The Cornell Review — articles

Divided We Stand?

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

Fight the Fee protest leaders are seeking to unite the student body to oppose the $350 student health fee and to drastically alter the University’s system of shared governance.

What they fail to tell you is that they really only care about placing themselves into positions of power, and most students might also be a little more than surprised if they knew about the harsh criticism Fight the Fee leaders Daniel Waid Marshall ‘15, Keanu Stryker ‘17, and Zakiya Wells ‘17 have for students whose majors fall under the Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM) categories, and for those in the Dyson school.

The outright disdain and snarky comments aimed at students pursuing those majors was bizarre and seemingly antithetical to their objective of uniting the student body behind them, considering probably half of students at Cornell major in those criticized fields.

Fight the Fee leaders plunged into this divisive rhetoric at last Thursday’s Fight the Fee teach-in dubbed “$350 is Everything.” Though open to the public, the 25 or so in attendance were clearly those sympathetic or part of the Fight the Fee protest group.

The hour-long presentation and discussion started off with Marshall outlining the basic grievances and demands of Fight the Fee, and, presumably, the leftist community on campus at large. Some of these demands included the creation of a Student Union, a student-comprised entity with veto power over all administrative policy decisions, and “greater respect” from administrators.

“[These] incredibly reasonable demands [are a] radical departure from the world we live in,” said Marshall.

Marshall and Stryker then took turns accosting the University, its administration, and its board of trustees and levying accusations of financial imprudence and corruption, including what they referred to as “administrative bloating.”

“[Cornell’s] rising tuition is going to people who explain why tuition is rising,” Marshall claimed. He specifically identified Vice President of University Relations Joel Malina as one such superfluous administrator.

Following this, Marhsall spoke at length concerning what Fight the Fee calls the “neoliberal university.” According to a PowerPoint slide accompanying this segment of the presentation, a neoliberal university is a “a global corporation focused on the highest return on its investments (including you).” Marshall identified the neoliberal university’s ability to self-regulate, its emphasis on individual responsibility instead of community support, and prioritization of financial relationships---”donors over diversity”---as major problems.

While Marshall dominated the presentation, it was Stryker who launched into the baffling criticism of students whose majors are STEM-related. Stryker started off casually mentioning budget cuts to theater and dance programs, but soon became visually distraught and began to speak at length about the University’s preference for funding non-humanities programs because they are more lucrative and garner the University more acclaim. He specifically identified medical research and the College of Engineering as improper destinations of increased University funding. Stryker then asked those in the audience to raise their hands if they were humanities majors, and, separately, if they were not, but it was unclear what his intentions were.

Later, Wyatt Nelson ‘16 delivered a well-prepared rebuke of various criticisms that have been levied against the call for the creation of a Student Union on campus, an idea which he helped craft along with Andrew Soluk ‘15, both of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. As to the point of student involvement in policy-making, Nelson brushed aside claims that students are unable to pass professional judgment upon University policy. He referenced universities in other countries where students have similar levels of power on their campuses, and also argued that students in “one of the best business schools in the world”--here referring to Cornell’s undergraduate business program, the Dyson School--should be able to manage the University. While this quip might have been a joke--and audience members did laugh at it--like Stryker’s comments it seemed more divisive than constructive (note: the author of this article is in the Dyson School).

Additionally, Nelson clearly has little understanding of the complexity in running a multi-billion dollar, international organization. His words are invigorating, but ultimately empty. Just because Fight the Fee leaders want students in control at Cornell does not mean an oligarchy of the left-most of leftist students on campus could competently run the University.

Through their rhetoric and attitudes displayed towards those students whose worldview does not revolve around “struggle,” it is clear Fight the Fee students--who unsurprisingly are the Save the Pass, Cornell Organization for Labor Action, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Telluride House leaders--seek to divide students as thoroughly as possible--by socio-economic status, by race, ethnicity, creed, gender, by political ideology, and even by major. They seek to divide students in an attempt to garner power for themselves. Any time and effort spent supporting them will go unappreciated in the end, and you will surely be left in their dust.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

Day Hall Takeover a Bust

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

A live-stream of student protestors occupying, arguing, and debating with Cornell administrators during the Day Hall takeover on Feb. 9 met a wide range of criticism, including that on online forums, such as “Overheard at Cornell.”

Student commenters on a post of the live-stream objected to what they perceived as protestors’ rude interactions with University President David Skorton. Facebook user Taha Ahmad ’15 commented, “It’s one thing to dislike having to pay an additional fee, but it’s another to ask questions you don’t even want answers for, cut off the answers at every turn, and make demands you don’t seem to fully understand.”

Several protestors in Skorton’s office did bring up concerns about the nature of the protests, citing their fear that the intensity would alienate potential supporters. Throughout the duration of the occupation of Day Hall, students justified the use of confrontational tactics and language, including swearing at or in the vicinity of administrators.

Immediately preceding President Skorton’s entrance, Daniel Marshall ‘15 stated, “He [Skorton] is going to be like, ‘we’re disrespecting him.’ He’s going to be like, ‘you’re in this space, you’re stopping people from doing their jobs.’”

Marshall and other students argued that Skorton’s aggrievement was simply a tactic to distract students from the issue at hand. Later, student protestors also discussed respectability politics, or the idea that the protesting group should water-down and police their attitudes to be palatable to the student population as a whole.

Many students, however, did focus on the protestors’ tone and tactics. Some worried that negative interactions with administrators would hurt the chances of a compromise on or repeal of the fee.

In a comment to The Cornell Review, Joey Vinegrad ’15 stated he thought that although the Day Hall occupation was “the right way to voice our concerns and get the administration's attention” he felt that some interactions “reflected poorly on the movement and drove away some student support.”

“I understand this is a serious issue that demands more transparency from the administration and more inclusion of the student voice, and I think moving forward we will have more productive conversations to this end,” Vinegrad went on to say.

Student Assembly Vice President for Internal Operations Matthew Henderson ’16 stated that although he thought the movement lost some momentum following the protest, he also believed that the organizers made a serious attempt to achieve concrete gains.

“I think it is good that the leaders have tried to make it tangible in terms of the group discussing what they want to see and next steps,” Henderson said. “But in general it didn’t seem very productive, and I’ve lost hope that this [the fee] is going to change.”

The occupation of Day Hall definitely represented the workings of a protest machine, drawing largely from the talents of the Save-the-Pass coalition. The organizers of the protest assigned police liaisons, asked administrators to address the group as a whole, and refused to name a concrete group of leaders or organizers. As stated above, even the usage of confrontation and profanity came in response to the idea of respectability politics.

Whereas the protest did not result in the repeal or reduction of the health fee, video footage of the occupation has garnered national attention and has been shown on Fox News and Fox Business networks. Additionally, despite its polarizing effect on the student body, footage of the protests has drawn out debate on administrative transparency, shared governance, and the health fee.

However, many students still speculate that a large portion of the student population and alumni base must speak out before the administration alters the fee. Thus, the nature and influence of protests, actions, and demonstrations could have a great effect on the success of #FightTheFee.

At time of writing, an organizer of Fight The Fee, Michael Ferrer ’17, did not respond for a request for comment.

As of right now, it seems that the movement has calmed a bit, now consisting primarily of teach-ins and student assembly meetings. With a reduction in intensity, it now remains to be seen whether more students and alumni will also raise opposition against the fee.

Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.

Say What? U-Michigan Spends $16,000 on 'Inclusive Language Campaign'

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

In an attempt to be more “inclusive,” the University of Michigan (UM) has launched a campaign to limit the utterance of certain words on campus.

The university spent $16,000 on efforts to restrict the use of words and phrases such as “crazy,” “gypped,” “ghetto,” “insane,” “I want to die,” “illegal alien,” and “that test raped me.” This cost coincidentally came at the time of two successive years of tuition and fee increases.

While the policy of restricting the use of ordinary words sounds like something a parent would do only for the youngest of children, the project was meant to educate, and not to regulate. Students attending the university were encouraged to fill out reflective surveys and attend workshops related to the campaign and events. Students can still see posters and banners across campus with quotes and blurbs related to the movement.

The Inclusive Language Campaign’s page on the university’s website states, “ILC aims to encourage the campus community to consider the impact of their word choices on others. The ILC raises awareness about the power of words, why certain language can be hurtful to others, and how to be more inclusive in how we speak and act as members of the Michigan campus community.”

The project “is a great program,” UM student Kidada Malloy told the Michigan Daily, “because it will improve the day-to-day language of students on campus by providing education around words that are offensive.”

However, chief editor of the Michigan Review Derek Draplin thinks differently. Stating that he thought the campaign is “meant for third graders,” he says that “spending money to do this is a waste because ultimately it’s an individual’s choice to both use offensive language and take offens[e] to certain language.” Draplin goes on to say that nationwide, students “are more concerned with their emotional security than their personal liberties.”

The concept of preventing others from using certain words based on their potential to offend is unreasonable for two reasons. First, the words are usually not meant to offend—when you hear Cornellians saying that their recent prelim “raped” them, do you think their real objective is to insult a woman who has been raped? Second, it is out of a speaker’s control which words are offensive. It could be argued, for example, that the word “lucky” is offensive, because that was the name of someone’s dog that just died.

It is, as Draplin noted, a choice to be offended. The hypersensitivity and tiptoeing that we are seeing here only aids in instilling fear of saying anything at all. The artificial silence that results from these types of campus campaigns is a far more serious issue than a few hurt feelings.

UM spokesman Rick Fitzgerald told The College Fix that a goal of the Inclusive Language Campaign is to “address campus climate by helping individuals understand that their words can impact someone and to encourage individuals to commit to creating a positive campus community.” When asked about the possibility of the campaign encroaching on free speech, Fitzgerald said, “we believe this program has just the opposite effect…it will make discourse more constructive by respecting the views and perspectives of others.” Fitzgerald believes “a campus conversation about the impact of words is good for everyone.”

Similar efforts to limit free speech and foster “inclusion” (read political correctness) have been ever increasing in recent years. Increasing “diversity” requirements (the University of Maryland budgeted $15,000 for a diversity and inclusion program in 2012), mandatory programs like Cornell’s Tapestry show, and other attempts to move toward more politically correct and silenced campuses have plagued the nation. Last year, we saw the development of “free speech zones” on multiple campuses. Students of the University of Hawaii were even stopped from handing out copies of the Constitution outside of such zones. Since when have our Constitutional rights been qualified, or limited to zones?

It seems that the students who attend these universities are getting gypped of their money, as well as their rights to speak freely.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.

Columbia University Grad Requirement: Writing Poems about Sexual Assault

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

While Cornell students are no strangers to ridiculous graduation requirements, at least ours have never included poetry writing. With the introduction of a new sexual respect education program, however, the same will shortly no longer be true of Columbia University.

On Feb. 11, Columbia University introduced its newest graduation requirement: a sexual education program designed to combat sexual assault on campus. In order to receive their diplomas, Columbia students will now be required to comply with one of four options: watch and discuss short films, submit an anonymous reflection on one of two TED talks, participate in an hour-long workshop, or create a work of art or a poem that somehow reflects on sexual respect.

The program was drafted with the help of students at Barnard College, the women’s liberal arts college affiliated with Columbia. Barnard students, however, will not be required to participate in the program.

Ironically, the strongest critics of the new sexual education program include some of Barnard’s and Columbia’s most vocal opponents of sexual violence. In an interview with Campus Reform, Barnard student Michela Weihl stated, “[The program] is poorly designed and demonstrates a willful neglect of both empirical evidence and student feedback.”

