Daily Lounge » News

Should We Boycott BP?

admin — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:09:38 +0000

As oil dissipates in the gulf and thousands of miles of Gulf waters are reopened for fishing, we are continuing to gradually recover from the massive oil spill. For many Americans, however, the road to recovery may be much more difficult than anticipated—and I’m not just talking about those who work on the Gulf’s waters.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that “BP owns fewer than 2 percent of the 10,000 stations” in the United States, yet BP stations all over the country have been subjected to “boycotts, protests, vandalism, and customer tirades.” According to the Times, BP stations nationwide continue to experience depressed sales.

Unsurprisingly, the effects of consumer anger towards the BP brand have been most noticeable along the Gulf, where at least one station owner reports a loss of 50 percent.

Considering that the oil spill is one of the worst environmental disasters to happen in recent memory, it makes sense that people feel helpless and are looking for someone to blame. But taking out our anger on individual station owners is not the way to get revenge.

Enough people are losing their livelihoods over the oil spill without us harming local businesses. As the Times points out, boycotts do not hurt BP anywhere near as much as they hurt “small, family-owned stores.” Furthermore, many owners are contractually obligated to sell BP gas for 15 to 20 years. Partnering up with a different brand would result in severe penalties, so most have no choice but to stick with BP.

Now that we are several months past the actual event, it’s unacceptable that local station owners are still feeling losses. So continue to buy gas at your local BP station. Meanwhile, focus your time and effort on encouraging energy policy and environmental changes by contacting your congressmen. Or, try volunteering for local environmental organizations. Yes, it’s doubtful that you will work directly on the Gulf, but you will still impact our ailing environment in some way. There are many ways to do something constructive in the wake of this disaster, but driving hardworking people out of business is not one of them. —Shea Connelly

Why No Child Left Behind is Failing Our Kids

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:33:54 +0000

Joyce Irvine’s six years as principal of Wheeler Elementary School in Burlington, Vt. ended July 1. Irvine was described as “a leader among her colleagues,” working “tirelessly” for the school, often up to 80 hours a week. According to Senator Bernie Sanders, “She seemed to know the name and life history of every child.”

So why was this model principal removed? According to the country’s current education rules, for the Burlington School District to qualify for $3 million in federal stimulus money, “schools with very low test scores, like Wheeler, must do one of the following: close down; be replaced by a charter (Vermont does not have charters); remove the principal and half the staff; or remove the principal and transform the school.”

That Wheeler is not a high-performing school cannot be disputed. But for a school like Wheeler, with a 97 percent poverty rate and a large number of refugee children, there is little hope for success under No Child Left Behind. The Act measures growth based on standardized tests given each year. Tests all students must take on the same day, regardless of whether they arrived at the school a day earlier from Somalia speaking little English.

This system does not reward schools for student growth on an individual level. If so, Wheeler Elementary would have done quite well, Burlington’s superintendent told the New York Times. Some signs of her success: a decrease in suspensions from 100 per year to seven, a successful new arts curriculum geared towards turning the school into an arts magnet, and an “an influx of new students, so that half the early grades will consist of middle-class pupils this fall.”

Irvine’s case is a perfect example of the failures of our current education system. Under this system none of her successes are recognized. Rather than charting individual student improvement from year to year, our system focuses on the average performance of all students, new and old. This rewards schools with steady populations and few mid-year additions.

How can we expect our schools to improve when our system favors only impossibly rapid improvement and consistent high scores while ignoring districts that are constantly, steadily, albeit slowly growing? As long as these schools are ignored, their growth will continue to be slow. If we could create a system that recognizes gradually improving schools, we could reward these schools in such a way that gradual change would become rapid change.

Under the current system, good schools will continue to be good while schools like Wheeler will continue to struggle. Under the current system, the only hope for schools like Wheeler is administrators and teachers who are willing to devote all they have to improvement when there are so many factors working against them. Unfortunately, under the current system, even that hope is extinguished as schools are forced to choose between desperately needed funds and dedicated administrators.

As Irvine said, the situation became “Joyce Irvine versus millions. You can buy a lot of help for children with that money.” That may be true, but that money can’t buy the dedication and love for her students Irvine displayed. Such principals are one in a million, and the fact that our system has forced her out of the school is a travesty.

