EDITORIAL CORNERfor CE
OPINION: Federal Fundings toward a National High-Speed Railway System Won’t Help Climate Change By Sizhe (Jeff) Li Climate change is one of the most pressing issues confronting this generation. Climate change accelerates as more emissions enter the atmosphere, causing droughts, floods, and unusual weather patterns all over the world. Every year, extreme weather kills five million people worldwide. Additionally, a World Health Organization (WHO) study found that outdoor air pollution kills 4.2 million people annually. Air pollution is caused directly from carbon emissions and harmful gasses released under various conditions due to human activities. While our society progresses, humans are also responsible for this total of 9.2 million climate-related deaths each year. Without a doubt, halting the devastation of our planet and providing hope for the future should be this generation's top priority. Some advocates argue that federal funding should be used to build a national High-Speed Rail (HSR) system as part of the solution to the current climate crisis. These advocates contend that all-electric rail would be more energy efficient, reduce the use of cars and planes, and thus contribute to lower greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the economy would benefit from the creation of new businesses and job opportunities. However, studies and history that neither of these goals can or will be met. HSR has turned out to be the polar opposite of its original intentions. To begin with, HSR does not get people out of cars and planes. France, Germany, and Spain have the oldest HSR lines, having opened their first rail lines around the 1990s. Since then, all three countries have built numerous lines, with Spain's system covering the most ground. However, neither automobile nor airline travel has decreased in demand. Rail advocates claim that HSR reduces plane usage. However, air travel in Europe increased significantly between 2010 and 2019. Air travel grew 260 percent faster than rail travel in France, 63 percent faster in Germany, and 56 percent faster in Spain. As past data has shown, HSR has resulted in no reduction in air travel. China is the current nation with the most HSR lines; however, automobile ownership there is growing much faster than rail ridership. China had 21.3 million vehicles in 2005, but by 2019, this had grown tenfold to 340 million, representing a 19.2 percent annual growth rate. Rail ridership, by contrast, grew at a third of that rate, or 6.4 percent per year. China has built 40% more miles of freeways than the United States to allow these motor vehicles to travel. HSR does not reduce auto driving. More importantly, HSR’s construction itself would emit more greenhouse gases than its projected reduction, thus hastening climate change. According to a 2010 UCLA study, the construction of California's 520-mile line would emit 9.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gases or 18,650 tons per mile. Assuming 50% rider occupancy, it would take 71 years to reset the initial construction emission. The UCLA study was furthered by a 2021 Cato Institute analysis. Cato explained that rail infrastructure must be replaced or rebuilt every 30-40 years. HSR construction emissions will never be reset since greenhouse gases would be released Furthermore, fossil fuels account for 60% of the US electrical grid. Because HSR is entirely electric, the proposed emission reduction will not be realized even if HSR construction emissions are ignored. HSR has many defects when compared to the private sector. CAHSR built 178 miles of rail from Bakersfield to Merced in 20 years. At this rate, the entire California HSR will not be completed until 2068, costing taxpayers or deficit spending a total of $105 billion. Boring Company's electric Hyperloop, on the other hand, is expected to begin commercial operations in 2027. Hyperloop has a 107-mile route in the Bay Area and can reach speeds of up to 760 mph, which is three times faster than HSR’s 220 mph top speed. Also, Hyperloop only costs $121 million per mile, with all funds from private investors. Once operational, the Hyperloop would completely substitute the purpose of HSR, rendering it obsolete. The climate benefits of high-speed rail are doubtful at best, since it does not reduce car and plane use or greenhouse gas emissions. Due to its flaws and a lengthy construction period, HSR would become obsolete in comparison to the private sector's Hyperloop. As a result, the US government should not increase its funding for HSR; rather, it should focus on replacing the current fossil-fuel-based electric grid with a 100% renewable grid. That way, taxpayer dollars won’t be wasted and emission reductions would become a reality. for SL
