeped with malice for candidates they do not support, and they are critical of certain politicians while forgiving towards others. To illustrate, a skit about the 2020 presidential debate, depicts Donald Trump’s aggressive tendencies as he repeatedly interrupts Joe Biden. The skit is in no way critical of Biden as they simply show his resentment for Trump’s inability to allow him to finish a statement. This becomes inherently dangerous. If laughter is the first step to mend a divided nation, and even SNL, a show dedicated to the spread of laughter, cannot restrain from “otherizing” and villainizing another party, how can we as a nation unify? SNL is also meant to serve as a brilliantly produced show, yet the writers’ inability to portray another perspective is simply the opposite. A former student at Harvard and editor for The Crimson Romy Dolgin expresses, “It should continue to be an American staple. But that means it has to be accessible to all Americans.” While SNL most definitely has the potential to have the influence and popularity it once did, it must push past this tough casting period, and be representative of the entire nation. For now, we must put up with watching mediocre, partisan comedy or stop watching altogether.