Gay Rights Gets a New Backer…Bill O’Reilly?

admin — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:25:50 +0000

Monday night’s episode of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno taught us a very odd lesson: Apparently Bill O’Reilly is now more pro gay rights than President Obama. Confused? Join the club.

Despite the fact that a mere six months ago O’Reilly defended the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy with statements like, “It’s not about anti-gay, it’s about being comfortable in the barracks,” he told Leno, ”President Obama has the power to stop this ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ business. Just sign an executive order. I don’t know why it’s taking so long–it’s not fair. We should stop this nonsense.”

I suppose it’s possible that O’Reilly has become so accustomed to the knee-jerk reaction of criticizing everything Obama does that he forgot what he and Leno were talking about. More likely, however, this is a sign of an overall shift in opinion among the United States population when it comes to gay rights.

Along with O’Reilly, other Republicans and military officials, such as Colin Powell, Ron Paul, and Adm. Mike Mullen, support repealing DADT. Additionally, a February Quinnipiac poll showed 57 percent of Americans are in favor of gay soldiers serving openly in the military.

All of this makes me wonder, what is taking so long? I (dare I say it?) have to agree with O’Reilly. This nonsense has been going on for far too long. Argentina recently became yet another country to make gay marriage legal. Argentina, a country with a largely Catholic and socially conservative population allows gay marriage, and we still don’t even allow gay soldiers to serve openly?

Glenn Greenwald recently wrote in a Salon post, “It’s worthwhile now and then to take stock of the vast disparity between how we like to think of ourselves and reality. When a country with Argentina’s history and background becomes but the latest country to legally recognize same-sex marriage–largely as the result of a population which demanded it–that disparity becomes quite clear.”

I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to consider our current national “values” and decide if we’re heading in a direction that we can be proud of. A direction that embodies our founding principles that all are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Much of the modern, industrialized world has legalized gay marriage and we still have an act in place that explicitly bans it. That should be a clear message that we have a lot of catching up to do in terms of honestly upholding our core values of civil liberty and freedom. —Shea Connelly

Objectivity in Middle East Reporting: Should CNN Have Fired Nasr?

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:31:18 +0000

Octavia Nasr, CNN’s senior middle east news editor, tweeted: “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah …. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” By Wednesday evening she was unemployed. Her twenty years with CNN were over as a result of one tweet.

The mainstream media in the United States is intended to be an unbiased source of information for the public. CNN claims Nasr was fired because “her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.” Sounds fair, right? But the truth is that CNN and the MSM as a whole are no longer unbiased sources of information. When it comes to certain issues, especially those related to Middle East conflicts, the MSM has morphed into a source through which a unified message is delivered to the public neatly hidden in an “objective” package. Middle East biases have become such a part of American reporting that we hardly realize they exist anymore.

In her tweet, Nasr was expressing sadness at the death of a man who is revered by the greater Muslim world as an iconic religious figure. He was a controversial figure, considered by many to be anti-American. But that shouldn’t be surprising considering he was unfairly placed at the top of the Reagan administration’s enemy list.

According to TIME, they ”mistakenly believed he was the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group the U.S. was at war with at the time.” They also believed he was responsible for an attack on a Marine barracks in Lebanon. These same misconceptions led a group of Christian Lebanese army officers to attempt to assassinate him. They thought they were doing the U.S. a favor. The consequence of this “favor”? 80 dead Lebanese civilians.

Fadlallah was far from perfect. Even if he was not guilty of organizing the Marine attack, he was still responsible for creating “a climate for the attack,” as TIME puts it. But few political and religious leaders are untouched by scandal and doubt. The fact remains that he was revered by much of the world, even, to some extent, by parts of the mainstream western world.

Furthermore, Nasr’s tweet was hardly extremist. Nowhere in the less-than-140-character message did she say she agreed with any specific part of his agenda. She simply expressed regret upon hearing of his death and said spoke of her respect for him. It’s perfectly possible to respect someone while not agreeing with them.

If CNN held all of its reporters to the same unbiased standard, then Nasr’s termination would be fair. But it appears that some biased personal opinions are acceptable to CNN while others are not. Wolf Blitzer, for example, is a former AIPAC official. He once publicly declared his pro-Israel stance, shortly before he was hired full-time at CNN. It stands to reason, therefore, that he should not be allowed to do any objective reporting on Israel. He has a clear conflict of interest. Shouldn’t this compromise Blitzer’s credibility even more than Nasr’s tweet compromised hers?

