News aggregator

Julianna Marcello/Fourth Estate

BY JULIANA MARCELLO, STAFF WRITER

On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Mason Board of Visitors (BOV) met to vote on the resolution (BOV meeting book pg. 300) regarding antisemitism. The Diversity Board committee first discussed the resolution at the Feb. 13 meeting, introduced by Visitor Jeffrey A. Rosen. 

The original resolution was drafted with concern due to the Week of Rage protests held by former Resident Student Organization (RSO) Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in Fall 2024 from October 7-10th, as well as the uncovering of possible threats against the Jewish population by GMU students. 

At the meeting, protesters watched silently in the public seating area, holding signs of protest against the resolution. 

After re-introducing the resolution to the Board, Rosen said, “The purpose of this is to build on and help the university move to an even stronger place.” Rosen said that the Diversity Board committee believed that the resolution is anti-discriminatory and within the institution’s bounds. 

However, the resolution faced resistance from a number of Board members. According to Faculty Representative Solon Simmons, a large majority of Mason faculty believed that the original draft was unnecessary and an infringement on the Constitution’s First Amendment. 

Among the opposition, Graduate Student Representative Carolyn Faith Hoffman detailed experiences with Mason-sponsored courses and events that involved discussing Israel and Palestine. One course included a trip to Israel and the West Bank. Hoffman expressed concern over whether similar educational experiences would be able to continue under such a resolution. 

Undergraduate Student Body Representative Maria Cuesta, also spoke out against the resolution during the BOV meeting. To the Board,  Cuesta said, “I think that something to take away from those 300 plus comments is that even the Jewish students, faculty, staff, and community members don’t accept this.” The comments were left by the Mason community on the BOV minutes webpage in regards to the Feb. 13 meeting. 

President Gregory Washington expressed disappointment with both the original and revised resolution. “The reality is, this is an environment of education,” he critiqued. “People don’t always get things right and proper when they engage.”  

After a back-and-forth between Visitor Rosen, President Washington said, “this institution has to have the flexibility — to support discourse.” The president continued the sentiment by raising concern over the resolution’s vague language.

Revision 14 states that, “This board directs the University, including all of its administrative departments, offices, schools, and academic units, to refrain from sponsoring or endorsing any organization, event, or other activity whose position or posture is antisemitic under the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] IHRA definition.” Members of the BOV were concerned with how the resolution would define, “sponsoring or endorsing” within its context. 

Visitor Dolly Oberoi criticized the language of the resolution and its interpretation, stating, “It has to be very easy to interpret because people outside of this room have to interpret [it], and who’s going to be the arbiter of whether it was right or wrong – somebody violated [it] or not.” She questioned why the resolution was not a general anti-discrimination policy rather than pinpointing one specific issue. 

President Washington requested the definition of “endorsement” to be added to the resolution. Washington’s request was denied by Visitor Rosen, who said that he “disagree[d] fundamentally” that its inclusion was necessary. This sparked further debate from all sides, including from Visitor Robert Pence who backed Visitor Rosen’s statement. 

Visitor Pence challenged the First Amendment in the case of the Revision, questioning President Washington’s stance. Pence commented on a past conversation that was had when first joining the BOV; a conversation had with President Washington. 

Shortly after the campus pro-Palestine protest of Oct. 7, 2024, Visitor Pence told President Washington, “The students are out there right now marching and chanting, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’ And I said, ‘I think they’re advocating genocide, to kill Jews, to push them … into the sea.’” 

Pence continued, questioning President Washington’s position and solidifying his beliefs in regards to the revision, “Would your position change if they were out there chanting ‘get the rope and hang them all’? … the answer is, it’s despicable, and I don’t think it should be allowed to be said.” Visitor Pence concluded by challenging the request for a definition and giving support for the resolution.

After a continued debate, the resolution was voted on and passed by a majority of eight. 

During the roll-call vote, a group of pro-Palestinian protestors rose and left the session. One unnamed protestor stood before exiting and stated, “This is a disgrace. You should all be ashamed.”

