Details
Watch Penn-Post founder and Editor-in-Chief Lexi Boccuzzi discuss her decision to leave the Daily Pennsylvanian and her hopes for the future of the Pennsylvania Post in a discussion moderated by Nicolas Scola and Anjali Jathavedam!
Comment
Details
Watch Penn-Post founder and Editor-in-Chief Lexi Boccuzzi discuss her decision to leave the Daily Pennsylvanian and her hopes for the future of the Pennsylvania Post in a discussion moderated by Nicolas Scola and Anjali Jathavedam!
Comment
Watch Penn-Post founder and Editor-in-Chief Lexi Boccuzzi discuss her decision to leave the Daily Pennsylvanian and her hopes for the future of the Pennsylvania Post in a discussion moderated by Nicolas Scola and Anjali Jathavedam!
Listen to Ben's Bifocals Episode 2 by The Pennsylvania Post MP3 song. Ben's Bifocals Episode 2 song from The Pennsylvania Post is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 46:41. This high-quality MP3 track has 654.722 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 21 Apr 2024. Stream and download Ben's Bifocals Episode 2 by The Pennsylvania Post for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
Lexi Bocuzzi, founder and editor-in-chief of the Pennsylvania Post, talks about her time at The Daily Pennsylvania as a columnist and her experience as a conservative voice on campus. She discusses the challenges she faced and the support she received from her editors. However, she eventually decided to resign due to her disagreement with the handling of the COVID pandemic by the university and the pushback she received from the DP. She emphasizes the importance of asking questions and dissenting in journalism. Hello and welcome to Ben's Bifocals, the Pennsylvania Post's very own podcast channel. Today, we have a very, very special guest, Lexi Bocuzzi, the founder and editor-in-chief of the Pennsylvania Post. Lexi is a senior in the college studying philosophy, politics, and economics from Stanford, Connecticut. Welcome, Lexi. Hi. Thank you guys for having me. I'm super excited to talk to you. And we are very excited for this podcast episode. I will be your host today, Nicholas Scola, and I am joined by Anjali. Hi. So, Lexi, can you first generally talk about your time at The Daily Pennsylvania? Yeah, absolutely. So, for anyone that doesn't know, I was a columnist in the opinion section at the DP for three and a half years. So, for my very first semester of my freshman year of college, I joined while everything was remote online, and I basically continued throughout my time. I came on with a pretty clear, you know, pitch of what I wanted my column to be or my branding, as I like to call it, or we like to call it in the columnist business. I was going to write about conservative, you know, sort of politics and cultural issues as they pertain to Penn and Penn's campus. And at the time, that was something that the DP did not have whatsoever, and they had a lot of people who were writing about kind of similar issues, but not definitely from the perspective that I was. And, I mean, it was a very interesting experience. I was sort of surprised to get hired because I had heard from my elders, or so to speak, I guess, in College Republican that The Daily Pennsylvania had been fairly unfriendly to conservatives in the past. I think maybe there was some recompense involved, which is why I got hired, or, you know, concern about diversity of thought, which, you know, we know how that story goes. But I was really grateful to have that experience. I had a bunch of phenomenal editors who, despite all the trials and tribulations that I'm sure we are going to unpack today, they really defended me kind of fiercely, which was awesome. And I got the opportunity to meet a lot of great people. But most importantly, I was really concerned about my platform. I was really concerned about the fact that not necessarily I was going to change hearts and minds, but at least I was going to be representing to faculty, to other students, to perspective students, that there was a difference of opinion on campus, representing a story that other people might not want to tell. And particularly during COVID, that was really crucial. So I didn't rock the boat as much as I have now because I was kind of concerned about losing that opportunity to sort of have a voice in that space. But, again, we all kind of know how that story goes. So, yeah. And how were you initially received by the DP? So it was actually very interesting. I am writing an op-ed that should be coming out soon, TBD, in the location. But once that's out, you guys will hear a little bit more about this story. But on my very first info session, like interest info session at the DP, someone had asked the sitting editor-in-chief at the time, who will remain unnamed, but everyone can probably figure it out, do you guys have conservative columnists? And he said, sure, we have conservative columnists, but we fact-checked them twice. Don't worry. So everyone kind of was not really sure if they were going to laugh or take it seriously. A lot of people were really genuinely concerned about what they saw as misinformation coming from Republican voices. And I sort of knew what I was getting myself into when I heard that because it was quite obvious that that was kind of the culture there and was consistent with what I heard from other people. So this was also at a time when there was a lot of sort of fire around newsrooms, very liberal newsrooms, not really adequately representing conservative voices. I can take everyone back to the New York Times Tom Cotton saga when the Times editors basically like revolted because Tom Cotton, sitting U.S. senator, published a piece saying that the National Guard should go into New York City to help with crime and the riots that were going on over the summer of 2020, which whether or not you agree or disagree with him, right now the sitting Democratic governor of New York has advocated for the same thing and those same editors have endorsed her. So whatever. But I think there was a bit of a culture around this at liberal newsrooms. And college campuses are no exception. But I have to say, like, the editing staff in the beginning, especially at the opinion level, was very good to me. So the opinion editors were really supportive of my work. And I think there had been people