Blitzer’s career has never been negatively affected by his biases, because they’re expected. Pro-Israel sentiments are not considered biases and are perfectly acceptable. Meanwhile, a mild expression of regret upon learning of the death of a controversial Muslim leader admired by millions results in the termination of a 20-year career. Nasr is gone, but CNN remains otherwise unchanged. The mainstream media’s reporting of Middle East issues will continue to be subjective until organizations like CNN are able to recognize the biases that have become ingrained in their everyday reporting. —Shea Connelly

No More Asylum for Those at Risk?

admin — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:52:01 +0000

Benito Zaldívar was deported to El Salvador last December after his petition for asylum was rejected by the Board of Immigration Appeals. He was murdered eight weeks later, shot in the face while riding his bicycle. Zaldívar had moved to the U.S. in 2003 at the age of 15, fearing for his life after he refused to join a gang that was aggressively trying to recruit him.

Who is to blame for his death? The Board of Immigration Appeals refused to grant his asylum petition because he could not offer sufficient evidence that his life would be threatened by the gang.

“Zaldívar ‘indicated that the gang members threatened to hurt his family if he did not join,’ the judges wrote, ‘but neither the respondent nor anyone in his family has ever been harmed.’” This seems like an odd justification for rejection, considering that the whole point of granting asylum is to prevent people from being harmed. Apparently you must wait to be attacked before your fears are considered legitimate.

Our government is aware that gang violence is prevalent all over Central America, and the gang trying to recruit him, Mara-18, is well-known. You could argue that if Zaldívar didn’t have tangible evidence that he was being targeted, he could have been inventing the entire story. But it’s not as if Mara-18 would be sending text messages and e-mails to potential recruits (“Hey U, join R gang or else”).

The only real evidence Zaldívar could possibly have had to show the Board, therefore, would have been visible scars from previous attacks. Even then he could have been deemed untrustworthy and deported.

By our current laws, then, is anyone granted asylum for gang threats? The answer is rarely. According to the New York Times, as gang violence has grown in Central America over the last decade, it has become increasingly difficult for those threatened to be granted asylum in the United States.

In a 2008 court case, the Board denied a petition from three Salvadoran teens who, like Zaldívar, had fled recruitment. In their case the gang was MS-13, whose influence has become so widespread it even has a known presence in the United States. The reasoning behind the ruling should have drawn more outrage than it did.

“‘Gang violence and crime in El Salvador appear to be widespread, and the risk of harm is not limited to young males who have resisted recruitment,’ the Board found.”

The Board admitted that gang violence is such a problem in El Salvador that every last citizen is at risk. Wouldn’t three teenage boys who had fled the country rather than join the gang (i.e. had severely angered the gang) be significantly more at risk? And yet they were essentially told, go back to your country. You deserve to suffer just as much as everyone else there. The Board apparently believes it is the birthright of all Salvadorans to live in a constant state of fear.

President Obama is reportedly preparing to bring immigration back to the forefront of political debate. His administration is expected to reignite the debate by filing a lawsuit to block Arizona’s new immigration policy. Unfortunately, according to the New York Times, “there is little interest among politicians or the public in seeing the asylum numbers increase.”

I’m going to give politicians and the general public the benefit of the doubt and say there is “little interest” because there is little awareness. Know that Zaldívar’s case is not an isolated incident. And for every person who, like he, is deported and subsequently murdered there are a dozen more who are shipped back to their countries to live in hiding. Perhaps if more people become aware of tragedies like this one, politicians and the public would become interested in asylum reform. The Board made a fatal mistake in deporting Zaldívar, but it doesn’t have to happen again. —Shea Connelly

France’s World Cup Controversy

admin — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:09:53 +0000

For the French soccer team, the World Cup swiftly became an international public embarrassment. Following the expulsion of one of the team’s players and a subsequent protest held by the remaining team members (who refused to practice), France left the World Cup last week without a single win.

For a team that traditionally does well at the World Cup, the the poor performances were disappointing. The most embarrassing part of this situation, however, is the racist attitude many French citizens have adopted in the wake of the controversy.

