“In the spirit of community”: How Cornell College fails students of color

I am writing this post because I refuse to go to a school that tolerates hate speech and I am not leaving.

Cornell’s administration acknowledges discrimination only in its most extreme forms: swastikas, nooses, and slurs. What message does this send? It means Cornell is all about image and appeasing the majority. The aforementioned forms of racism are so extreme Cornell is forced to speak out against them (and label them as hate speech). But when it comes to all other transgressions, Cornell shrugs and basically says, “Americans will be Americans.” Cornell ties their own hands with the first amendment and claims innocence.

As a result, they have left many students (myself included) feeling isolated, uncared for, and disposable. While I believe Cornell fails all minority groups, today I am focussing on racial minority groups.

I will begin by reporting on the incident that occurred, the student response, and the administrative response. And I will end with a personal reflection on the aforementioned events.

The Incident

Two nights ago, someone (or a few people) painted the kiosks–a place typically used for announcing campus events–with hate speech that read: “Build a wall / build it tall”


Student Response

The kiosks remained painted until around 11 or 12 when students stepped up to do the job no one else would. First painting them white and then painting a message of their own: “Wall or No Wall, We Stand Tall / Land of Immigrants.”


Throughout the day students have both called out the administration on social media, speculated what half-ass apology we’d received, and waited for something, anything, from the administration (which is standard procedure for discriminatory incidents).

Administrative Response

Approximately 8 hours after that , we received an email from Cornell’s Administration. Specifically from John Harp (Vice President of Student Affairs) and apparently signed off by Schvalla R. Rivera (Assistant Dean of Students/Director of Intercultural Life). It reads as follows:

Screen Shot 2016-04-12 at 10.02.58 AM


Like any English major, let me begin by examining the language.

Free speech can, at times, cause frustration, anxiety, and fear, especially among groups who have felt marginalized.

“I don’t feel marginalized. I am marginalized. That’s sociology 101″ (Kahn Branch ’16). While I just quoted one peer’s response, many other PoC at Cornell took to Facebook to express that same sentiment. I don’t feel marginalized; I am marginalized. I was marginalized before Cornell and will continue to be after. It is pervasive.

To be marginalized is to be social disadvantaged and relegated to the fringe of society.

I wake up marginalized every day. I watch my favorite television shows and no one looks like me. I pick up a comic, still no Latinas. I go to class and study British Literature, non-dramatic renaissance literature, and Shakespeare to prepare myself to teach students of color in Chicago.

I am learning to teach them about people who do not look like them either.

I student-taught high school seniors in Chicago and a few, with some of the highest marks, were undocumented. I return to campus: lucky to be a natural born U.S citizen and proud to be the daughter of an immigrant. Everyone is still white and they are telling me, “it must have been hard teaching seniors in Chicago.” It would’ve been easier with better government policies and enough funding to cover the dry erase markers. But I taught on the South Side of Chicago and  institutionalized racism/classism has already decided who these kids are going to be. It occurred to me that I’ve never had a Latino professor who wasn’t teaching me Spanish. And suddenly, I am both student-teacher and symbol.

Last block, I took Spanish 103. I purposefully selected the professor who looked like me and people asked me, “why does that even matter?”

So yesterday when I walked out of my residence hall to read “Build a wall/ make it tall.” I couldn’t help but think of all the walls that already exist.

So when the administration has the gall to tell me the words “Build a wall/ make it tall” may have caused distress because they made me feel marginalized, I realize there are a few possible explanations:

A) Cornell College  knows nothing about minority experiences.

B) Cornell College refuses to acknowledge minority experiences because they do not care enough to say anything (at the risk of calling out the white majority).

C) A little bit of both.


The message “build a wall / make it tall” was written in the middle of the night. It was anonymous. It was a message of hate because it’s a sentiment born from xenophobia and racism. On a political level, Cornell can’t stop people from voting for racist and xenophobic policies. But they can at least call a spade a spade. This message was completely unprovoked and random. There is literally no reason for its existence outside of being hateful, and for that reason it cannot be tolerated.

So when Cornell ends its email with:

When a message is considered offensive, the hope is that counter speech and civil discourse emerge to rebut it. The ultimate power is more speech, not less.