In fact, Columbia already had a number of sexual education programs in place during the 2013-2014 academic year. Through orientation programs and voluntary training programs, thousands of students were given the opportunity to learn how to prevent sexual violence. Presumably, such programs could have been expanded in order to create the kind of discussion Columbia is currently looking to promote. Surely a required bystander intervention training session would do more to combat sexual assault than any number of bad poems and cliche-filled essays.

While Columbia might optimistically be expecting that these required exercises will result in thoughtful and creative social commentary, the simple reality is that college students, as a rule, tend to dislike unnecessary graduation requirements. They also tend to minimize the amount of time and effort put into those requirements. As Weihl put it, “When you offer students a choice… they’re going to choose what’s going to take less time.” This suggests that some poor administrator at Columbia will have to sift through piles and piles of bad rhymes and sexual innuendos, with maybe a few hastily-written essays thrown in by the more dedicated students.

The simple fact is that college administrations have no easy way to ensure their students seriously discuss social advocacy topics. One of Cornell’s latest attempts was its required summer reading for incoming freshmen, and it was predictably ineffective. The assigned book was A Clash of Civilizations Over an Elevator in the Piazza Vittorio by Amara Lakhous, who delivers a heavy-handed message about diversity and multiculturalism.

At the beginning of the semester, students attended guided discussions on the reading project (or at least they were supposed to). Of course, there wasn’t much to discuss; it was impossible to miss Lakhous’s heavy-handed message, as each character speaks of nothing but the perceived racism he encounters in his daily life, while vehemently proclaiming, “I am not a racist.”

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Laura Brown stated that the idea behind the choice of novel was to “allow students to explore a wide range of ideas and cultural issues with faculty and students from colleges and schools across the university.”

The summer reading project was Cornell’s attempt to prompt widespread student discussion on a topic most students seem to care about. Was it effective? Not at all. Many students ignored the requirement, failing to either read the book or attend the discussion, with no repercussions. One anonymous student admitted, “I didn’t read the book, and I slept through the discussion.”

Even students who did attend their discussions were able to easily coast through by either not saying anything or making a few commonplace statements about diversity. The fact is that it’s very easy to pretend to care about a social justice topic, if one knows which opinions the administration is looking to hear.

No one can deny campus sexual assault is a serious topic, worthy of serious and productive discussion. Columbia’s approach to the issue, however, is ham-handed at best, or more likely completely off-track. No one can honestly expect that writing a poem will in any way help combat sexual assault— no one, that is, except the administrators at Columbia.

Miranda Hawkins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at meh339@cornell.edu.

Tantrums of the Divided Left

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

The Divide:

The urgent question of Islam and its presence in Western societies has exposed a deep fissure on the political Left in Europe and America.

This ideological divide has now grown into a yawning chasm.

On one side stands the iconoclastic militant atheists who have refused to appease any faith-based claim of favoritism or special treatment in the name of political correctness. Blaspheming without compunction, they represent the living spirit of Voltaire in French Enlightenment thought, which categorically condemned religious identity as necessarily authoritarian and illiberal.

On the other side lies a new strain—that of multiculturalism. This now dominant tendency among the progressives in America and among the social democrats in Europe calls for tolerance for the Other, especially the oppressed Other. Smitten by post-colonial White Guilt, and totally committed to enforcing codes of political correctness, this younger group of culturally sensitive Leftists takes pains so as to avoid offending non-Western peoples and traditions, even if these traditions contravene traditional Enlightenment principles of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and separation of Church and State. Under this ideological rubric, absolute politeness and sensitivity to the Other are paramount. The most taboo thing one could ever be is a suspected racist or intolerant of the Other.

The Trigger:

At no time has this schism between politically incorrect secularists and politically correct multiculturalists been more apparent than in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

This French atheist magazine’s 10 senior staff members - Leftist cartoonists and writers - were slaughtered by Sunni Wahhabi extremists who sought to “avenge the Prophet” of Islam. Responding to Al Qaeda-in-Yemen’s directive to murder the journalists, the killers brutally and publicly acted out of what they believed to be just retaliation for Charlie’s “blasphemous” and offensive cartoons of their beloved Mohammed.

In the French press, on Twitter and on the opinion pages of the New York Times, liberals, socialists, militant atheists and progressives of every stripe represented their respective factions in a pitched battle over the nature of minority rights, religious blasphemy laws, freedom of the press, and the viability of multiculturalism. The question takes on special urgency now, in the face of ethno-religious minorities whose social assimilability has come under question - even in European Left circles.

The Fear: Creeping Racism?

These energetic, though troubled, discussions were ongoing as recently as February 12th, 2015 on Cornell’s very campus.

In an event billed as a panel discussion on Muslim Immigration in a Changing Europe, Cornell professor Camille Robics criticized the French Left for reflexively standing in solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo.

The panel, which included Amara Lakous, an Italian Muslim writer, and Chiara Formichi, a Cornell specialist in South Asian Studies, expressed the fear that the #JesuisCharlie movement—an expression which rallied millions across the world in solidarity with the victims of Salifist extremism—was merely a cover for anti-Muslim racial chauvinism embraced, strikingly, by both Left and Right. They argued that the ‘I am Charlie’ hashtag has been appropriated by political movements of each character and type, and is now a dubious marker, suggesting that Islam is a foreign body in the heart of Western civilization. This line is peddled by French Universalists, secularists, anti-clericists and republicans who have been co-opted by the French exclusionism.

The Republicans vs. The Multiculturalists

Professor Robics indicted the Universalist, secular model of French republicanism - laicite. She explained that under the ideological rubric of laicite, public affirmation of religious identity, especially that of ethnic minorities, is frowned upon, and sectarian particularism - one’s passionate devotion to one’s creed - is to be confined to the individual's private sphere. The “fantasy of a universalist republic should be abandoned because it never existed in the first place, and because it is fundamentally unworkable” Robics said. She argued that the French republican model has erroneously sought to homogenize and abstract difference, make cultural particularisms disappear, and explicitly erases religious and cultural particularity. By doing so, republicanism has displaced the tolerance of Enlightenment pluralism with the chauvinist preference for sameness, which is necessarily exclusive. Insisting on Muslim immigrants to France to suppress their religiosity and embrace secular republicanism is necessarily discriminatory.

The panelists mused over the viability of multiculturalism - the notion that a society can maintain itself with heterogeneous and cultural elements without a cohesive ideological norm or unifying principle - except the norm of promoting “diversity.” They concluded that this model - one in which all difference, even culturally shocking and “alien” differences are tolerated - was preferable to a regime in which faux solidarity is demanded through homogenous sameness in the name of “assimilation.” Assimilation’s roots are problematic, they argued, given its origins in the colonial insistence that native, occupied Algerians adhere to the French hierarchical and Eurocentric social model. The French ought to embrace ethnic and racial “coexistence” among distinct cultures, instead of insisting that newcomers reinvent themselves as French citizens.

The Race Question:

As for the massacre itself, Robics took an opportunity to critique the French center-left, much of which has been protective of Charlie Hebdo, which other Leftists condemned as “racist” for its caricatures of Muslims, Mohammed and Sunni fundamentalism.

She explained a refrain of French secular “apologists” for Charlie: the magazine could not possibly be racist, since Charlie was a Leftist magazine which regularly criticized the “Far Right’s racist attacks on Muslims.” Furthermore, Robics said, Charlie’s defenders argued that criticism of Islam is hardly racist, since attacking and deconstructing a system of religious belief is not a racialist pursuit, but occurs in an ideational space.

Liberals in French magazines lamented the specific target of the attackers: “the Charlie writers and cartoonists were staunch anti-racists, they were pro-minority, against the Far Right, its a shame that these young men attacked the very people who were standing up for immigrant and Muslim rights, these men didn’t target the right-wing papers who actually were racist," said one left commentator.

Robics arguing that, though Islam is indeed a religion and not a race, demeaning Islam can still be construed as racist, since European history has shown that the line between a group’s racial and religious identity is often very blurry. Ridiculing Muslims is racialized in the same sense that ridiculing Jews - as a group - is racialized. For European Jews as well as Algerian migrants to France, the nexus between race and religion makes it impossible to separate racial from religious offense in the French socio-political context.

The Egalitarian Offender?

Answering these defenses of Charlie, Robics retorted that Charlie, although indeed an “equal-opportunity offender,” was blind to the subtle differences between the lived experiences of Muslims and the lived experiences of non-Muslim groups. It’s true that they eviscerated a broad swath of groups, she admitted, but these journalists didn't realize that there is a qualitative difference between criticizing and ridiculing a community which is historically victimized (Muslims) as opposed to criticizing and ridiculing an elite ruling class (say, Catholics or nationalist elites). Victimhood status matters when criticizing groups collectively, and there’s a difference between “punching up” and “punching down” the social power chain. Charlie’s sin was that it punched at an oppressed victim.

Robics then proceeded to show several of Charlie’s more sexually vulgar and shocking pictures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, the Jewish prophet Moses, the Christian founder Jesus, and the Pope. The audience squealed and squirmed in disgust, presumably because some of these appeared "racially charged."

The Long-awaited Reform:

Ending the evening on an unexpected note, Lakous, the Muslim panelist, took a brief moment to discuss the potential of “reformism” in the Islamic world. He explained that he had deep and intimate contacts in Algeria, and from his sources, he thinks that reforming Islam will not be possible in Muslim-majority countries, where "Dictators, on the one hand, and fundamentalists, on the other hand, play with each other,” and their repressive nature reinforces and feeds into each other.

So he dismisses the potential for reforming Islam in these countries because of the absence of "Freedom" there. In contrast, because Muslims in Western countries enjoy more civil liberties, they have a premium opportunity to reform Islam. Besides, since they enjoy the additional advantage of "seeing Islam through a different perspective."

Besides, since they enjoy the additional advantage of "seeing Islam through a different perspective," they are particularly well situated.

Roberto Matos is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

Univeristy Composting Efforts a Pile of Garbage?

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

Are you tired of your personal compost pile stinking up your dorm room? Well then Febreze no more, for the compostable waste bin is here!

It’s the greatest innovation to throwing away garbage in the history of mankind, and it’s now ubiquitous on our hallowed college campus. Walk into Trillium, Martha’s, Manndible’s or Terrace (to name a few local faves) and stop by the colorful display of what many once referred to as trash bins. There, you can read a short novel on how to sort your scraps of food and various food and liquid containers into an array of specific trash, compost, and recycling bins in order to give the ozone layer a bit of a break.

Interested in this whole composting craze, I decided to look into why the new form of waste disposal is so trendy in our little Indie town.

According to CU Compost, an on-campus organization devoted to “landfill diversion and promotion of composting practices,” dining hall and café items including any food, soiled paper, and “yellowish utensils” are all compostable. The organization states that all compost collected is “used as a soil amendment on Cornell’s campus and experimental farms.”

What’s not to like about that?

However, what CU Compost fails to tell its campus comrades is just how ineffective one particular “compostable item” really is.

As it turns out, the once-thought to be eco-friendly “compostable” silverware issued in most on-campus eateries might not be mother earth’s greener-alternative godsend.

As it currently stands, for a utensil to be approved as “biodegradable,” according to the American Society for Testing and Materials, the product need only be capable of “undergoing biological decomposition in a compost site such that the material is not visually distinguishable and breaks down into carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with known compostable materials."

The controversy with these incredibly liberal parameters lies mostly in the idea that biodegradable plastics need only break down into “inorganic” compounds. What this, of course, implies is that a certain bio-plastic product is not required to break down into standard soil – or “humus,” as many greenies refer to it as.

Now I know my Earth-loving companions retort to this: I’m just an ignoramus who doesn't recognize the overarching factor retarding compostable efficacy – landfills and the lack of local infrastructure necessary to facilitate more effective compostable results.