According to the New York Times, 13 of the 22-man squad are “men of color.” This has prompted some offensive criticism, including a statement by a prominent French philosopher comparing “the players to youths rioting in the banlieues, France’s suburban ghettos. ‘We now have proof that the French team is not a team at all, but a gang of hooligans that knows only the morals of the mafia,’ he said.”

Interestingly enough, the Times reports that in 1998, the year France won the World Cup, the team was “widely praised for its multiethnic nature.” But now that the team failed to advance in the competition, critics are arguing that the multicultural team does not feel connected enough with France to feel strongly about winning. Apparently, the French are only to happy to embrace diversity when it’s working in their favor. When it fails to deliver for whatever reason, politicians refer to the players as “guys with chickpeas in their heads instead of a brain.”

Only two of the 22 players were born outside of France–in French territories–so the criticism is solely based on skin color and immigrant backgrounds. A French junior minister said, as she criticized the racially charged complaints, “People doubt that those of immigrant backgrounds are capable of respecting the nation.”

Unfortunately, this kind of talk is not simply a result of poor performance by a sports team. It’s symbolic of the broader struggle to define a national identity that France has faced recently. An April Times article reported that some French citizens are concerned that the majority of French speakers are not originally from France. They are from Haiti, Senegal, Algeria, Canada, and more.

“So what does French culture signify these days when there are some 200 million French speakers in the world but only 65 million are actually French?” the Times asked. The strangest thing about this situation is that the French language is not in decline. The Times compares the struggle to Americans who are unhappy with people in the United States speaking Spanish, but that’s not an accurate metaphor. The number of French speakers is constantly growing. The problem, at least for some people, is that the growth is happening outside of France.

It seems ironic that the reason people are concerned about losing French culture is because so many French speakers are from other countries. People speaking French outside of France is a lasting consequence of imperialism, which was presumably intended to spread French culture.

Regardless of the rationale behind this anxiety over immigration and globalization, the responses to the World Cup fiasco as well as several other French issues (most notably the ban on burqas) have made one thing clear: France needs to start learning to accept its own diversity before racial tensions reach a boiling point. —Shea Connelly

No Valid Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:12:48 +0000

Final arguments were given Wednesday in what may someday be known as one of the landmark civil rights cases of the 21st century: the Proposition 8-challenging trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Both sides presented their arguments and responses to a series of questions given to them by presiding Judge Vaughn Walker.

One of the most interesting things about the trial as a whole (not just the final arguments) is the way in which the defense noticeably struggled to find any evidence to back up their agenda of preventing same-sex marriage. While the plaintiffs’ arguments included testimonies from experts in sociology, political science, and marriage in addition to statements from couples explaining the emotional effects of the marriage ban on them and their children, the defense had only two witnesses. Neither of the witnesses are considered experts in any field remotely related to the case.

The defense’s entire argument against same-sex marriage was based on the fact that heterosexual couples have the ability to reproduce while two women or two men do not. So according to the defense, the sole purpose of marriage is reproduction.

This is a flimsy argument. We still allow infertile couples to marry—women who’ve had hysterectomies or have gone through menopause and men who have had vasectomies can marry without question. Furthermore, reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. When a couple marries they can choose not to have children, even if they are perfectly able.

If we deny same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage based solely on the fact that they cannot biologically have children, then we would also be obliged to prevent heterosexual couples from getting married unless they can and will have children. This would never happen, because the truth is marriage is about much more than procreation. It’s about legal and financial benefits, it’s about making two people feel like a cohesive “family,” and it’s about love, all things that affect homosexual citizens as equally as heterosexual.

The defense had one more supplementary argument that is equally unsupported. They asserted that children are better off with both a mother and a father, but had no evidence to back up this claim. Coincidentally, in the past couple of weeks scientific evidence was released that supports just the opposite.

A study conducted by psychiatric and behavioral science researchers indicates that children with lesbian parents “scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior …[and] scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

I mention this study not to argue the opposite of Prop 8 defenders, that same-sex parents are better than heterosexual. More than anything, this study illustrates that the success of children likely has very little to do with the sexual orientation of their parents.

