I was scrolling through Twitter, when I came across the now infamous Esquire cover article about “The Life of an American Boy at 17.” There was so much to unpack—from the pictures, to the article, to why Esquire even thought it should be published on the front cover during Black History Month.

Donald Trump’s America is awfully appealing to the same people who claim that the “old days” were the “good ol’ days.” The “good ol’ days” meant you could say offensive things because you were white and they were the norm. Privilege is quite the security blanket, and while not having to think about other people’s feelings may be far easier than taking a few seconds to consider the consequences of your words, things are changing.

The subject of the “American Boy” article was Ryan Morgan, a fairly average conservative kid who lives in the middle-of-nowhere Wisconsin. The article is a decent length, following him, his relationships and his under-researched thoughts about deeply serious issues, including his opinion on James Gunn.

After reading it, I debated whether or not I even wanted to give it more attention than it was already getting, but I thought it was important to pick apart and decipher some of the real problems with what Ryan Morgan and many other Americans seem to be confused about.

I worked as an intern at the Newseum in Washington DC, and while we “champion the five freedoms” of the first amendment, everyone in America should be well aware that every amendment has its limitations. I’m constantly interested to see that many “American Boys” like Ryan seem to believe that freedom of speech should allow him and his friends to spout hate speech.

When I entered college, I realized more concretely that there are things you can do and there are things you should do. Everything really falls under one of those categories. While Ryan is protected in his thoughtless explanations of complicated problems, and the KKK is also protected in their hateful ways, these are things you can do, but definitely shouldn’t.

This article gave Ryan the opportunity to say the things he wanted to say. This was in a series of articles Esquire plans on publishing on how it feels to grow up in America. What a good idea, in theory. And I do believe that every person deserves a voice, but this article fell absolutely flat.

It was poorly executed, and completely tone deaf. Esquire easily could have released all the articles at the same time, creating a comparison point. By releasing the “white boy” point of view first, it confused and polarized many people, including myself, who are used to seeing this representation of the “American Boy” but never seeing themselves represented.

I don’t and will never feel bad for people who complain about not being able to say whatever they want. The fact of the matter is that you can say whatever you want, but you better be damn ready to face the backlash.

If you received one copy of the Baltimore Sun every week for fourteen weeks, it would cost you about $35. The price of high-quality, local reporting is, as dictated by the Sun, $2.49 a week. With the proposed budget for the 2020 fiscal year, each full-time UMBC student would pay approximately $5.05 for a year’s worth of The Retriever’s print publications (14 issues) and online content. The proposed budget cuts to The Retriever total a loss of $30,000, which is half of our current Student Government Association allocation and only a third of our total yearly operating costs. The $60,000 allocation from SGA has traditionally been supplemented by advertisement revenue.

We know we’re not the Baltimore Sun, and we’re not asking you to treat us like we are. But the numbers make it clear — student journalism is not a priority on this campus. For proof, look towards UMBC’s two other charter organizations. The Student Events Board, an organization that puts on hundreds of events each year, including Quadmania and Homecoming, was funded $246,000 in the 2019 fiscal year, and SGA has proposed to maintain their funding for 2020. SGA has a proposed FY20 operating budget of $1,113,000.

Both of these organizations do valuable work on our campus; SEB is important in maintaining a vibrant campus life at UMBC, and SGA spearheads numerous student-led initiatives. Call us bold, but we think The Retriever also does important work. Not only does student journalism provide hyper-local reporting on the happenings of the campus community, but it is also important for keeping institutions accountable.

Why, then, doesn’t our organization get the same level of respect that our fellow charter organizations receive? Is it because our computers and other equipment barely function well enough to make it through a single bi-weekly production? Is it because our office is tucked in the far corner of the University Center away from the heart of student life? Is it because we are the only organization on campus who has consistently spoken out against various campus institutions (and lived to see another day)? Is it because our entire organization is based on the idea of dissent?

Yes. And also because we are only allocated $60,000 a year.

Our lowest paid writers make $320 a year — that amounts to $10 a week for the five to ten hours they spend on even their most simple articles. Anyone going above and beyond to produce great journalism is working for pennies. No wonder we currently have only 11 writing positions filled out of a possible 20; many talented journalists on our campus don’t have the financial means to work for our paper and instead take paid internships or positions elsewhere to support themselves.

There are other things we could do with an increased budget. We could deal more easily with technical issues on our website and in our office. We could fund more travel, including sending more of our staff to the Associated Collegiate Press’s annual student journalism conference, which is especially important for The Retriever, seeing as UMBC does not have a formal journalism school. Most importantly, we could fund our writers well enough to allow them to work on larger investigative projects.

But we’re not asking for any of that; The Retriever Editorial Board thinks that last semester and this upcoming semester should be an indication of the impressive work we can do with a $60,000 SGA allocation. And while we would love to continue fantasizing about all the ways an increased budget could change our newspaper for the better, we know that just isn’t feasible for now.

But it also isn’t feasible to expect us to operate under a $30,000 SGA allocation. SGA might argue that we have our reserves to survive on, but as addressed publicly at the SGA Senate meeting on Feb. 18 and in a subsequent article, that’s not a viable option for our organization. Furthermore, we have yet to be informed of whether we will be funded again at the $60,000 level in two years, once our reserves have been drained.

