Category Archives: Editorials

North Carolina and Mississippi Did This to Themselves

North Carolina and Mississippi have been facing a tremendous amount of backlash from celebrities, politicians and businesses around the country, after the governors signed a bill discriminating against the LGBTQ community.

The first to take action was Bruce Springsteen. He cancelled his show in Greensboro, North Carolina in order to protest these anti-LGBTQ laws. Other celebrities such as Ringo Starr, the former Beatles member, cancelled his show in Cary, North Carolina that was planned for June 18th.

Jimmy Buffet did not cancel any shows there, but let the state knows he opposed their actions on his blog.

As for Mississippi, Sharon Stone has cancelled her plans to film a movie there and the Canadian music singer Bryan Adams cancelled his concert that was planned for April, 14th.

Pop stars Demi Lovato and Nick Jonas announced Monday they will be canceling their shows in Raleigh and Charlotte, North Carolina that were apart of their highly anticipated collaboration tour, Honda Civic Tour: Future Now.

“North Carolina’s discriminatory HB2 law is extremely disappointing, and it takes away some of the LGBT community’s most basic rights and protections. But we will not allow this to stop us from continuing to make progress for equality and acceptance,” said Lovato and Jonas in a joint statement.

Multiple companies have also taken action to show they do not agree with the states actions and at the same time put pressure on the state government to change this grotesque and antiquated.

Deutsche Bank responded to the state law by freezing their plan that was inaction to create 250 new jobs in Cary, North Carolina.

PayPal has also cancelled its plans to build a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina. This would have provided 400 jobs for the city.

“In Mississippi, companies such as Tyson Foods, MGM Resorts International, Nissan and Toyota, all major employers in the state, have raised objections to the law signed by Gov. Phil Bryant,” wrote the New York Times.

In addition, Washington State, Vermont and New York’s governors have issued and executive order banning travel to Mississippi.

Technology giants such as Facebook, Apple and Google have all signed a letter to the governor of North Carolina asking to repeal the law because it [the laws] are, “bad for our employees and bad for business.” Bank of America also signed this letter, their main headquarters is located in Charlotte.

“We are deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect and do not yet know what impact it will have on our ability to successfully host the 2017 All-Star Games in Charlotte,” said the NBA in a statement to the state’s officials.

According to The New York Times, “Braeburn Pharmaceuticals said it was ‘extremely disappointed’ and was reconsidering plans to expand a plant in the state that would bring an investment of nearly $20 million and 52 new jobs.”

The reaction by businesses, governors and celebrities is highly necessary and justified. The idea that this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in this country, or in the year 2016, needs to be publicized and understood. North Carolina and Mississippi are the cause of their own turmoil. Now both state economies and their residents have to suffer because of these discriminatory laws.

Standing up to Sexual Assault, Continues to be on us

This month we recognize sexual assault awareness month and the Central Connecticut campus is holding events to bring light to the difficult subject.

Beginning in the 1970s, women began the Take Back the Night marches, where they protested against violence frequently encountered late at night while walking the streets.

Forty-six years later that tradition continues throughout the country, especially on college campuses – including CCSU. Sexual assault has gone from a topic that was once hushed and suppressed, to becoming a staple conversation in all college campuses and work places.

The mission is to bring voices to victims and empower them to know that they are not alone now and will never be. Through the work of countless organizations including No More, RAAIN (rape, abuse and incest national network) and locally, Stand Up CCSU, the message of making unity and prevention against sexual assault has been made clear. We, under no circumstances will stand for it. We will do everything to prevent it and will do everything to assure the victims that we will look after them. Now more than ever are we working towards prosecuting those predators that prey on the innocent.

Daniel Ken Holtzclaw, a Oklahoma police officer was found guilty of the 18 out of the 36 counts of sexual assaults he faced. He preyed on defenseless black women and used his authority to get them to preform sexual acts to avoid jail time. It’s becoming a topic within politicians as one gets set to be the future president, all eyes are on how incoming politicians will handle this issue.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden recently started The White House campaign “It’s On Us,” to continue the conversation of sexual assault on college campuses – making sure it doesn’t leave as he prepares to depart the White House.