In fact, I understand this quite well. But if the waste-producing public simply invested in commercial composting services to ensure the proper processing of biodegradable material (and kept items such as bio-plastics out of landfills), would composting organizations like CU Compost truly be “diverting” landfill use?

Perhaps our neighbors over on South Hill can answer that one for us.

In a recent article published in Ithaca College’s Ithacan, the eco-rhetoric surrounding the need and support for mainstreamed composting is put to shame, as according to the article, Ithaca College has officially banned all composting of “disposable forks, spoons and knives that are labeled as compostable.”

This all happens in the wake of a major commercial recall of all bio-plastic utensils from Tompkins County’s own Cayuga Compost (a Trumansburg well-known commercial composter), in which toxic contaminates were found in February of 2014. Upon finding such toxic contaminates, there have been extensive efforts to remove the residual bio-plastics from the company’s composts costing the firm over $12,000.

Toxic and costly, at least we can all have that warm-glow sense of public service the next time we divvy up our garbage and utilize the ever-alluring campus compost bin. And hey, at least we’re keeping reusable, biomass out of the big bad landfills.

The only flaw with this rationale is that until regulatory agencies crack down on the bio-plastics industry, an industry previously championed by the environmentally conscious, landfills will continue to be the answer for much of the current biodegradable matter in mass circulation. Where does the compost culture think Ithaca College’s compostable plastic is going now? The answer is in with the rest of the garbage.

Only time will tell how long composting’s tenure will last at Cornell, but as for this adopted Ithacan, I think I’ll continue to pass on that wasting option. After all, I wouldn’t want a squirrel, bear, or mountain cat to be poisoned by contaminated humus. Then I’d just be some diabolical humanist. And that wouldn’t be fair to our nature-faring brethren.

Christopher Nowacki is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@cornell.edu.

Brown University Student: ROTC is 'Criminal'

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

In early February, Brown University student Peter Makhlouf ’16 wrote a disconcerting opinion piece for the Brown Daily Herald branding the military’s Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program as one composed of “criminals.”

ROTC is a college program for students who want to join the armed forces. Over the course of four years, students take military science classes, participate in physical training, and learn a variety of skills and leadership lessons preparing them to commission as officers upon their college graduation.

Makhlouf’s outrage was directed at the action of Brown’s faculty to endorse a resolution supporting the development of an affiliation with Air Force and Navy ROTC programs. He claims that military efforts to recruit high-achieving students are deliberate attempts to rope such individuals into the industry of “state-sanctioned violence.”

It is alarming to see such sentiments voiced at an institution similar to Cornell, and surely, there are individuals here who share Makhlouf’s views. However, Cornell has a long and storied military tradition, one that is far greater and more historically relevant than protests, building occupations, and self-righteous outrage.

At Cornell there has long been the combination of military service with higher education. The first American to carry the flag into battle in World War I, Edward Isley Tinkham, attended Cornell. Cornell inducted more service members in both world wars than any other school in the nation, with the exception of West Point.

The War Memorial on West Avenue in front of Baker Flagpole is a reminder of and testament to the men of Cornell who lost their lives in the First World War. Barton Hall—named for the first Cornelian to earn a commission, Colonel Frank Barton—was even once used as a hangar for military aircrafts.

Famous Cornell alumni in the profession of arms include Thomas C. Reed, former Secretary of the Air Force and special assistant to President Reagan; John M. Paxton Jr., a 4 star General and current Assistant Commandant of the United States Marine Corps; and two Medal of Honor winners. Today, approximately 49 Cornell students are enrolled in ROTC for one of the three services.

Makhlouf’s incendiary article, including the branding of ROTC courses as “the art of killing and torturing,” does not fit the facts, although it is rooted in an admirable and conscientious defense of a sincerely held belief.

Brown has an open curriculum, so no history classes are required, but Makhlouf should familiarize himself with General Douglas MacArthur’s famous words: “The soldier, above all others, prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”

Surely some readers may challenge my view by insisting that Makhlouf has a point. However, his argument fails to stand on its merits. His fear of establishing ROTC programs betrays a weak regard for his fellow students, who might fall prey to a “militant ethos.”

Surely no one, with seriousness, could say such a thing about Cornell. Throughout the article there is a consistent and disturbing fear of being exposed to what he disagrees with. This is a problem beyond ROTC and college campuses; it characterizes the left-wing of American politics today.

At times his piece borders on nonsensical. Claiming indoctrination on the part of ROTC for offering voluntary classes to interested students showcases Makhlouf’s hostility to diversity. It appears in this case, as George Will once wrote, that Makhlouf is “[celebrating] diversity in everything but thought.”

The military is subservient to, takes orders from, and is given direction by the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the respective service secretaries. The military is not the carpenter, but the hammer. It is a tool to accomplish the objectives and protect the interests of the United States, not necessarily in a violent manner.

Makhlouf, seemingly convinced that the military enjoys the rigor and burden of combat, omits the variety of uses of the American military, including the recent Ebola containment mission (from which troops are now returning) and help to countries during natural disasters.

Furthermore, Makhlouf drastically mischaracterizes the motivations of military members. Unsurprisingly, he shows no respect whatsoever for the sacrifices made by countless Americans just so he can live in a world where he is free to write his opinion columns.

As General Nathan Twining once said, “If our air forces are never used, they have achieved their finest goal.” This same principle applies across all of the services.

John Pedro is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jmp488@cornell.edu.

Local Eco-Warriors Oppose Cayuga Plant Conversion to Cleaner Natural Gas

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

You would think environmentalists would cheer on a power plant shifting from burning coal to using cleaner natural gas. You think wrong. Welcome to Tompkins County, New York.

Back in 2012, the nearby town of Lansing’s Cayuga Power Plant requested to shut down, but New York’s Public Service Commission (PSC) blocked the request and instead ordered the plant to transition from coal-burning to natural gas. The same year the plant went bankrupt, but it managed to emerge from bankruptcy a year later. Fast-forward to today, and the Cayuga plant is now facing closure if it does not obtain state approval to transition from coal to natural gas, a retrofitting that is estimated to cost $100 million.

Tompkins County Legislator Mike Sigler, who represents Lansing, was quoted in The Ithaca Voice saying, “It doesn’t look like coal is going to survive in this country, and, frankly, natural gas is the bridge.”

The Cayuga plant is one of the few power plants in New York that still uses coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Natural gas, on the other hand, burns 43% cleaner than coal and 30% cleaner than oil. Knowing this, environmentalists should favor the retrofit, as it would greatly reduce plant emissions that lead to global climate change and acid rain.

Nevertheless, environmentalists oppose the retrofit because they believe it will increase reliance on fossil fuels. They argue investing $100 million in retrofitting the power plant is untenable when alternative and renewable sources of energy can meet the area’s power needs, argues local Cayuga plant opposition leader Irene Weiser. Wesier specifically mentions solar farms as a viable alternative, but there currently is not enough solar energy to meet local energy demands.

The Cayuga plant produces 300 megawatts of electricity, whereas, for example, the current solar array near the Ithaca airport supplies a mere 2 megawatts.

“I’m not saying the world shouldn’t go solar,” said Sigler to The Ithaca Voice, “but it’s going to take some time and we’re not talking 5 years — we’re talking about a while.”

Additionally, the power plant is the county’s biggest private taxpayer. If the plant were to shut down, citizens would have to make up for lost tax collections, or would have to contend with reduced public services; it is highly unlikely the progressive communities in Ithaca, Lansing, and nearby cities would contend with reduced public services.

The plant also provides 70 full-time jobs, and its retrofitting would provide 400 part-time jobs.

Weiser says that Cuomo will work towards giving aid to the county if it chooses not to rebuild the plant. But what guarantee is there? Furthermore, this aid money would just be coming from other state taxpayers, unduly burdening those who have nothing to do with the Cayuga plant.

Besides, no one should ever feel comfortable relying on state aid as part of one’s argument. Self-sufficiency in Tompkins County should be sought after, and aid should be seen as a last resort.

Weiser brings up another point: the $100 million price tag may be burdensome, as the funding would come from Tompkins County. Although this is a substantial cost, the future tax revenue that would result from the retrofitting would outweigh the present expense.

According to the Cayuga plant, if it closes, property taxes in Lansing will increase by 12%, utility bills would increase by $600 per home, county taxes will increase by 1%, and the school will lose $1.25 million in revenue, resulting in 15 teacher lay-offs. This is all in addition to the loss of the 70 full time jobs the power plant provides. These numbers, of course, are from the Cayuga Plant and might be exaggerated.

Shutting down the Cayuga power plant would be detrimental for Lansing and Tompkins County as a whole. The loss in jobs and tax revenue provided by the plant are too large a price to pay for a shutdown. But since this is a utility, the free market doesn’t have final say. The decision to allow the plant to convert to natural gas, and thus stay open, is up to the PSC.

Benjamin Rutkovsky is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at bmr88@cornell.edu.

When Will the Killing Stop?

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

Parking disputes have never been so fatal. The tragic murder of three young Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill was initially described by perpetrator Craig Hicks’ wife as an act caused by a parking dispute. Hicks supposedly put a bullet in the head of each victim, execution-style, for this motive.

It is difficult to believe that such a preposterous explanation could gain even a modicum of credibility, and yet, while the local police force investigated the crime, this motive was used to bat away the elephant in the room: rising Islamophobia and its growing consequences in America.

Recent events have rightly magnified criticism on the more radical Islamic factions. The attack on Charlie Hebdo, and the abhorrent actions committed by ISIS are justly condemned and action should be taken against those who perpetrate such violence. However, responding to the actions of the radicals by committing an equally vicious crime against innocents should be met with equal outrage. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Craig Hicks’ actions should have been immediately branded as a hate crime, but the media continue to dispute the veracity of the parking dispute claim. The truth of the matter is that many Americans are reluctant to confront this man’s actions for what they really are. They have little doubt of Hick’s guilt, but are struggling to accept that blind hatred could have caused it.

It seems Hicks’ hatred was borne out of a sort of radical atheism, a disdain for all religious types, including Muslims. “People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem, not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism,” wrote Hicks on his Facebook.

Muslims worldwide were quick to assert that the killings went under-reported by the US mainstream media because of the religion of the victims. Many claimed the crimes would have garnered more attention had the situation been reversed and it had been a White family gunned down by a Muslim gunman. A post on Twitter read, "Muslims only newsworthy when behind a gun. Not in front of it."

The problem here is that, for many Americans, Islam as a religion that has become synonymous with terrorism and Anti-western sentiment. As in many religions, the most radical factions of Islam have been the most vocal and destructive with their actions, and the constant media attention on their atrocities has transformed Western opinions of Muslims to one of fear and mistrust. Consequently, the emotional impact of the tragedy at UNC and of other crimes committed against Muslims is dulled, and the general public would rather attribute outrageous motives for these events rather than confront them as hate crimes.

Saim Ejaz Chaudhury ‘17 organized a vigil at Cornell to mourn the death of the three shooting victims. While he is thankful to all the people who came to show their respects and to grieve, he believes that more should be done.

He said, “It was a horrific act that shook the Muslim community not only in America, but around the world. The vigil raised the spirits of the Muslim community at Cornell, but I think that more concrete steps should be taken by the Cornell community at large to counter any Islamophobic narrative.”

It is of paramount importance to learn from the deaths of these innocent victims and to remove the veil of mistrust and fear through which many Americans view Islam today.

Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as586@cornell.edu.

Rapper Common Praises Cop-Killers in Lyrics

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

Rapper and poet Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr. is performing at Bailey Hall on March 2. You might not know who Lynn is right away, but I'm sure his stage name, Common, will sound a bit more familiar to you.