MMSD Receives Backlash for Regent Pride and Progressive Instruction By Mira Wilde Serving 27,000 students across 52 schools, the Madison Metropolitan School District’s (MMSD) influence on the city is undeniable. While some applaud the district’s efforts to educate students about the harmful effects of racism, sexism, and discrimination as a whole, others label these actions as efforts to indoctrinate the next generation of voters. Those against the teaching of subjects such as systemic racism, racial equity, and white supremacy, argue that the lessons detract from what should be the sole purpose of the school: providing a traditional education. Wisconsin has the highest achievement gap in all of the United States. At the high school level, there is a 24% difference in high school graduation rates, favoring white students over Black. Additionally, according to a 2018 study reported on by Urban Milwaukee, Black students were 2.3 times less likely, and Hispanic students were 1.9 times less likely, to enroll in an Advanced Placement (AP) class than their white counterparts. MMSD views this problem racially, as they believe that the overarching cause for these disparities is the institutionalized racism that is embedded in our education system. On the other hand, those who oppose MMSD’s viewpoint, like the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) and the MacIver Institute, state that the reason students of color are scoring lower on tests and are enrolled in less honors and AP classes is because the district focuses more on teaching about racism than the necessary core competencies of literacy and math. Arguments like these, among others, lead to resistance towards the district. WILL, a leader of these counterattacks, has filed and threatened many lawsuits against the school. In a lawsuit that lasted from 2020 until 2022, WILL challenged the district’s policy regarding gender identity. In an effort to support the district’s transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive students, the district adopted a policy that allowed students to identify with their preferred pronouns and name at school, and would not inform their parents. This policy enabled the security of children who may not have felt safe or comfortable to reveal their preferred pronouns and names to family members. WILL, filing on behalf of 14 anonymous parent plaintiffs, argued that this policy violated transparency and parents’ rights. Violations of transparency and accused lack of communication from the district are a common theme in the complaints raised by WILL. Recently, the focus of WILL’s objections has shifted from issues of gender and sexuality to those of race. Most adamantly, the calls for transparency have been in regard to curriculum. In a recent report published by the institute, they requested that the nine largest school districts in the state, MMSD included, submit their English and Social Studies curriculum used in one or two of their high schools for review. Within this request, WILL specifically asked for materials that used, “a set list of ‘woke’ terms, including ‘1619 Project,’ ‘white privilege,’ and ‘systemic racism.’” WILL was unwilling to pay the $5,000 charge for the records from MMSD, and overall only received data from three out of the nine schools requested. Although they gathered very little data, WILL continued with their plan of proposing a new law that requires semester updates from teachers and administrators about their upcoming lesson plans. The goal of this proposal is to address the “increasing pervasiveness of political agendas in school.” Accompanying this WILL report is an attachment to a form that parents can use to opt their children out of lessons regarding race, an action the group endorses. In this form, parents request to be notified of lessons addressing white supremacy, anti-racism, and theories that America was built on a foundation of slavery and racism. Additionally, parents can request to be warned of a variety of activities such as privilege walks and affinity groups. Affinity groups are commonly utilized in MMSD, and specifically West, as a way of creating community for students and staff, especially after traumatic events regarding race, sexism, and harassment. However, WILL and other conservative parties have not been in favor of such meetings, believing that they’re a tool for projecting liberal ideas on students. This local issue reflects a larger ongoing conflict in United States schools over instruction surrounding progressive topics like LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, evolution, and racism. With the state of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” act, the banning of books, limiting the discussion surrounding contraception and abortion in health classes, and most prominently the legislation against the teaching of critical race theory, West High School’s Regent Pride seminars and lessons are increasingly under fire. If the political climate continues to escalate, these objections are unlikely to cease. West prides itself on being an “intentionally anti-racist school” and will continue in its effort to teach institutionalized subjects with a lens that provides insight into the impact and effect on oppressed and minority populations. In the current polarized and divided fight over education, the ability to learn from perspectives is as important as ever, a value that West intends to continue upholding. OCTOBER WORD SEARCH
Charlotte Olson for SL
