Ricky Gervais and award show politics: cancel culture ain’t dead yet!

Gervais holds those behind the silver screen accountable

Ricky Gervais and award show politics: cancel culture ain’t dead yet!

Of all the things Ricky Gervais declared while hosting the Golden Globes in early January, his signature line, “I don’t care,” is perhaps the most unpleasant.

However, I think that we’re in need, culturally, of a little unpleasantry — and not just for comedy’s sake.

What Gervais “doesn’t care” about is, on the very surface, the risk of offending big-time actors, producers, and the film industry at large. But more than that, he has suggested that he doesn’t care much about their politics, at least not while they’re on stage, all dolled up and grasping their little gold statuettes. I, too, am losing faith in the performative politics of award shows.

Now, I’ll admit that in a certain way, I love celebrity culture. I love to see films and television shows compete against each other, I love to see what I love win, and I love to watch acceptance speeches — especially if they’re teary, and especially if I think that said tears are warranted.

But another part of me, some part of me that is political, despises it. Maybe even disgusted by it: sometimes by the choice of the winning film, sometimes by the volume of tears, but most of the time by what I believe are political performances.

This is the age of the quasi-presidential speech at award shows, those short  — or long, if they’re mega-famous — calls to action, filled with the repetition of “we must” and customary finger-wagging. For Gervais, celebrity culture is deserving of no praise because no celebrity deserves to cry political tears. For Gervais, celebrities are deserving of ridicule, the sort that comes from a political place. It’s a sort of disbelief; a “shut up, you don’t really care.”

Gervais’ message is a difficult one. In a way, it is one that might suggest that celebrities have no business talking about politics. However, I don’t think that he would like to undermine the good that celebrities can do with their respective platforms; there is no doubt that they can do good, since causes can, and have been, brought to light by Hollywood.

But as of late it can’t be denied that the intersection of politics and celebrity has been dark and disappointing. His is not an apolitical plea, but a request. Brash as it is, Gervais wants Hollywood to understand their problem with virtue signaling — that disconnect between their personal politics and that of the awards season.

I think that Gervais is speaking to a kind of cultural complicity of a Hollywood that has rubbed shoulders with the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein. It seems that he exclaims, “Shut up, I know he was your friend, but I don’t care” to those who are easily roused for superficial political causes, but slow to make sustained contributions outside of the Hollywood bubble; to those who are slow to give up their ties to exploitative corporations and people and things.

Commenting Apple’s new drama, The Morning Show, Gervais declared that it is “a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing — made by a company that owns sweatshops in China.” We should question the very clear divide between public and personal politics; it is that divide that manifests as the hollowness I have felt when observing the celebrity culture of recent years. 

But still, many were displeased by Gervais’ hosting job: how dare he try to discourage political commentary? To that I say: he’s certainly not the only one.

Soon after what would be Gervais’ fifth, and latest, Golden Globes gig, it was announced that long-time collaborators Tina Fey and Amy Poehler would be hosting next year’s awards. Collective sigh? Well, Fey has something to say about political speeches, too. She expressed a similar sentiment about the 2016 Oscars, where she told Howard Stern, “Halfway through I was like, ‘This is some real Hollywood bullshit’… Why are you yelling at me about corporate greed? You’re all so rich!”

And Joaquin Phoenix, who won the Globe for Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama, suggests in his winning speech: “Sometimes we have to take that responsibility on ourselves, and make changes and sacrifices in our lives… We don’t have to take private jets to Palm Springs.”

Phoenix received no pushback, perhaps because he occupies a space in celebrity culture that someone like Gervais does not. Or perhaps it was simply because Phoenix is charming in a way that Gervais is not.

But also, Gervais is the comedian host. His quips were anticipated, besides the one on Judi Dench.

This is Gervais’ brand: curmudgeonly, cocksure, apathetic. In no world would he have come on stage to swoon and worship and ‘ooh’ and ‘ah’ about the art of acting and the magic of cinema.

In that regard, Gervais’ comedy is diametrically opposed to that kind of high-minded praise we see for the industry, those praises that verge on being pretension, and become, I believe, dangerous when we face real crises. There is no more room to pontificate, no more room to pay lip service to the cause of the hour, to present and perform those politics that are fashionable.