Now, you might think that by the condescending start to this article, I will proceed to bash him and criticize the reasons for his upcoming performance. Surprisingly, you will find that I have no problems with him coming to Cornell and performing his half-rap, half-political activism act. Common is often referred to as a “conscious” and “socially-minded” rapper because he blends political and social commentary into his lyrics. (In any other genre of music, he would just be referred to as a “musician” or a “lyricist.”)

In fact, the main reason why I’m glad Common is coming to campus is the lack of backlash surrounding the event,, which is due to two main reasons. First, Common is not really a big deal as a performer. I have not heard a single person say, “Wow, those Common tickets really flew away.” At the Cornell University Programming Board (CUPB) tables in Willard Straight Hall, you would be hard-pressed to find more than one or two students buying tickets.

The second reason is that conservatives—and non-conservatives, for that matter—have not and will not act against his right to come to our campus and say whatever he wants to say, be it violent, controversial, offensive, or even hate speech.

This might seem like a much removed reason to a liberal-filled campus that does not see any problem with taking part in the concert of someone who has on numerous occasion praised notorious cop-killers and FBI-designated domestic terrorists.

Common’s most controversial piece is “A Song for Assata,” an ode written to Assata Shakur, born Joanne Deborah Chesimard, a convicted murderer who brutally assassinated New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and assaulted Trooper James Harper in a shooting on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1977. Though accounts differ of the shooting, it occurred as the troopers were conducting a routine traffic stop on the vehicle Chesimard and others were riding in.

At the time, Chesimard was the leader of the Black Liberation Army, a terrorist group that carried out bombings, murders, robberies and prison breaks during the 1970s. She was an active preacher of black separatism, a doctrine that basically promotes reverse Apartheid. Though convicted and imprisoned for her murder of a police officer, she escaped from prison in 1979 and has been exiled in Cuba ever since. Bryon has earned for herself the accolades of being on the FBI's Most Wanted List and having a reward of $2 million for her capture and imprisonment. Cuba, of course, welcomed her with open arms and gave her citizenship in 1984.

All in all, not a lot of peace and love with regard to Ms. Chesimard.

This, nevertheless, did not prevent Common from visiting her in Cuba, and writing in the aforementioned song: “Listen to my Love, Assata, yeah. We're molded from the same mud, Assata. We share the same blood, Assata, yeah. Your power and pride, so beautiful...May God bless your Soul.”

In 2011, Common garnered a blip of media attention when he was officially invited to a poetry event at the White House, despite the protestations of the New Jersey State Police and the family of deceased state trooper.

Common’s affection for those who wantonly murder policeman doesn’t end with Chesimard. The “socially-minded” rapper is also quite fond of imprisoned cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. In a poem of his Common writes, “flyers say 'free Mumia' on my freezer.”

Despite the controversy surrounding Common, CUPB stands by selecting him.

Michael Luzmore ‘17, CUPB Executive Chair, told The Cornell Review, “CUPB's position has always been to bring talent to perform at Cornell that will enrich our community and provide a space to explore culturally relevant topics.”

He added, “We decided to bring Common we believe because his experiences and story will interest students and Ithacans alike.”

Perhaps Common is an interesting character. The point I’m making is that you don’t see conservative students on campus up in arms or planning to picket in front of Bailey Hall. We are certainly not about to force guests to back down from delivering commencement speeches or talks because their sentiments or beliefs are contrary to some of ours. This is because, above all, conservatives believe in the right to free speech, and believe speakers should not be shunned from campuses because of their viewpoints. Though some of Common’s lyrics are detestable, none of them is a call for violence. Students should have the opportunity to purchase tickets to attend the event and make up their minds about Common’s artistry and the content of his lyrics.

In contrast, open-minded liberal students will fight tooth-and-nail to revoke invitations to speakers they don’t like. Want examples? See what Rutgers students did to Condoleezza Rice last year, what Michigan State students did to George Will last semester, and even what UC Berkeley students did to Bill Maher, one of their own, also last semester.

So much for free speech at Berkeley, where the whole college campus free speech movement began.

Not even Cornell Police are opposed to Common’s performance on campus, despite his championing of individuals who have killed policeman in their line of duty.

“No, we have no objections to this or any other group regardless of what they represent; philosophically, religiously, or politically. Protecting everyone’s right to free speech is in fact a cornerstone to our department’s efforts to safeguard our community and those who visit it,” wrote Lt. Philip Mospan, Administrative Lieutenant for Cornell Police, in response to email inquiry regarding Cornell Police’s stance on Common’s lyrical content and performance on campus.

It is plainly clear both Cornell Police and Cornell conservatives subscribe to the wisdom of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is not so clear what wisdom liberals and leftists subscribe to.

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.

U-California Students Vote to Divest from United States

2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

College students, relentlessly serving as the bellwether for liberal causes, often produce emotionally-charged collective decisions that contravene the intellectualism and rationality that their prospective bachelor’s degrees would otherwise indicate.

Recently, the University of California Student Association passed a resolution that demanded the state university system to divest from the United States government. The reasons that the Student Association cites for its divestment include drone strikes, illegal immigration policy, and the U.S. prison system.

Although rational individuals are able to oppose all of those policies and institutions without resorting to radical means, the SA’s official divestment document, “A Resolution to Divest From Companies Engaged in Violence Against Palestinians,” states that the only way to counteract the supposed government sponsorship of human rights violation is to “end our investment in and implicit support for such governments through divestment.”

Their reasoning—and I use the term loosely—is that if the UC system refrains from investing in the United States, then the federal government cannot allocate so much funding to companies that have ties to Israel’s military. Consequently, as these campus activists conclude, this “embargo” will force Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian due to a lack of financial resources.

Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti-Israel, it is not difficult to see that divestment is a ludicrous idea that has troublesome implications and will result in significant economic damages.

First of all, the pro-Palestinian crafters of the resolution clearly fail to recognize the irony in demanding that their publicly-funded school divest from the government. If the UC system actually implemented this ridiculous resolution, its schools would either cease to exist or have to increase their tuition and fees to the insanely high costs of private universities. Interestingly enough, one clause of the resolution claims that the United States has violated the “universal right to education.” However, how can students from low-income backgrounds afford this “right-to-education” if the entire UC system becomes underfunded and can no longer provide them with adequate financial assistance?

In this day and age, with the costs of attending college already skyrocketing, schools cannot afford to embrace less profitable investments just to appease the moral standards of the radical left-wingers. When universities rely on these investments to fund essential infrastructure and other various accommodations to advance the students’ education, it is unjust to force the students to sacrifice their intellectual pursuits in the name of a misguided cause.

Another irony stems from the fact that although the resolution calls for the school system to divest from any government or company that facilitates discrimination, it excludes most countries in the Middle East as well as the Palestinian authority from its target list. If the creators of the resolution were truly pro-human rights rather than simply anti-Israel, why would they not also call for sanctions on Middle Eastern countries and factions, which regularly engender prejudices against Christians, Jews, and homosexuals?

“I think that while the UC system has the liberty to invest its money as it sees fit, I do not believe it is morally righteous to divest from the USA and Israel because human rights violations occur on both sides,” asserted Angel Camacho ’18. “In fact, ‘Palestine’ violates human rights more than Israel does.”

Unfortunately, the very same nonsensical left wing causes that haunt the UC system also plague Cornell. Last April, the anti-Israel divestment movement proposed a resolution that demanded Cornell to divest from its share holdings in Israeli corporations. In an act that reeked of Anti-Semitism, the Students for Justice in Palestine proposed the vote in a time at which many Jews were leaving campus for their Passover holiday, thereby disenfranchising the Cornell Jewish community.

Thankfully, unlike in the UC schools, Cornell’s student government possessed enough sensibility to reject the proposition. Nevertheless, with the numerous “social justice warrior” activist groups on campus, rational students and faculty must prepare themselves for the next onset of misguided campus activism that discriminate against certain groups.

If universities based their investment decisions off the opinions and perspectives of the most radical students and faculty members, there would be deleterious consequences. Fortunately, even if implausible resolutions pass in student governments, college financial administrators are reasonable enough to reject the fallacious rhetoric and act in favor of the interests of their students.

Nonetheless, college students must be wary of left wing groups that pride themselves on acting as the vocal protectors of the “oppressed minorities” on college campuses. In their usual crusade to paint white, Christian males as the main adversaries in American society, they too often claim as their victim a particular minority group—the Jews. Thus, it is the moral obligation of all compassionate, judicious college students to adopt the same activist vitality as that of their left-wing counterparts, but employ it in a more levelheaded manner to speak out against the numerous Anti-Semitic motions disguised as human rights concerns.

Jake Zhu is a freshmen in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.

Free Community College

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There’s also no such thing as free healthcare or free housing. Why should free community college be any different?

President Obama’s recently-announced plans to make the first two years of community college free to all will go down in history as one of the worst rhetorical and economic pieces of rubbish in the 21st century.

First, consider that community college is basically already free.

The average community college tuition is $3,300 a year, but families earning less than $24,000 a year can apply for federal Pell grants that provide up to $5,730 a year in aid. Additionally, community colleges are already heavily government-subsidized: The American Association of Community Colleges reports that more than 60% of community college costs are subsidized by federal, state, and local government aid. Now ask yourself what exactly is the President’s $60 billion plan going to pay for?

Next, consider how this plan will actually make community college more expensive.

Since 1978, the cost of higher education has increased by over 1100%. This means that $11 today buys the same amount of education $1 did in 1978, which is nearly three times greater than overall inflation over the same time period.

There are several reasons why college costs have skyrocketed over the past thirty-five years. Some of these reasons include rising faculty salaries, rising administrative costs, and investments in expensive technology and amenities. While all of these are significant, the single-greatest factor has been the increase in demand for higher education.

As increases in demand outpace increases in supply, the price of education must necessarily rise. Yet, it’s not as if every year there are scores of people who can’t attend college at all because there isn’t any room for them; really, it seems almost as if everyone who wants to attend college can in one way or another. So it seems then that demand and supply every year are almost equal. What is really happening is that 4-year private institutions like Cornell are doing most of the price-raising while state and community colleges are absorbing the excess demand. The bursting-at-the-seems enrollment demands on state and community colleges is driving up their costs and thus their tuitions.

In 1975, 21.9% of Americans aged 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor’s degree. That figure rose to 33.5% in 2013. The number of foreign students attending US universities, a figure that has grown 72% in just fifteen years, also contributes to the overall rising demand for higher education. This enormous rise in demand, especially domestically, could only have been made possible by US government subsidies. By pumping more dollars than the natural market does into the education market via grants and loans, universities simply respond appropriately by raising tuition. It’s no different from the government subsidizing, say, automobile purchases and car dealers responding by raising the prices of cars. All of this subsidization started with the GI Bill in 1944, and even then colleges responded to the massive subsidies by raising tuitions. There was, however, justification for the GI Bill: namely, the enormous demographic shifts and economic dislocations caused by the Second World War and the great sacrifices returning soldiers had made.

If the government as proposed provides $6 billion a year for the next ten years in the community college market, then the government will essentially raise the price of community college by $6 billion a year for the next ten years. This might not be perceived immediately, but it will happen. As politicians always do, President Obama is dangling “free” stuff in front of his party’s electorate by selling out future generations.

Finally, consider that community colleges in their current state are a worthless investment.

Would making the first two years of community college “free” raise their dismal 22% graduation rates? The populists argue that the relaxed burden of having to pay for tuition will improve current student graduation rates, but only 20% of full-time students at community college—meaning those who ostensibly are putting maximum effort into college and not outside jobs—earn an associate’s degree in three years, even though it’s only supposed to take two years to get one. In other words, the graduation of full-time students is actually less than the overall graduation rate.