The movie “The Hunting Ground” has exposed the holes within major universities reporting of sexual assaults. This movie has pinpointed how many universities refuse to publicly address sexual assault incidents in fear of it hurting enrollments on campus. Ivy Leagues are even among the accused of doing this, showing how it doesn’t matter if you are in the best schools of the nation – this can happen to you.

Beyond college campuses, there has been a new conversation about sexual assault brought on through our television screens. We witnessed Lady Gaga preform her nominated song “Till It Happens To You” alongside other sexual assault victims during the 2016 Oscar ceremony. Among the ranks of survivors that were a part of that performance stood a CEO, one who was also a survivor and an advocate.

It’s important for us to continue to hold such events on college campuses, such as Take Back the Night, and continue to give a voice to those who feel like they don’t have one. We must provide the safe space for victims to come to and feel comfortable in, and inspire more assault victims to come forward and report what the horrors that have happened to them. Only together can we continue to give this movement more momentum and institute change in this world and within our own communities.

Tuition Increases Potentially Effecting Quality of Higher Education

Exiting high school and stepping into the college realm, many students chose Central Connecticut for two main reasons: It is affordable and you get a good education close to home.

Good education at a good price. Short and simple.

But is it still that way?

Not as of March 29th.

According to an article from CT Mirror, the Board of Regents (BOR) for Higher Education approved 3.5 to five percent tuition increases for the 17 schools in the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) system. Only one dissenting vote was cast.

This cut to universities may take from the quality of sports, classroom technology, campus building structures, dining halls and much more. The Hartford Courant reported that, at the system’s four regional state universities, Ojakian said, academic support services have been “drastically cut or reduced,” library hours have been cut and dozens of staff positions have been eliminated. Tutoring, academic advisement and psychological counseling have been drastically cut, he said.

While it has become normal, even if unpleasant, to see an annual tuition increase, this year is different because it comes on top of a a roughly 20 percent increase over the past three years.

To make matters worse, the BOR is facing budget cuts from the state, which can already be seen in the form of a hiring freeze.

So what does this mean for students?

The Hartford Courant reported in February that UConn President Susan Herbst told members of the legislature’s appropriations committee that the $19.5 million cut for the university would mean that students have “larger classes and fewer of them. It would mean sections filling up so students get locked out of courses they need. It means students possibly not graduating on time, increasing the cost of their education and their debt.”

The case is similar for CCSU.

The goal of a government is to provide for its citizens. But in the wake of all budget cuts, the government, or the State of Connecticut in this case, arguably is not providing for its students of higher education, and not investing in the future of Connecticut.

President of the BOR and the CSCU system Mark Ojakian, told legislators that the governor’s proposed $26 million cut in his budget, or about seven percent, “May have profound long-term implications.”

Even though it is fiscally responsible, cutting funding for higher education in Connecticut  is not necessarily the right choice to benefit the suture of your community. Sometimes investing in the future of your state takes precedence, in order to promote future economical growth.



Malloy’s Budget Needs Revision

Board of Regents (BOR) President Mark Ojakian, believes a reassessment of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s recent budget recommendation is necessary, before further action is taken.

 “We’re going to have to assess the impact institution by institution and the system as a whole. Clearly, if the budget was enacted, as it was proposed today, it would create some issues around access and affordability and quality at our institutions,” said Ojakian to the Hartford Courant.

Ojakian oversees all 17-institutions under the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities (CSCU) system. At no point should budget alterations impact the credibility of this state’s institutions or the degrees issued – regardless the reasoning.

Gov. Malloy’s proposed $26 million budget recommendations and its repercussions, must be dissected and analyzed on every level. Ojakian explained to the Hartford Courant, the state’s university systems along with its students should be a top priority for legislation.

The idea these funds could be restored from elsewhere, such as increased tuition and fees, was proposed. Ojakian stated to the Hartford Courant that if to happen, institutions under the CSCU system would become unaffordable. “We have a different demographic make-up than other higher education institutions,” consisting largely of middle to lower-income students.