who were put in that position, especially over my first – from my freshman to my junior year, who were really committed to making sure that my voice was heard and making sure that other voices were heard, which I really, really admired and appreciated. But things sort of started to get rocky with, like, the executive staff at the DP around COVID era. So, I mean, I can expand a little bit more on that. I don't know if you guys want to ask a follow-up question or – Sure. I wanted to touch a little bit on your resignation. So in February, you bravely made your voice heard. In a letter of resignation to the DP, you asserted that the daily Pennsylvanian has become a place where the problem of people shying away from ideas that are challenging is exacerbated. I want to echo a sentiment expressed by 20th century poet Archibald McLeish, who claimed the dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself. Take us through your decision to resign from the DP. Okay. Well, I really appreciate the sentiment, Nick, as bravely. I don't know if – I don't know if bravely would be the word I would use to describe it. And that's a phenomenal quote. And I think in our first editorial, there was a line where we just said, like, we dissent. And I think that that's definitely a spirit that I feel like all of us embrace at the Pentos, which is really great. That was the goal. But, I mean, to be clear, like, I don't – I don't really harbor ill will against any of the people who worked for the daily Pennsylvanian while I was there. I made that pretty clear in my resignation letter and in conversations I had with people before and after it happened. This is kind of a long time coming. So I'll take you back to spring of 2021. I'm writing about the politicization of public health. I'm writing about how, you know, I felt – this is going into fall 2021 and spring 2022 – how I felt the university was really mishandling the COVID epidemic – or COVID pandemic, rather, sorry – both with what I thought were draconian measures that made no sense, weren't actually reducing the spread. And then they were continuing to basically outlast these masking measures. This is before both of your times, thankfully. I have my virgin freshman here. But they basically were – they were continuing to outlast these measures with no epidemiological data. So we would get emails from the university saying, well, masking is going to go on longer, but, you know, good luck. Tough luck, basically. We're going to make you do all this crazy testing twice a week. We're going to make you show a pass to get into every building. I mean, it was – it was like living in George Orwell's 1984. Not to be dramatic, but it was very strange. I never could have imagined college looking like that. And I was fine to do it. I mean, I'm all for rallying behind the cause. I mean, I'm not a denier of science, like, whatever. But you need to give me the science. I mean, I am attending an Ivy League school. I expect to be treated like an adult who is going to receive that information. And faculty were also denied the same type of information. So I wrote a collection of columns about this issue. And from the very beginning, I got, like, pretty severe pushback from the editors-in-chief. Well, yeah, it was the editors-in-chief at the time. And also some other people who were on executive staff were just displeased with me saying these things. It was actually very weird at the time. The DP had seen it. And if you go back through articles, we can probably pull that out. Maybe we'll do that when we kind of do a look back at COVID for the end of this year or something in the post. But the DP was oddly almost endorsing these measures by the university. And this kind of goes to this culture of, like, timidness that I really talk about in my resignation letter. To me, the goal of the paper should be to ask questions. And that doesn't necessarily mean you're adversarial or antagonistic. But it does mean that you should be asking questions. And I basically got accused of misrepresenting information. I got accused of, like, outwardly lying in my pieces. I got accused of unethical citations. That was a new one that I liked. And it got to the point where there was a piece I had written where I talked to the specific issue that was taken was I explained how Vice President Harris had expressed discomfort about, what's it called, taking the vaccine if it had come up during the Trump administration. And I was told that that didn't happen. It wasn't true. And anyone who was following what was going on now, like, knows that was true. Like, there was, again, an article linked in my article explaining that. And I had a really fierce editor at the time who, you know, really just defended me tooth and nail. And we got the piece published. But that was kind of when I knew things were going to go south. There was another incident with, basically, now it's been published. I can say who it was. But Paula Scanlon, who was a swimmer on the Penn swim team, had written an anonymous piece, obviously anonymously, because there was literally a gag order on the girls on the Penn swim team that they couldn't speak about the Leah Thomas swimming or anything around that, NCAA guidelines on transgender swimmers, et cetera. And the piece was published by the DP after rounds and rounds and rounds of edits. I was editing at the time. And it was unlike anything I'd ever seen before at any paper. Gets published, gets taken down within 12 hours, basically, because the staff, you know, for all intents and purposes, revolted. So I kind of saw this mob rule as being something that was a problem. And I saw, I mean, if we're trying to do serious work to represent a wide range of ideas and have questions, when a university clearly needs to have questions asked of them, even if you don't agree with the questions that need to be asked, it feels like a lack of journalistic integrity is present. Again, I kind of held on because of all of the concerns I had expressed earlier about my platform and then October 7th happened. So, I mean, I can go a little bit more into that. I don't want to just keep rambling, but it is kind of a long story. So, yeah. So we do want to hear that story. But first, so you were a freshman when this all happened. And I can imagine receiving such pushback