I can’t help by think of someone else who is passionate about free speech:


I know Cornell College cares about allowing space for the white majority to publicly undermine my existence. I know Cornell covers hate speech by “encouraging a conversation.”

Cornell College will let a hate message towards immigrants be written on a community space and then will turn around and brag about their population of international students.

No matter how high my GPA is, no matter how many awards I get, no matter how many professors I love, no matter how many leadership positions I hold Cornell College has reminded me none of this really matters. I am still less than.

“There are some borders you can’t cross by foot… And so [I] wonder if [my] family ever crossed the border or if [we] are just stuck inside another one…” (Denice Froham, Borders).

45 thoughts on ““In the spirit of community”: How Cornell College fails students of color

  1. What I’m getting from this is an inane sense of entitlement. I know that “illegal” is a politically incorrect word, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue–people are in the country illegally. I don’t personally support mass deportation but it’s important to give people who hold that political opinion the same consideration as those who share your own. Your views aren’t special.

    Also, saying that teaching Shakespeare–one of the most influential writers of any race, at any time–is somehow bad because he’s white is completely silly.

    • Thank you for reading! My views are to respect the feelings and experiences of marginalized groups on campus (in this case Latinos) so I certainly hope these views are not special or unique.

      The issue here is not that the political view of “needing to secure our borders/create immigration reform” should not be allowed on campus. Rather, that “Build a wall” is far too simplistic to convey the nuances required to actually secure our borders and address the “issue” of illegal immigration.

      You do not have to be “okay” with illegal immigration. But the kiosks are used–at their core–to send a message to the student body. Typically its used for events and birthdays. So when you paint on the kiosks “build a wall, build it tall” you are sending a message and it is one of hate:

      You are telling the latino & immigrant/refugee community they are not welcome. This is why it is hate speech. And that’s something we cannot let stand at an institution that prides itself on critical thinking.
      I do love Shakespeare and never said he was bad because he was white. Rather, I was pointing out that the English cannon is filled with white writers which, unfortunately, is limiting in terms of racial representation.

      • Feels more like you’re projecting your own personal insecurities on another’s message instead of applying that same critical thinking you preach. It’s a simplistic message, but that doesn’t mean it’s targeting anybody.

    • @Anon: racism isn’t in what is said, it’s in the attitude with which it’s said.

      Laying out a cogent argument for border security, focused on economic and social harms, is a political statement. Spraypainting the slogan of a racist politician in the middle of the night is not. And it’s because of the attitude apparent behind the message.

      You can claim that Trump isn’t a racist, and we can agree to disagree on that if you want. But it’s abundantly clear that ‘Build a Wall’ is taken by people of color to be a racist statement–meaning it is believed by everyone other than Trump supporters that this statement is motivated by hatred and racism. Even people who believe Trump and his supporters aren’t racist when they say this KNOW that others believe it IS racist.

      So given that people know this, and that the painter of the slogan KNEW it would cause distress and NOT be taken as a political message, we can conclude that painting the slogan anonymously in the middle of the night (and sneaking back days later with masks on to do it again) can only be taken reasonably as something done with racist intent.

      And no, it’s not important to give EVERY opinion equal play. Not every opinion needs to be respected simply because someone holds it. Some opinions are horrible, malevolent even. Accepting legitimate political statements is not the same thing as accepting hate-motivated slogans painted anonymously.

      This is not about the politics of illegal immigration–it’s about hatred of a group of people. To think it’s about politics is to miss the boat entirely.

  2. No. Build a wall is definitely a direct reference to immigration from Mexico and with that are many other layers of marginalization which is why “build a wall, make it tall” is an offensive thing to spray paint in the middle of campus. I’ll leave it at that. For more details get to the google.

    • So what you’re saying is that you’re making assertions without any actual support, and then directing me to “the google” because your argument is too weak for you to defend it yourself?

      • No. What I’m saying is I don’t feel this conversation can be productive at this juncture. Please note that hate speech is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. While symbols and slurs from decades ago are very readily accepted as being hateful, other things such as “build a wall, make it tall” may SEEM more nuanced to some. I have provided reasons as to why it is, in fact, hate speech based on my aforementioned definition.

        There are a lot of PoC voices that exist in regards to this issue. I have provided mine and responded several times.