I am reminded of the 2015 Golden Globes, where then-hosts Fey and Poehler mention the recent marriage of George and Amal Clooney, and then proceed to list Amal’s achievements in the realm of human rights. They concluded, “So tonight, her husband is getting a lifetime achievement award… Hollywood!”

A chat with the cast of Hart House’s Legally Blonde

Yeah we got an interview — what, like it’s hard?

A chat with the cast of Hart House’s <i>Legally Blonde</i>

You have definitely watched the 2001 Hollywood cult-classic Legally Blonde. And we’re completely and totally sure that you saw Kim Kardashian’s Halloween spoof of Elle’s admission video. And, even if you deny it, you’ve guiltily enjoyed Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)…more than once. But, have you seen the musical? Join The Varsity as we ask Paige Foskett, playing Margot, and Moulan Bourke, playing Paulette, all about Hart House Theatre’s newest musical, Legally Blonde.

The Varsity: As actors, how was it bringing the world of Elle Woods to life? Is stepping into the shoes of such iconic characters a struggle?

Paige Foskett: It can sometimes be hard stepping into roles that have been done — and loved — so many times before, but ultimately you just have to find the heart of who these people are, and really bite into the text as actors. The more you do it, the more you find new and exciting ways of being this person that have maybe never been done before.

Moulan Bourke: As an actor I love bringing what people know as a movie to life. Many individuals who are not normally patrons of the theatre will come to this show. I believe it is important to respect our predecessors in these iconic roles, but to also infuse your own portrayal of the character. Every creative team and actor will have a different interpretation of this show and I’m proud to share this version of Legally Blonde with audiences!

TV: The movie has become a seriously iconic part of contemporary North American culture. Entire dissertations have been written about its place as a piece of feminist media. Has this cultural legacy and feminist lens affected your characterization or acting?

PF: I think if anything it just makes you really lean into the honesty of the story. It’s been really important for us to not make it a joke because the writing already lends to the comedy. We have found the power in who Elle is, and what she is fighting for. I think it’s so powerful to get to embody all the people in her life who rallied behind her or pushed against her and made her stronger. She is a total badass.

MB: Even though 20 years have passed, this story is still so incredibly relevant today. Elle Woods inspires everyone in this show by the power or her love. Absolutely, my characterization of Paulette was influenced by the heart of this story. This show is iconic and its lessons are prominent. Elle reminds Paulette to never give up and the importance of self-love. These women display strength, power, love, and sisterhood which I strive to have as a performer and as a person.

TV:  Even though it’s only been a little more than a decade since the debut of Ms. Woods’ foray into litigation, a lot has changed in contemporary culture. Did you feel the need to, or have you had to contemporize any aspect or the play?

PF: Saccha Dennis made the really smart choice of setting our production in the ’90s where a lot of these references and the writing makes more sense. I think it’s more truthful to the text to set it in a time where all of these references and the circumstances we see play out are actually really accurate. I think to set it in modern day there has to be a lot of changes made, and you have to go about it from a different lens.

TV: Many theatrical productions feature localizations, especially for comedic and dramatic productions. Is Hart House doing anything to localize Elle to a ‘foreign’ Canadian context, well aware of its setting in Harvard and are the actors doing anything to assert their Canadian identity through these iconic Americans?

PF: For Saccha it was actually quite the opposite. We put a lot of importance on figuring out who these American people are, and really leaning into that. There’s nothing Canadian about this version of the show. And Saccha made sure to catch us every time we said “Sowww-ry!”

TV: If you could distill your production to a few remarks about its significance, plot, or really whatever you’d like, what would you say? What is your production, in essence?

PF: I would say that this show really is spectacular because it is so fast paced, funny, and honest. Every character we meet in this story totally reels you in, from the lead roles like Elle or Paulette, to the store manager, to Elle’s dad. Everything is so cohesive and honest. And in our production especially the costumes, set design, lighting design, and choreography are so out of this world.

MB: I think this production’s essence is the power of love. Elle literally gets into Harvard to follow who she believes to be the love of her life. She finds the love and power of law through helping her sisters. She reminds us of the importance of self-love. This show is women empowerment.

Catch Legally Blonde at Hart House Theatre until February 1, with discounted student tickets on select nights.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What can Hollywood teach us about investing?