These budget cuts are simply unacceptable – these recommendations need to be revised with colleges and universities in mind.

The recommendations were initially planned to impact workers’ healthcare, retirement and benefits state-wide. According to The CT Mirror, the target recently changed to colleges and universities.

In a statement to The CT Mirror, the governor’s budget chief Ben Barnes said, “An amount based on the judgment of the legislature, not an amount that has some basis in the cost of their employees.”

The state’s colleges and universities’ fate should not depend on legislation, this will inevitably be disastrous. Legislatures aren’t familiar with the institutions, their tuitions and fees, or the funds needed to maintain credibility and a progressing establishment.

At the same time the budget recommendations were proposed, Gov. Malloy offered institutions under the CSCU system $2.3 million incentives, if they promote the state’s efforts to increase enrollment of low-income students.

This is simply adding insult to injury. Institutions under the CSCU system, with the proposed recommendations, will not be able to increase enrollment of low-income students – or any students for that matter.

Representative Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury), said to the Hartford Courant, “Higher education always gets cut, it’s the whipping boy it seems.”

We at The Recorder firmly agree with Ojakian that a reassessment of Gov. Malloy’s budget recommendations is needed. The fate of colleges, universities, their credibility and ability to provide affordable and proper education, should not be compromised or left in the hands of legislation.  It is time to stop using higher education as “the whipping boy,” and start treating it as the priority it is.

President Miller Leaves a Monumental Mark on CCSU

President Jack Miller has been a major influence and conductor in bringing the Central Connecticut campus up to the potential it always had to be. Between raising endowments, graduation rates and adding academic building, Miller made tremendous contributions to CCSU within his past 12 years as president.

Last week, Miller announced via email that come September, he will be retiring from his position.

“During this time, it has been most pleasing to see what our faculty, staff and students have accomplished. New programs, new colleges and schools, beautiful facilities both new and renovated, greatly increased scholarship support for students and most importantly tremendous improvement in student success. It has been more fun than I can possibly explain for Barbara and me, but now it is time to go,” said Miller in his email to the campus community.

Specifically for the journalism department and The Recorder, Miller has been an ally to us in the past during troubling times. In 2012, Shaun Green, coach to the CCSU soccer team, was caught on camera throwing about 150 copies of The Recorder into trash barrels in the Student Center. This was due to a dislike for an article ran in that issue regarding the soccer teams disqualification from the following years postseason, because of NCAA academic sanctions.

“If there’s one thing that I believe about education, in particular post-secondary education, it’s that it’s a place where people should come and be challenged and experience different thoughts and ideas. I think that’s what education is,” said Miller. “I’ve had the opportunity on many occasions to defend that principal – and I defend it because I believe in it.”

A fierce leader, who trusts his students and faculty to do the right thing, who believes in free speech and being challenged in education. All these aspects of Miller came together to make him exactly what CCSU needed in a time where graduation rates were in the lowest percentile, scholarship funds were low and academic space was lacking.

Although everyone may have their varying opinion about him, as everyone always does,  it can’t be denied how much good he’s done for the campus community in only 12 years time.

An instantly likable man, with a bright personality, will be leaving CCSU set up for future success thanks to all the time and dedication he put into bringing the CCSU environment up to a place where it matches its true potential. Hopefully allowing CCSU to become one of the best regional public comprehensive universities in the country, one of Miller’s top goals.

On behalf of past and future editorial boards of The Recorder, we genuinely thank President Miller for all he’s done to contribute to CCSU’s cost, quality of education and resources; as well as always being a strong ally all students and faculty members could rely on.


Fate of Caucuses to be Determined by O’Malley

In the time left before the caucuses, Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are working to grab all the possible votes for the Iowa caucuses.

According to ABC News, as of Jan. 12th Sanders was up five points against Clinton.

This poll could mean nothing though – with Martin O’Malley still in the race, the results are unpredictable.

O’Malley and his supporters are in an unusual situation, he has barely exceeded five percent according to the New York Times.

If O’Malley is unable to reach 15 percent of the votes, hit supporters will be ruled “nonviable,” then be up for grabs by any other candidate.

