While these are certainly admirable values, pushing them too hard may clash with students’ ability to express themselves.

The religion, historically known as Mormonism, was founded as a branch of Christianity. However, it is notably different from other Christian religions because of its reliance on the Prophet Joseph Smith, regarded as the official founder of the religion. The LDS Church is very controversial, with many public stories of those who have left the church criticizing it for extremist beliefs. Some of the common critiques of the LDS Church include questions about Joseph Smith’s character, the church’s harsh stance against LGBTQ+ people and inconsistencies throughout scripture. Nevertheless, within the Church there exists an extremely wide range of beliefs, from fundamentalist polygamist practices to the much more modern “liberal” sects of the church, such as those who do not abide as strictly to church doctrine and are not as unbending about social issues. Due to these variations, members of the LDS Church cannot be painted with a broad brush, as followers interpret church doctrine in various ways. 

There are approximately 16 million members of the LDS church worldwide. The United States holds the largest population, housing about 6.5 million members. Although this is a rather small percentage considering the entire  U.S. population, the religious group is densely populated, with about 70% of Utah’s population belonging to the LDS Church. Despite its relatively small representation compared to other mainstream religions within the United States, the LDS Church is very well known – largely because of BYU’s reputation.

What sets BYU apart from other religiously affiliated schools in the U.S., such as the University of Notre Dame and Villanova University, is that religion plays a considerably larger part in BYU’s educational curriculum and experience. The university has a large requirement of religious education classes, specifically ones that regard the LDS Church and instruct on church doctrine. Some of these classes include Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon and The Eternal Family. 

Religious education can have many benefits, both within the moral values that many religions uphold as well as the understanding of other viewpoints that it provides. However, the main issue that can pervade religious education is its overly-singular tendencies. 

One of the most important parts of education is that it allows people to gain exposure and a better understanding of the world around them. Being taught about different religions and their beliefs can certainly help improve empathy. However, BYU is considered a controversial institution because its teachings present that there is only one path to salvation: the LDS church. While Mormonism does teach important values, such as kindness, honesty and love for one’s family, it also claims that one must have faith in Jesus Christ to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom. The idea that only one path leads to salvation is certainly not an uncommon one and is a belief of many religions across the globe. However, what differentiates BYU is that it is rare throughout colleges and universities within the United States, including religious universities, to only teach this singular idea of salvation. 

Additionally, BYU’s infamous honor code extends this religious educational approach. The standards that students are upheld to are quite strict, with the prohibition of same-sex relationships, profane language and even many forms of facial hair. The honor code also requires regular church service attendance, making it so that all attendees of BYU must be involved in the LDS Church to some extent.

Although all students are required to attend services for the LDS Church, there is a tuition difference between those who are official members of the church and those who are not. The base tuition for LDS members is $6,496, while non-members are charged $12,992.

Between course requirements, honor code regulations and tuition costs, it seems that the main purpose of BYU is to keep people within the church and convert outsiders to LDS members. Not only is there financial motivation to be a church member, but BYU’s regulations are tied so closely to the LDS Church that it becomes difficult to separate BYU students from church members.

Religious education is not a negative thing and, in fact, often produces an environment that promotes good values and allows students to thrive. However, problems can arise when religion is used as a means to stifle self-expression and individual thought. Much of the reason that BYU often appears in the spotlight is because of this suppression, even having an Instagram account dedicated to anonymous stories about the BYU honor code. There are both positive and negative stories on this account, but a common denominator is the expression that students often do not feel as if they have freedom. Some students have shared extreme consequences for false allegations of academic misconduct, as well as expressing their fear of being kicked out of the University for identifying as a member of the LGBTQ community. 

BYU is a private institution and has the right to enforce policies as it sees fit. However, it is important to question whether its strict adherence to religious policy is positive, and if BYU students can thrive and be themselves under such guidelines.