would be hard for anyone, let alone a freshman. So what was it like just entering the school and being, like, pushed right into the thick of this? Yeah, that's a great question, actually. I think, so some of it happened my freshman year and some of it happened my sophomore year. I think for me, I've always been, I mean, maybe it's my good old Italian heritage. I was taught from a really young age to kind of advocate for myself and other people, always to be held accountable. I definitely wasn't brought up in a culture of you're always right. But I was taught to at least have people explain if they're going to be adversarial to you about a position. And I think I was just, I really felt like there was a moment and there were things that needed to be said. And I really had the support of, again, I'm not going to name all these people because I don't want to expose them, but I had the support of, like, a couple really, really good friends and editors who just had my back. And I think that that makes all the difference. And that was one of the reasons why, with the newspaper, with the Pennsylvania Post, it was really important to me to bring together a staff of people who were, like, ideology aside, interest aside, background aside, understood that we're all trying to talk about these things in good faith and ask questions in good faith. And you need support from other people to do that. So I was really lucky in that way. And, I mean, it was not fun. At the time, I was pretty close to losing it. There was a moment in my sophomore year where I was just like, I don't know if I can, like, do this anymore. This is crazy. But I think that my gumption is helpful and then also just, like, having support of good people. And when you know that someone you trust, who, especially if they don't agree with you about things, says, I believe in you and what you have to say is important and I want it said, like, that is the best firepower you can have under anyone like me. Yeah. I certainly agree. So in preparation for this episode, I had the distinct privilege of reading some of your seminal works written during your time as a member of the DP. And one of the sentiments that I was struck by in reading Lexi's take was the sense that members of our generation are quick to shroud themselves in cocoons. Is the pursuit of truth dead at institutions of higher learning? And if so, how can we work together to revive it? Oof. Oh, my. That's a tough question. I actually, one of my dear friends wrote a phenomenal op-ed about this on his college campus that he sent me last night. So I've been thinking a lot about this the last 24 hours. So we can link it in the bio of this episode. But I think it's not dead, but it's definitely dying. And I wrote a little bit about this in my most recent op-ed for the Penn Post about mottos and morals and just how I feel like moral education, and that's what I mean by moral education, the pursuit of truth, because there's nothing more moral than that, is dying at these schools. And I think there's a lot of components to it. I think the lack of discourse is one of them. I think the lack of agitation for questions or something in our generation where we've just become very complacent. And it's quite interesting because we are characterized by this insane amount of activism, access to so much information, and then you look at the types of activism and the types of, and this goes for the right and the left, the types of questions that people are asking. And you're just like, this is all about victimhood. And this is all about making yourself feel as though, woe is me, rather than saying, how can I speak truth to power? I know that that's something that people never expect conservatives to say, but it's truly what motivated a lot of my writing at the DPU. It's just like, I want to talk about things that people, I don't feel like people are talking about here. And that was everything from hookup culture, to COVID, to what is the state of civic discourse, of civic ID, everything on those lines. And I think that in order to bring it back, we need a lot of things. I think, number one, we need more diversity of thought among faculty, people who think about things in different ways, sincerely different ways, not just from different disciplines, perspectives, backgrounds, like real diversity of thought. But I also think we need to teach students that the purpose of education is to be challenged. I mean, I applied to give the grad speech, and maybe I'll publish it somewhere, but I didn't end up getting it. But I talked about, what is a liberal education? To me, a liberal education is expanding your horizon. I expected to come into school every day and be made uncomfortable. And that's kind of to your point, Anjali, about how was I a freshman handling this, is I think I kind of knew about that going in. And I don't know if this is just because of, like, it was my approach to education throughout my life. It was things I had experienced growing up in Connecticut, where people were kind of unfriendly to my views. But having a family that had a totally different philosophy and friends that had a totally different philosophy, or if it was just, like, it's just something in my nature. Maybe I'm just a good question asker. Maybe I'm sad or serial. I don't know. But I think I expected to be challenged every day. And I think I got so much more out of my education because of that. And I think that we tell people they're coming into school to, I don't know, maybe it's become professional activists, which is kind of the thing my friend talked about in his op-ed. Maybe we're bringing them into school to become financiers, to get a certification. Maybe we're bringing them into school just to check a box because their parents thought they were supposed to go to college. Like, then don't go to a school like this. Like, don't get a liberal education. There are other ways to do that that are cheaper and, like, are going to push you less. Because all of that is affecting our environment. So, yeah. If that answers your question, I don't know. Certainly. Certainly. As you touched on a little bit, February 9, 2022 is a day that will live in infamy for the DP. Take us through the emotions you felt in hearing that Paula Scanlon's op-ed had been removed by members of the DP. Oh, yeah. I