Besides, the track record of free government stuff isn’t very laudable. For example, library cards are free, but a recent Renaissance Learning report found that the average college freshmen reads at a 7th grade level. Education from 8th to 12th grades is also free, but apparently those five years spent in school don’t amount to much.

Rather than lowering their admission standards, real community college reform would come in the form of increasing them. Such reform would also require students receiving federal aid to pursue meaningful studies in business, STEM, or vocational fields. Community college should be the domain of older adults returning to school and young adults seeking job-specific training in nursing, welding, plumbing, accountancy, etc.

Even community college students say that community college isn’t for everyone. Ezra Collin Cornell, a senior at Tompkins Cortland Community College, says that, “People don’t have to go to [community college]” and those who do attend them for free “would not work very hard to pass classes.”

Contrary to what President Obama says, free community college is not a “middle-class economics” initiative. Simply going through the motions and coasting through two years of free 13th and 14th grades doesn’t guarantee you a middle-class life in the same way coasting through four years at Cornell doesn’t guarantee you a middle-class life.

Does Diversity Help or Damage Workplaces?

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

How diverse are we really? For anyone applying for a job, I’m sure you’ve seen a clause somewhere on the application, probably in tiny print, that mentions the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Since 1964, the United States has pledged to decrease and eventually eliminate discrimination in the workforce and moreover, to increase workplace diversity. But are the organizational policies now in place to achieve this goal actually effective? Do they fall short of expectations? Or worse, do they actively hurt the entire company (including other employees) because they encourage employers to hire unqualified candidates simply to meet a diversity quota?

According to a workshop proposal written by Pamela Tolbert and Esta Bigler, Cornell University’s ILR Labor and Employment Law Director, “little evidence exists… on the efficacy of such practices or on the conditions that may moderate their impact.” The next step to ensuring that workplace discrimination is reduced is to analyze several of these organizational policies in context, and discuss the pros and cons of structures that may or may not make the workplace a fair place.

In August of 2014, an article published by Tech Republic summarized some incriminating statistics on workplace diversity in major tech companies. Google, Apple, and Facebook all reported that only about 30% of their employees are female, and more than 50% of all employees are white. Some major companies have gone to great lengths to attempt to diversify the workplace; for example, Sodexo tied 25% of top executives’ bonuses to diversity goals. Moreover, as written in an article published by Fast Company, these companies will begin to face a major supply and demand problem: as employers search for more diverse, qualified candidates, labor demand will rise as the supply remains the same. It is still true that 80% of college graduates are white, and that of those graduates with computer science degrees, less than 20% are black or Hispanic.

By trying to simply meet a quota by making workplace diversity a human resources problem, employers put themselves at risk of severe inefficiency, both financially and in their attempt to diversify. If employers focus on talent acquisition without an inclusive internal culture favorable to diversity, it will simply create costly employee turnover, amongst other problems. Without enough qualified candidates, a problem inherent in socioeconomic and educational realms, employers would be hiring candidates that may simply not be up to par.

So what are employers doing to try to avoid these problems, and are their methods working? For June 2015, a workshop is being planned in the ILR School Conference Center in New York City unlike any previous conferences that have explored social inequality. Pursuant to the workshop proposal, the “focus on studies or organizational practices and inequality in the workplace is very different” from other social studies on diversity. During this workshop, managers, analysts, and lawyers will participate in discussion integrating law, organizational policy, and current HR practices to gather, for the first time, data dedicated solely to understanding whether or not efforts to increase diversity are performing their proper function. It’s about time.

Martha Robertson Joins Rowdy Seneca Lake Protesters

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

Voters in New York’s 23rd district should now feel even more confident in their decision to select Republican Tom Reed as their House Representative over Democrat Martha Robertson by a margin of nearly two-to-one.

Robertson, a longtime opponent of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” has become an ardent supporter of and occasional speaker for We Are Seneca Lake, a faction opposing the storage of liquefied petroleum gas in Reading, New York, which is approximately forty minutes from Ithaca.

Protesting outside of Crestwood Midstream’s Reading property since late Oct. 2014, We Are Seneca Lake has racked up a huge number of arrests, mostly for trespassing. Currently, the group’s website, wearesenecalake.com, boasts: “There have been 160 Seneca Lake Defenders arrested, with a total of 200 arrests since the We Are Seneca Lake campaign started.” The website also displays portraits of all of the arrested protestors, some grinning from the passenger seat of a police car, some posing with animals or grandchildren.

Unsurprisingly, the massive number of arrests has strained both the small Schuyler County police department and Reading town court. In a Nov. 18 Ithaca Voice article, Schuyler County Sheriff Bill Yessman stated that the protestors have caused drastic problems for the police department and other Schuyler County residents. Yessman also stated that dealing with the protestors delayed trained officers from responding to a 911 call about someone suffering from cardiac arrest. “By the time responders arrived it was too late: the patient died,” Jeff Stein reported in The Ithaca Voice.

Let it be noted that the New York State Department of Conservation investigated and approved of Crestwood’s storage plan. While organizer Sandra Steingraber suggested that police officers simply ignore them, We Are Seneca Lake has greatly burdened the local court and police departments.

Enter Martha Robertson

On Jan. 7, We Are Seneca Lake members held a rally at the Reading Town Court featuring a speech by Robertson. Robertson and other speakers alleged that the Reading town board had committed an “abuse of power” in preventing We Are Seneca Lake members from entering the court room during the arraignment of several protestors as quoted by a Jan. 8 Ithaca Voice article Importantly, Justice Berry did allow for the court to stay open to members of the press.

At one point in her speech, which can be viewed in the online at the Ithaca Voice, Robertson states, “The taxpayers paid for this building, the taxpayers are heating this building” to argue that members of We Are Seneca Lake should have been allowed inside the town court.

Perhaps Robertson and the members of We Are Seneca Lake should be reminded that the taxpayers did in fact pay for the court building, which has now become swamped by dealing with the over 200 arrests of protestors. Taxpayers, specifically Schuyler County taxpayers, also paid for the protection and service of their police force, which now must primarily focus on dealing with masses of protestors, many of them from outside Schuyler County.

Earlier in the video, Steingraber states, “[The Reading town supervisor] could not name any other groups of people who had been denied access to the building while court was in session.” In short, We Are Seneca Lake is the only group that has routinely broken the law and bogged down town resources with regards to the Crestwood project. Can the Reading Town Board really be blamed for wanting to prevent the group form entering the courthouse?

Looking Forward

In the end, the vital parts of the project remain intact – Crestwood possesses the New York State Department of Conservation approval necessary to continue with the expansion, and seem intent on doing so. Thus, We Are Seneca Lake’s dispute should be cast not as a battle against an unwanted, evil corporation, but rather as an abuse of the residents of Schuyler County who deserve quick access to the police force they support.

Scrolling through We Are Seneca Lake’s proudly displayed list of arrested members, a certain pattern quickly becomes evident. The vast majority of the arrested protestors are white and middle-aged or older. In effect, Schuyler County’s police and court system has become saturated with older liberals with a lot of time on their hands and an opposition to anything gas-related.

Stanford Students Gain Access to Admission Records

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

Think back to your days as a high school senior. It’s likely you were scrambling with college applications, trying to work your way through the dreaded Common App (or perhaps the Universal College Application), and, of course, deciding on which school to attend once accepted.

Have you ever wondered how the admissions process actually works? What these people behind the scenes do and say about you and how on earth schools choose their students? It turns out this information no longer has to be a mystery.

Recently, a group of anonymous Stanford students who run an independent email newsletter called The Fountain Hopper sent to their subscribers step-by-step instructions detailing how to request access to their admissions files from the university registrar.

That’s right, under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) students are allowed access to their education records, including information related to the college admissions decision-making process. As reported by The New York Times, “[T]he written assessments that admissions officers gave of applicants, the numerical scores those officers assigned them on a range of factors and, in some cases, even the recommendation letters written by their high school teachers and counselors will all be turned over to the students, who can do what they choose with them.”

One email that was sent out by The Fountain Hopper begins, “Below is the Fountain Hopper’s tried and tested Five Step PlanTM for getting hold of your admissions records, including qualitative and quantitative reviews by your admissions readers. Requesting your admissions documents is a simple 5 step process that takes less than 5 minutes.”

The newsletter goes on to provide very clear instructions on exactly where to go to fill out the application form, what to write, and how to submit it. At the end of one email there is even a “Frequently Asked Questions” section.

The Fountain Hopper’s impact has been impressive—their story has been covered by The New York Times, Fox News, Buzzfeed, and more, and there are likely over a thousand students at Stanford set to follow their lead and request admissions documents. According to Fountain Hopper staff, within 24 hours of sending the emails out, over 700 people had clicked the links to the forms.

It is likely that, because of the success of many Stanford students in obtaining their records, this means that any student, attending any university, can do the same. So what are the likely effects of this potentially large-scale infiltration of the secret world of admissions?

Undoubtedly, we will gain insight into what exactly colleges seek in applicants. Admissions records likely contain admission officials’ written thoughts about applicants. If more students request and share their records, there is the potential to see trends in admissions that we may not expect. For example, how many students were chosen to fit a quota or something similar based more so on background, race, or gender than merit? It’s hard to say.

There is a catch to this process, however. The law only guarantees documents to students from schools where the students were accepted, so if you want to know why you were denied from your dream school, you may be out of luck.

If these requests for student admission information were to become commonplace, there could be an effect on the severity or honesty of those who write about students, an arguably dangerous consequence for multiple reasons. First, would high school officials write in a more sugarcoated fashion, knowing that the students who know them well would likely read their comments in the future? Would admissions officers tone down their comments? This could paint an inaccurate picture of a student.

There have been concerns that Stanford could be planning to delete the files of those who didn’t request them, as it is illegal under FERPA to delete requested files. The Fountain Hopper addressed those who did not submit requests to see their files, writing, “We’ve heard loud noises suggesting Admissions is planning to permanently remove every matriculated student’s admissions documents. This means you may not be able to get your records even if you really want them, because they might be permadeleted.” This idea that the institution would fear the leaking of this information is disconcerting, to say the least.

“Institutions of higher education maintain different retention policies when it comes to admissions records,” Joel Malina, Cornell Vice President for University Relations says. “Cornell, for example, has long maintained a policy of not retaining admissions committee notes for matriculating students. Given the variations in institutional policy, it is difficult to assess the potential effects of the Stanford case.”

Transparency in the college admissions process is crucial to students’ understanding of the system and the prevention of corruption behind the scenes. If the students themselves aren’t reviewing their own information, who is?

Presidency in Paradise: How Much are You Paying for Obama's Vacations?

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

Just another day at the beach

A marimba sounds as the sun shines down on a picturesque ocean-front villa. A Polynesian-looking gentleman slices a coconut swiftly with one strike of the machete.

He prepares a drink and hands it to a man at the bar then asks, “Cash or credit, Mr. President?”

“Put it on America’s tab,” he replies coolly.

A little far-fetched you think? This past Christmas holiday marks yet another Obama family get- away to tropical paradise. And according to WatchDog.org, this one only cost American tax payers a mere $15,885,585.30.

Perhaps this is all assuaged by the fact the economy is booming, our government’s debt is null, it’s waging no wars overseas, and most importantly, it has a definitive budget to fund itself in fiscal year 2015.

And as many Obama fanatics put it, at least our community-organizing president hasn’t taken as many vacation days as our ignorant, Texas-loving president, Mr. George W. Bush.

According to FactCheck.org, as of September 1, 2014, Obama had taken only “125 full or partial days” compared to Bush’s beefy 407 at the equivalent point in his presidency. Add in the short trips to Hawaii and Africa, and Obama is still significantly shy of Bush.

Then does this mean that Obama is off-the-hook? Love him or hate him, it would be hypocritical to attack someone for only copying his or her predecessor.

