China’s Zero-COVID Policy

A man wearing a mask
(source: yahoo images)

Since the pandemic began, you might have seen multiple different snippets of Chinese citizens in their homes under complete lockdown. You might have even seen drones patrolling the streets and citizens shouting lamentations out of their window.

What you may not have known is that all of these scenarios mentioned above are a direct result of China’s COVID protocols. Currently, China is imposing a “zero-COVID” policy on all of its citizens. However, as President Xi Jinping was just re-elected for a third five-year term, we can assume that the policy will not be going anywhere anytime soon. 

The “zero-COVID” Policy: Prevention

landmark in china
(source: yahoo images)

Let us now evaluate what this so-called “zero-COVID” policy is and what it entails. Supposedly, China “recognizes domestic outbreaks are inevitable, and its policies are not geared towards having zero cases at all times but instead, are about “dynamically” taking actions when cases surface.” 

China’s policy can be split into two distinct features: prevention and containment. In the case of prevention, China ensures PCR tests (which are fast and highly accurate ways to diagnose COVID) are readily available for anyone at any given time. The normality and presence of tests has in turn caused certain businesses and buildings to require individuals to show proof of being COVID negative to enter these public spaces. However inconvenient this might be to those who are not tested, this notion has definitely kept cases low—after all, if functioning in life requires having a negative test, why would one risk getting sick? One surely would not want to risk getting sick since it would mean they would be practically unable to enter any public places. Hence, prevention of COVID prevails in China. 

The “zero-COVID” Policy: Containment

Chinese mountain
(source: yahoo images)

Prevention of COVID seems to be rather successful in China. However, the other part of China’s zero-COVID policy seems to be the one that sparks controversy and frequently makes its way into mainstream media: containment. 

Allegedly, China’s “[control tactics] aimed at swiftly cutting off transmission chains to forestall outbreaks, involve quarantining cases at government-supervised facilities and locking down buildings, communities or even entire cities.” 

Picture this: you wake up, get dressed, and are having your typical morning routine. Perhaps you might be feasting on some waffles or eggs as you prepare for your day. In any case, you eat your breakfast, and then head out to work. You get to your office around 10 minutes early, anticipating it will be a good day. 

About halfway through your work day, you receive word that you will not be heading home to your family that night. Someone in that building (a coworker of yours), tested positive for COVID, and the city decided to place your entire office building on lockdown.

Swiftly, within hours, government officials are shoving mattress and bed materials through the window. Additionally, food supplies are en route to the office. The basic necessities of human survival are all now being prepared to be delivered to your office, which, for the next couple of days, will be your home. 

This scenario is one that many people living in China have experienced. Starting your day normally to simply head to work and be told that you would not be allowed to go back home for a couple of days is a harsh reality in China. 

This ability for the government to impose this upon its citizens is all, as one would expect, due to China’s commitment to its zero-COVID policy. 

However, in addition to putting entire office buildings under lockdown for days, China is also able to put entire cities on lockdown. The population of the cities which fall victim to China’s harsh quarantine policies matters not—Shanghai, China’s largest city, was even placed on lockdown. Other cities that have been placed on lockdown include Xian, Chengdu, Tianjin, Shenzhen, and regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet and Jilin.

When a city is placed on lockdown, its citizens typically get little notice. The lockdowns, unsurprisingly, are complete lockdowns—there are no exceptions. Everything closes. Everyone is required to stay inside, no matter what. China ensures complete and total lockdown.

The government guards and watches over the streets 24/7 and ensures that no one roams the streets without permission. On top of that, drones often fly about, blaring messages out loud to remind everyone of the lockdown procedures.

When China decides to place a city under lockdown, eeriness overflows the streets. The scene is reminiscent of ghost towns and movies of towns left abandoned due to some unforeseeable incident. 

The Impacts and Implications

Chinese flag
(source: yahoo images)

These efforts on China’s end, despite how draconian they might appear, have definitely accomplished China’s goals. Globally, China is practically one of the least impacted nations by COVID—despite the fact the virus allegedly originated from China in the first place. 

According to OurWorldInData, China’s all-time COVID case count is about 1 million. The United States’s total is about 97 million. Additionally, in China, only about 5,000 have died from complications with COVID, while over a million people have died in the United States. 

