Investigation, consequences must follow journalist’s killing
These are things we know about Shireen Abu Akleh. We know that she was a dedicated journalist, respected throughout the Middle East and beyond for two decades of dogged reporting in and around the Palestinian territories, often giving a voice to those who felt overlooked, most recently for Al-jazeera.
We know that on Wednesday she was wearing a helmet and bulletproof vest emblazoned with the word “PRESS” as she covered an Israeli raid in the occupied West Bank.
And we know that before the day was out, the 51-year-old Abu Akleh, an American citizen, would be dead, shot in the head from some distance by an unseen assailant in an area where no active gunbattle seemed to be taking place.
Other journalists present, along with the Palestinian authorities, blame Israel Defense Forces soldiers. Israeli officials initially denied that, saying they believe the journalist was shot by Palestinian gunmen, but Thursday shifted, suggesting one of their own may have been culpable.
The tinderbox is already ignited, but to prevent additional unnecessary explosions, the world must swiftly learn who shot Abu Akleh and why.
A key piece of evidence is the bullet recovered from her body, a 5.56 mm round of the sort that is both standard issue for the Israeli military and in widespread use among armed Palestinian groups. Palestinian officials have refused to turn the bullet over to Israeli investigators, citing a lack of trust; that’s understandable, so they should hand it to a trusted third party, perhaps an outside international investigator.
To attack civilians is always appalling. To attack a journalist is to attack the very notions of truth and accountability. If an independent investigation establishes that a member of the Israeli military deliberately fired at Abu Akleh, the authorities must take action to demonstrate that such a transgression will not be tolerated by doling out real consequences for the perpetrators. The same goes for Palestinian commanders and officials.
Like a good reporter, leave no stone unturned.
CU should not host ANTI-LGBTQ+ events
The University of Colorado Boulder is hosting a far-right, ANTI-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion pastor named Sean Feucht for a rally this month at Farrand Field.
Feucht has made recent headlines for his anti-gay protests at Disney, in support of the recently passed “Don’t Say Gay” law that restricts Florida teachers from educating students about nonheterosexuality and noncis-gender identity.
At these rallies, Feucht and his cohort promise to “save” queer audience members from the horrors of “same sex attraction” and rail against abortion.
Just as concerning is Feucht’s violent rhetoric regarding his CU Boulder rally. At a rally in Estes Park last year, Feucht said that his team was planning an event at a university in Boulder to “go right into the heart of the enemy and punch him in the face.”
This isn’t Feucht’s only violent threat regarding his rallies. In 2021, Feucht posted a photo on Twitter of his security team, many of whom were wearing tactical military gear, with a caption suggesting that his team would kill counter-protesters:
“If you mess with them or our 1st amendment right to worship God — you’ll meet Jesus one way or another.”
As a CU student, I am disgusted that CU is giving this bigot a platform to spew hate and collect donations from, even after he threatened our community with violence. Feucht’s presence makes our LGBTQ+ community less safe. simply unrealistic for many. Just ask a parent navigating through doctor appointments, sporting events, school activities and, yes, even work.
I’m not saying that all of what Mr. Byrne proposes is not possible, I’m just saying let’s be realistic. Let’s drop the Orwellian doublespeak of ”density is the new open space.”
Let’s preserve what makes Boulder so attractive and work together to enhance that attraction in an inclusive, citizen-engaged process, and let’s drop the fallacious arguments.
Consider getting a university education in another country
One of the defining issues of my generation is the astronomical cost of attending college. Absent rich parents, earning a diploma is nearly impossible without mortgaging one’s future, and skipping college is even worse.
Many young people harbor hopes that through activism, we can persuade politicians in Washington to implement dramatic reforms to solve this crisis.
In my view, that’s as likely to succeed as asking a housecat to respect the fact that your new pet mouse is a friend, not food.
A way out of American higher education costs calls for thinking outside the box — such as pursuing a degree abroad.
I just completed my first year studying at the University of Tromsø in Norway, and my tuition bill is a grand total of zero. I don’t have a scholarship, or a European passport, and the classes are all in English (although learning Norwegian will definitely win you friends).
The cost of living in Scandinavia isn’t trivial, and neither is the visa fee, flying there, etc., but when all’s said and done, a school year should offer a discount that is greater than 40% compared to University of Colorado Boulder in-state tuition.
Of course, earning your degree abroad isn’t a cakewalk. Living in another country isn’t the same as visiting as a tourist, or even an exchange student — you need to learn to navigate a convoluted bureaucracy, a foreign banking system, a new teaching style, and so on.
Even in a country like Norway, where English levels are excellent, you’ll be faced with the reality of living in a country where most people are more comfortable in another language.
That being said, I’ve found that immersing myself in the mindset and daily life of a different country has given me opportunities and perspectives that can’t be found for any amount of money stateside.