        At this point I am simply encouraging you to seek out/listen to more of those voices because you seem to feel I am being unfair and am projecting. So perhaps hearing other voices outside of my own would be helpful.

        Best of luck!

      • On the contrary, she’s trying to end the argument because she’s decided that there’s no point going on if you won’t even acknowledge her points. If you look back at your posts you’ll notice that she has offered a counter-point to each argument you raised while you responded with vague, unrelated remarks.

        For example, you claimed she was projecting her “personal insecurities”. What’s up with that? What does that even mean? Sadly, any reader of this argument can only guess at what your point is because you don’t elaborate on that point or connect it to what she said in any way. Most likely because it doesn’t. Next, you claimed that the statement wasn’t targeting anyone. I’ll admit that some people might see a wall as defensive structure and therefore not capable of “targeting” anyone but the context is pretty clearly about excluding people from Latin America. If you think that mentality ISN’T being/going to be directed at anyone who looks Latino well then I’m not sure what to say to you.

        Not to mention that in my day Cornell students were smart enough to know that a border wall is actually impossible.

      • Anonymous objectors are cowards. It’s a simplistic message, but that doesn’t mean it’s targeting anybody.

  3. One item I would like to add to this discussion (as a Cornell alum) is that – while the Administration makes it sound as if free speech cannot be infringed upon on campus – the campus itself is in fact private property. It doesn’t matter if the message qualifies as “hate speech” in a court of law, etc. The college *could* make its own determination on the matter, but is choosing to not. There could not be a bigger cop-out email than what was sent to you all, for which I am deeply disappointed.

    • I agree. There was a lot to cover but that’s one point I wish I highlighted (and a point that was brought up during the Union Latino talk back). Thanks for your insight. As a current student and soon to be alum, I–too–am disappointed.

    • Another alum chiming in. So dissappointed in Cornell’s response. It could not have been more shallow and more sympathetic to the blatantly hateful message. At bare minimum there should have been a statement indicating that Cornell did not support the contents of the message. But that was nowhere to be seen – in the text or the subtext. I’m angry that the message was written of course, but I’m even more horrified at the school’s response to it. It solidifies that this was absolutely not an “isolated incident” but a major problem with campus culture thay goes all the way to the top.

    • Another Cornell alum, here. I completely agree. While any college should be a place where speech and debate are encouraged, it’s appalling that the administration has chosen a hands-off approach instead of actively ensuring that all students feel valued, welcome, and SAFE. The administration had the opportunity to affirm that this kind of hate speech is unacceptable and they failed.

    • I am also an alum and I totally agree with you. Not to mention the fact that “”build a wall” is not ambiguous–it means “you are not welcome here.” For a place that created (and hopefully still creates) a family for all Cornellians, Cornell needs to do better.

  4. Isn’t “build a wall” very exactly a public policy position held by the Republican party? If not, strict border security certainty is. Why is the statement of a widely held policy proposal treated as anything more than just that? Is it possible anymore for one to be in favor of a secure southern border without marginalizing minorities? Throughout my time at the college, I felt that conservative ideals, particularity those of the republican party, were censured with undue righteousness and regularity. Doesn’t this blog post limit the ability for conservative students articulate their beliefs and contribute to the fore-mentioned problem? Conservatives and minorities aren’t mutually exclusive sets or necessarily at odds – opinions can and do overlap and policy agendas cut across demographic lines in ways you’re unlikely to anticipate. Don’t presume free speech (of a sincerely held conservative policy position [“build a wall”] in response to a reasonable and relevant political issue [border security]) is at odds with minority advancement; Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Mr Harp’s response was right on the money.

    • I do not believe you can simply say this is conservative ideology. BUT If you truly believe that “build a wall” is the sentiment of the republican party isn’t the fact that this occurred with no response of condemnation from Cornell proof that conservatives AREN’T censored?

    • Do you really think that anonymously spraypainting a message you KNOW is offensive to others, in the middle of the night, should be regarded as a legitimate statement of public policy?

      What is the purpose of public policy statements? To affect change, right? Is there any expectation of this message affecting change?

      What is the purpose of messages proclaimed with racist intent? To make people angry and afraid, right? There clearly is an expectation of achieving that goal.