Naturally, this presents an ethical dilemma—how should a government go about protecting the lives of its citizens from an illness? Should the government take China’s route of practically removing one’s agency over their own life in order to keep cases and deaths down, or should a government take the route of the USA where COVID mandates are less harsh or non-existent?

The low incidence of COVID outbreaks might make it seem as if China is doing the correct thing—governments should step in and enforce lockdowns onto people. However, while this surely will indeed keep cases at a low count, it will also imply other things—most importantly, the implication that the government ultimately knows what is best for its people and has the final say in how people live their lives. If a government can step in randomly and deny its citizens the free will to leave an office building, what else can it do in other situations? This notion of a government exuding agency over its people in times when it deems best surely is not a notion that is only demonstrated in situations of COVID—it is a notion that is bound to resurface in other parts of one’s life.

What the correct and best thing for a government to do, as it relates to infection control, is not as clear cut as one might think. It is certainly problematic for a government to have total authority over its people (which thereby would give it the power to strictly enforce COVID policies). At the same time, this has been an effective strategy in keeping cases low. On the other hand, the United States has been uncertain as to how to implement COVID policies. The USA is not used to enforcing policies in situations that have never occurred before, such as the COVID pandemic. Hopefully, if there is one positive thing we could gain from the entire pandemic, it is that if a pandemic were to ever break out again, due to COVID, we are better equipped to deal with it. 

Relativism’s Implications on Universal Human Rights

(source: yahoo images)

If you consider yourself to be a supporter of human rights and all of its technicalities, then you are surely aware of the document that formally brought forth legislation about human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Declaration was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations by a vote of 48-0-8 on December 10, 1948. 

Per its name, the main goal of the Declaration was to universalize human rights and to ensure that every human, no matter where in the world, has the same basic human rights. 

This inherent goal of the Declaration (its aim of universal human rights), has been a source of debate in the philosophical realm for quite some time. This blog will bring forth one particular view relating to the debate, as well as its implications. 

Relativism

(source: yahoo images)

In the realm of philosophy, there exists a concept of relativism. (Or, more specifically, cultural relativism; in this blog, I shall be using these terms synonymously.)

Rather than plainly stating what relativism is, I am going to show you one of the many ways the concept was devised. 

The Earth is big. On our big Earth, there are seven continents. Throughout these seven continents, there are hundreds of states and nations. In these states and nations, billions of people exist. Most of the people within these nations align with a specific cultural identity. Whether it be American, French, Japanese, or Swiss, all humans have a unique cultural identity.  

Moreover, cultures have different forms of expressions. One culture is not necessarily like another (for what is right in one culture could very much be wrong in another). 

Therefore, there is no possible way that an objective set of rules could ever exist. What is correct is relative to the culture and society of where that expression is happening.  

If you followed along and agreed with all of the statements just made, then you are stepping into the realm of relativism. 

More on Relativism

(source: yahoo images)

Relativism is the view that what is “right” and “wrong” is solely dependent on one’s culture. What is correct in the United States could very much be wrong in another nation.

A finite example of this is gratuity, or “tipping,” after a meal in a restaurant.  In the United States, it is acceptable to tip your server after a meal at a restaurant. In Japan, this would be disrespectful. 

In the eyes of relativism, both of these customs are correct. Moreover, they are equally correct—one is not more “right” than the other. 

Additionally, cultural relativism not only says that cultural customs are equally correct but the moral codes of every culture is equally correct also. In other words, no culture is better than another—no culture is more correct. 

However, this characteristic of cultural relativism brings forth another one of its characteristics: there is no such thing as moral progress. 

To say that something has “progressed” is to say that it has become better, meaning that before its progression, it was flawed. This goes against cultural relativism because relativism states that every culture is inherently correct—there is no need to progress. Therefore, rather than saying a culture has “progressed,” relativists say that a culture has simply changed its ways and its moral code. (This is different from progression because it does not imply a culture has advanced for the better due to some arbitrary standard.) 

Cultural relativism, at least at first, might be an appealing outlook on life. After all, who are we to tell different cultures what is right and what is wrong? Every culture and society should be allowed to have their own rules and social norms. It sounds immoral to enforce the United State’s social norms onto other nations.

