From Fear to Fulfillment: A Quick Summary of My First Week in Morocco

Al Akhawayn University (AUI), located in the
Atlas Mountains, a ten minute walk from the
town of Ifrane,

In the week leading up to my departure from the US, the same phrase was the last thing I heard fall from the lips of my loved ones: “Be safe.” It is easy to prepare for the worst, especially when you’re voyaging to a country your friends and family may not know much about. Fear, it turns out, is often rooted in love. Their fear is stemmed from their desire to see me again, to be able to go get dinner, share a laugh, walk their dog; they want me to come home, and I understand that feeling. However, fear did not prepare me for the things I have already experienced in Morocco; instead it made them all the better. 

This blog post is not to deceive you into thinking that I was brave and daring. I do not want you to think that I walked confidently onto my plane or that I scoffed at the idea of loneliness and disconnect that might await me. Let me be very honest with you: within hours of arriving in Casablanca, I sat on the airport floor almost in tears while luggage carts threatened to trample my toes as I awaited a complete stranger. In that moment I realized my language skills were not as strong as I had been told and I struggled to communicate. It’s easy to stay focused on the negatives of situations like these and, in the moment, I must admit, I questioned whether or not I was as adventurous as I had thought myself to be when I was on American soil. But there’s a cliché that says that life begins outside of your comfort zone. And as much as I hate to admit it, that cliché was right. 

An ally in the town of Chefchaouen, known as
the Blue Pearl.

Everyone prepares you for the fear of arriving in a new place, with new people and surrounded by new things, but allow me to share some of the things I could have never been prepared for upon my arrival at Al Akhawayn. I could not imagine the way thunderstorms roll over the university, which is perched upon a mountain, or how you can stare up at the sky for an hour and watch the lightening illuminate the sky around you and hear the thunder roar while not a drop of rain falls. And when the clouds decide to share some of their water, it falls in large drops, almost like they’re meant to satisfy a thirst the ground holds. And when the storm clears, stray cats wander campus and into the Cafe, urging you to pet them and give them a treat from your table. No one mentions how you will be greeted with salam, meaning "peace", everywhere you go. Or how people will walk you to the Marche in town when you are lost, despite them not being able to communicate with you at all; it’s like they simply know you need help, and they do not think a second before offering it to you. They leave out how you will have professors from all around the globe who may have served as the ambassador to the United Nations, or taught at Harvard, or maybe are a Crowned Prince, or from your home country. The images of cities painted blue and mountains holding waters so beautiful they're said to belong to God never come to their mind. They fail to mention the friends you will meet who felt exactly as you did on the floor of the airport, or how together you’ll be able to figure things out.

Yes, they tell you to be safe, but you should also be open, be curious and be willing to feel uncomfortable, because I promise, it will be worth it.

View of the chasm of God's Bridge, located near Akshour in the Atlas Mountains, a 45 minute taxi ride from Chefchaouen.

Swann v. Board: The Final Moot Court

On the last gathering of class, the two final teams took to the podium for one last stand off. The teams were assigned the historical case of Swann v. Board, so here's some background: the case dealt with the issue of busing for schools in the area.

Team One argued on the side of Swann, saying
that the school district was gerrymandering district lines to enhance segregation, which was illegal. The team sited Reynolds v. Simms to support this argument. The second argument focused on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, saying that the busing system of the school was promoting segregation, therefor ending the segregation of busing will promote equality. The team also argued the importance of the busing issue in order to integrate African-Americans with the white community more. The team argued that the School Board was using busing to segregated schools by forcing children to go to schools farther away, instead of bringing students to the nearest school, which would mix races. The team also cited the Civil Rights act of 1964, which banned discrimination in public accommodations based on race. Finally, the team argued based on emotions, saying that white parents and students should be willing to sacrifice their time to go to a farther school in order to promote integration, therefor making a more compassionate society.