When supporters arrive at the caucuses they will be divided by candidate, if at that point O’Malley does not reach the 15 percent limit, his supporters are then free to choose which candidate to back-up.

This will then initiate a chaotic rat race where Sanders, Clinton and their campaigns fight over O’Malley’s 1,700 supporters. Which is only about four percent of supporters, but could make all the difference.

“It is unclear whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders has more backing among O’Malley supporters,” stated the New York Times in an article.

It seems regardless of the current data the results of the Iowa caucus lies on the fate of O’Malley supporters. His predicted inability to reach 15 percent before Feb. 1st makes his supporters a vital aspect of the caucuses. As well as Clinton and Sanders’ ability to prepare to grab O’Malley’s, most likely inevitably, nonviable voters in the last minutes of the caucuses.

If O’Malley was unable to reach 15 percent voting, the New York Times mentioned two important factors for that could lead someone to believe Sanders could win the nomination.

The first being, “If an O’Malley supporter is wearing a pro-environment button, a Sanders supporter would describe the Vermont senator’s opposition to a proposed oil pipeline across Iowa, which Mrs. Clinton has not taken a stand on.”

The second, nominating Sanders would prolong O’Malley’s time for nomination.

Although, Taylor Van De Krol, the Democratic chairman of Jasper County said to the New York Times, “I have a feeling and assumption it’s Hilary.”

“Clinton said Sunday that won’t be necessary because she will ultimately win the Democratic nomination. Even if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire — where he is ahead in polls,” stated USA Today in an article.

Although winning the infamous Iowa caucus does not necessarily determine or predict the outcome of the actual election, it can give Sanders or Clinton the boost or setback that will make or break each campaign. The most candidates can do is prepare and develop strategic last minute ways to snag possible votes – which are clearly going to become available looking at O’Malley’s numbers.

For us at The Recorder, it’s unclear what will happen at the caucuses with Clinton and Sanders currently neck-in-neck – as many others are probably still unable to say confidently who will be the ultimate winner here.

The Need for Stricter Gun Control

Gun control laws and regulations within the United States border are desperately in need of change, President Obama made this point clear when he address the nation regarding this issue last week.

Recently, new information regarding the couple who drastically took the lives of 14 innocent people in San Bernardino, California came to light.

“We believe that both subjects were radicalized and for quite some time,” said David Bowdich, the FBI assistant director, to the New York Times. The Times also stated that the couple were at a shooting range and, “had been practicing their aim at a target range just days before their murder spree.”

“So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people,” said the president during his address to the nation Sunday night. He continued to emphasize there are many individuals in this country who oppose stricter gun controls laws, but there is a clear need for change. “But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.”

Unfortunately it took Colorado, Virginia, South Carolina, Oregon, Connecticut and now San Bernardino and countless other incidents for this to become apparent – even though some are still ignorantly blind. This county’s agencies are not able to detect every possible threat that enters its borders, or is already within them. It’s only becoming harder with the Republican oppositions to stricter laws.

The New York Times said regarding the president’s speech, “He called for tougher screening of travelers who come to the United States without visas and asked Congress to ban gun sales to people on the government’s no-fly list, and for limits on assault weapons.”

One of the shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, was born in in this country, so stricter screening of travelers would not have helped. Tougher gun control laws would have.While everything suggestion the president made should most definitely be followed through with, we shouldn’t be solely focused on screening just travelers. But rather, make sure even those who live in this country and are citizens are screened just as aggressively when applying for gun purchase. The issue is within the country, gun control is not strict enough and guns are to easily accessible. There should already be laws restricting sales of guns to individuals on no-fly lists and there is no need for the sale of assault weapons to continue.

“Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security,” said the president during his speech. The need for change is evident, but seems to be nearing impossible with all the GOP-obstacles in Congress.

Criticism was seen from many Republicans following Obama’s speech. House Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted, “Disappointing: no new plan, just a halfhearted attempt to defend and distract from a failing policy.” Of course Donal Trump tweeted his opinions as well saying, “That all there is? We need a new President — FAST!” These oppositions are clearly derived from personal Republican opinions. The president did present a new plan, one that would enforce stricter gun laws and one this country needs, and a plan that only seems unsuccessful to the ignorant.