Relativism’s Implications on Human Rights

(source: yahoo images)

The big implication that follows from relativism (as it relates to human rights) can be broken down as follows: (i) if cultural relativism is correct, every culture is equal and correct; (ii) if every culture is equal and correct, no culture has authority or agency over another; (iii) enforcing universal human rights would not align with all cultures in the world; (iv) if no culture/society has the agency to tell another what to do, and enforcing universal human rights would require telling other cultures what to do, universal human rights cannot exist.

Despite this argument coming to the conclusion that universal human rights cannot exist, we all are very much aware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—something that does indeed exist. However, we must note that the argument above does not apply to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

This is due to the fact that the Declaration holds no legal obligation as it is solely a declaration, not a treaty. Nations are not forced to follow it. Instead, they are encouraged to follow it. (However, this is not to say that the Declaration is not followed.)

Therefore, the argument that universal human rights cannot exist still stands. However, the argument’s basis is founded on  the premise that relativism is true and correct—and that might not be the case. 

Universalism

(source: yahoo images)

Before we carry on with our discussion of relativism, I would like to point out another view: universalism. As it relates to politics, universalism, unlike relativism, states that universal human rights can and should exist. 

Universalism is the direct opposite to relativism in the world of politics. It claims that social norms across all cultures are fundamentally similar, hence why it would be possible to universalize (and legislate) human rights. 

Objections to Relativism

(source: yahoo images)

Having now formulated a basic understanding of relativism (as well as its counter: universalism), we can now move on ahead and consider some of the theory’s big objections.

First, let us consider the objection of “no cultural progress”. The lack of cultural progress in relativism, as aforementioned, is formulated from the basis that all cultures are equally correct, with no culture being “better” or “worse.” Due to this, no culture can progress as it would imply it was not “good” in the past. Rather than progressing, a culture merely changed its practices and moral codes.

Therefore, under relativism, one would not be able to say that modern-day Germany is better than Nazi Germany, even though we know it is. Relativism would suggest that moral code of Nazi Germany is just as correct as the moral code of modern Germany; one is not better than the other.

Moreover, under relativism, one could not say that the abolishment of slavery was progress for the United States; we merely changed our ways. 

This, as one would obviously assume, is a big pill to swallow. Most would agree that modern-day Germany and the modern-day USA are better than they were many years ago. However, to say this would be to reject relativism, thereby stating that some cultures and social norms indeed are better than others. 

Another objection to relativism comes from the fact that most people align with multiple different cultures. For example, everyone in the United States lives under the cultural code of the United States. However, we also follow cultural norms that are more local—such as the cultural codes of what city/state we live in. In cases like these, relativism gives no true guidelines on what one should do. 

A famous example of this objection comes from the case Wisconsin vs. Yoder. This case was between the state of Wisconsin and an Amish family that lived in Wisconsin. 

In Wisconsin, legislation requires that every family sends their children to get educated until the age of 16. However, Amish customs say that no child needs education after 8th grade. Thus, a dilemma formulated between one culture and another—the culture of Wisconsin and the culture of the Amish. 

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of the Amish family, citing the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. 

This however, is just one example of conflicting cultural social norms. What is one supposed to do when their culture does not align with another culture they are a part of? Relativism does not say.

Besides the two mentioned objections to relativism, many more exist. Therefore, it is quite clear that relativism is not a perfect theory nor a perfect view of life. However, despite the objections to the view, many have still aligned with the theory.

Conclusion

(source: yahoo images)

As there are many attractions and objections to relativism, one is, perhaps, able to see why the concept of universal human rights has been a heated source of debate. 

Whether or not there will  ever be a treaty formulated that legally binds nations into following basic human rights is unknown. However, what we do know is that this issue is not one that is as obvious as people might believe at first. 

Perhaps, in the future, if there is diplomatic debate on this topic, a treaty could very well be created. This treaty will ensure that no human ever on this planet gets mistreated. However, until that day, we solely have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a very good starting point for a treaty on human rights. 

On the Railroad Workers’ Situation

amtrak
An Amtrak train (source: yahoo images)

Perhaps, in the media or within your own life, you have heard snippets about “railroad workers rights” and “railroad unions.” However, even though you might have heard of these topics, you still may not know what they refer to. You might have even asked yourself, “Why would railroad workers form unions? What is going on?” To understand the answers to these questions, consider the severity of the situation. For example, did you know that railroad workers across the United States are facing disciplinary action for taking days off to go to the doctor?