A guide to getting started on investing, and what to look out for

What can Hollywood teach us about investing?

In Martin Scorsese’s black comedy The Wolf of Wall Street, Leonardo DiCaprio plays the ambitious and bull-headed stockbroker Jordan Belfort, whose fall from grace at the hands of the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is as sensational as it is stunning. In The Big Short, another Wall Street flick, Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, one of the few investors who predicted the housing market collapse in 2008. Outsmarting the entire financial industry, Burry shorts — that is, bets against — the housing market and emerges billions of dollars richer. 

However excessive the character or plot, if you’re like me, there is something undeniably attractive and glamourous about Hollywood’s portrayal of Wall Street and the world of investing. 

Among Hollywood’s idiosyncrasies is a fascination for the high stakes world of investing, finance, and stocks. Many people’s first exposure to investing is through movies, where a gifted stockbroker outsmarts competitors, or where stereotypes of excess, wealth, and power manifest to create complex characters and dramatic storylines. Despite being portrayed as morally flawed or corrupt, these characters, often based on real people, enjoy the finest luxuries, and seem fearless in the face of their demise. 

Let this article serve as advice to those among you who fancy yourselves the next Wolf of Wall Street. While it might be possible to extract solid investing advice from Hollywood, remaining tethered to reality is still of the utmost importance. Here are a few things you should take away from the movies that spark the investing fire in all of us. 

First, you do not need to have a lot of money to start. In fact, investing small, controlled amounts at a time should be your goal. The old adage ‘time is money’ holds more weight when a trade is worth a million dollars, rather than a couple hundred. Opening up a brokerage account at your local bank and putting in even a tiny amount of money is a massive step in the right direction. 

Investing is only supremely lucrative for a handful of people. The reality is that investing should be used as a tool to supplement your savings — you shouldn’t be risking everything on penny stocks, or expect investing to be your main source of income. If you pay attention, ‘the Wolf’ himself hardly invests large amounts of his own money in the stock market. He values only his commission because he knows that keeping complete faith in the market is nearsighted and foolish. Don’t take on unnecessary risk while looking for large rewards. Be frugal. 

Second, be cool and be patient. Hollywood tends to fast-track the archetypal rags to riches story. Unless you give up your life and become a day trader, investing is about playing the long game and being incredibly patient with your earnings. In The Big Short, the protagonists were forced to be patient with their position, as banks around them fraudulently manipulated the state of the collapsing market to save their own money. 

Basic investing lingo makes use of ‘buy,’ ‘hold,’ and ‘sell’ as indicators for stocks. Oftentimes, the most important move you’ll make will be to not do anything at all. Holding firm in your position and being patient, however hard it may seem, is the name of the game. Yours truly has too often seen a few bad quarters and sold early. The important thing to realize is that stocks can recover just as quickly as they can fall, and that no decision should be made on impulse or little evidence. Stay informed and be patient: don’t let huge profits or huge losses get to your head. 

Finally, do not underestimate the amount of time you’ll need to put in to actually see success. Unless you are prepared to monitor your portfolio every day and keep tabs on a specific industry every minute of every day, stay away from small to medium-cap stocks. Invest in large companies that exhibit steady and patient growth, and don’t try to pounce on emerging markets like weed or tech without doing exhaustive and thorough research. 

On film, stockbrokers are seen as either completely reliant on their gut, or on research and algorithms — like Bradley Cooper’s character in Limitless. The reality is somewhere in between. There will always be two sides to every decision or trade you make, but there should be no limit to the amount of research behind every decision. Put in the effort to look at every possible source of information. This may end up taking up more of your time than you anticipated, but the reality of stock is that more and more of your time will be occupied with reading and interpreting the news than with actual trading. 

There is a lot more we can take from Hollywood on investing, but as a student, these are some of the most important lessons you should have in mind if you want your foray into investing to be worthwhile. 

Why TIFF matters

At their core, film festivals are a platform for small, independent film makers

Why TIFF matters

There are approximately 3,000 film festivals every year, with the most renowned being the Sundance, Cannes, Berlinale, Hong Kong International Film Festivals, and of course, our very own Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

Every September, the City of Toronto hosts a 10-day event — with a plethora of actors, directors, and writers coming to the festival to discuss their art. Alongside the other international festivals, TIFF provides a platform for the films that do not fulfil the formulaic patterns of American studios like Hollywood.