      1) This was a message painted by an idiot–although a legitimately politically concerned idiot, one who doesn’t understand that spraypainted messages are idiotic ways to engage in sincere discussions of public policy.
      2) This was a message painted by a racist, with the intent of making others angry and afraid.

      Which do you think is more likely? Honestly, not being salty here. Do you really, really, think that what happened is someone said “Hey, I have a sincerely held political belief about immigration policies that I would like to communicate with others. I don’t believe this message will be viewed as hateful at all. So I’ll spraypaint it anonymously in the middle of the night. THAT is the best way to get my political statements out there.”

      That’s what you think we should assume happened?

  5. Do you consider the Great Wall of China to be offensive? I mean, the goal of it was to prevent Mongolians and invaders from conquering China, and by this logic persons of Mongolian heritage should be offended as it still stands. Its even considered one of the seven wonders of the modern world.

    • That is an utterly ridiculous comparison and does not even deserve a response. But, in the spirit of freedom of speech, let’s assume it does. No one from Mexico is trying to “conquer” America. Undocumented or not, Mexican and Latin American immigrants seek the same ideals of many Americans: to live a better life, to provide for their families, to be seen as HUMAN BEINGS. “Build a Wall” isn’t a matter of policy. It’s a statement made because people have internalized the racist and hateful notion that anyone “south of the border” will only bring turmoil to this country. It seems like policy because it is related to OTHER policy issues related to immigration. Building a wall won’t solve anything. Building a wall is a way of saying, “No matter who you are, if you aren’t from here, I don’t like you and I don’t trust you.” And those kinds of generalizations are hateful.

    • “Do you consider the Great Wall of China to be offensive?”

      Well…it was build with slave labor. So yes.

      But no, you’re right. Having been to the US border myself and seen the literal armies of charioteering Mexicans bent on raiding our capitol and burning our farmland was very reminiscent of the Zhou Dynasty being raided by the Xianyun. I mean, they have battle plans and everything. Trebuchet, even.

  6. Thanks for this post and conversation. I’m sure John Harp would approve of these conversations, for these conversations are the “counter response and civil discourse” in response to the message on the kiosk. These conversations are the correct response to the kiosk. I am hopeful that the painted message was an attempt to give those a voice who believe a wall is a good policy decision. After all…it may be. Nobody really, really knows. My guess, however, is that the message, “Build a wall, build it tall,” goes beyond trumpeting a warning to illegal immigrants, and probably was meant to inspire fear in the hearts of all non-white Americans. I may be wrong. If I’m not, it is unfortunate that there are students at Cornell that would want to incite pain on innocent people with their words. It makes me very sad. And I’m sorry for anyone who feels hurt by the kiosk message. Unfortunately, regardless of the author’s intentions, they have every right to say those words or express their opinions publicly on a community kiosk. That’s why Cornell doesn’t need to issue an apology for the kiosk message. Our US Supreme Court, after all, has decidedly ruled 8-1 that any speech that is not immediately physically dangerous is completely legal. And I am guessing that Cornell does not want to break the law.

    But stepping back for a moment, we still cannot concretely say we know the intention behind the message. As an English major, you know that the truth of a message relies on the interpretation of the reader as much as the intention of the author.

    If we interpret “Build a wall, build it tall” as a shout-out for policies that make the immigration process more fair, it can hardly be considered hate speech. Building a wall is an extension of a “paper and bureaucratic wall” that every legal immigrant must already traverse. I think back to the “No Budging” rule, the unwritten rule in grade school; it’s very important that people at the end of the line don’t get to the front of the line without due process. Similarly, anyone who enters America without waiting in line understandably makes others upset.

    “No budging,” some might scream. They can scream and shout as loud as anyone else. Even if they happen to be white Americans. It’s their right.

    So…on its face, this message could simply be that. And for that reason, it is not necessarily hate speech.

    But I hear you.