As it turns out, where Obama lags behind in in days off, he wins in extravagance of the trip. FactCheck.org reports that of the 533 vacation days taken by President Bush over his eight years, 490 were spent at his ranch in Texas, and the remaining 43 days at his parent’s home in Maine.

Maine? Isn’t that near Martha’s Vineyard? Maybe Barry-O could answer that one, because his airfare to the Cape and back (to DC) this past summer alone was only $1,164,268.80 according to Judicial Watch.

Now I’m not here to bolster Bush’s reputation at the expense of trashing Obama’s, I just find it difficult to rationalize all of the lavish getaways the current administration has taken in these still trying times with an unemployment rate hovering around 5.6% (not counting a significant discouraged working population), government debt held by the public surpassing the size of the American economy, and global terror at an all time high.

To the point made above, a classic retort is, “if you were a two-term president you would need a vacation at some point too.”

Perhaps this is so, but there is a time and place for everything, especially when it comes to taking vacation days away from the Oval Office.

Take President Calvin Coolidge (nicknamed “Silent Cal”), for example. He was “out to lunch” for much of his presidency (from 1923-1929) according to George Mason University History News Network. He would often spend a great deal of his day eating, and even sleeping on average of 15 hours per day.

Ask anyone on the street who the laziest president in our nation’s history is/was, and I guarantee you less than 1 percent of the sample will respond with “Calvin Coolidge.”

For despite his atrocious amount of time mentally away from the demands of the Oval Office, context is still imperative to analyzing the scope of his presidency. Upon the death of President Warren Harding in 1923, Coolidge would be the benefactor of a thriving post-war economy, a productive Congress, and would go on to become somewhat decent president.

He even managed to, as Mason’s History News Network reports, rekindle diplomatic relations with Mexico in the wake of the 1914 invasion, as well as send relief aid to an earthquake-torn Japan via the Naval Pacific fleet.

As mentioned before, for every decision and approach to a situation, there is a time and place. And to President Coolidge’s benefit, a time of peace and prosperity allowed for a more progressive, diplomatic, and lax approach to his executive obligations.

Sadly, America is not in the same shape as it was in the heart of the “Roaring Twenties.” Its enemies are still all-powerful, and its economy is still lagging with trepidation.

And a President who continues to run away to the warm rays of the tropical sun and leave his countrymen to their own devices while he plays golf is utterly unacceptable.

But after all, so long as this administration can juxtapose itself with the previous one, the sycophantic media will forever justify Obama’s vacations and laxness. However, we all know that what Obama lacks in personal days taken off, ISIS is making up for in decapitations.

All Things in Moderation: 2016 Republicans Too?

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

As the presidential sweepstakes begin to heat up and the prospective Republican field takes shape, a series of candidates considered “moderate” have begun to cast long shadows over the process: former governors Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Bush surprised many with his early declaration of interest in running for president. Bush, the brother and son of former presidents, is considered a formidable contender. He has demonstrated his seriousness by resigning from all corporate and non-profit board involvements. Yet even more shocking than Bush’s announcement have been the recent actions of former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

In the past Romney has vigorously denied his interest in running for president—it would be his third time. However, he appeared to be seriously contemplating a campaign, evidenced by speeches to donors and party insiders, and a series of public events in Mississippi. However, he announced in late January that he would not be running for President. This is probably best for Romney and the Republican Party. Although a talented executive and experienced leader, Romney’s political skills have long been suspect. Given that Democrats are preparing to coronate Hilary Clinton, her Republican opponent will need to go round for round with the Clinton machine.

Rounding out the trio of moderate, “establishment” Republicans is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. After sweeping to reelection a year ago he was considered a presidential frontrunner, but “Bridgegate” dampened his approval ratings. (Christie was accused of abusing his authority to partially shut down the George Washington Bridge in order to spite a political opponent). Although he has been cleared of wrongdoing, the scandal has been damaging to Christie because it reinforced the negative assumptions about his blunt, argumentative political style.

All three governors are considered “establishment” candidates. That is, they have support from and friends amongst the Republican Party’s donor class, and are generally considered plausible Presidents who could appeal to independents in the general election. However, they are only one subset in what will surely be a crowded Republican field, and the presence of more than one in the race could foster division amongst establishment members. This would create an opening on the right for a more conservative candidate—perhaps Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker or Kentucky Senator Rand Paul—to clinch the nomination. Another scenario could see a candidate with one foot in both camps, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, earn the party’s nomination.

All three candidates have strengths and weaknesses, both as individuals and as establishment figures. Conservative critics point out that the Republican Party has long nominated supposedly electable moderates who go on to lose the general election, including Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012. This prevailing notion could prove troublesome for Bush or Christie, and clearly was for Romney.

Bush has instant name recognition, a massive network of dedicated supporters and donors, and a strong political base in one of the most important electoral states in the country, Florida. These will surely work in his favor. However, he also is burdened by the history of his last name, so-called “Bush fatigue,” scrutiny about his corporate involvement with InnoVida and Lehmann Brothers, and has been out of public office since 2006.

Romney is not particularly well-liked after losing what was widely considered a great chance at the presidency in 2012. This appears to be a big part of his decision not to run again. Despite this, he has recently shown a willingness to tackle unique issues, such as poverty; Romney has spoke recently about inequality in society and the need to promote social mobility. Although he won’t be running for President, the theme of social mobility will likely appear in a number of Republican Presidential campaigns, especially if Rubio runs.

Christie faces questions about how his attitude will play with voters outside of New Jersey; he has become a YouTube sensation for his confronting of citizens at town hall meetings and hecklers on the campaign trail. Despite these negatives, he is a fresh face in national politics and has demonstrated crossover appeal with independents and moderate democrats that would be a boon if he were to run in the general election.

If Bush and Romney were both in the field it could’ve had the effect of squeezing out Christie with moderate voters and powerful donors. Christie is indeed the most direct beneficiary of Romney’s decision. It also remains to be seen how Republican primary voters will react to a third Bush running for President. However, with nearly two dozen possible candidates, there will be no lack of choice come Iowa and New Hampshire.

Overall, Bush, Romney, and Christie all have unique strengths and weaknesses. A moderate candidacy in 2016 will be premised in some part on the ability to defeat Hilary Clinton. Due to this, the status of Clinton’s run and her showing in the Democratic primaries could affect the campaigns of any moderate candidate. Although Romney has decided against a run, the role of moderates and Romney’s presence looming over the campaign will create an interesting dynamic within the Republican nominating cycle.

Democrats Bankruptcy Bill a Bankrupt Solution for Student Loan Fiasco

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

Recently, Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) introduced a bill to Congress that would allow individuals to declare bankruptcy without the fear of lenders collecting on their debt. Under the provisions of the bill, which was introduced on Jan. 6, 2015, a court would decide whether or not the creditor had just cause to demand payment.

Rep. Conyers hopes to give some relief to those who are already struggling with repaying their student debt. At the moment, the amount of student debt in the United States is $1.2 trillion. This sum of money is larger than the nation’s credit card debt, which stands at $883 billion. This amount creates crippling effects on the U.S. economy such as fewer new small businesses and decreased home ownership.

The benefit of filing for bankruptcy is that a portion of or sometimes all of a debt is nullified. For individuals with outstanding loans, filing for bankruptcy removes the burden of having to worry about repaying their debt. Unfortunately, this action does not come without consequences. For example, someone who is bankrupt suffers a blow to his credit rating. In most cases, this penalty lasts either seven or ten years and results in trouble receiving new lines of credit from banks. Some employers do not consider potential applicants if they have a poor credit rating.

Proponents of the bill argue that under current rules lenders can take advantage of those with student loans as they are filing for bankruptcy. During this period of time, debtors are most vulnerable because they do not have the means of paying back the amount of money demanded by their creditors. Rep. Conyers believes that lenders demand too much from students at an unjust time.

A significant negative aspect of this bill is that it encourages those with student debt to file for bankruptcy without knowing the full consequences of the action. As Shane Lewis ’18 believes, “I have several loans so I would definitely be happy if the bill passed because then I would not have to pay back several thousand dollars if I were to file for bankruptcy.”

There is a large temptation to file for bankruptcy because of the immediate relief it offers. Although Rep. Conyers wants to help recent college graduates, he is, in fact, doing the opposite.

If the bill were ratified, it would overall negatively impact those with debt. At first glance, the bill seeks to bail students out with the safe option of bankruptcy. The bill, however, encourages debtors to accumulate student debt before declaring bankruptcy because of the immunity the bill provides. Thus, it would create a new standard to not fear bankruptcy. The thought of thousands of recent graduates with abysmal credit ratings struggling to find new lines of credit and work is frightening. Even more frightening are the consequences of increasing student debt on the nation’s economy. In order to keep this nation’s youth away from a grim future, this bill should be shut down in the House.

Review of Ithaca Mayor Myrick: A Pro-Growth Democrat

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

In December of last year, I discussed how local government authorities lifted zoning regulations related to parking in Ithaca and the positive effect this will have on Collegetown residential development. These pro-growth policies that are in place do not end at the decrease in zoning regulations.

Mayor Svante Myrick, a 27-year old Democrat and graduate of the Cornell Class of ‘09, has led the way in the recent spout of development in Ithaca. Though a Democrat, Myrick has taken strides to push forward economic development in the city, and the politicians in support of him are not who you may think. Largely due to his pro-growth economic and city development policies, Myrick has lost support from the left-wing of the local Democrat Party and drawn support instead from local Republicans. However, it is hard to disagree with a politician overseeing a city with microscopic unemployment rate of 3%.

Myrick seems to genuinely care about the citizens of Ithaca, and yearns to provide the town with more affordable housing, a major point of contention for the local community. For this to happen, Myrick realizes that the city must increase the supply of housing to satiate the growing demand, thereby decreasing rents and home prices. The development of high occupancy apartment complexes will decrease the cost of housing across the board.

Alderperson George McGonigal, a Democrat, usually expresses approval in speaking about Mayor Myrick, but has recently been doubting the effectiveness of the Mayor’s plan. He fears that the new housing will be too expensive for working class citizens to afford. In addition, he fears Ithaca will “lose its charm” if it becomes too commercially developed.

However, Mayor Myrick’s pro-growth policies have earned him respect and praise from local Republicans such as Rocco Lucente. He wrote, “[Myrick] has set aside the failed dogma of the past in order to concentrate on growing the city, and that is the [exact] mentality that our mayor needs to have.” This unprecedented support from Republicans for a politician who touts himself as a progressive Democrat is thanks to Myrick’s pro-growth economic policies, namely his approval of projects to build high occupancy housing downtown and in Collegetown.

Despite Myrick’s success in housing development, another development project--rebuilding the commons--has been a source of heavy criticism for Myrick. The project is way behind schedule, as it was supposed to be finished this summer, and optimistically it will be finished by the middle of next summer. The project’s costs will be more than initially estimated, up 58% from $9.5 million to $15 million.

This has been seen as a simple lack of foresight on Myrick’s part, in that he did not obtain realistic estimates from contractors about the length of the project, which speaks to his youth and inexperience as a politician. However, certain complications occurred that were not his fault, like faulty city maps of utilities which caused several pipes to burst during construction.

Another crowning achievement in Myrick’s eyes was his elimination of the $3.5 million budget deficit he inherited. He did this through cuts across the board – including politically-unsavory in the fire and police departments. Myrick’s budget cut the positions of four firefighters and nine police officers according to a Cornell Daily Sun article on the subject. In my opinion, these cuts were justified. There are still plenty of cops strolling around Collegetown with nothing better to do than bust a fraternity annex party. In Myrick’s opinion cutting four fire fighters is a small price to pay for a balanced budget, which is a fairly reasonable excuse for cutting the jobs.

