Step Down: Sexual Harassment Claims Against Cuomo

Over the past several weeks, Governor Andrew Cuomo has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple women, most of whom are current or former state employees. The allegations add to the growing list of scandals involving Cuomo and his administration, including understating the nursing home death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic by nearly half. The claims should increase awareness of the insidious problem of sexual exploitation that plagues our nation, a systemic one in which government has failed to properly hold assailants accountable. 

            The first woman to accuse Cuomo of sexual harassment was Lindsey Boylan, an administration aide from 2015 to 2018, who first spoke out on Twitter last December. In February, Boylan published an article detailing numerous instances in which Cuomo allegedly made sexual advances in the workplace. Among these, she said he had gone “out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs,” told her they should play strip poker during a flight, and gave her an unsolicited kiss at his Manhattan office.

            Charlotte Bennett, a 25-year-old former aide to the governor and a Hamilton College alumna, is the second woman to accuse the governor of sexual harassment. She reported that Cuomo, 63, inquired about her sex life and whether she was sexually interested in or experienced with older men. In another instance, he allegedly asked whether she thought age differences mattered in romantic relationships, a comment which she regarded as sexually insinuative. Bennett reported the interactions to Cuomo’s chief of staff and provided an in-depth statement to a special counsel, and was later transferred to a different job. She left her position last November. 

            Anna Ruch is the third woman to accuse Cuomo of inappropriate sexual behavior, in her case at a wedding they both attended in September 2019. During a conversation between them about a toast he had just made, she says, he unsolicitedly put his hand on her bare lower back, called her “aggressive” after she removed it, placed his hands on her cheeks, attempted to kiss her, and kept drawing closer as she continuously pulled away. 

            The fourth and fifth women to publicly accuse the governor of sexual harassment are Karen Hinton and Ana Liss. Hinton, a paid consultant to Cuomo when he was the federal Housing and Urban Development secretary, alleges that he gave her an unsolicited intimate embrace at a hotel room in 2000, repeating the motion a second time, which she again resisted. Liss, a former aide, said he made her uncomfortable after kissing her on the hand and asking intimate details about her romantic life. 

            The Times Union of Albany reported that one of Cuomo’s current aides, who remains anonymous, accused him of groping her in the Executive Mansion, after inviting her there to help him with a technical issue. On March 19, Alyssa McGrath, another current aide to the governor, confirmed her prior knowledge of the anonymous allegation before it was made public. She also alleged that Cuomo had gawked at her body and made sexually suggestive comments to her and the other aide.

            The most recent allegation to surface publicly is by Jessica Bakeman, a former Albany reporter who described multiple instances in which she said Cuomo was physically inappropriate or publicly demeaning toward her. 

            Governor Cuomo’s response to the multiple allegations has been embarrassing and inadequate. Although he has issued statements acknowledging and apologizing for any discomfort that his actions may have brought his victims, he still adamantly denies the allegations. On February 28, state Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office would begin a formal investigation into the sexual harassment claims that have been made so far. 

These brave survivors deserve not only to have their stories told, and heard, but even more importantly to have Cuomo held accountable. This issue is not one which can be met with silence or indifference; women have to, and continue to, overcome barriers of entry into politics, and the persistent issue of sexual misconduct at the hands of political leaders is a recurrent one which has gone improperly addressed for far too long. If Cuomo has any semblance of honesty left, he’ll resign with dignity before the state Assembly’s impeachment investigation potentially forces him to. 

Thoughts Moving Forward: Rethinking the Pandemic and Our Nation's Health

At this moment, 245,578 Americans have tragically lost their lives to COVID-19. Although the entire world has been struck by this devastating virus, such a high number of cases and deaths has distinguished the United States not only as the leading nation in the pandemic’s toll, but also as the one most criticized as failing its citizens. After the historic presidential election, and with Joe Biden as president-elect, our country and the world are closely watching and wondering whether we’ll be able to turn our COVID response around.

The media, and the rest of us, can’t really come to a consensus on why the U.S. has been plagued worse than most countries. Some claim that President Trump’s, and his administration’s, failure to adequately institute social distancing and mask mandates at a national level are the reason for our staggering numbers. Others posit that a deficiency of empathy and an individualistic mindset in America are the reason why we’ve come to accept the fate of this pandemic. Many others still question whether we’re at fault at all, citing the Chinese government’s lack of transparency about the virus early-on as our source of peril. But largely overlooked by politicians across the spectrum, and by virtually all mainstream media, are several factors which place a person at major risk of dying from COVID. The frequency of some of those underlying medical conditions doomed our nation to a high death toll from the beginning. 