I hope this post implores you to spread information about the maltreatment that the railroad workers are experiencing. This blog will share the most current information relating to railroad workers rights movement.

But First

italy
A night-time view of Italy (source: yahoo images)

Before we unpack all that has been going on with railroad workers, we will firstly examine a place that is frequently of American interest: Italy. Whether it be Italy’s beautiful geography, remarkable monuments, or the sublime cuisine, most Americans have similar presumptions about the nation: it is simply exquisite and fosters a rich culture. 

Unfortunately, however, this blog will not discuss Italy’s glorious disposition. Instead, we will be discussing another remarkable, modern-day characteristic of Italy (which, in my opinion, trumps some of the others): the rights of employees instituted by the federal government.

In Italy, every employee is entitled to at least four weeks of paid vacation. The federal government makes it illegal for any employer to prohibit their employees to not take at least four weeks of time off.

Contrastingly, this notion, as it relates to the United States (where there is no federal law regulating how many days off a private employer is required to give their employee) is borderline martian. Employees being federally entitled to paid time off in the United States is similar to oxygen in space—nonexistent. 

However, even though Italian employers are required to offer at least four weeks of paid vacation to their employees, the majority of employers offer five weeks. In the United States, the average length of paid time off given to employees is 10-14 days—less than two weeks. 

Without a doubt, when comparing which nation better allows its employees to have a healthy work-life balance, Italy prevails over the United States. (I did not even have to mention how Italians also receive 104 hours per year which they can use for personal affairs: taking a child to the doctor, running errands, etc.). 

However, let us now consider the argument that follows from the aforementioned points: indeed, Italy may have better federal legislation for employees; but, surely, as a result of that, their economy and government is not as prosperous as the United States.

This argument, although perhaps not for the reasons one might assume, is valid—the United States indeed does have a bigger and better economy than Italy. In regards to GDP, the US economy ranks first in the world, while Italy’s is 8th. However, one must also consider the USA’s size and history. Italy’s economy crumbled after the World War; the US’ economy exponentiated. Therefore, considering that Italy had to recover from a World War, the fact that it currently ranks 8th in the world—and it has legislation ensuring the prosperity of employees—is rather remarkable.

As you read the rest of this article, keep these statistics and distinctions in mind. 

Back to the States

american flag
The White House (source: yahoo images)

Up until this point, we have discussed international affairs. However, the main point this blog seeks to discuss and analyze relates to railroad workers in the USA—a domestic topic. Italy’s overpowering legislation on employee’s rights shall be used as a tool of comparison for what is currently occurring in the United States.

With all this in mind, the ultimate question remains: what is going on with railroad workers in the United States?

The Fundamentals

steam train
A steam engine (source: yahoo images)

For the past couple of months, multiple unions have been created by railroad workers to bring forth change in the workplace. These unions have threatened to go on strike multiple times. 

The central issue that unions are attempting to fix relates to worker rights. More specifically, the rights of employees wishing to take days off.

For the railroad workers, the ability to have sick days has been a source of conflict. Currently, railroad workers throughout the United States are not able to take days off for any reason. Whether it be taking off days because of sudden illness or having to go to a funeral, railroad workers are unable to take off days without facing repercussions (which include suspension and potential dismissal). 

According to Vice, railroad workers are “working or on call 90% of the time.” When workers are on call, it’s rather common for them to be called into work at random times and end up being away for multiple days. When workers are not on call, they are often already at work. 

This has caused outrage within the railroad workers community. These workers, who are vital to America’s economy, are not being offered basic worker protections.

In fact, a spouse of a railroad worker once stated that “[they] go to work sick, they miss funerals of loved ones, they miss final goodbyes to parents on hospice, they miss holidays, birthdays, all of it.” 

Moreover, some railroad companies, in an effort to have a “system” overseeing the amount of days off an employee receives, created a point system. In this system, employees gain points for showing up as scheduled and lose points when they do not show up as scheduled. Ostensibly, this makes sense: workers should both be praised for their hard work and penalized if they simply disregard their schedule. However, unfortunately, this system is far from that. 

In this system, every employee starts with 30 points. If an employee wants to take a day off, they lose 15 points. Whether it be Christmas, New Years Day, or Thanksgiving, any day off by an employee leads to a deduction of 15 points.