Despite Myrick’s otherwise impressive achievements and pro-growth vision, the mayor unfortunately also helped pass Bloomberg-esque restrictions on personal freedoms in the Commons. In the “inner-T” of the Commons—an outside area--smoking is now banned.. Smoking a cigarette outside is not a health risk to anyone but the smoker if passers-by steer clear of the smoker (which is easy to do in the Commons); therefore, that right should not be restricted.

Despite a few disagreements I may have with his policies, Mayor Svante Myrick has been a surprisingly good mayor as he has helped Ithaca blossom into a more modern, productive, and affordable city.

Je Suis Charlie... Je Suis Nigeria?

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

During the month of January, the world’s attention fixated on France and the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The terrorist strike was not merely an act of violence against cartoonists and cops, it was a calculated blow against the very ideal of freedom of speech. In response, millions of people gathered in Paris to participate in anti-terrorism rallies to protest killing in the name of religion. It was an incredible message of solidarity and unity in a time of grief and the global media focused most of its attention on the events and emotions around this tragedy. The death of 12 cartoonists and several law enforcement officials to completely immerse the global media into the tragedy, leaving little room for coverage of events elsewhere.

The worldwide community also exhausted its supply of compassion and interest in international affairs because of this attack. In consequence, a far deadlier attack in an ongoing conflict in Nigeria has gone criminally under-reported. While #Jesuischarlie trended around the globe, a terrorist faction known as Boko Haram conducted large scale massacres resulting in the deaths of 2000 innocent civilians in the span of a week around the same time of the Paris attacks but has gone largely under the radar. Why, you might ask? The answer is unfortunately quite simple: events in the Western world take precedence over those elsewhere in the global media.

Let’s face the hard facts. By body count, the tragedy in these remote Nigerian villages far outstripped the events in Paris. But where are the hashtags or messages of unity for Nigeria? Rather, there is an overwhelming ignorance about the events transpiring in the war-torn region, which by no means is part of the first-world. Boko Haram is the bloodiest Islamic fundamentalist force in Africa, rivaling ISIS in its levels of brutality, but most of us have never heard of them because they provide little international threat, at least to the Western World.

On Jan. 3rd, militants attacked the town of Baga, as well as 15 surrounding villages and a nearby military base in their largest attack to date. According to Amnesty International, satellite images “show devastation of catastrophic proportions in two towns, one of which was almost wiped off the map in the space of four days.” The majority of victims were predictably women, children and the elderly, unable to flee from the wholesale destruction. This was merely the climax of a campaign of terror conducted by Boko Haram ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections. A week before, a ten-year old suicide bomber wreaked havoc at the commercial center of Maiduguri. In 2014, the organization first captured the attention of a previously indifferent global media when it abducted 276 young school girls. There was an outpour of outrage and condemnation, but little-to-no actual aid offered to the beleaguered Nigerian government, itself plagued by corruption and incompetency.

Through its reign of terror, Boko Haram has gained control of swathes of Nigeria equivalent to the size of Belgium and have established ties with ISIS and Al Qaeda. It has only recently been recognized as a terrorist organization by the US and other Western countries, but this is the extent of Western intervention. Supportive words and condemnations will do little to alleviate the situation.

There is no clear solution to this problem. Nigerian politicians are struggling to impose their authority during these times of terror. Who will believe their promises for security and peace when so much of the countryside is engulfed in perpetual destruction? Some are advocating for harsh countermeasures against Boko Haram, which has merely resulted in more fighting and suffering as human-rights violations run rife. This is a war fueled by inter-religious hatred, ignorance and incompetence. The fighters of Boko Haram are determined to eradicate Western influence in Nigeria and neighboring regions. The Western response has been lukewarm to say the least, andthe Nigerian authorities are powerless to stop this conflict from escalating.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was condemned as an attack on freedom of speech. Any act of violence or oppression that violates basic human rights in the West is met with strong condemnation and swift action. And yet, when such events or oppression occur elsewhere, our proactivity peters out. The Western world is largely unwilling to confront the complete absence of this fundamental human right in a majority of Islamic countries. Killings in the name of religion and terror in places like Nigeria are essentially relegated to second-tier news events because they lack the publicity and media coverage afforded to tragedies like Charlie Hebdo. As members of Western society, we must open our eyes to the injustices and tragedies occurring world-wide, not just in a myopic manner that purveys only the Western world.

Live by the Pen, Die by the Sword

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

It is safe to say that writing about the Charlie Hebdo massacre is difficult.

First, and foremost, it is a harrowing event that raises serious questions about the very state of humanity today, no matter what beliefs you might hold. In the same time, it brings out once again the great headache of modern generations: what public opinion perceives as the never-ending, quixotic and almost undefinable conflict between the West and the Middle East. Terrorist attacks keep happening, and we keep getting used to them. We condemn them and feel outraged, sometimes hypocritically, because they mostly happen far away from home.

This time, nevertheless, the nature of the event makes the threat feel more universal and close than ever. Regarding the event itself, it comes down to this: masked gunmen broke into the satirical journal's newsroom, executed eleven of its members--among whom were its most prominent figures--, and fled the scene screaming “We avenged the prophet Mohammed” and “We killed Charlie Hebdo.” The assailants were later identified as Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, two Muslim extremists that had attempted to recruit young people to fight the jihad in Syria in the past.

What does this event implicate? Two extremists killed eleven journalists because the former felt insulted by the latter's drawings. Charlie Hebdo, as most know by now, is a far-left tabloid that attacked everyone indiscriminately, especially when it was about religion. In addition to cartoons featuring Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, the magazine has depicted Hitler kissing a rabbi and has graphically accused Catholic priests of pedophilia, among other risqué publications. The last thing Charlie Hebdo can be accused of is of intentionally discriminating against Muslims: it was sued by most religious organizations, including the Muslims, but it was always victorious because the French justice system has always protected freedom of expression.

Then why the preferred treatment when the terrorists are so-called “defending Islam?” Across the world, people refused to back Charlie Hebdo by creating the phrase “I Am Not Charlie”, as opposed to the original motto of support and sympathy, “I Am Charlie.” Their claim is that the paper was insulting to all Muslims and that they should not have messed with people who killed them if they knew about the imminent threat.

To pretend that this event was not so grim for hardcore supporters of Muslims gets even more absurd when you consider one of the cops brutally executed was also Muslim. Have the “I Am Not Charlies” mourned Ahmed Merabet? No, because he is a cop first and foremost. He certainly does not fit the liberal anti-establishment rhetoric, in which terrorists are “freedom fighters” and this massacre is an appropriate response to the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the invasions in the Middle East.

Now, being straight-forward, I believe that there are two great implications to this massacre. The first is that no matter how heinous and spiteful Charlie Hebdo's drawings are, they should and must exist in order to strengthen freedom of expression. If you kill someone because of a joke or a drawing, you are wrong. If you choose not to abide by the rules of your country, and come from elsewhere pretending to impose your own rules, you are wrong.

The second is that this massacre adds to the list of reasons of why we are sick of having to deal with Muslim terrorists. There is obviously a serious problem that can only be solved inside the Muslim community. However, this problem will not be fixed anytime soon, simply because the societies that produce these individuals are just too backwards and incompatible with the rest of the modern world. It will take too long for these people to realize by themselves that they are the ones who are wrong, just as the Christians and the Jews have been wrong many times but without wanting to erase all the non-believers off this earth.

It is very sad to think that liberals in the West do not want to acknowledge that they are defending people who practice everything they despise. How can you stand by the Islamic fundamentalists who slut-shame women, stones them to death for committing adultery, and force to be totally dependent to their husbands, among other heinous rules under sharia law? It’s more than just an inconvenient truth, but only a few are beginning to recognize it Left-wing comedian Bill Maher, for example, has finally decided to think for himself and stop all the liberal crap about how sweet and innocent these people are.

However, do you know what really is the saddest part of all this? The place and the people that gave us modern civilization, that have one of the most beautiful and extensive history and culture in the world, are now subjected to the evil curse of having to deal with the lowest scum that sells itself as salvation in the name of the forsaken prophet Mohammed.

In the meantime, we, as the West, not only must prevail, but we also must keep standing our ground of freedom against these fake Muslims. We must, more than ever, become allies of everyone who believes in freedom, and especially who believes in life.

I would love to close this article with a quote from Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier, one of the assassinated cartoonists. This quote, paraphrasing Mexican revolutionary Zapata, for me sums up the courage that many of us would like to have defending our freedom, and that Charb held on to until the day of his death:

“I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.”

Rest in peace. You died for all of us.

Rolling Stoned: UVA Frat Rape Story One Big Hoax

2015-02-10T00:00:00Z

It is not uncommon to witness prominent journalists and media giants take a page out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook and report disingenuous, sensationalist stories in order to stir up misguided emotions for the latest left-wing cause or movement. Each year, proponents of the college “campus rape culture” generate countless stories of sexual assault cases while refusing to provide evidence to support their claims and declining to give assistance in locating the actual perpetrators.

Most recently, Sabrina Erdely published an article last November in the Rolling Stone which detailed the alleged gang rape of a female freshman at the University of Virginia at a fraternity. The story, titled “A Rape in Campus,” claimed that “Drew,” the pseudonym for a brother of Phi Kappa Psi, lured the young, unsuspecting victim, who identified as “Jackie,” into a party at his fraternity house, where seven men violently raped her. The article was written based on interviews that the author conducted exclusively with Jackie and failed to use the words like “alleged” and “supposed” in describing the reported criminal acts.

Following the publication of the story, otherwise reasonable individuals begun to view UVA not as the Southern bastion of intellectualism that it truly is, but instead as a predatory environment that desecrates the innocence of female students. This media-fueled outrage engendered a draconian campaign that sought to not only shut down the single fraternity supposedly responsible for the rape but to also condemn the entire fraternity culture as the breeding ground for sexual assault.

In fact, Colin Downes, a UVA law student, went as far as calling the fraternities “criminal street gangs” in his op-ed in the liberal magazine Slate. To make matters worse, the UVA president Teresa Sullivan hastily implemented a suspension of all Greek life on campus as punishment for the alleged rape incident.

In the days immediately following the publication, however, a number of editors from other, arguably more credible media sources such as Reason Magazine and the Washington Post, openly expressed skepticism on the veracity of Jackie’s claims and questioned the reporting methods of Erdely. As investigators reviewed the evidence and truth begun to unravel, it became abundantly clear by mid-December that no such rape had ever occurred. Not only do Jackie’s own close friends, who rushed to help Jackie on the night of her alleged rape, believe Drew is a fabrication, but all attempts to locate Drew on social media or the UVA database have resulted in dead ends. The fraternity in question also provided evidence demonstrating it had no house party on the reported date of the alleged rape and that no member of the fraternity worked as a life-guard as Jackie had said.

Perhaps worst of all were Erdely’s unscrupulous journalistic methods. Her interview with the Washington Post revealed that she intentionally sought out a story on sexual assault in college. In essence, she “shopped” around campuses until she found the most lurid story that would serve her purpose. As Erdely embarked on her left-wing, radical feminist crusade to depict college campuses and, in particular, the male-dominated fraternities, as rape-facilitating environments, she mercilessly took UVA as her victim.