The post Brigham Young University: How Far Can Religion and Education Mix? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Meaning of Free Speech During Genocide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On a more personal note, this is an issue that I had been relatively unaware of until it began to affect me personally. Recently, the FDA approved a medication, called Skyclarys, for Friedreich’s Ataxia, a genetic disorder I have. This medication has shown incredibly positive results and may have the potential to halt the progression of a degenerative and life-shortening disease. While this is fantastic for the 4,000 patients in the United States who have Friedreich’s Ataxia, the remaining 11,000 individuals afflicted with this disorder across the world do not have access to this potentially life-saving medication. This is not to say that this medication is not making its way through other pipelines, and is currently seeking approval by the EMA, but it is something that will take time. In this case, and in many similar diseases with much shorter life expectancies, time is not a luxury that those affected have.

There are certainly flaws in all of these organizations, but there are also areas in which some supersede others. For example, the FDA is known to be faster than other agencies, such as the EMA, due to policies and procedures including fast-tracking, a designation that is given to medications that may affect particularly vulnerable populations. The EMA does have similar designations in place, but they do not seem to move as quickly as comparable programs within the United States. In addition to the EMA, medications must go through the European Commission, which considers the EMA’s recommendations and makes a final decision on whether or not a drug will become available to the public.

However, this is not to say that the EMA does not have benefits. While drugs may not be introduced into European populations as quickly, they do frequently benefit from more extensive research into efficacy and safety. Additionally, in countries with nationalized healthcare, it often takes longer for a drug to go through insurance processes. So, even though a drug may be available within the United States, it can take months for insurance approval to be completed and allow the average American to access the medications that they need.

While different agencies can vary procedurally, this is not to say that they do not work with one another. The FDA and EMA, for example, have near-daily communication and discuss the drug developments that they are making progress on. Sometimes, such as with the COVID-19 vaccine, different regions will work together to devise a solution to a global crisis. While this is great, it is just one step in the right direction.

It is difficult to say what the best approach to drug approval is — is the FDA’s focus on efficiency more useful, or is it better to follow the EMA and be more cautious, potentially losing lives as a result? While we may have our own opinions, nations must have the autonomy to make these decisions for themselves. Although decisions regarding drug approval have every right to vary across the world, it is crucial to look at the repercussions that this has on patients. It seems that the more collaboration that agencies have with one another, the more is accomplished and is therefore done so much more efficiently. 

With the current state of the world, there is not a single perfect solution to reaching a globalized drug approval process. However, one way to approach this problem is by looking at collaborative efforts within drug development, such as those employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Firstly, this would allow for drugs to be developed more quickly. It seems relatively obvious, but the more people that contribute ideas, the faster that solutions will be reached. The biggest obstacle in accomplishing this is drug companies, which often compete with one another to create medications for the same condition. However, there does not seem to be a good reason that different companies and nations cannot collaborate and split profits. The only argument against this is the pure greed of drug companies and their desire to make as much money as possible. But, if collaboration were to become more common, companies would be splitting profits for a larger number of drugs, making this completely inconsequential.

Additionally, if countries were to work together in developing a drug, the process of approval would be inevitably sped up. One reason that agencies take different amounts of time is the varied requirements for what a drug needs to be approved. If drug development begins to take a more global approach, then the standards and goals that clinical trials and other studies need to take would be more standardized. Rather than conforming to the country that a pharmaceutical company is based in, studies would be more inclined to cover all of their bases. While this may add some time in the short-term, long-term effects would certainly outweigh this as agencies would not need pharmaceutical companies to return to the drug and enroll in more trials to do small amounts of additional testing.

Drug approval is only one of many obstacles in the process of taking a drug, though, as receiving a prescription, insurance approval and availability of medication are all extremely common barriers to face. Creating a more unified and streamlined process for global drug approval would certainly be a step in the right direction, but there are so many different steps, such as making medicines affordable and globalizing production, that must be taken in order for people to access the medications that can allow them to live long and healthy lives.

The post Can Drug Approval Be Globalized? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.