mean, there's a longer backstory to that, which is actually I knew Paula for other reasons. We're from a similar place in Connecticut. And she and I kind of, like, knew. So, I had heard the backstory of everything going on with the swim team, which, for reference, I mean, if you haven't read it already, people who are listening, I encourage you to go read it. It's now up on the Penn Post because they wanted it in perpetuity online. But her op-ed was fairly, I mean, was fairly a softball. It was essentially, she says pretty frankly, like, I have no qualms with Leah's gender identity or her experience, which I think is something that we all shared. But she was really concerned about the way the NCAA had sort of, like, offloaded responsibility on schools and on athletic departments and how they just hadn't really used peer review research. And, I mean, now, obviously, this has all come to a head. There's so many Title IX concerns about how women are affected by this, both just in, like, actual abilities and ability to compete and anyway. So, it was really interesting because this is just on the cutting of that. Her piece is really focused, very much a descriptor of the moment when it was written about all of this stuff. But I was really disappointed. I mean, we had worked really hard to get the piece published. She had really put herself out there. It was anonymous, but, like, people were going to probably figure out who it was. And this was, like, a really big part of these girls' lived experiences. Like, they had been working their, like, you know, for lack of a better word, their butts off to go and play, to go and swim at a D1 level. And this was affecting them. And the university had basically told them, and you can read this in the Inquirer, had basically told them you couldn't talk about it. I mean, that's crazy. Like, there is no bigger threat to free speech than that. And how was the DP not covering that? And I've had other people who were outside in the professional journalism community who were on the left who were writing about this saying the same thing to me. Like, I don't care what your position is on trans women swimming with the Penn women's swimming team, but you should definitely be talking about the fact that these girls are not getting a platform to talk about these things. And so I was really disappointed. I think I was sad in my, like, I was sad that my fellow students couldn't accept that something was being published that they didn't agree with, because every single day things were published in the DP that I seriously disagreed with. I can go through the list for you, but, like, there were so many times where I just felt like other pieces that were on the same subject matters that I was publishing on were not held to the same standards, were not expected to have the same level of citations and evidence. And then this thing, which was, I mean, you can read through it. It's linked up the wazoo. She really goes into detail about what is, about how testosterone blockers, I mean, yes, about how testosterone blockers work, how other mechanisms with which people transition work, and what the NCAA's responsibilities were, what their guidelines look like. And it was just thrown out the window. And it was, I mean, there were, the words that were thrown around were obviously transphobic, etc., etc. And I just think it made me really sad. It sort of, to your point, made me realize how far we had come away from the, you know, the spirit of news and journalism in the 60s and 70s at these types of schools where people would have fierce debates in the pages and have fierce debates in the newsroom and ask those questions, and I just, yeah. So it was sad to see the DP contribute to, I think, the chilling of speech on campus. And that was, this is basically the theme of my resignation and the theme of the whole Penn Post project is like, and I said this to people at the DP when I left, I said, this has nothing to do with you guys, it has everything to do with when an institution begins reflecting the flaws of the place that it is supposed to serve, then, like, maybe we need something new. So, yeah. Another topic of controversy with regard to the DP has been their coverage of the Israel-Palestine controversy. Specifically with regard to their decision to not publish Mark Rowan's University Donors Close Your Checkbooks. From your understanding, why did the DP make that decision? Yeah, so, okay, so my, I'll give a little bit of context about this situation prior to it happening. So I had written about a whole host of issues, obviously in the DP, as you know, because you guys have read my pieces. Lexi's take covered everything that could be remotely considered political under the sun. And so there was definitely, like, some voicing of the other side and there were a couple other things we had platformed that were, I guess, like, more critical. And then October 7th rolls around and, I mean, obviously, for personal, and everyone knows because they wrote not bad about this, but for personal reasons, I have a lot of, you know, a lot of my dearest friends are Jewish and or Israeli and or have family that's there. I have a friend that I went to high school with who was serving in the IDF. So this was, like, it was emotional for me. Not as emotional for me as it was for a lot of my Jewish friends on campus. But it was emotional for me. And I had heard through the grapevine that a, obviously, you have the Palestine Rights Festival, which, like, preludes this. And for reference, I had been very, like, vocal in the newsroom. I didn't even get the opportunity to write not bad about it because everything happened so quickly. But I had been very vocal in the whatever, opinion room, I don't know what you want to call it, in our meetings that I thought Palestine rights should have been able to go on. And I've said that in the past. I think there was definitely a free speech double standard here, obviously, and I can get more into that as we things go. And I've talked about that as well. But I think people should be entitled to, you know, have events on campus and have these discussions if they'd like. Also, my personal opinion, and I've said this on a podcast with a DP before, is, like, I'd like to know the people who have hateful opinions so we can discuss