Over the last 10 years, the cost of producing and promoting films has skyrocketed — meaning that independent creators are reliant on film festivals to exhibit and promote their work.

Film festivals enable artists to share their art without the monetary constraints. However, it is ironic that festivals, by upholding their curatorial responsibilities toward arts and culture, have evolved into a multi-million-dollar industry.

The relationship between large film companies and film festivals is often finely balanced between complementary and uneasy. This is because the lifeline of the festivals is the celebrities who star in the films. The celebrities attract media coverage, which in turn results in sponsors and funding.

This means that the already unstable relationship between art and business — which defines the whole film industry — is particularly strained at film festivals.

Unlike blockbusters — where their success is controlled by funding and release strategies — indie films are largely dependent on the reactions of festival directors, the response of the audience, and how much sleep critics can grab in between the midnight and 8:00 am screenings.

Living in Toronto, we have the privilege of an international film festival right on our doorstep. The festival even occurs before the semester is in full swing, so we truly have an abundance of time to amble along King Street West and enjoy the culture that is the driving force behind one of the world’s leading film festivals.

Time is running out for Harvey Weinstein and his ilk

The producer's recent scandal is representative of an endemic problem in Hollywood

Time is running out for Harvey Weinstein and his ilk

The story sounds like one out of the kind of award-winning film that Harvey Weinstein has been known to put out: a powerful Hollywood executive is brought down by a bombshell article claiming he sexually assaulted and harassed legions of women who had worked with and for him.

Unfortunately for Weinstein, this is not one of his prestigious projects with A-list stars signing on. It is a disturbing, real-life scandal that has turned him, as one of the industry’s most respected moguls, into a media pariah. Ever since a New York Times investigation published on October 5 revealed over three decades of previously undisclosed incidents of Weinstein’s sexual harassment and abuses of power over women, Hollywood has been roiling with fury and disgust. Five days later, The New Yorker published a similar investigation that contained a damning audio recording, captured during a New York Police Department sting operation, of Weinstein admitting to groping model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez.

The 65-year-old producer, known for his fiery temper, has since been fired from his self-named company, which he founded in 2005 with his brother Bob following their departure from formerly Disney-owned Miramax.

The elites of Hollywood, from George Clooney to Angelina Jolie, have been turning their backs against Weinstein, and others have come out with stories of similar encounters. Among his accusers are actresses Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, Kate Beckinsale, and Rose McGowan.

McGowan in particular has been blunt about the mogul’s illicit activities. Through her Twitter account, the former Charmed star refused to mince words, claiming that Weinstein raped her at the 1997 Sundance Film Festival. Other allegations made by the dozens of women who have come forward include similar elements: Weinstein demanding the women massage him, watch him shower, or undress him.

The allegations against Weinstein have already triggered accusations against other stars. After Ben Affleck released a statement condemning Weinstein, other women came forward accusing Affleck himself of sexual harassment. Actress Hilarie Burton brought up an incident in which Affleck groped her on a 2003 appearance on MTV’s Total Request Live, while makeup artist Annamarie Tendler accused Affleck of groping her at a 2014 Golden Globes party.

As disturbing as these allegations are in our progressive era, this is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to a trend that has sadly been far too prevalent in the film industry and society in general: the abuse of power that executives, mostly male, can impose on their employees, whether those are movie stars or interns.

Despite these incidents occurring over a period of 30 years, they are only now being revealed to the public. This is not only because Weinstein’s accusers were unable to disclose the incidents at the time, but also because so many enabled him and turned a blind eye to his behaviour, whether it was his former partners at Disney or the numerous stars and filmmakers with whom he developed strong working relationships, such as Affleck and director Quentin Tarantino.

Sadly, this has only enabled Weinstein and others of his ilk to use their authority to control women. They feel invincible thanks to their success, and they feel that nothing can bring them down. Prolific comedy director Judd Apatow agreed in an interview with the  Los Angeles Times that abuse is common in the industry and that many don’t realize this mistreatment immediately. “Young actresses are mistreated in all sorts of ways by powerful men who can dangle jobs or access to exciting parts of show business,” said Apatow. Putting their livelihoods at risk, he explained, is the reason Weinstein has been able to “operate like this for so many decades.”