Nawaal Nackerdien/Fourth Estate

BY BRIAN A. HAYUM, STAFF WRITER

Interest rates. Gross domestic product. Supply and demand. Americans are subject to financial terms that have major implications for their financial health. At the outset of President Trump’s second presidential term, the term “tariff” has become a staple of the Trump administration’s foreign economic policy. 

Tariff refers to a tax placed on imported goods and services. That tax represents a percentage of the price of the product being imported. For example, if the U.S. were to place tariffs of 10 percent on baguettes imported from France, a $10 loaf would be charged a tax of $1 when it arrives at the border. To offset costs, price increases are passed down to the consumer. 

On Feb. 1,  The White House announced that President Trump will implement a 25% additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% additional tariff on imports from China. President Trump said the increased tariffs is a retaliatory strike against all three countries’ response to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. “The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl, constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).” The announcement added that the tariffs will remain in place until “the crisis is alleviated.”

In response, leaders from all three countries are considering potential action to defend against the effects of these tariffs. These measures could come in the form of retaliatory tariffs, according to the BBC. Canada prepared a list of American goods with the intention of imposing retaliatory tariffs in response to the U.S. 

Canada’s Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand recently said in an interview that Canada is “steady at the wheel.” Further stating that, “We are prepared for any eventuality, but we will at every turn defend our country’s economy.”

“In modern times, they [tariffs] have almost always been used as a negotiating tool,” said The New York Times White House Correspondent, David E. Sanger. “What makes President Trump’s move against Mexico, Canada, and China different is that he seems uninterested in pursuing deals,” Sanger writes. 

Trump argued that these tariffs will curb the flow of immigrants and drugs while simultaneously enriching American citizens.

In his inaugural speech, Trump said, “I will immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families. Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.” 

However, George Mason Economy Professor, Alex Tabarrok, argued that these tariffs will do the opposite. 

“I think people have this idea that tariffs are about protecting American businesses, protecting jobs, but it’s important to recognize that this also raises the costs of American businesses,” said Tabarrok. “We have benefited tremendously from globalization. Walk into your local supermarket and look at all of the products and you’ll see that they’re from all over the world.” 

According to a report by the USDA, “Canada and Mexico are the United States’ first and third largest suppliers of U.S. agricultural imports.” The tariffs, Tabarrok argues, will hurt all three North American countries. “We have integrated the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican economies to the benefit of all three. So, to now disrupt that is just creating chaos and uncertainty, and it’s making our allies upset.” 

Evidence of this integration is seen in the auto industry, Tabarrok explains. “It is very common for auto parts to cross the border multiple times. So, the engine moves from Canada to the U.S. and they put in some seats… then the car moves back to another plant in Canada… back to the U.S., and then it might go to Mexico.” These tariffs not only disrupt the integration of these economies, but they also have precedents that show their ineffectiveness. 

Emma Schaible/Fourth Estate

During Trump’s first term, economic research by the Associated Press found the total tariffs collected by his policies equaled less than 0.3% of GDP. 

Recently, The White House announced that a 25% tariff on steel imports would be restored and an existing tariff on aluminum imports would be raised to 25%. A call by the Trump administration to “protect America’s critical steel and aluminum industries, which have been harmed by unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”

Tabarrok said otherwise, “It is not the case that tariffs save jobs, they save some jobs, but they also kill other jobs.”

Tabarrok said in continuation, “They save jobs in the import-competing industry, but they kill jobs in the export industry. The problem is that the jobs in the import industry are very visible but the jobs you kill in the export industry are much harder to see.” 

Companies and their investors have started bracing for the potential rising costs due to these tariffs, which are set to take effect on Mar. 4. According to a report by Goldman Sachs, “For the stock market, every five-percentage-point increase in the U.S. tariff rate is estimated to reduce S&P 500 earnings per share by roughly 1-2%.” Resulting in potential price increases from large-scale companies, layoffs, business shutdowns, and more.