them. Right? Like, as a general rule. There's a great Louis Brandeis Supreme Court quote, which is, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's how I feel about everything. And in that case, I mean, Roger Waters maybe was not the most academically enriching speaker to have on campus. But, you know, let the anti-Semites show their colors is sort of my theory about this. That being said, I find out that Mark Rowan's letter has been sent to the DP. I know some people who, like, knew that it had been sent over. And so I ask the opinion editor and I ask a few other people. I said, where is this? Like, why has this come out? Like, it's been a couple of days. Like, I heard this got submitted, whatever. And the general sentiment I heard was that there was some concerns with the language of the piece. Specifically, there was concerns that the language was incendiary. Words like, he uses barbaric to detract the terrorist attacks. And that they were concerned that some of the accusations he had made about what was going on in the board of trustees room could not be, like, linked or, like, factually backed up by an outside source. Which, obviously, because they were his lived experience and they were in the board of trustees meeting. It's not like Liz McGill was going to publish a piece about everything she had said to every board of trustees member. And kind of the rhetoric that I was basically fed was, well, you know, no serious place is going to publish this because it's not, like, you know, it's not, they're not going to be able to back up these concerns, whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah. Language, we're pretty consistent with what every, like, mainstream legacy newspaper is doing on this. And I was really dissatisfied with that answer, basically. I asked to see the edits. I thought the edits were a little bit crazy. I mean, you have one of the most influential members of the Penn community, I think is a pretty fair way of putting it, who's saying these things. It's an op-ed. You're not held liable for what he says in the op-ed. Even if you disagree with every word that he says in the op-ed, you certainly publish it. And then you publish an editorial saying that you disagree with it. That is how these things are handled. That's how I would handle it at PennTest. That being said, that was not how it was handled. Fast forward to, I think it was five days later. I want to say it was the 16th, maybe. I can't remember exactly. There's, I think the Rowan op-ed comes out in the free press on the 11th. I think on the 16th, there's a piece that runs by Sal Bach, who was the sitting chairman of the board of trustees in the Daily Pennsylvania, responding to Mark Rowan's letter. Which, in effect, he essentially just calls Rowan and anyone concerned about what's going on on campus. Which, at this point, is significant protest. A lot of concerns about rising anti-Semitism. I think at that point, there had already been, someone had graffitied a pie. Like, there was a few things that had happened at that point. He basically just called them all Republicans. Like, this is shrouded language to help you all realize that Republicans are displeased by, like, liberals having a say on campus. Which, I mean, ridiculous. The fact that the DP, like, publishes that, I mean, you look like an arm of the administration. And so, I was disappointed, because I'm a representative of this institution. Sure, I wasn't an editor, and that was by choice. I had a lot of people had told me not to run for editor. It was at that point, like, almost two or three times, because they said, you're going to be super dissatisfied with this bureaucracy. You're not going to be able to get the things that you want to get done. You're not going to be able to publish what you want. Keep focusing on your writing, which is what I did. And I was super upset, because I was getting calls from alumni. I was getting calls from families. I was getting calls from students. I was getting calls from faculty. And I was getting calls from people who had worked at the DP, that are now in professional journalism, who were concerned about this. Like, why isn't the DP on this story? Like, this is the story of the century. You're going to publish a response to a letter that you did not publish? I mean, like, just talk about controlling the narrative. And I was upset, because, like, you know, it is the responsibility of the DP to ensure that students get the full picture. And if you're only publishing one side of the story, I mean, talk about making sure students don't get the full picture. Okay, so then we're a couple of days later. This is around the same time. I'm working on a piece that was running on why I thought non-Jews should be vocal about anti-Semitism. I grew up in an early Jewish community. Like I said, this has always been really personal for me. And I was really surprised, sad, concerned about the fact that the only people who were speaking up and going to these vigils or saying, I think, anything at all about what was going on or the attacks, even, like, writ large, like, in the public, were Jews. So I wrote this piece. And, I mean, talk about, it went through rounds and rounds and rounds of editing for the DP. Sensitivity reads, that's what they were calling them. I think they're still doing them. I don't know, whatever. Basically because they were concerned that what I was saying might upset someone. Anyway, so that was, I was accused again of basically not providing substantive or substantial sources. I was accused of basically, of citing places that they didn't think were reputable. The funniest one was they called the free press not reputable. And I'm a huge Barry Weiss fan, as everyone knows. But Barry Weiss was trained at Columbia, worked at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal before starting her own paper. Everyone who worked there worked in a major news organization before going there. So it's good that we now just call things that are different and heterodox, not reputable, but whatever. And anyway, so I get into this. I end up publishing it. Within it I talk about the meaning of the chant from the river to the sea, because obviously everyone's chanting that throughout campus. I later find out that there had been some back-channel discussion that didn't come