Therefore, if an employee wishes to take a day off on Christmas and Thanksgiving, they would lose all of their points. This in turn would get them suspended and put under investigation. If they are found to be compliant workers, they are put back to work and given 15 points. If they end up losing those 15 points, they are fired. (I should also note that, in this particular point system, the only way an employee can gain points is by being on call for 14 days in a row. 

Therefore, the points system forced upon the railroad workers does not penalize them for disregarding their schedules, it penalizes them for not making “work-life” simply “work.”

The Strike

railroad worker
A railroad worker (source: yahoo images)

As one would expect, this blatant disregard of equitable worker considerations has forced railroad workers to rally together and create various unions. These unions, as was previously mentioned, have been threatening to go on strike until changes are brought forth. 

Currently, negotiations are still ongoing. Thankfully, however, the threat of striking seems to be working in favor of the railroad unions. One of the tentative agreements reached between the union and workers, according to Slate, is that “[railroad workers would have] voluntary assigned days off, granting one additional paid day off, allowing workers to attend medical appointments without penalty, and creating exemptions from attendance policies for hospitalizations and surgeries.” 

Seeing that these workers are now being allowed to go to the doctor’s office without facing the threat of penalization, this is a definite step in the right direction. 

The Future

the future
(source: yahoo images)

What the future entails, we know not. However, what we currently do know is that this issue would break just about every other federal law regarding workers’ rights in Italy. While here, in the United States, railroad workers are battling to merely receive days to go to the doctor’s office because of sudden illness, Italians enjoy the privilege of federally mandated vacation days. 

Perhaps, as it relates to this manner, the United States could learn from Italy. A federal mandate over workers’ rights in the United States would benefit the entire nation. This mandate would make it federally illegal for employers to overwork their employees and penalize them if they simply wish to go to a funeral. In order to bring this change into effect, everyone needs to be aware of this issue. To most, the rights—or lack thereof—of railroad workers is rather shocking. If this issue were brought to the forefront of the media, more would become aware of it, and more would be willing to advocate and bring change. This is not a local issue, this is a national one and we, as a nation, need to be aware of it. 

With acknowledgement of the maltreatment of employees across the nation, as well as advocacy for reforms on federal legislation about employee rights, the United States could become more like Italy and ensure all employees get fair treatment. With acknowledgement and advocacy for change, ensuring that every worker gets basic necessities might not be too far away. 

 

Yeshiva University vs. Pride Alliance Group

 

Yeshiva University Wilf Campus
Yeshiva University’s Wilf Campus (source: yahoo images)

On Friday, September 16th, 2022, in response to a court’s ruling that the university cannot block the formation of a LGBTQIA+ group, New York’s Yeshiva University decided to temporarily suspend all undergraduate student activities and clubs. Yeshiva claims that permitting the formation of a LGBTQ+ student organization would be “inconsistent with the school’s Torah values and the religious environment it seeks to maintain.”

How It Started

Pride Parade NYC 2011
2011 Pride Parade in NYC (source: yahoo images)

The LGBTQ+ group in question is Yeshiva’s Pride Alliance, which was unofficially created in 2018. They were unofficial in the sense that their support was low and their group size was small— as all student groups are in the beginning. The student group describes itself as a supportive space for all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, with the goal of allowing all members to feel secure, respected, and represented at Yeshiva.

It is understandable that one of the group’s goals was representation. In the modern day, it is extremely unlikely to find any major university without an instituted pride alliance group. Therefore, Yeshiva’s Pride Alliance group wanting that same, basic characteristic—of representation—should not come as a surprise. 

However, when they  approached the university last year to ask if they could get officially recognized as a student group, they were instantly denied. In response, however, they remained determined, and proceeded to sue the school for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Legal Claims

NYC CIty Court
New York City Court  (source: yahoo images)

The Pride Alliance group sued Yeshiva for breaking the New York City Human Rights Law, a law code prohibiting discrimination on a basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, and other classifications.

In response to the lawsuit, Yeshiva University, which identifies itself as an Orthodox Jewish university, claimed that they could not recognize the group because it “conflicted with the school’s interpretation of the Torah.” 

The lawsuit first went to a court in New York, where it was concluded that the university must officially recognize the group. The court argued that Yeshiva was not a religious institution (which would thereby make it immune to New York City’s Human Rights Law), but an educational institution. 