In partially de-funding The Retriever, the SGA, regardless of intent, is sending the message that student journalism is not a valued part of the UMBC campus community. We’re calling on SGA to reconsider this budget cut, and to reflect on the values they want their organization to uphold and exemplify. After all, this decision will not only affect the staff of next year’s newspaper; it will also have a ripple effect that will impact free speech and stifle student voices on our campus for years to come.

To provide feedback on the SGA’s proposed FY20 budget, please click here.

“My journey is far from over!” – Jessica Linus

“It’s so cool!” – Inaya Wahid

Please see the attached document to learn more about Inaya's internship experience!

This Black History Month feels different to me. The coverage I have seen lacks the same level of emphasis on the black people who have done amazing and inspiring things throughout the past. The media has become distracted by the government shutdown, 2020 presidential candidates and award shows like the Grammys. The spotlight has been taken away from Black History Month.

One difference between last February and this February is the debut of the movie, “Black Panther.” “Black Panther” is a black superhero movie, following the identity crisis of T’Challa, played by Chadwick Boseman. In the film, T’Challa becomes King of Wakanda after the murder of his father in a previous Marvel movie. However, he begins to struggle with his identity, the future of his nation as well as a civil war within his kingdom. It’s a story about finding yourself and building confidence.

It’s officially been a full year since the blockbuster movie hit theatres. “Black Panther” was the highest grossing movie of 2018 in the US and Canada, and the second highest worldwide, earning $700 million in North America, and $1.35 billion worldwide. This movie was Marvel’s most successful movie to date, and it’s been nominated for numerous awards, including seven Academy Awards.

This is Marvel’s first predominantly black film, and they chose a strong cast of actors. Boseman has also played other famous black pioneers like Jackie Robinson and Thurgood Marshall. The film also has a well-known black cast, from younger actors like Letitia Wright and Lupita Nyong’o to veterans like Forest Whitaker and Angela Bassett. Marvel also hired a young black director, Ryan Coogler. Coogler who also directed films like Creed and Fruitvale Station, made the movie come alive with his excellent screenwriting and directing.

However, this movie’s portrayal of black characters was even more significant. There were no harmful stereotypes, and each character was shown as strong and layered. This representation of black actors inspired pro-black sentiments all across the nation. People saw the film multiple times with friends and family. Children bought the action figures, costumes and coloring books. Some teachers even modeled some of their curriculums after the fictional country of Wakanda.

Race relations are generally a tenuous topic in America, with tensions rising every day. American media has always portrayed minorities negatively, specifically black people. We’ve been consistently depicted as servants, sidekicks or the villain. We’re consistently shown as punchlines, defiant troublemakers or one-dimensional characters, lacking depth and range. We’ve been mocked, hated and shamed. This is all a reflection of how the public actually sees us, and this perception of black people doesn’t stay in theatres. This projected image of black people in media flows into how we are viewed within the education system, the justice system, the corporate world and other important avenues of everyday life.

However, more and more movies today are reshaping the idea of the black character. “Black Panther” does an excellent job of redefining who we are and who we can be within American media. We don’t have to fit into the molds that have been set for us. The representation of positive characters like those in Black Panther encourages us to think differently about ourselves. And, through positive representation, we share a positive image of the black character.

Representation also produces curiosity. “Black Panther” inspires black people to see themselves differently, making them curious and excited to learn more about their history and heritage. It makes people confident in their culture.

I recommend we watch “Black Panther” every year on Feb. 1, just as a reminder of what we can be. The movie may not be real, but the ideas it presents are. Concepts like black pride, black intelligence, and black representation can shape how we view ourselves as people, and how the world should see us. “Black Panther” changed Black History Month last year. Hopefully, we can continue to get compelling movies in the future that continue to inspire black people for years to come.

This is part one in a series of articles examining how Title IX investigations are handled on the UMBC campus. The Retriever is using the victims’ initials with permission to maintain anonymity.

In December 2017 and September 2018, respectively, Towson University students A.B. and A.H. reported to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County that they had been gang raped in October 2017 by three UMBC baseball players while incapacitated. UMBC’s subsequent Title IX investigations are the subject of a $10 million federal civil lawsuit that includes three other women and that alleges UMBC and its police department mishandled cases of sexual assault and conspired to cover up the crimes.

Because the two young women who allege they were gang raped by three UMBC baseball players in 2017 were not UMBC students, the university appears to have made a concerted effort to marginalize and devalue their allegations. UMBC Title IX investigators Morgan Thomas and Erick Kim, who were responsible for examining the TU students’ complaints and coming to a final decision, also appear to have significantly prolonged the process responding to these concerns although that is counter to the school’s official policy pertaining to these matters.

Perhaps the most immediate response to a Title IX report is the issuance of Interim Protective Measures. IPMs are individualized services offered to both the reporting and responding parties in a Title IX investigation that are meant to ensure safety and well-being. These actions, handled by Jaclyn Stone and unrelated to the UMBC Title IX Office, can be requested by the Responding or Reporting parties, and UMBC can invoke these measures independently at any point during an investigation.