Syrian Refugees Welcome in Connecticut

We are firm believers of knowing all sides of every story before making a decision on anything, including religion. Education is fear’s biggest enemy and I commend Governor Malloy for granting solace to the Syrian people escaping their war torn countries.

Social media became an interface of public discussion where peers, family and educators voiced their opinions on the refugee crisis. I have seen countless posts of news articles, memes, photos and statistics in the form of passive aggressive vindication as a means of voicing thoughts through clicking the share button on Facebook.

After comparing each side, we were unable to come to the same conclusion as many others have in this country regarding why we should deny refugees. Close consideration of all angles regarding the refugee crisis is arguably a social obligation.

If the Syrian refugee issue is going to be a topic of religion, we encourage you to open and read the Qur’an. How many of you have ever read a page of the Qur’an, let alone held it in your hands? There is peace, love and condemnation by God in both the Bible and the Qur’an. Peace is not conditional to religion, it’s manifested through human decision. Freedom of religion is enumerated in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers were particular in their decision to give our country a sense of exceptionalism, a right that has made me proud to be a U.S. citizen.

Before rationalizing denying refugees due to the homelessness crisis in our country ask yourself, “What have I done?” It seems people often forget the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is made of people you can call and hold accountable. It’s contradictory to condemn social programs such as government assistance and food stamps, then yell at national leaders because there are homeless people. It’s frustrating to see people justify their stance on the refugees with the homeless crisis – a group many have never done a thing to help.

France themselves have vowed to accept over 30,000 refugees. French President Francois Hollande said it is a, “humanitarian duty.” The process for accepting refugees into the U.S. is arduous and comprehensive, requiring 18-24 months to be processed before even being analyzed by the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI and Defense Department.

According to California State Representative Xavier Becerra, of the 750,000 refugees relocated to the United States since 9/11, there has not been one instance of domestic terrorism. I do not doubt the capabilities of people who make up these departments in their efforts to protect our country while still granting solace to humans in need of a home. Although there hasn’t been any instances of terrorism in this country since 9/11, there certainly were plenty of attempts that were stopped by FBI agents before it could go too far. Since 9/11, our countries security forces are on constant alert for anything that has even the potential to be an act of terrorism, and putting a stop to it before it escalates.

We are all people, and we all need love. It’s time to shine light in the room of fear and open our doors. It’s time to show those less fortunate then us love, because we never know when the day will come that we need someone to give us a hand.

Let the Dust Settle

As French flag-filtered profile pictures and vaguely worded solutions to societal issues dominates social media, a main theme was noticed. Most people don’t let the entire story unfold, or “let the dust settle” before a crisis becomes artillery in heated debates pertaining to school shootings, gun control and much more.

Directly after the atrocities in Paris, news feeds infected with inadequate statements and memes were used to emphasize personal opinion. The abundance of arbitrary controversies and assumptions displayed on social media showed a lack of empathy. Can humanity as a whole take time to grieve and extend a helping hand after the crisis?

The New York Times published an article titled, “The Exploitation of Paris.” It brought to light many instances the atrocity is used to promote personal interests, largely on Twitter. Newt Gingrich, U. S. Representative tweeted, “Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people.” This was nearly two hours after the attacks. The timing is simply disrespectful and intentions inappropriate.

The next tweet truly dug deep, and should agitate most readers. Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Judith Miller tweeted, “Now maybe the whining adolescents at our universities can concentrate on something other than their need for ‘safe’ space.” The level of intertwined ignorance in this statement continues to grow after every word. These issues cannot be that simply compared, even if both resulted tragically. The Paris tragedy was committed by Islamic State terrorists, which is very different from school shootings. The Charleston Church, Sandy Hook, Colorado movie theatre shootings and even dating back to Columbine, were performed alone, with personal motives. Not because they distinguish with a radicalized group. There is a clear distinction between the two issues, somehow obtusely overlooked by Miller.