    I believe this message, taken in a larger context, is unfortunately heavy with threatening, potentially violent undertones. Although the message is in some ways just the opinion of one person or a handful of people who sprayed the paint, it can make one feel as though a majority of people feel that way, simply because it’s posted publicly. (Luckily, only 30% of Americans support Trump, which is a minority of Americans). Nevertheless, this message is derived from a minority political opinion that–in the current political climate–has in the past inflicted emotional pain on sympathizers to aggrieved minority groups. “Build a wall” originated from the mouth of Donald Trump, who has said one of the reasons to build a wall is to keep out “rapist Mexicans” since they cause violence and damage to our economy. Although this statement, and by extension the idea of building a wall, might make some people sad or angry, this belief or opinion is not illegal. And–again–building a wall might or might not be a bad idea regarding illegal immigration. Simply because public opinion favors NO WALL (judging from the 70% of Americans who do not want Donald Trump to be President) does not necessarily mean it’s a bad idea. Regardless, this “wall building” has definitely been shown to cause pain, and I can think of many reasons why it’s a pretty tactless argument in support of every immigrant following the law. So whether or not the original intention of the message was benign, the end effect of this kiosk message, taken in context, inflicts pain. And any smart college student should have known it would cause pain. And that’s why I personally believe the author intended to cause a stir.

    But…unfortunately…it MAYBE could have been a benign, delightfully naive stickler for following rules with zero intelligence, unable to deduce the effect of a string of politically potent words. So we cannot rule out the possibility that a genuinely well-intended individual, just too stupid to realize that these words potentially could cause harm, might have wanted to declare their support for following immigration rules.

    After all, there are some stupid people out there, even on college campuses.

    A similar message appeared on the kiosk during my time at Cornell. “Impeach Obama Now” was sprayed on the kiosk the day after he was elected in 2008. Obama had not done anything impeachable as far as I could tell, unless he faked his birth certificate and became president illegally. There was a similar tumultuous response to the message on the kiosk then. People thought it was racist. Students threatened to leave Cornell. Some wanted the author to be all but beheaded. But although the words carried racial undertones, the author could merely have thought Obama broke the law.

    And either way, regardless of the author’s intentions, the fact of the matter is this: everyone is entitled to their opinions as long as no one gets physically hurt.

    Scream and shout at anyone who incites racism. Stand them on trial if you believe they should be punished. That’s all very good. Cornell has indicated they are “continuing to meet with student leaders” and I’m sure if evidence came to light that the authors intended to incite pain and suffering, Cornell would scold and reprimand any individuals appropriately. But that’s about all they should do.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some opinions are clearly more right than others, but for better or for worse, we live in a democracy where anyone can say practically anything they want. How nice it would be to restrict some free speech, but alas, we must continue to hear the stupid shit others say and all we can do is pile it back on them. That is American discourse. Civil? Maybe not. Free, forever it will be.

    Thanks for reacting to the kiosk message in your post. It is exactly what John Harp is looking for as a response. I hope you will continue to be a leader, to maintain a high GPA, and win many, many more awards as you scale the many, many walls our country has built. After not very long, no walls will hold you back!!!

    • “Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”

      But that doesn’t mean that everyone is entitled to immunity from the consequences of voicing their opinions. It is no restriction of my free speech if private individuals, including private institutions, decide that I am not welcome on private property when I state my opinions.

      You also seem to be asking for *certainty* when we determine the intent of others’ actions. This is impossible, in any situation. There are reasonable standards to apply. It *could be* that someone painting a swastika on the side of a building is an attempt to object to the perversion of a Hindu holy symbol by the Nazis. Or a simple indication of an admiration for bold, simple graphic design of a group logo. You have no way of guaranteeing that the anonymous swastika painter is really being racist.

      Are you actually unprepared to allow people to take reasonable inductive positions on issues like this? We can’t call it racism without reading someone’s mind?

      • First, our nation is built on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, I would want concrete evidence of a person’s intentions before I punished anyone. (Proving a person’s intentions are very tricky, which is why I’m guessing Cornell has taken a long time to respond or punish anyone before knowing with certainty that “hate speech” was committed).

        I agree that this seems a LOT like hate speech when viewing the specific words within our current political climate. However, I don’t know WHO did this, nor what their intentions were. So to ban the words, “Build a wall, build it tall” or punish anyone at this point seems premature.