Starry Night or Starry Not?: Homecoming Review By Alex Vakar On Saturday, October 8th, West High School held its 2022 Homecoming dance in the cafenasium. It’s well known that the Homecoming festivities are not only going to the dance, however. The week leading up to the dance itself, students participated in spirit days, some of them competing to win ‘best outfit’ of each day. The winners were chosen by popular vote via a Google form. After a shortened schedule on Friday, the Homecoming parade took place, in which clubs and sports teams marched from Randall elementary school up to the Ash steps. Candy was thrown, kids were happy, parents took photos, and students enjoyed the festivities that come with dressing up, sitting in convertibles and advertising and representing their clubs/sports/other extracurricular activities. Teachers had the chance to see their students in a different environment, applying themselves in something they are passionate about. The Homecoming pep rally, taking place in the Stevens Gym for the first time in three years, consisted of speeches given by senior speakers, Homecoming court skits, as well as a speech from our school principal. Our homecoming football game, which we lost against Middleton, had a big student section, filled with glitter, gold and blue beads, and lots of West merch. The dance was on the following day, taking place in the cafenasium. Overall, students had a couple of critiques: only one entry/exit point to the gym, expensive tickets, disorganized water drinking stations and a policy that you can only enter before 8pm. Whether or not these things will change next year is unknown, but without input from students the likelihood of change is minimal. for CE
November Midterm Forecast: polls predict a close race for Senate and a Republican lead for House By Sizhe (Jeff) Li The forecast favors a Republican House majority: According to FiveThirtyEight, the likelihood of a Republican House majority is 81 in 100 (October 25, 2022), while Democrats have a 19 in 100 chance. It predicts that the Republicans will win 228 seats and the Democrats will win 207. Forecasts present a close race for control of the Senate: According to FiveThirtyEight (Oct. 25, 2022), the likelihood of a Democrat Senate majority is 54 in 100, while Republicans have a 46 in 100 chance. It predicts that Republicans and Democrats will each win 50 seats, resulting in a Democrat majority with Vice President Kamala Harris' swing vote. The following states have currently ranked a toss-up: In Nevada, Adam Paul Laxalt (R) has a 53 in 100 chance of winning, and Catherine Cortez Masto (D, Incumbent) has a 47 in 100 chance of winning. In Georgia, Raphael Warnock (D, Incumbent) has a 53 in 100 chance of winning, and Hershel Junior Walker (R) has a 47 in 100 chance of winning. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman (D) has a 59 in 100 chance of winning, and Mehmet Oz (R) has a 41 in 100 chance of winning. Forecast according to Generic congressional ballot (A poll that asks respondents which party they intend to vote for in Congress): According to FiveThirtyEight (Oct. 25, 2022), Republicans have a gain of 45.2%, and Democrats have a gain of 44.7%, which is a +0.5 Republican lead. According to RealClearPolitics (Oct. 22, 2022), it shows Republicans have a gain of 47.8%, and Democrats have a gain of, which is a +3.0 Republican lead. Forecast on toss-up gubernatorial election elections: According to FiveThirtyEight (Oct. 25, 2022), Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have been ranked as a toss-up with a slight lead to Democrats. In Arizona, Kari Lake (R.) has a 59 in 100 chance of winning, while Katie Hobbs (D) has a 41 in 100 chance of winning. In Nevada, Joe Lombardo (R) has a 51 in 100 chance of winning, while Steve Sisolak (D, Incumbent) has a 49 in 100 chance of winning. In Oregon Christine Drazan (R) have a 51 in 100 chance of winning, while Tina Kotek (D) has a 49 in 100 chance of winning. In Wisconsin, Tony Evers (D, Incumbent) has a 54 in 100 chance of winning, while Tim Michels (R) has a 46 in 100 of winning. New York Times/Siena College poll (Oct. 17, 2022) finds the majority of registered voters believe America is on the wrong track and disapprove of Biden’s job performance, two negative signs for the ruling party: According to the poll, 27% of registered voters believe America is on the right track, 60% believe America is on the wrong track, and 13% are unsure or refuse to answer. The poll also shows, 18% of registered voters strongly approve, 23% somewhat approve, 9% somewhat disapprove, and 44% strongly disapprove of Biden's job performance. Reuters/Ipsos poll (Sep. 27 to Oct. 3, 2022) finds that Americans are most concerned about inflation and the economy, with Republicans outperforming Democrats on these issues: According to the poll, 29% of respondents chose Inflation as the most important problem facing the US today, 15% chose “jobs and economy”, 8% chose "gun violence or mass shootings”, 7% chose “abortion or changing abortion laws”, 6% chose “immigration”, and 6% chose “climate or environment”. According to the poll, 42% of respondents believe Republicans are better at tackling inflation, while 31% believe Democrats are better. A similar percentage of favoring Republicans on tackling inflation was presented on the favoring of republicans on tackling of the economy. On the other hand, 46% of respondents believe Democrats are better at tackling abortion policies, while 25% believe Republicans are better. 43% of respondents believe Democrats are better at tackling healthcare, while 31% believe Republicans are better. |