Among the list of health conditions which place an individual at significant risk of dying from COVID, obesity is among the most threatening. According to new CDC data, obesity increases the risk of death by about 48 percent -- a disturbing statistic. Pairing that number with the prevalence of obesity in the U.S., where a shocking 40 percent of adults are obese, it’s safe to say that in addition to COVID, we have been facing a food issue for quite some time now. While obesity in itself is a major risk factor, it also poses an increased risk for other health conditions which similarly make people more vulnerable to COVID: diabetes, heart disease, a weakened immune system, and perhaps asthma, among others. Discourse on this issue has been highly stigmatized, which may explain why there is so little coverage of and focus on how our nation’s general health would naturally have affected our death rate, no matter how we handled the initial outbreak.

None of this is to say that our government’s early, and current, response to COVID shouldn’t be analyzed and criticized. We have an obligation to continuously question the actions and efforts of our government at both the national and local levels, and to demand policy changes as deemed fit. But it isn’t productive to simply name-call and assign blame to politicians and governmental entities without addressing a health issue which has affected the American population for so long. Our discomfort when speaking of this issue does our nation a disservice, because even after COVID is long gone, it will persist and will continue to harm the health of millions.

When we think about COVID and how to improve our response, we cannot conveniently ignore the fact that our population is already disproportionately unhealthy as compared with many other countries. Politicians on both sides of the political discourse have distracted us from, and divided us about, fundamental issues in American health care. Whether you favor universal health coverage or private insurance, obesity and related conditions lie at the root of a large percentage of our health concerns. We must join together as a nation to think of more productive and long-lasting solutions to address this massive health problem, rather than simply dismiss it as an uncomfortable topic.

The Logic Behind the Red-Blue Divide

I spent my formative teenage years living in my “hometown” Brazil, a country where politics aren’t simply divided into a blue-or-red category. Conversations about politics centered less on your political affiliation, and more on your stances on particular topics. So when I came back to the United States in 2017 to attend college at Hamilton, I was, to say the least, shocked by the tensions in political discourse among students and faculty. The political strain seemed to arise, at least on this campus (and I assume it is similar at most liberal arts colleges), from the lack of politically diverse discussion. I noticed this lack only when I finally realized that my opinions fell on the center-right side of the American political spectrum, and only when I began using the word “conservative” to identify myself did I realize the implications that my political identity had in a primarily liberal institution.

Initially, I was confused about why this stance seemed to upset, irritate, or anger so many of my peers. My opinions seemed delegitimized and ignored the moment I’d say I was conservative or center-right. I didn’t understand why my political affiliation caused students and faculty to, in a general sense, “take it personally.” I was astonished by the idea that your political perspective is so deeply entwined with your identity as a person.

But after I stumbled upon the Wall Street Journal’s “Red and Blue Economies” (9/2019) analysis, I began to better understand why politics are taken so personally in America. The analysis points out that Republicans and Democrats tend to live in two completely different economies--and it wasn’t the one I was expecting to encounter, the stereotyped “Republicans are all old, rich men” narrative, which informs the “that’s why Democrats are the only ones who care about the poor” claim. On the contrary, almost two-thirds of the nation’s gross domestic product comes from Democratic congressional districts (63.6 percent). Brookings Institution data also show that the share of GDP produced in Republican districts is actually shrinking. Democrats are far more dominant in (at least by this standard) high-producing districts than Republicans. Similarly, while the median household income was about the same for each party’s supporters a decade ago, it has since grown dramatically by 17 percent in Democratic districts while falling 3 percent in Republican ones. The analysis goes on to explain why this economic divide has come about, noting that “blue industries” are doing better financially than red ones. Nearly three-quarters of the jobs in digital and professional industries are situated in Democratic districts. By contrast, Republican districts hold larger shares of the nation’s declining industries, including agriculture, mining, and low-skill manufacturing jobs. Many of these don’t require a higher-level degree and pay significantly less. And the tendency of Republican voters to be in poorer districts is a large factor in the increasing divide. 

The parties were historically more geographically intertwined, but the 2010 Tea Party movement more or less completed the gradual displacement of Democratic House members in rural districts in the Midwest and South, while the 2018 midterms expelled Republican members from many suburban ones. The red-blue educational disparity is another prominent factor in explaining the parties’ division, as people with college degrees are far more concentrated in Democratic districts than in GOP ones.

In conclusion, this analysis paints a very realistic picture of why Democrats and Republicans have such a difficult time having civil discourse and listening to each other’s opinions. They reside in very different worlds, and the financial stereotypes attributed to each party no longer reflect the reality. 