Children with two loving parents will probably have happy and successful childhoods, while children with neglectful or abusive parents will have a harder time regardless of whether they have two dads, two moms, a dad and a mom, or even a single parent. The invalid assumption that having same-sex parents negatively affects a child has no place in the marriage rights debate.

Essentially, the defense was grasping at straws throughout the trial. They used these two flimsy arguments and inexpert witnesses in an attempt to cover up the real reasons they want same-sex marriage banned: homophobia, prejudice, and fear. Judge Walker will likely not make his final decision for a few weeks, but here’s hoping he sees through the defense’s fabricated “evidence” and extends equal rights to all Californians. —Shea Connelly

Should Dads-to-Be Have Abortion Rights?

admin — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:13:31 +0000

Though the abortion debate is never far from political rhetoric, ELLE magazine recently featured an article that explores a much less debated but no less controversial aspect of reproductive rights—paternal responsibility.

The piece profiles Greg Bruell and his ex-girlfriend, Sandra Hedrick, who formed a pact during their relationship to terminate any unwanted pregnancies. Both agreed their lives were not stable enough to raise a child.

When Hedrick became pregnant and decided to keep the baby, Bruell ended the relationship because he felt deceived, believing she became pregnant on purpose. When Hedrick sued Bruell for child support, Bruell sought the help of Mel Feit, president of the National Center for Men.

As portrayed in ELLE, Bruell does not have any kind of irrational hatred for children. In fact, he has two children by his ex-wife—children for whom he quit his job as a software executive and became a stay-at-home dad. These children were part of the reason he did not want more children—he wanted to make sure he could give them enough time and attention.

Bruell’s main problem with his situation is that he does not feel he should be forced by the government to pay to support a child he never wanted. He is apparently not alone. Mel Feit has represented other men in similar situations, as outlined in the article.

This is a side of the reproductive rights debate we seldom see discussed. We have made great strides over the last half-century regarding granting women complete control over their bodies and sexuality, but in doing so, have we been leaving men behind?

As awful and crazy as it sounds, there are women out there who become pregnant on purpose without telling their partners. Who insist they are taking birth control when they have stopped or, as in a case cited by ELLE, claim to be infertile when they are not. Should a man who impregnates a woman essentially against his will be forced to then pay to support the child? It could be argued that the man should pay for this consequence of agreeing to have sex without making absolutely sure that proper birth control was in place. As Feit tells ELLE, however:

“This reasoning is ironically similar to that often used against women’s reproductive rights: Abortion encourages sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility; the right of the fetus should override a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that could’ve been avoided with birth control; women should have to suffer the consequences of their sexual dalliances.”

This is a sensitive and complicated subject without a clear cut answer. Forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the father does not want a child or, vice versa, forcing a woman to carry a child because the father does want it is out of the question. But a man having no control over a fetus that is technically half “his” also seems unfair.

We often emphasize that men and women should play equal parts in child-rearing but according to our current laws, men essentially can claim no rights over a child until it is born. How are men to feel empowered as fathers if they have no power and apparently no legal standing throughout the pregnancy?

In the ELLE article, NYU’s dean of social sciences Dalton Conley discusses a 2005

New York Times article in which he recounted “how angry he’d been in his twenties when a former girlfriend chose to abort a child he’d wanted.” Should that situation be any less heartbreaking than when a man tries to convince a woman to get an unwanted abortion?

At the moment, it seems as though there is no easy solution to this predicament. But though we may not currently have an answer, this ELLE feature reminds us that the complications associated with reproductive rights reach far beyond pro-life vs. pro-choice. —Shea Connelly

BP: Focus on Environmental Recovery, Not Image Recovery

admin — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:28:53 +0000

It’s been weeks since the BP oil spill began and oil is still gushing into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate. Opening a newspaper without being confronted by heartbreaking images of oil-covered wildlife is almost impossible these days. And what is BP doing about this environmental catastrophe? They’ve chosen to spend millions of dollars and hours of time on a new ad campaign.

In the ads, which have been featured on TV, the radio, the Internet, and in newspapers, BP CEO Tony Hayward says:

“To all the volunteers and for the strong support of the government, thank you. We know it is our responsibility to keep you informed and do everything we can so this never happens again. We will get this done. We will make this right … [The oil spill is] a tragedy that never should have happened … [BP] has taken full responsibility for cleaning up the spill in the Gulf.”