        Secondly, I agree that no one has “immunity” if they voice an opinion. Everything we say has consequences. But those consequences can manifest as public outcry (such as this blog) or in contrasting opinions (such as the alternative kiosk message, “Wall or no wall, we stand tall”). Those consequences are the correct immediate responses to a situation such as this. If the private institution, on the other hand, reacted immediately to this situation by banning those words or kicking a student out of the institution, it would have sent a different controversial message: if you write something on the wall that we don’t like, you’re kicked out of the college. Furthermore, your belief that “It is no restriction of my free speech if private individuals, including private institutions, decide that I am not welcome on private property when I state my opinions” is similarly controversial. For example, if the Cornell administration decided that, “If you own a gun, you’re no fun” was hate speech towards gun-owners and proceeded to kick them out of the college, then suddenly we know that Cornell might kick out anyone who writes on the wall a message Cornell deems controversial or “hate speech”.

        So…yes…it’s dangerous and potentially harmful to have limited restrictions on what can be written, it’s also a very powerful tool of free speech and communication, which ultimately allows Cornell to remain a place of peaceable arguments about controversial issues.

        I would rather have nice, beautiful messages displayed publicly at all times, where everyone gets along and we just love each other, but that’s not the world we live in. Instead, Cornell is rightly allowing the kiosk to accurately reflect some painful realities of the community, which is a much more transparent and beneficial asset to the community than a strict ban on hate speech.

  7. I am from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Chicagoan and I just happened to click on this article that a friend of mine shared. This was fantastic. I think the silver lining in all of this is that we are able to see that we are not alone in our respective struggles. There have been a ton of college administrations that have not addressed hate speech well enough, and it is up to the students to call them out. Good luck!

  8. Thanks so much for sharing this, Janet. I’m a Cornell alum and during my time there, there were several hateful, racist, and anonymous acts on campus similar to this one. In response, the administration held a big “community conversation” where anyone could stand up and say what hey wanted. Part of it was good, but part of it wasn’t. A white athletic coach went up and said he “doesn’t see race” to the collective groan in the room. But at least many black students had an opportunity to share their perspective of being a student at Cornell in front of a lot of white students, faculty, and staff.

    A lot of the problem at Cornell, when I was there, was that any conversation surrounding race was sterile and abstract. Cornell also has a larger population of color than my senior year, and much larger than my freshman year. I hope to hear about increased dialogue around campus as well as a stronger stance from the administration. I’m not sure that John Harp/Cornell should apologize for this message. However, taking a firm stance against racism is a must, always. While I’m not up-to-date on what’s currently happening on campus, it’s pretty clear that Cornell needs to explicitly address racism and hate on campus. Saying that counselors are available after the fact is not enough. There needs to be a stronger response to hateful incidents, as well as active messaging on campus ALWAYS, not just when someone makes a public, racist gesture.

    Finally, Cornell needs to hire more faculty and staff of color. When I was at Cornell, people of color continued to make up a larger percentage of the student body each year. However, the number of professors of color that we had was probably 7 or fewer (this is just a guess). As I said, Cornell’s actions at all times, not just in times of outrage and hurt, need to reflect a more cultivated cultural competency and a stronger commitment to build a welcome and safe environment for all of its students.

    Thank you for sharing your voice.

  9. Pingback: Alejandro González Iñárritu’s new film, The Invisible Man, “too experimental.” Fans and Hollywood outraged by lack of cast. – The Thirsty Thespian

  10. I’m old enough to remember in the mid 90s when a Christian group painted the kiosk on Easter morning with 3 crosses and the message “he is risen”. When those students returned from services at noon the kiosk had been repainted with upside down crosses and the message “he is dead”. No campus conversation about feelings required.

    • So there was no campus-wide discussion when the ruling majority of the nation–Christians–were the target of an attack?

      How negatively were we Christians affected by this? Did we feel unsafe on campus? Did we show up at the courthouse to find the Ten Commandments taken down? Did the US or Iowa Senate stop offering up a Christian prayer at the beginning of each session? Did Cornell stop being affiliated with a Christian denomination? Were Christians asked not to publicly display the signs or clothing of their religion? Was God removed from our money and pledge of allegiance?

      Not trying to be a jerk here, but to make a point. That was a harmful event, no doubt. But campus-wide conversations to protect the ruling majority aren’t needed. The entire system protects us already.


  11. Pingback: Things I wish I knew before, during, and after college. | College In The Cornfield

  12. Pingback: College Fail | Make Education Great Again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s