Yeshiva disagreed and appealed to the Supreme Court. At first, the Supreme Court told Yeshiva to ignore the prior ruling, and that the Justices will be the ones to declare what rights LGBTQ+ groups have in universities. 

However, that standing changed rather quickly. Just earlier this week, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court told Yeshiva that they should follow the prior court’s ruling because they have not exhausted all their options before appealing to the Supreme Court. In other words, the Supreme Court voted to send Yeshiva’s appeal back to local courts; they did not rule that Yeshiva acted unconstitutionally. 

Yeshiva’s Next Step

Empty Campus
An empty campus (source: yahoo images)

After Yeshiva was notified that they should follow the prior ruling (meaning that they must officially recognize an LGBTQ+ student group), they concluded that their only option was to shut down all undergraduate activities and clubs. 

Enforcing such drastic measures upon the entire undergraduate population, as one might assume, was an unprecedented move on Yeshiva’s end. Many might infer that this action could have been done in an attempt to mask discrimination. Is it truly discriminatory to not recognize a pride alliance group when also not recognizing any other groups at all? Most would say it is not. That, from what we can assume, is what Yeshiva wants until the legal proceedings sort out: put forth a blanket disapproval of all student groups so they cannot be faulted for targeting an LGBTQ+ one.

Yeshiva’s measures have caused many to view the university as homophobic; however, the president of the university, Rabbi Ari Berman, was quick to demobilize those allegations, stating that “[Yeshiva University’s] commitment and love for our LGBTQ students are unshakeable.”

However unshakable Yeshiva’s love for LGBTQ+ students might be, we have yet to see. We must not overlook what we have seen—it merely took a pride alliance group to ask for recognition to rid the entire university of all its undergraduate activities and clubs.

What’s to Come

supreme court
The Supreme Court of the United States of America (source: yahoo images)

As Yeshiva returns back to local courts we are unsure of what will happen in the future—except that it will not be filled with any undergraduate activities. If Yeshiva’s appeal succeeds and the city’s ruling is overturned, then the LGBTQ+ group will not be able to get recognized by the school. If the ruling does not get overturned, Yeshiva could appeal their way back up to the Supreme Court.

However, even if this were to happen, precedence seems to be against the LGBTQ+ group. In prior cases, the Supreme Court has sided consistently with religious universities when discussing issues of religious freedoms (i.e. what a religious university can and cannot do). 

Moreover, one of the dissenting members of the initial Supreme Court vote, Samuel Alito, stated, “[Does the First Amendment] permit a State to force a Jewish school to instruct its students in accordance with an interpretation of Torah that the school, after careful study, has concluded is incorrect? The answer to that question is surely ‘no.’” 

In other words, Justice Alito is stating that in his opinion, states should not have the authority to tell religious schools what to do if it does not align with their religious understandings.

With all of this in mind, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that the future of Yeshiva University’s Pride Alliance group is dependent on whether or not the initial city court was correct in deeming Yeshiva a state institution and not a religious one. 

If the city court was incorrect, Yeshiva could inherit the authority to deny recognition to a group seeking representation—even though, allegedly, their commitment and support for LGBTQ+ persons is “unshakable.”  If the city court was correct, representation and recognition of those underrepresented shall prevail. 

LGBTQ+ Rights

pride flags
Pride flags (source: yahoo images)

The events that unfolded between Yeshiva and its pride alliance group returned a variety of different topics to the forefront of the media. One of which, in particular, is the topic of LGBTQ+ persons and the rights they have. 

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons has been an ongoing issue for hundreds of years. For years, The United Nations has repeatedly stated that “discrimination against LGBTI  people undermines the human rights principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet discrimination and violence against people in the LGBTI community are all too common. Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic attitudes remain deeply embedded in many cultures around the world.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948. 74 years ago. Not only does discrimination still exist, but same-sex marriage, in 2022, is only legal in 24 countries. 

With Yeshiva University’s recent decision, we are seeing the global issue of same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights back in mainstream media. Equality and respect for all people should be the standard that we live by. 

Despite all that has occurred, Yeshiva could bring forth new lessons for us all. Maybe, (or perhaps hopefully), one of those lessons could be that we, as a society, should strive to make discrimination of all people a thing of the past—make it history, so we can learn from it.