It’s hard to think of a bigger waste of time and money than this absurdly misguided PR campaign. BP is, indeed, in the midst of a public relations nightmare, but the fact that they are apparently more concerned with their public image than with finding a solution to this disaster will only further alienate them from the public. Seeing Hayward trying to win back respect directly after watching a news report on dying birds is sickening.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time BP’s CEO has shown himself to be completely out of touch with reality. Last week, Hayward said, “I’m sorry. We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.” I’m sure the 11 workers killed after the oil rig exploded, not to mention the wildlife affected by the spill and the fishermen who depend on clean water to make a living, would all like their lives back, too.

Hayward has also been quoted as saying, “I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest,” and “What the hell did we do to deserve this?” Clearly some sensitivity training is in order.

Perhaps the worst thing about this inappropriate ad campaign, however, is the fact that BP chose to spend an estimated $50 million on it rather than using the money to begin construction on the protective barrier islands the company promised the White House it would build. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen ordered construction on May 27, but as of June 3 BP had yet to even begin to fulfill their promise. That $50 million would have made a significant dent in the $360 million cost of this project.

At the moment, BP’s public image should be the last thing on its agenda. But even if the company selfishly continues to prioritize image recovery over environmental recovery, its executives need to make some changes to their disaster response. They can start by dedicating all of their working hours to stopping the spill, rather than spending precious time and resources on laughably inappropriate PR campaigns. —Shea Connelly

Murder and the College Girl

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 01:44:00 +0000

Members of the University of Virginia community and the nation as a whole are reeling after news spread of the murder of fourth year student Yeardley Love, allegedly at the hands of fellow student George Huguely. Love’s body was discovered by Charlottesville police early Monday morning.

One of the main reasons this case has been receiving so much national attention is because both Love and Huguely were members of U.Va.’s highly-ranked women’s and men’s lacrosse teams. The case has been drawing many comparisons to the 2006 Duke lacrosse scandal.

This is, however, an inaccurate and unfair assessment. The only similarity between the two cases is that the people involved played lacrosse. In this new case, however, the fact that both the victim and the accused are lacrosse players is merely incidental.

The most important fact in this situation is that Love and Huguely had apparently been in a relationship. If Huguely is guilty of this crime, then Love’s death is a case of domestic violence.

On nearly every article and blog post about the tragedy, there have been people commenting with what ifs: What if Huguely was black? What if Huguely was poor? What if Huguely wasn’t a star athlete? How would he be treated differently? There are many unfair discrepancies in our criminal justice system’s treatment of low income and minority citizens. But to turn Love’s untimely death into a catalyst for a race or class war would be disrespectful.

An article on Slate, suggests that Huguely might be representative of the “big man on campus” mentality: “perhaps his status … made him feel like he was above the law and deserved to take whatever he wanted.” The details of Love’s death do not support this assumption. Huguely’s alleged actions indicate he was not thinking rationally. It seems doubtful that he was able to “feel” much of anything other than rage, and even more doubtful that he took the time to think, “I am an important lacrosse player. I can totally get away with this,” before he attacked. As in most cases of domestic violence, this was unlikely to have been premeditated.

This situation should not be viewed black vs. white or rich vs. poor. It shouldn’t be used as an opportunity to criticize wealthy private schools or star lacrosse players. The real issue is much simpler and sadly familiar: a young girl was murdered, possibly by a man with whom she had a romantic relationship.

Domestic violence affects people of all walks of life. Yes, these particular people happened to be star athletes and college students from well-to-do families, but that is irrelevant. This could have happened to anyone. The best way to honor Love’s memory, therefore, is to make sure the same thing does not happen to other women.

At this point, Huguely is only accused of murder and should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. His lawyer said Tuesday morning that Love’s death “was not intended but an accident with a tragic outcome.” Huguely’s own words in an affadavit obtained by a Charlottesville newspaper, however, paint a pretty gruesome picture of what may have happened.

If it is revealed that Love was a victim of domestic violence, then any discussion or debate her death inspires should be centered on the most effective way to teach young women (and men) how to escape abusive relationships, as well as how to recognize signs that a friend is in an abusive relationship. Making sense of tragedy is often impossible. The most we can hope for is to protect others from the same fate.—Shea Connelly