up to me by people who I thought were friends of mine at the DP. Essentially being like, Lexi's misrepresenting all of this, she's lying. Some things which I would call on the borders of calling me a homophobic, which I thought were really strange. And this is just not who I am. I have friends who look differently than me, have all different life experiences than me. I was just expressing my concern about this. I cited all these articles saying this is the translation. I translated it from Arabic, whatever. They then proceeded to put an editor's note on my piece, basically saying, there are many ways to translate some of these phrases, and the way this writer is presenting it may not be the full story. You guys can all read it in The Day of the Pennsylvanian on that article. And I was pretty upset. Anytime you read an editor's note like that on an article, even if it's not something that was intentionally supposed to make the article less reputable, that's effectively what it does. So it was things like that where I was kind of reaching my point where I am now representative of this paper. I was on the phone with people on Exec, the few people that would answer my calls about this stuff, almost daily. And there was one person who knows who he is that was just a godsend about this. He was listening to everything. He was really doing his best to try to make it an open environment and make sure that everyone's views were heard. But in reality, I felt everyone closing in, the ranks closing in. And I was not sure that I wanted to be complicit in that anymore. Especially when I saw that people who had been friends with me and had been open to my ideas about everything else, that was where they drew the line. They drew the line about me calling out anti-Semitism. That was a little concerning to me. And, I mean, I also thought they did a poor job of representing, and I've talked about this as well, the other side as well. I mean, why was there no piece published from anyone who was participating in the teach-in explaining why they were doing that or explaining what their perspectives were? The way you handle that is not by saying, oh, Lexi's misrepresenting what these groups are saying. You reach out to those organizations and you say, publish a piece and explain why you're saying what you're saying. So, I don't know if it, like, timidness is the best way I could describe it. I don't even want to call it, like, censorious or, like, because I think that puts, like, some motive on it. I honestly just think it was, like, timid and, like, complacency. So, yeah. What does Legis Sign Morbus Fane mean to you, and what should it mean to the University of Pennsylvania? Oh, yeah. Well, laws without morals are useless. I will translate for everyone who is not a Latin nerd. I mean, I wrote about this. Laws without morals are useless. I think the university touts that motto a lot. I think all the Ivy Leagues tout their mottos a lot. We got Veritas. We have a few others. And I think there's a declining art of actually believing them. And I think what it has to mean is it has to mean we have to train people to be moral leaders, people who are critical thinkers, who are empathetic. Like, a liberal education and, you know, and a moral education doesn't just ask of us that we are, like, we allow other people to speak. That is the bare minimum. It asks of us that we're tolerant and empathetic and willing to listen and willing to discourse with those people. And we don't assume the worst in them. And that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. I mean, like, I don't want to assume the worst in any of these people, because I don't think they were. I think, like, this is generally just their culture. The culture is replicated by what's happening at other legacy media organizations. I mean, there's an NPR exposé came out the other day about this. There was a piece in The Atlantic, an exposé on The New York Times about culture like this there. I mean, everyone saw what happened with the Rhonda McDaniel MSNBC fiasco. Essentially, like, they all threatened to, all of the pundits threatened to leave if she got hired. This is something that's happening at a lot of other organizations. And I think that we're expected to do better, though. Like, Harvey Mansfield, who's a professor at Harvard, wrote a really phenomenal piece in The Wall Street Journal that kind of inspired my column in the Penn Post about this. But, like, we're expected – holding up the ivory tower and training America's leaders requires us to expect more, right? And that means that, like, we should all be taking those things into consideration and having those debates at this level so that we can make good laws or be good citizens at the bare minimum. How on earth are we supposed to lead if we can't even listen to each other and we can't even publish ideas that are different? How on earth are we supposed to lead if we can't even listen to each other and we can't even publish ideas that are different? I don't know. So, yeah. So you mentioned moral leaders and moral education. Can you unpack what being a moral leader means to you? Oh, yeah. I mean, maybe I'm a little bit of a classical person, hence the classical studies minor and the, you know, PPE major, which I thought was going to be more philosophy than it was. I mean, I think a lot of this is just training people to learn about what it means to be human, right? Like, when was the last time you sat down and read a good piece of literature? When was the last time that you really learned about American history in a sincere way? And by sincere, I meant the whole story where no one was villainized and no one was demonized, but we were actually explaining what happened. You know, when was the last time you took a meaningful philosophy or theology class or were pushed to think about things that were beyond, you know, your little bubble of where you grew up in, you know, in Connecticut or New York or Jersey or wherever it may be, right? Like, we're not asked of that at Penn. And I think moral leaders are people who can do that. I think moral leaders are people who can speak to. One of the reasons why we have so much political polarization right now and we have these elections that are being won on the bare margins is the rhetoric is so negative, right? Like, you