for A&E
Cartoon by Stella Balsley for CE
OPINION: How Climate Change and Injustice are Drowning Pakistan By Laila Ahmed “Pakistan is awash in suffering,” UN secretary-general António Guterres lamented in August as part of a plea for global climate change policy reformation. “The Pakistani people are facing a monsoon on steroids—the relentless impact of epochal levels of rain and flooding.” The apocalyptic flooding that Guterres spoke to has afflicted Pakistan since June of this year. The flooding is also tied to excessive glacial melt in the country’s northern regions and unprecedented monsoon rains—six times the average season’s rainfall—in the south. Since then, these floods have completely inundated several hundreds of villages across rural Pakistan, caused the deaths of more than 1,500 people—nearly half of which are children—and displaced over 33 million people, resulting in one-third of Pakistan being underwater. Video footage of the floods documents fatally fast rushes of muddy water that instantly sweep away people, homes, schools, bridges, livestock, farms—45% of the nation’s cropland, according to Pakistan’s Minister of Climate Change, Sherry Rehman—entire villages, and entire lives. As the water settles, insects gather above it and ruptured power lines dangle into it all while thousands of survivors are ferried across in pursuit of dry shelter. Such makeshift shelters on dry land have become overcrowded with people and misery, as described by Fazal Malik to Al Jazeera reporters this past week: “Men can try to bathe here, but women cannot—it’s that bad and it’s that unsafe. We stink, but where can we bathe? There are mosquitoes biting us here, but we have no fans. We cannot sleep. Our minds are gone.” Aas for those whose homes are not yet completely submerged, they now effectively live on islands; villages are isolated, aid is strained—most surveyed residents say they have yet to receive any aid—clean food and water are unavailable, diseases such as malaria and dengue fever and worse run rampant, and electricity to such villages is cut off by the government in hopes of preventing mass electrocutions. Amongst all of this, victims face devastating food shortages and rising prices. The price for vegetables in Pakistan has tripled since flooding began, as has the price for water and milk. Even the prices of boat rides that are necessary to transport villagers to any market on dry land have begun to increase. Solitary survivors—villagers whose entire livelihoods have been washed away overnight—have no choice now but to wait. “We have been stuck here for 4 or 5 days,” recounts survivor Muhammad Ramzan. “No one from the government has come for us, nor have we received any aid from the government. Our children are dying of starvation, our livestock are dying of starvation, disease is breaking out, there are mosquitoes, and no one ever comes for us. Where are we to go?” Throughout its tumultuous history, Pakistan’s government has never had the infrastructure necessary to adequately respond to its large-scale crises, climate-related or otherwise. Particularly in the wake of drastic economic inflation and political collapse following the ousting of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, the country is relying almost entirely on foreign aid to recover. Current Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif continues to plead for more support as relief from the United Nations, UNICEF, and various nonprofits have yet to make a dent in the $10 billion damages the country has sustained. What are we in the West to do about climate conditions in the Global South? Why should Pakistan’s appeals be met? Because the ruins that global warming has brought to Pakistan are an immediate example of environmental injustice and the need for global leaders, particularly those of powerful countries, to confront their complicity and provide reparations. Pakistan’s Minister of Climate Change and climate experts globally have pointed to high greenhouse gas emissions and global warming as the causes of Pakistan’s incredibly severe heat waves, droughts, uncontrollable glacial melts, and unusually intense monsoon season. However, despite ranking eighth on the 2021 Global Climate Risk Index’s list of nations/territories most vulnerable to climate change, data collected by the European Union in that same year shows that Pakistan is responsible for less than 1% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the combined total of the percentages of global greenhouse gas emissions by each of the top ten most vulnerable countries/territories listed on the Global Climate Risk Index still amounts to less than 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The United States alone is responsible for 15%; China is responsible for 27%. The harsh and ever-worsening reality that Pakistan faces now, as do its fellow at-risk countries in the Global South, is that the consequences of the world's climate crisis fall hardest on the nations that have historically contributed the least to it. Pakistan's crops have been decimated, the poorest members of its society have been pushed even further below the poverty line (if they are still alive), its infrastructure has been washed away, food and medicine and water are scarce, and aid from the consistently corrupt hands of the military and government is either unavailable or contested. As Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari puts it, “the people of Pakistan… are paying the price in their lives and livelihoods for the industrialization of rich countries that has resulted in this climate change.” The question now is, should Pakistan continue to pay? WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:
Sources: DAWN Pakistan - "Climate scientists explain Pakistan's 'unprecedented' floods" DAWN Pakistan - "Dengue, malaria spreading in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's flood-hit districts DAWN Pakistan - "PM Shehbaz makes urgent appeal for donations of blankets, baby food for flood-hit people" New York Times - "In Pakistan's Record Floods, Villages Are Now Desperate Islands" Al Jazeera - "Climate Change: Leaving Pakistan out to dry" Al Jazeera - "Mapping the scale of damage by the catastrophic Pakistan floods" CNN - "Pakistan emits less than 1% of the world's planet-warming gasses. It's now drowning" EPA - Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Global Climate Risk Index - 10 countries most affected from 2000 to 2019 The Top 10 Scariest Movies According to Heart Rate
By Zahra Gokhale and Sarah Mandel What is the scariest movie of all time? With Halloween here, people are in the spooky mood, and watching scary movies is half the fun. To guide you on your spooky movie adventure, we’ve composed a list of the top ten scariest movies based on the average heart rate while watching them. 10. Paranormal Activity. This movie is about a young couple who move to the suburbs, and soon discover a strange presence in their new house. This entity is active at night, especially when they try to sleep. While the resting average heart rate is 64bpm, the average while watching the movie was 80bpm, and the highest spike was 115. Although it has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, the audience score is only 57%. This movie has some scary parts, but there are definitely scarier movies out there. 9. A Quiet Place Part II. In this movie, the sequel to A Quiet Place, Evelyn Abbott finds herself alone with her three children, and she has to leave her burnt down farm and venture into the unknown hoping for a miracle; however, this time the aliens are everywhere. The average heart rate while watching this movie is the same as Paranormal Activity (80bpm), however the highest spike is 123bpm, eight beats higher than Paranormal Activity. On Rotten Tomatoes the rating is considerably higher with a 91% critic score and a 92% audience rating. 8. DASHCAM. Two friends undertake a horror-filled road trip while catching the most scary night of their lives on the dashcam. The average heart rate is higher than both number nine and ten at 81bpm. However, the spike is significantly lower than A Quiet Place Part II coming in at 112bpm. The critic score on Rotten Tomatoes is 89%, but the audience review is unreliable considering there aren’t that many reviews. 7. It Follows. A 19-year-old girl has a seemingly innocent encounter with a man, but soon after she is afflicted with strange visions and senses that something or someone is following her. The average heart rate is the same as DASHCAM (81bpm), but the spike is significantly lower at 96bpm. The Rotten Tomatoes critic score is 95%, but the audience score is just 66%. 6. Terrified. A group of scientists in Buenos Aires try to explain strange phenomena happening in the town. If they don’t find the problem before it's too late it could be the end of human society as we know it. The average heart rate while watching this movie is 82bpm, and the spike is remarkably higher than It Follows with 122bpm. The critics give it a 77% on the Tomato-meter, but the audience only gives it a 67%. 5. Hereditary. When Annie’s mentally ill mother passes away, her husband, daughter, and son all mourn her death. They soon start to experience other worldly mind-bending things linked to the ominus secrets and emotional trauma their family has passed down through generations. The heart rate is the same as Terrified (82bpm), but it has less of a spike. The overall rating for Hereditary is better than Terrified though critics give it a 90% and the audience gives it a 70%. 4. The Conjuring. Based on a true story, Carolyn and Roger Perron move their family into a new house, but not long after strange things start to happen. They believe it is a satanic haunting. The average heart rate jumps to an 84bpm for this one and the spike is remarkably high at a 132bpm. The critics give it an 86% on the Tomato-meter, and the audience gives it an 86%. 