One of the worst aspects of this scandal is that it has been par for the course in Hollywood since the Golden Age of the studio system in the 1930s and ’40s, when studio moguls such as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s Louis B Mayer and 20th Century Fox’s Daryl F Zanuck were notorious for giving promising female stars coveted roles in exchange for sex. Marilyn Monroe was once quoted as saying, “I’ve slept with producers… If you didn’t go along, there were 25 girls who would.”

It is disheartening that an industry known for its progressiveness in technology and filmmaking, and one that brings us joy and entertainment, has not changed in terms of its treatment of vulnerable women. Beckinsale is right to call Weinstein “an emblem of a system that is sick.”

In order for there to be a real shift in how women in Hollywood are treated, the circle of silence and denial will need to end. It is not just the victims who will need to be brave and speak out — it is also crucial for those who have stood on the sidelines and enabled this behaviour to come forward and end these abuses of power. To those executives who have committed sins akin to Weinstein’s, I hope you are ready for what’s to come, because your time is running out.

Hollywood must make room for more women of colour on screen

Despite efforts to improve gender representation in sci-fi and fantasy, mainstream media remains overwhelmingly white

Hollywood must make room for more women of colour on screen

From superheroes to elves to dragons, there is ample imagination that goes into the creation of science fiction and fantasy stories. Yet when it comes to envisioning people of colour at the forefront of these stories, it seems that sense of imagination is lacking.

For the first time in its over-50-year history, the upcoming season of popular sci-fi series Doctor Who will feature a female Doctor, the lead character in the show. Nerd women everywhere celebrated the news as an important leap in representation within the sci-fi and fantasy genre — a genre that often excludes women from leading roles. In 2016, for instance, the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film found that only 29 per cent of the top 100 grossing science fiction films in Hollywood featured female protagonists.

It is therefore encouraging that franchises like Doctor Who — as well as films like Atomic Blonde, Mad Max: Fury Road, Wonder Woman, and Ghostbusters — have carved out more space for women to take on starring roles. What’s not so encouraging is the overwhelming proportion of white women featured in the mainstream film and television industry.

Representation of people of colour remains a significant issue for mainstream cinema. As of 2016, 76 per cent of female characters in the top 100 films were white, compared to 14 per cent Black, six per cent Asian, and three per cent Latina.

Representation of marginalized people in the media is important: it can reduce racial bias, and it increases confidence and self-esteem among racial minority audiences. Portraying women of colour in film and television helps to normalize their experiences — and when women and people of colour don’t see themselves on screen, it sends the unfortunate message that their experiences are invalid or not as important as those of white actors, both male and female.

The sidelining of women of colour in favour of white women is nothing new. Historically, feminism has excluded women of colour and prioritized the needs of cisgender, heterosexual white women above everyone else. White feminism — the insidious brand of feminism that favours the needs of white women over those of women of colour and thereby upholds white supremacy — contributes to the push for more inclusion in mainstream media.

To the extent that celebrations of gender diversity in Hollywood predominantly focus on white women, gains made in this area remain mostly superficial. Though Wonder Woman is widely publicized as a groundbreaking feminist movie, it still lacks substantial casting of women of colour. Conceptualizing feminism in such a unidimensional way is reminiscent of Lena Dunham’s Girls, which has received similar praise despite not including women of colour in lead roles.

The infamous controversy about the movie Ghost in the Shell also exemplifies how white feminism can be weaponized against women of colour. Given that the film is based on an original Japanese franchise, it would have made sense to cast a Japanese actress in the starring role. Instead, white actress Scarlett Johansson was hired to play the protagonist, which offended many in light of the general scarcity of Asian actors featured in Hollywood movies.

Fortunately, a number of upcoming sci-fi and fantasy releases seem to be more sensitive to the scarcity of roles for women of colour in Hollywood. In the upcoming Marvel film Black Panther, 90 per cent of the cast is Black, and Black women have been cast in leading roles, making it one of the most diverse movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Women of colour have also been cast in other upcoming movies: Zazie Beetz will play Domino in the Deadpool sequel, and the upcoming movie adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time will feature Mindy Kaling and Oprah Winfrey.