don't have people who can speak to people and hear their hearts and understand where they're coming from, from all different types of backgrounds. And that sounds so cliche, but it's a very real thing. And you can feel it when you meet someone who has that, where you sit down with them and you're just like, wow, you, like, understand what it means to be a person. And you're just like so open to listening to me and hearing me. But I think that's something that can be taught, like, genuinely. I don't think I am of the ilk that I don't think everyone needs to get a liberal education. And if people don't know what I mean by that, I mean it's like liberal arts, but I mean more education that, like, pushes you, pushes your mind and teaches you in sort of the classical sense about discourse. And you get kind of like a wide range of history and science and all these things. There's some great Leo Strauss writings on this. He's a philosopher. I recommend that people read on liberal education. But I think one of the things that really gets me is just, like, asking this little of people. Like, that is what it means to both lead others in a moral direction and learn to be a moral leader. I'm taking a class right now. I will plug Existential Despair with Justin McDaniel, which is a seminar that was on Monday night. And it's a very weird class. It's a very special class. It's 45 people. We all sit in a room with no phones. And we read, like, great pieces of literature. And we talk about, like, what are the existential questions that this literature asks of us. And, like, some people might think that that's useless. Like, a lot of my friends in Wharton might be like, actually, they do waste themselves time. This is a silly class. Why are you doing this? Why are you wasting your time? I think that that's what I need to be able to think about and ask those questions if I want to serve. Like, what does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be a person who cares about others? What does it mean to love? What does it mean to pursue truth? And I think that there are ways to get that and help people understand that in a way that is meaningful and accessible through literature and art and history and philosophy. And I think we just don't care about that. I mean, why is Penn the only Ivy Plus institution that doesn't have a Civil War historian? How on earth can you be a school that trains people to understand what it means to be a citizen and lead others, like, calling yourself a civic Ivy, and not having someone who can teach a class on the Civil War on staff? Like, clearly it's indicating to the rest of the community and to the rest of the world that you don't really sincerely care about these things. And I think that there are small changes that we can make. Like, I was saying, like, hiring faculty and all my professors who have cultivated that and we know who they are, but, like, hiring faculty who do that and who do care about those things and who ask that of us. But, yeah. Lexi, you are one of the most accomplished individuals here at Penn. Your accomplishments speak for themselves. What would be your recommendation to younger students, especially those who are interested in free speech but feel that they must self-censor in order to avoid backlash? Don't. That's my short answer. That was a long conversation, I think, with both Nick and Anjali about this. Two separate long conversations about this. But don't. Like, your life is going to be filled with encountering people who think differently from you. And the more that you practice that, I mean, one of my professors, Jonathan Zimmerman, talked about this, about how, like, it's a skill. It's like a muscle you have to, like, work at, like, thinking, being around people who think differently than you, who will argue with you and who will disagree with you. And that's something you've got to train yourself to do. And the only way you can do that is if you're sincere about what you believe and how you engage with the world around you. And, you know, for concerns about social or academic repercussions, like, the academic stuff is kind of hard to control. Like, I mean, it's happened to me once or twice where I know I've gotten sort of marked down because of my political affiliations and views. But in the vast majority of circumstances, like, I have the most incredible mentors who have really pushed me, like, even before this podcast started, I was talking about it, who have really pushed me to be the best version of myself and to embrace my own values and virtues and beliefs and I think had so much respect for me. I actually know for certain that I got a higher grade in one class because I was just willing to talk about things that other people weren't willing to talk about. It won't help a professor in a class. But it was just, like, I think that you're doing yourself a disservice. Like, why go to college? Why spend the money? Why spend the time? You could be doing so many other things. If you're not willing to sincerely engage as a caveat, that doesn't mean you need to be this, like, you know, firebrand activist every day of the week. I mean, I always joke that I, like, I'm too elitist to protest. I just, it's not my style. Like, I have an activist heart, but it's very much in, like, an intellectual way where I, like, not that protests aren't intellectual often, but I just, I'm not a firebrand like that. I think I'm really concerned with sort of debating about these things and figuring out what these issues are and trying to, although often I think I am too sincere in my beliefs that I'm right all the time, I think I really try to consider other people and what they think, and I can try to consider other sides when I write my op-eds. You can sort of read that into my writing. But, yeah, I think, like, my biggest piece of advice would be just, like, be outspoken. Be yourself. The only reason why people can cancel you or can think poorly of you is because you're acting as though you're ashamed of the views and values that you have. And if you're not ashamed of those things, then why are you hiding them? People only hide things they're ashamed of, right? And so if you are upfront with people, not in an obnoxious way, but when they ask you questions, you're just honest, you're going to have a lot more fruitful