3. Insidious. With an average heart rate of 85bpm and a spike at 133bpm, it is scientifically scarier than The Conjuring. In this movie, a family is in search of help for their son who has mysteriously fallen into a coma from an incident in their attic, but little do they know there is more to this endless sleep than meets the eye. In contrast to the high scariness ratings, the scores on Rotten Tomatoes were low, with critics and audience reviews both in the 60s. 2. Sinister. Viewers have an average heart rate of 86bpm, but a lower spike compared to the previous places, just barely topping 130. In this film, Ellison Oswalt moves his family to a house where a crime took place a few years earlier, but his family does not know about the crime yet. Oswalt begins researching the crime in hopes to write a book about it. He uncovers old films to help his research, but he soon realizes this is darker than he predicts. Much like Insidious, critics from Rotten Tomatoes and audiences alike scored this movie in the 60s. 1. Host. This film had the highest average heart rate with 88bpm and a high spike of 130bpm. Six friends hire a psychic to hold a spiritual meeting over Zoom during the pandemic, but they soon realize they might be in over their heads as something invades all of their homes. Will they survive the night? Compared to the second and third place scary movies, Host has a notably high critic score on Rotten Tomatoes of 100% and an audience score of 72%. Now that you have reviews on these outstandingly horror-provoking movies, it is encouraged that you use them to find the perfect thing to watch this spooky season. Whether you choose something lower on the scale or near the top, whatever you pick is guaranteed to give you a scare. https://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/features/science-of-scare https://www.imdb.com/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/ for A&E
DAHMER: Explorative or Exploitative? By Makeda Renfro-Sargent A new Netflix show, DAHMER, based on the life and crimes of serial killer Jeffery Dahmer, has quickly become one of the most streamed shows in Netflix’s history since its release on September 23. Despite its success, the show has received tremendous amounts of backlash, both from viewers and the families of Dahmer’s victims, who have deemed the show as triggering and retraumatizing. However, its success reveals that the show's controversies clearly aren’t enough to turn viewers away. DAHMER is a 10-episode-long series that explores the life of Jeffery Dahmer, the serial killer known as “The Milwaukee Cannibal”. So far, “...Dahmer is the second most-viewed English Netflix series of all time, and the fourth highest across any language,” says Forbes. It’s racked up 701.37 million hours viewed. The first episode focuses on the assault that leads to Dahmer’s arrest and exposure in 1991. However, the next few episodes paint a picture of his childhood and upbringing, as well as his first crimes, which he committed as a young adult. The series’ sixth episode, Silenced, follows the experiences of Tony Hughes, a deaf Black man who was one of the victims of Dahmer. This episode, as well as the seventh and eighth, give us insight into characters besides Dahmer, but the majority of the show is focused on his life. The series culminates in episode 10, which recreates the murder of Jeffery Dahmer that took place in November 1994 at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, WI. Despite this story taking place around three decades ago, the pain Dahmer inflicted upon his victims and their families has yet to cease, and many argue that this show is only adding to this suffering. In a viral tweet posted by Eric Perry, a family member of one of the victims, he writes, “...It’s retraumatizing over and over again, and for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?” Since the show's release, the true crime genre itself has been called into question, with many wondering why streaming platforms are continuously releasing series devoted to the lives of serial killers. According to a Forbes article, “Jeffrey Dahmer is actually the focus of Netflix’s top two series, as a second Dahmer show has now arrived in the #2 spot.” Conversations with a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes, released on Netflix on October 7, has also risen into Netfllix’s number two spot, which only builds on the controversy brought up in Perry’s aforementioned tweet. Despite this criticism, others point out the fact that the show actually does feature an exploration of the lives of the victims, and aims to criticize the neglect of the Black and Brown community at the hands of Milwaukee police. This lens, some would argue, allows the show to take control of the narrative to use the show for good, without glorifying the atrocities committed by Dahmer. In a promotional video, Evan Peters, the actor who plays Dahmer, stated, “It’s called The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, but it’s not just him and his backstory: It’s the repercussions, it’s how society and our system failed to stop him multiple times because of racism, homophobia…” It’s likely the hope of Peters, and likely others involved in the show, that this is the narrative that is taken away after watching, however so far, there have been mixed reactions. Netflix has received its share of backlash for the show as well. When prompted for a response, Netflix held a press release about the series. Netflix says the show, “exposes these unconscionable crimes, centred around the underserved victims and their communities impacted by the systemic racism and institutional failures of the police that allowed one of America's most notorious serial killers to continue his murderous spree in plain sight for over a decade". |