People’s backgrounds and where they are from undeniably inform the political stances they’re more likely to side with, and the data support that analysis. If you’re from New Jersey or Massachusetts, your political opinions are probably informed by different financial and educational backgrounds than what inform the views of someone from rural Texas. Understanding these broad differences is crucial if we’re trying to diminish political polarization and reduce tensions in discourse between Republicans and Democrats. At the same time, candidates will be using this information for a different purpose, to shape their audience outreach, and it’ll probably work. Donald Trump probably won’t be appealing to the same citizens as Bernie Sanders or another Democrat.

It’s difficult for people to see problems in the same way when their very different backgrounds inform their reality, and given that Republicans and Democrats statistically speaking have starkly different backgrounds, it makes sense that they will have different ways of viewing issues. Before you enter discourse with someone whose political affiliation or perspective is opposed to yours, keep these data in mind. It’s especially easy to take politics personally when your political orientation was probably quite influenced by your financial, educational, and geographic reality. Enter the conversation with an open mind, being aware that the other person’s opinion was probably shaped by the same factors as yours, just in a different way.

Amazon Ablaze: What's Going on in the World's Largest Rain Forest?

The world’s largest tropical rain forest, the Amazon, has seen a devastating rise in man-made fires since January. Most of these fires are being legally set by farmers as a precursor to planting, as the dry season in the Amazon, in which fires could be set to prepare the land, runs from April to September. However, many are being started illegally by land grabbers, expanding their lands by clearing protected areas of the rain forest for profit. A significant portion of the fires is in savanna areas of the Amazon, where tree coverage is scarcer. The fires are now threatening the region’s more biodiverse sections, which not only are home to around 40,000 plant species and 430 types of mammals, but also absorb about two billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (roughly five percent of the planet’s total annual emissions). With the increasing threat that climate change poses to the Earth and future generations, it’s pivotal to critically and holistically assess the environmental crisis currently affecting the Amazon, and what it means in the grand scheme of our future.

The Amazon extends across Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana; but Brazil accounts for about 60 percent of the total region. The data presented in this article and in most media coverage of the Amazon fires refer to Brazil’s portion. The Brazilian space agency reports that there have been 43,421 fires from January through August, a 57 percent jump from the average number (27,665) occurring in those months over the past five years. It also reports that from January to July alone, about 4,700 kilometers of rain forest were cleared, 67 percent more than last year. Scientists estimate that about 18 percent of the original forest is gone, and warn that it can’t lose too much more cover before drying out and becoming a savanna. The Amazon recycles moisture from nearby oceans which then evaporates into the air, causing rainfall. Therefore, if it loses too much tree coverage, dry periods will last longer and the forest will be more prone to wildfires, which could produce even more devastating deforestation. 

The city of São Paulo was covered in smoke on August 21 as blackened skies darkened the city two hours earlier than usual, and researchers said the forest fires more than 2,000 miles away were partly to blame. Hospitals in Amazonian cities have reported an increase in respiratory problems as well. Outraged Brazilian citizens posted photos on social media of the skies and neighboring fires, and celebrities and the media were quick to pick up the story. Norway and Germany have halted their aid to the Amazon Fund due to increasing tension between Brazil and the European Union due to the fires and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s budget cuts to IBAMA, the government’s environmental protection and natural resources agency.

Climate change activists and other citizens were in disbelief at the initial lack of coverage of the fires. And the media’s later awakening seemed to involve mostly the political implications of Bolsonaro’s environmental policies rather than a more complete reporting of the situation and its history.

President Bolsonaro took office last January, ending the Workers’ Party’s 13-year governance from 2003 to 2016 (a successor to the impeached Workers’ Party president held office from 2018 to 2019). He has championed controversial right-wing policies and has been called “the Trump of the Tropics” by the media in the United States. They are in no way favorable toward a Latin American Trump, and that may help to explain the amount of inaccurate and biased reporting on the Amazon fires this year in the U.S. media, including numerous reports with false and incomplete data and photographs of fires from years ago, in many instances not even fires in the Amazon. For comparison, in 2010, during the last year of leftist President Lula da Silva’s 8-year term, researchers reported a 261 percent increase in the number of fires year-on-year to a peak of 109,940 fires. The media coverage of those fires was scarce, as most Brazilians and much of international opinion favored Lula’s presidency. 

Bolsonaro should be held accountable for lack of action against illegal loggers, budget cuts to environmental agencies protecting the Amazon, and his government’s general encouragement of expanding economic activity in the Amazon to improve the country’s economy. While a portion of the Amazon can (and arguably should) be used to promote economic activity in the region’s cities, which are among the poorest in Brazil, this should be done in an amount which still allows the rain forest to regrow at a natural rate. However, the media and readers or viewers have a responsibility to report data accurately and to propose solutions that would combat the forest fire crisis, rather than focus on the demonization of a disliked political figure.