and sincere friendships. I mean, I went through, as Anjali pointed out earlier, I've been, you know, kind of this person and very outspoken about this stuff since my first semester my freshman year. I haven't had trouble making friends because people are attracted to people who are real and genuine, especially in a place like this where, I mean, I think we can all acknowledge that Penn isn't always that way. So that would be my biggest piece of advice. Like, wear your politics proudly. Engage seriously. Ask each other questions. Ask your professors questions. Really be a skeptic, but also an open-minded learner. And you can only do that by, you know, by honestly engaging. Otherwise, why bother? What is your hope for the future of the Pennsylvania Post? Oh, I mean, you guys, A. But B, like a lot of people have asked me, why am I doing this my second semester senior year? The reality is it's not for me. Like, it's not for me. I've had this experience. It's not in my way to find these kind of, these rooms to be in. I mean, you can look at the Ploughman Society. It's a great example. I know other Anjali talked about this in her op-ed that we published yesterday about places where she found this kind of discourse and open-mindedness and serious people who are willing to talk with her about things in a sincere way. But that, you know, I already did that. But I was really worried. And this is the main reason why I left the DP. I was really worried that no one was going to replace me. And I don't mean replace me by being the conservative girl from Connecticut who writes about politics. I mean people who are willing to ask the questions, who when things were coming up in the opinion room were willing to say, hey, hey, hey, like, have you thought about the other way that you could consider this? And I know that Brett Seaton, who's our ombudsman and was also at the DP, kind of feels the same way. And he's a junior, so we're really just trying to make sure that we have a space where people can come and can talk about ideas that aren't really getting airtime on other places on campus. I think the podcast is a great place for that because it's so much easier to sometimes have these conversations in person, face-to-face, over conversation than it even is in the pages of the newspaper. But that's really the goal. The goal is that, you know, people believe and appreciate our sincere commitment to free speech and open-mindedness and ideas and diversity of thought and that they help us with that. I mean, send us op-eds. You know, write news pieces for us. Come on the podcast with Nick and Anjali. Like, talk about things. Like, that is how things are going to get better. And, you know, we all are really coming from different backgrounds but have the same mission there. So that's the goal is that this could hopefully last for a long time and provide some challenge to, I think, the orthodoxy of timidness and, you know, censoriousness that exists at Penn. So, yeah, because that's, you know, all is fair in love and politics and friendship in college. So, yeah. Certainly. Let's end on a fun question. Yeah. So I'm Italian, you're Italian, and I know one thing about Italians is that we have very strong opinions about food. Oh, yeah. So what is the best Italian restaurant in Philadelphia, in your opinion? Oh, oh my gosh. This is a hard question. I am not the authority on this. My best friend, who I live with, is Italian from South Philly, and so she, like, is definitely the authority on this. She would say, if I will give one of her recommendations, she would say she loves Georgia Alpine, and I've been there, and it's really good. It's a BYO place. You can bring your own wine, which is always fun for Italians. We always, like, drink a lot of wine, and we hate expensive wine for no reason, and especially French wine and all those things. Especially the French wine. Especially the French wine. Oh, so marked up for no reason. Not even good. It's really good. And I like the one thing that is really cool about Philly, which I've gotten to discover through her, so she'll love me speaking about her, is that the Italian culture here is so interesting. It's very Italian-American. So both Nick and I are parents immigrated here, so Italian culture is a little bit different than Italian-American culture, but Italian-American culture just has this, like, beautiful, like, home style and, like, very open and welcoming sort of environment, and our house, I think, in many ways has become that, because both me and Izzy are like that. Like, we both are very, we grew up where the doors were always open, and it was always a place to take care of people. We joke that we're like a shelter. Everyone comes and, like, lays their feelings on the table and whatever. And honestly, I think that actually connects really well with the whole theme of this. Like, part of being a real sincere person is, like, I don't just talk to people about politics. I talk to them about everything. If you know me for more than a month, you know that I will talk to you about your love life, I'll talk to you about your parents, I'll talk to you about your medical trauma. Like, that's just, I mean, and I think people really appreciate this. I think the average person really values someone who, like, cares about food and family and love and, like, wants to, you know, create an environment where people feel safe, and that doesn't mean coddling someone. Like, safety is actually not about coddling. It's about pushing you. Like, your friendships, you should be asking more of your friends. You shouldn't be just telling them everything they do is great, even if it's not. And I think that that's so, like, the Italian spirit. So anyway, segue from the food, but, yeah, definitely, you know, all those good conversations happen over a good dinner. So I'm happy to cook for anyone, too, if they ever want, but, yeah. Well, thank you for coming on the podcast, Lexi. We were happy to have you. Of course. Thank you so much for having me, guys. This was great. Thank you for tuning in to Ben's Bifocals. I am your host, Nicholas Skola. Catch us weekly on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or wherever you like to get your podcasts. And remember, if you disagree with us, join us.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