The article stated social media, “Was a megaphone to be used for whatever you yearned to shout.” This was seen when 12 journalist were killed during the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. Donal Trump relentlessly tweeted, “Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?” Using catastrophes to promote his own agenda, as well as insinuating France should adopt the U.S.’s Second Amendment showed indisputable ethnocentrism and insensitivity.

Trump’s indecency is seen again after the Paris incident, seemingly as a campaign tactic to promote his opinions on gun control. He stated in a interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” “Had there been some guys with a gun, there would have been a shootout and probably the primary people that would have got whacked would have been the killers.”

These examples, and countless others on the internet clearly show prematurity, indecency and a focus on promoting personal views. Before the next opinionated Facebook post or imprecise meme is shared, let the wounds heal, let the families be informed and “let the dust settle.” Let Paris restore their sense of safety and community before it is made about another country’s.

An Open Letter to Mayor Erin Stewart

New Britain Mayor and Central Connecticut alumna Erin Stewart has somewhat insidiously played some immature moves such as blocking CCSU alumnus Bobby Berriault, CCSU student Wyatt Bosworth who is running for New Britain City council and The Recorder’s Assistant News Editor Christopher Marinelli.

The 28-year-old has been able to enjoy a career as mayor young in her professional life, as well as crafting a campaign New Britain residents may find appealing without looking deeper into the other candidates or digging up more information. She is young, likable and relatable especially to the younger voters who are prominent in this city because of CCSU. However, by blocking students as well as campaigners such as Bosworth, it has become clear Stewart is not open to debate or conversation with politicians with opposing viewpoints or competition.

A statement to The Recorder by Bosworth addresses these political contentions as well as the immaturity of blocking students and campaigners on social media:

“She blocked me a little bit after I was nominated by the party. The last and only thing I tweeted to her was about the $36,000 Christmas tree. I tweeted at her sometime in June ‘why is the city spending $36,000 on a tree when we have the fourth highest unemployment in Connecticut and 20,000 residents on food stamps?’ She also said last December she’s in favor of CCSU taking away financial aid for off-campus troubles.”

The Recorder’s assistant news editor was blocked shortly after tweeting, “Politics are a platform for constructive debate on opposing views. Does blocking on twitter help you deconstruct contention?”

Bosworth’s tweet, along with those from other students attempting to spark a civilized political debate, was reason for blocking them from following the mayor’s official Twitter account. It would be one thing if these tweets were offensive or threatening and if this was Stewart’s personal account. But it is her professional account and the tweets towards her were in no way offensive or threatening. Berriault, a New Britain resident, was also blocked and gave a statement to The Recorder:

“I don’t know why she blocked me. I found out she was on Twitter [after] I found out I’ve been blocked, I never tweeted at her — I guess because I’m a Democrat who opposes her politically. Those who govern should be open, transparent and accessible to all and not just the people who share one particular political ideology,” said Berriault. “Public officials should not be using public resources including the city’s social media sites as a platform to target and exclude fellow residents, especially as a means of political retaliation. Mayor Stewart has proved that she is incapable of acting as a leader because of her immaturity.”

The world would make little strides in furthering society or living conditions if we were able to block every negative or opposing view. In the real world, it is necessary to discuss controversial subjects such as unemployment in New Britain, the relationship of the city’s residents and CCSU students as well as other economic policies. A mayor unable to hear criticism should not be in an office where coalition and conversation is the platform for change.

In 2013, The Recorder endorsed Stewart for mayor. With her re-election around the corner, our editorial staff has changed their view of Stewart. We no longer endorse her for mayor or any other candidate running for the position.

Although she ran a successful campaign two years ago, after experiencing her as mayor we feel New Britain is in need of someone mature and considerate to those who wish to express their views to their mayor whether it’s on social media or in person. Her young age and friendships with many young residents in New Britain turned the mayor election in 2013 into a popularity contest, making it an easy win for her.

This time around she’s going to have to prove that she’s capable of acting like a mature and transparent mayor should and actually listen to grievances from residents. This time around, CCSU students are not happy with her; a re-election is unlikely to happen for Stewart unless she conducts a major attitude adjustment.