After the investigation has been completed, analysis of the interviews and the facts begin. In UMBC Title IX investigations, the credibility of all involved parties is assessed to come to a final decision. According to Title IX investigators Thomas and Kim, a credibility assessment is based on demeanor, the motive to falsify, inherent plausibility, corroboration and a past record of the alleged harasser. Investigators went as far as to interview A.B.’s ex-boyfriend and included a narrative of her alleged prior sexual history in the report.

After an initial investigation by UMBC’s Title IX department, A.B.’s draft investigative report was released on July 24, 2018, and her final report was released four months later on Nov. 6, 2018, a total of eleven months after she had initially filed her complaint. This is much later than guidelines offered by UMBC’s Interim Title IX Procedures for Students, which states that “The University will seek to resolve every report of Prohibited Conduct within sixty (60) calendar days after receiving the report, excluding any appeal.”

A.H. also received her final investigative report outside of this 60 day guideline, five months after she had initially filed her complaint. Her draft investigative report was consolidated with information and interviews from A.B.’s investigation, so no additional interviewing of the baseball players occurred. According to an email sent by UMBC Title IX Coordinator Bobbie Hoye on Nov. 5, 2018, to A.B, and A.H.’s legal counsel, Rignal Baldwin V, the investigations were “inextricably intertwined, as they [arose] from a single underlying incident.”

This practice of consolidating reports is consistent with UMBC’s Interim Title IX Procedures for Students, as per Section X, which states that multiple reports may be consolidated “if the information related to each incident would be relevant and probative in reaching a determination on the other incident.”

Immediately following A.B.’s filing of a Title IX report in December 2017, no contact orders – “NCOs” – were issued to the three UMBC baseball players in a letter informing them of the university’s Interim Protective Measures. This letter was written by Stone who, at the time, was the Special Assistant to the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs.

According to the letter, these measures restricted the baseball players’ access to UMBC and only allowed them to attend class, labs and final exams. When the players appealed, they were denied, and once they amended their appeals, they were permitted to participate in athletics activities, as per email interactions between the players and Stone. In August 2018, one of the baseball players attempted to add A.B. on Snapchat, a multimedia messaging application, according to A.B.’s phone screenshots of the incident. The no contact order with A.B. remained in place during the time of this incident; however, no violation was found by UMBC Title IX investigators.

When A.H. filed her Title IX complaint, however, IPMs and NCOs were not issued. In an email to Baldwin addressing concerns about this incident and the consolidation of the investigation for the two students, Hoye stated that A.B. had specifically requested an NCO, while A.H. had yet to do so.

Hoye also stated within the email that “unlike situations in which the reporting parties are students or other members of the UMBC community, the investigation is not, and by definition cannot, provide any remedies for your clients.”

Hoye also claimed that “neither Ms. [A.B.] nor Ms. [A.H.] have Title IX rights vis a vis UMBC and neither are subject to or are beneficiaries under the Policy as if they were students.”

In all Title IX investigative reports relating to A.B. and A.H., the baseball players’ demeanor was cited as “calm and cooperative.” It was noted within the reports that two of the players made it clear to investigators that the inconsistencies in their stories were due to the passage of time, and the other “offered explanations for all questions regarding discrepancies with the police report.” All three baseball players had hired attorneys prior to being interviewed by Baltimore County police detectives in November 2017, a month after the alleged rape took place, at a Chick-Fil-A in Halethorpe over the span of an hour, according to a timeline of events presented in all investigative reports.

Because A.H. was not able to meet with the UMBC Title IX investigators to offer an interview due to surgery, according to her legal counsel, her credibility assessment is sparse. A.B.’s assessment, however, describes her statements as having been “inconsistent and/or contradictory when compared to her own previous sworn statements.” A.B. maintains throughout her responses to the Title IX investigative reports that the investigators have misstated her previous statements on the matter, and that investigators took statements attributed to A.B. from police reports as if they had come from A.B. firsthand.

The initial draft report detailing the results of A.B.’s investigation state that her memories are “rather elaborate and detailed – as well as selective in favor of A.B.’s allegations.” It further states that “she presents statements that are conflicting with not only her friend’s statement but also with her own.”

Throughout all investigative reports, A.B. and A.H. were unable to provide corroborating evidence from witnesses, but the three baseball players were able to provide witness statements from three other members of the baseball team who were all close friends with at least two of the accused players.

According to the final investigative reports, because the evidence presented did not include information suggesting the use of “force, intimidation or threats to engage in the sexual activities in question,” the investigations support that both A.B. and A.H. had the “capacity to give consent” despite A.B.’s reported incapacitated state and A.H.’s reported unconscious state. Instead of using the definition of consent as outline by UMBC’s Amended Policy on Sexual Misconduct, which indicates that consent cannot be given under the influence of alcohol, the investigators appear to be using the definition provided by Maryland criminal law, which places more of a burden on the alleged victim to prove force.

Both A.B. and A.H.’s Title IX investigations found “insufficient evidence” to support their claims of sexual violence.