Team Two argued on behalf of The Board of Education of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The team opens with an emotional plea, saying that if everyone deserves equal protection, and by integrating the bus systems will put African-Americans at risk or being bullied and possibly even the victims of violence. The team then said the main issue was zoning, not race based. In fact, the issue shouldn't be based on promoting integration, but instead maintaining the busing due to the fact that it lowers the cost, that saved money can then go to further education in the areas school. This ability to increase the quality of education overcomes the need for integration. The team then turned to the argument of "properly" integrating the schools, which falls into the hands of a few officials. This being known, some people will not be happy with the plan, because it is simply impossible to please everyone. The overall point of this argument was that its impracticable to try and achieve overall fairness, because it cannot be done. Finally, the team argued that the fault of segregation falls to how the population was dispersed. If African-Americans wanted to have their children attend "white schools" they should have chose to live in a white community. Pretty much, if they don't like where they attend school, move.

Despite both team having strong arguments, the court ultimately decided that Swann was the winner of this final court due to the strength of their legal arguments. However, if the case had taken place today

Blast from the Pat: Heffernan v. Patterson: The Decision

My first blog post for this class was on the case of a New Jersey police officer who had been demoted after his boss thought he had been showing support for a local campaign that his boss didn't support. Since this is one of my last posts, I thought it would be appropriate to go back and take a look at where the case was today.

As the case made it's way through the court system, it finally reached the US Supreme Court, which released it's ruling earlier this week. The Court found that Heffernan's First Amendment rights had been violated, and that his demotion had been unconstitutional. When Heffernan had presented his case to the lower courts, he had lost the suit. This is because the prior courts had said that picking up a sign for his mother wasn't a use of his First Amendment rights; therefore, there's no way they could have been violated. However, the Supreme Court's 6-2 decision obviously contradicted that of prior rulings. However, the dissenting opinion written by Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia reinforced the prior rulings, saying “Demoting a dutiful son who aids his elderly, bedridden mother may be callous, but it is not unconstitutional,”. Nevertheless, Justice Breyer, a member of the majority opinion wrote that “The upshot is that a discharge or demotion based upon an employer’s belief that the employee has engaged in protected activity can cause the same kind, and degree, of constitutional harm whether that belief does or does not rest upon a factual mistake,”, pretty much, even if Heffernan wasn't expressing his First Amendment rights, his demotion had been based on the assumption that he was, making the action unconstitutional.

All in all, this case was kind of ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Donald Trumps hair (among other things). I mean really. Look at it.

Brown v. Board of Education: Moot Court

The United States Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education was a monumental case in American history for citizens of this country. In todays class, two teams presented their cases on behalf of Brown and on behalf of the Topeka Board of Education, reenacting this historical case in todays 2016 classroom.

The first arguments were presented by the side or Brown. The team presented five arguments mainly focused on legal grounds, siting the 1875 Civil Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically the Equal Protection Clause present in the Fourteenth Amendment, and two of the four prior court cases that dealt with the same subject, these cases were Briggs v. Elliott and Gebhart v. Belton.

Ms. Ouayoro presents her arguments for team Board of Education

The second team presented arguments that supported the prior ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson which established to idea of "separate but equal". Instead of focusing on legal arguments, the team representing the Board of Education focused more on moral and ethical views of the situation. They argued for the safety of African-American students, which might be more intently persecuted by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or by the white population of the newly integrated schools. The team also argued that instead of achieving integration as soon as possible, the government should "go slow" and focus on improving the conditions of black schools so that they may be up to par with the white schools. The team stated in their reasoning that if black students were integrated into white schools they would fall behind due to their prior education being less intellectual than the education received
by white students.  They also argued a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, saying that the educational system is fine how it is. The one legal argument presented by the Board of Education team pertained to the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that equal protection is only applicable to people as a whole, individuals will never truly be equal, that is the circumstance of life.

In all, both teams presented well thought out arguments. However, due to this being a court case, emotion and opinion based arguments fall to legal facts, resulting in the win going to the team representing Brown.

Challkin' It Up: Freedom of Speech on Campus

Chalk may wash away with a little water, but messages written in this temporary substance have a tendency to linger around a bit longer. Earlier this week students at Emory University in Atlanta awoke to a campus covered in chalk graffiti promoting the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. This expressive action seemed to create a major stir on the campus among supports and non supports alike; this spark seemed to stem from one issue, freedom of speech.