Although increased diversity appears to be on its way to the big screen, more work still needs to be done to ensure women of colour are granted the visibility they deserve. As strides are being made to include women in the sci-fi and fantasy genres, additional attention should be paid to inclusivity for racialized women; having truly diverse casts means being sensitive to racism as well as sexism.

 

Oreoluwa Adara is an incoming second-year student at Innis College studying Political Science and Equity Studies.

 

The art of suppressing art

Hollywood's whitewashing days ought to be left in the past

The art of suppressing art

Socially-conscious Twitter users joined digital strategist William Yu in his online crusade for Asian-American representation in Hollywood. The 25-year-old combined the hashtag #StarringJohnCho with Photoshopped images of the Star Trek actor as the lead in several big budget films, such as The Martian and Spectre.

Shortly afterwards, the hashtag #StarringConstanceWu became popularized, as similar images rose up featuring the Fresh Off the Boat actress as the protagonist in films that had originally cast white female leads.

Critics, artists, and fans alike have commented for years on the inequality of representation in Hollywood. Shows like Friends set all-white casts in diverse cities like New York and have the characters engage with other white characters, practically erasing the existence of people of colour (POC) in these proposed universes. 

 Time and again, stories that rely on the characters textually being of one race or another are put through the Hollywood assembly line and standardized — that is to say, flour-dusted and dyed blonde. 

In other cases, Hollywood bestows the roles of the dutifully sassy, sexy, brainy, or funny friend of the protagonist onto the black, Hispanic, Asian, and Indian acting communities. These characters serve as static stereotypes of their race, acting as the backboard of the multidimensional white protagonist jokes, values, and intricacies. 

Recently, Hollywood’s lens has seemed to turn towards telling stories about POC, without allowing those people to take up space in their own narratives. The examples run from Emma Stone’s portrayal of a Hawaiian and Asian woman in Aloha to casting decisions made in films like Gods of Egypt and The Last Airbender.

Time and again, stories that rely on the characters textually being of one race or another are put through the Hollywood assembly line and standardized — that is to say, flour-dusted and dyed blonde. Rightfully incensed, many supporters of the Asian-American community took to Twitter to support the notion of casting Asian actors more frequently as leads in films.

The rage does not come, as some suggest, from a desire to have everything for everyone and everything all at once. It’s the commonplace annoyance one might feel when a colleague who may or may not work as hard as you is constantly handed the best projects, the most lucrative deals, and the most rewarding opportunities.

To work in Hollywood and be denied the ability to tell compelling, diverse, and interesting stories is a self-inflicted wound in the entertainment industry. As times and people change, certain tropes and standards will have to be pushed aside to make way for the sheer creative genius that lies ahead — which, in many cases, lies in the heads and hearts of POC.

Even so, Hollywood thrives off of romanticizing the past and rejecting change. The advancements made in technology, however, have made this impossible to uphold. Audiences that watch Hollywood films, television shows, and music videos engage with art in ways inconceivable to the world that existed a mere ten years ago.

The narrow frame that Hollywood insists on fitting to every work they produce ostracizes those who do not fit the mould and weakens the foundation on which Hollywood is built.

In 2016, audiences can stream their favourite shows on Netflix while they tweet a Drake meme directly to their favourite athlete. The audience now wields more power than they had previously, and this power can be used to not only address the lack of representation in Hollywood, but to hold that previously unimpeachable body accountable too.

Art should ideally reflect the world and the people in it. Art does not have to be beautiful, elegant, or reminiscent of some past glory in order for it to be meaningful. The narrow frame that Hollywood insists on fitting to every work they produce ostracizes those who do not fit the mold and weakens the foundation on which Hollywood is built.

When people do not see themselves in the images projected on movie theatre screens, they are driven to create. Be it through hashtags, memes, fanfictions, or even their own scripts, audience members wield their own creativity when they are shunned from artistic content that is available.

There is no longer such a thing as an idle audience member; an idea and an internet connection can signal a virtual battalion of like-minded individuals. So, Hollywood had better make room at the dinner table for those they’ve rejected — before the tables turn.

Jenisse Minott is a second-year UTM student studying Communication, Culture, Information, and Technology.