Examples of Pro-Trump graffiti on Emory's campus.

When some students decided to take to the streets and protest in response to the plaster of a Pro-Trump message about the southern campus, they received some pretty underserved backlash. Besides social media outlets such as twitter, the protestors were also called out by some well known news organizations (cough Fox News cough). These responses to the protestors called them out for being just another bunch of college kids crying about how everyone needs to keep it PC (that's politically correct if you're not familiar with the lingo). Here's where these protest haters messed up though: the protestors weren't protesting the Trump chalk drawings all over this southern campus, they were displaying their disapproval of the message behind the candidate promoted. They in no way were using their freedom of speech to attempt to stomp out those with disagreeing views First Amendment rights. Instead the protestors were out there with the goal to unite people in opposition to what the Trump campaign stands for. Pretty much, they were using their freedom of speech to do exactly what it was intended to, disagree with others.

This campaign season has been one of major confrontations and clashes between members of different political parties, along with disagreements between members of the same party who simply support different candidates. It's important for citizens in this country to always respect others political views, even if they don't align with their own. Our O.G. President G. Washington once said that political parties would "likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Don't let political labels and different views divide this great country, don't let George down.

Plessy v. Ferguson: The Other Opinion

The court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson is one you can find in your high school history books, and if you grew up in New York like me, you probably encountered it on you U.S. History regents exam. If there's one thing most kids remember from this case it's the coining of the idea of "separate but equal" AKA one of the most discriminatory rulings in United States history. 

Now, a lot is known about this case and it's outcome, but what about the opinion of the court that didn't make the headline? What about the dissent?

Although the majority opinion of the court was presented but Justice Henry B. Brown, another judge on the case possessed an opinion which contradicted the ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan authored the dissent of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. In his dissent he says "If a white man and a black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do so, and no government, proceeding alone on grounds of race, can prevent it without infringing the personal liberty of each.", meaning that separate but equal isn't really equal at all.

Harlan makes a good argument, an argument so precise that it is still applicable to race issues that continue to trouble this country today. Although his opinion that "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country" probably wasn't one of much popularity among many people of power in 1896, the truth of his statement still rings true today. 

Perhaps one of the most powerful statements, in my opinion, from Judge Harlans dissent is the following: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Overall, what this dissent is saying is that the color of one skin, among other characteristics beyond physical appearance, should not justify discrimination. 

Thankfully, this discriminatory ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was counteracted by the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education, and with this ruling and other political actions, the U.S. is on it's way to becoming the type of country Judge Harlan believed it should have been 120 years ago. 

Do Our Allies Match the United States Values?

The concept of an alliance has been around since the formation of states. People figured out pretty fast that the more people you've got, the more powerful you are. Especially in todays world, an abundance of allies is key to success. This need for allies increases immensely when you're the hegemonic world power, like the United States is today. Usually, when you think of a list of the current allied countries with the U.S., many European and western states come to mind. England, Canada, Germany, France, countries which, today, share our values as a country. However, the United States also has some questionable allies, such as Saudi Arabia.

photo from: https://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com/category/iraq/

Why would the U.S. be allied with an oppressive regime?

Well, lets be honest, Saudi possess about 40% of the worlds oil: something the U.S. needs. So, Saudi Arabia is our ally, and in exchange we turn a blind eye to violations of human rights. But what happens when citizens here in the U.S. use their freedom of speech to talk about how freedom speech is being crushed in a country the U.S. calls a friend?

While the United States and other western countries speak out against the atrocities committed by the terrorist group known as ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIL), Saudi Arabia continues to oppress the rights of their citizens, and imposes sharia law in some ways as drastically as ISIS has. Saudi Arabia also possess a recent history of imprisoning individuals who spoke out against authorities or for political and human rights reforms. In addition, Saudi Arabia has continuously been executing those charged with minor drug possessions.

These actions committed by the Saudi government have led to unrest in the U.S., especially with the revival of diplomatic ties with Cuba, many U.S. citizens believe it's time to reevaluate the U.S.'s relations with Saudi Arabia. And they're not afraid to let their voices be heard.