Another problem arises from the fact that her entire article exemplifies the classic case of the confirmation bias. Although Erdely interviewed the UVA Inter-Fraternity Council on the matter of sexual violence, she decided to exclude the entire interview from her article, demonstrating her hidden biased assumption that fraternity members are unable to disclose the truth. It is clear that she had a predetermined theory, or perhaps more accurately an agenda, and could not accept any facts or information other than those which directly confirm her beliefs

Unfortunately, by the time Rolling Stone retracted the article, the damage had already been done. Unknown persons vandalized the Phi Kappa Psi house, UVA faculty protested the fraternity, and people made death threats against the brothers. Ironically, although Erdely has a history of publishing anti-bullying articles, her fallacious rape allegations against the UVA students caused them to suffer from severe emotional distress due to the frequent physical and verbal assaults. One Phi Psi brother reported to the Washington Post that the day the article was published was the “most emotionally grueling of [his] life.”

There is little doubt that the revelation of Erdely’s story aroused the cult-like zealots who unequivocally adhere to all sexual assault claims as if they were tests of spiritual faith in the cam-pus rape culture. However, by inciting this kind of mob rule, “justice” is served through impulsive emotional responses rather than the due process that every person deserves and is constitutionally afforded.

Additionally, it is important to realize that false stories about rape negatively impact the actual victims of rape, akin to the fable of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Due to the fallout from the UVA fabrication of rape, there may arise the public belief that all women scream “rape” for attention or some other unwarranted reason. Djuna Perkins, a Massachusetts attorney who commented on the case, put it best when he asserted, “Every time somebody makes up a terrible crime, it does harm to the rest who tell the truth and don’t get believed.”

While there is no doubt that sexual assault is a serious problem within the nation, it is essential to underscore these issues truthfully without using fabrications to exaggerate their prevalence. It is essential for today’s consumers of news to be able to discern between tall-tales and real stories. For if people fail to do so, they leave themselves vulnerable to the left’s emotional appeal and galvanized to adopt a misguided social justice cause that ends up victimizing innocent lives.

An Assessment of Cornell's Ebola Policy

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

In the wake of the most widespread Ebola outbreak in history, paranoia and fear of an impending epidemic has gripped most of the watching world.

Such a disease is inevitable because of the double-edged nature of medication. Viruses and bacteria will evolve to combat our greatest vaccines and medical cures. However, it seems unlikely that Ebola will claim this mantle. Ebola is not transmitted through the air (like colds or influenza) or by casual contact. It can only be transmitted by direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone who shows symptoms of the deadly disease. At the time of printing, only four cases of Ebola have been registered in the United States. Still, the fear is tangible, and Cornell has released its own policy regarding travel restrictions for students and faculty intended to be a precautionary measure to protect those affiliated with the university.

According to a new decree signed by Fredrik Logevall, Vice-Provost for International, “Cornell students, faculty and staff may not travel for study abroad, research, internships, service, conferences, presentations, teaching, performances, recruiting or athletic competitions in the West African nations under CDC travel warnings”. This policy does leave Cornellians to appeal for their specific cases, but overall seems to be a very conservative measure meant to keep them away from the danger zones in West Africa.

President David Skorton, in a recent interview with the Cornell Daily Sun, declared “One role we have is to make sure that our employees, including but not limited to physicians, our students and our postgraduate trainees who are employees at the hospital … are cognizant of Ebola, how to discover it, how to diagnose it, how to support the patient and treat it … and how to prevent it.”

The best way to understand and control the Ebola epidemic is to confront it head on in areas where it is rampant; to treat those who are sick and to prevent its spread. Countless brave doctors, nurses and researchers have risked their lives by heading into these regions, in the hopes of finding a cure. Cornellians should be allowed to have the choice as well; they should not be restricted by university policies which can stifle their passion or impetus to help solve a potentially global crisis. Though this decree is an admirable effort to prevent the potential situation of having Ebola on our campus, it should be within the right of every individual to decide whether they want to positively impact the current situation and whether they want to travel to these zones in West Africa.

Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as2586@cornell.edu.

College Athletes: Common Sense and the Legalese of Unionizing

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

This year has been one of victory for college athletes and a major loss for the NCAA. The debate over whether or not college athletes should be allowed to unionize or receive salaries from universities has culminated in several historic court cases that have weakened the NCAA while administering more rights to the individual athlete.

Taking a quick glance at the two sides here:

College athlete: Paying, paying, playing. Paying for tuition (sometimes in the absence of scholarships). Paying for meals. Housing. Medical bills (including those associated with athletic injury). Paying for gear. Attending classes. Eating. Sleeping. Socializing. Taking exams. Working. Participating in clubs, academic teams, or fraternities/sororities. All of this on top of extensive practice and game schedules.

NCAA 2013: $913 million in total revenue. A surplus of $61 million. Net assets of $627 million. Of the $913 million in revenue, $681 million came from multimedia and marketing rights concerning college basketball alone. Only $25.1 million is allocated to the NCAA’s Academic Enhancement Fund, by the way.

In comparing young teenagers with a multimillion dollar organization, one quickly realizes the two have very different needs.

Unionization of the athletes who allow the NCAA to prosper came to the forefront of public opinion when the Northwestern University football team attempted to unionize this year. In March, the National Labor Relations Board regional director reasoned that college athletes are employees, and under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, are protected as such. Once defined as an employee (the FLSA definition is extremely broad), athletes can engage in “concerted activity” for “mutual aid and protection” under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

Just as importantly, in August of this year, federal district court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that barring payments to college athletes is a violation of United States antitrust laws. The injunction she issued is against rules that prohibit athletes from earning profits off of the use of their names and/or likenesses in video games and television broadcasts. (Remember the $681 million in revenue from basketball multimedia and broadcasting?) Ed O’Bannon, a former college basketball player, saw his image in a video game years after graduation, and was disgruntled enough to sue the NCAA over using his face to make a profit without his consent, and without compensation.

Bad press and legal pressure has caused the NCAA to terminate its contract with EA Sports, bringing an end to popular college football and basketball video games. It seems obvious that the NCAA is in trouble, and that college athletes are about to win a major victory that may change the face of college athletics as a whole, potentially allowing athletes to not only unionize, but to be salaried.

However, there are definitely some details that would need to be hammered out, and as of now, opponents are right to voice some concerns: for example, players striking if they don’t get better dorms, later classes, shorter practice time, etc. However, it is essential to remember that unions operate under a collective bargaining agreement, which can hash out details concerning strikes, and whether or not they would be protected or considered unfair labor practices. Breaches of contract are not protected under NLRA § 7/8; the belief that you can strike without retaliation of any sort is a myth.

Some of the concerns that will take some time to sort out deal with how to define an athlete or athletic team as an employee of the university or the NCAA. While overall, the NLRB regional director has stated that athletes are employees, this definition does not apply to all athletes (like those not under contract, who play club or intramural sports, etc.).

A rule of thumb as to how to define an employee hinges on who primarily benefits from the action or work being done. This precedent was established in the 1990 Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., decided by the Federal U.S. Court of Appeals (5th District), and upheld in the 1998 Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh decision. So who benefits the most?

I think that by looking at the numbers, college athletes, the NCAA, and the individual university that profits from merchandise, ticket sales, multimedia broadcasting agreements, etc., the answer is obvious. But what about non-revenue generating athletic teams and clubs? What if the university-specific team or sport brings in very little revenue (let’s just think about how many people show up for any given football game on this campus- who’s not a free student)? What about salaries? What sort of benefits would athletes be entitled to, and when would they receive them? What infractions or circumstances would be considered a breach of contract?

These questions need answers, but they need to be answered with an in-depth analysis by the National Labor Relations Board. A standard needs to be set that schools can use as a guideline for preventing or allowing athletic teams to organize; otherwise, far too much is up in the air, and my personal qualms concerning the power of unions would arise.

As a general rule, I believe that unions are riddled with corruption and able to take advantage of employees as well as employers, but I think that in this case, athletes are being taken advantage by huge corporations and their home universities. Academic and career goals, work experience, and leadership involvement all fall by the wayside for far too many athletes, and injuries sustained during their college career may last for a lifetime- at the profit of the university and the NCAA.

The right thing seems obvious to me. The idea that young students are committing so much of themselves to a sport that they love, at the profit of third parties, without any sort of compensation, is appalling. The fact that your face could be used in a video game without your knowledge is infuriating. Whether or not you agree with unions as a whole, it’s hard to argue that these student athletes should not be allowed to ask for something in return for what is, in many ways, a job. No one likes to work for free, even if that compensation is something other than a direct wage.

Alexis Cashman is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at arc269@cornell.edu.

Think Rap Music Isn’t Conservative? Think Again.

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

Rap music and conservative values are not usually thought to go hand in hand. These genres of music are often connected with gang and drug culture, violence, and misogyny, among other issues of morality. For this reason, it may be hard for traditional conservative to imagine that, when delving further into the lyrics and culture of rap and hip-hop, there are surprising pro-capitalist, pro-individualist, and anti-big government themes.

It’s clear that, on the whole, some of the most popular rap music has been and remains exceptionally crude, with lyrics that glorify extreme violence, drug abuse, and abuse of women. Here’s a snippet of Kanye West’s lyrics from “New Slave” off his popular album Yeezus: “I’ll f*ck your Hampton spouse/Came on her Hampton blouse/And in her Hampton mouth.” Back in 1994, Organized Konfusion’s song “Stray Bullet” went: “Now it’s a flood of blood in circumference to her face/And an abundance of brains all over the street/Shame how we had to meet.”

But in the depths of the outlandish, stylized lyrics, there are some lyrics, or even entire songs, that exemplify another set of morals and ethics that conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists take very seriously. Championing individualism, advocating for hard work, and praising capitalism are all themes rarely found in any other music genre or style than rap music.

Take Drake’s “Started from the Bottom,” for example. The lyrics advocate individualism, self-reliance, and hard work. The entire song discusses the road to success and condemns dependency and any expectation of handouts or freebies. Verses such as “I was trying to get it on my own/Working all night, traffic on the way home” followed by “Started from the bottom now we’re here” exemplify the essence of the American dream. According to the song, late nights and hard work lead to all sorts of possibilities, and in Drake’s case, have led from very humble beginnings to fame and fortune.

The artists behind the music promote and encourage (intentionally or not) self-determination, entrepreneurship, small government, and hard work. When pondering why this may be, one can look at the individual artists’ roads to success as a reference. Eminem, for example, came from a single parent household, was bullied throughout childhood, and struggled with drug addiction and financial problems; he barely made it past ninth grade, but his affinity for English and language in school allowed him to work toward the goal of becoming a rapper. In what has only been a twenty year career, Eminem has received numerous awards, produced ten number-one albums, and has sold 115 million album copies worldwide. Rolling Stone Magazine named Eminem “The King of Hip Hop,” and when considering this artist’s rise to stardom, it’s no wonder that he raps about how he got there.

Another interesting artist is 50 Cent, who defies the growing obsession with atheism among young people by rapping about his faith in songs like “God Gave me Style” and “Many Men.” Considering 50 Cent’s mother, a crack dealer, was murdered when he was 12, and 50 Cent grew up selling crack himself, it may be surprising that religion has become a major part of his life and music. In fine entrepreneurial style, 50 has also amassed great wealth from his music and his related business activities.

“I’m creating a foundation that will be around for a long time, because fame can come and go or get lost in the lifestyle and the splurging,” Fifty said in an interview with Forbes. “I never got into it for the music. I got into it for the business.”

Taylor Walters of Campus Reform quoted political pundit and Breitbart contributor Sonnie Johnson on this issue, who stated during a speech at George Washington University, “I have to convince two totally different groups—conservatives that hate hip-hop, and a black generation of hip-hoppers that hate conservatives—that we are actually saying the same thing.”

Johnson, calling Jay-Z “the greatest philosopher, by pure definition, of this generation,” encouraged the use of these big names as role models. Johnson’s takeaway message was that we should not think of hip-hop to only be noise or entertainment for certain groups of people traditionally unaffiliated with conservatism, and that there is greater meaning behind some often overlooked aspects to these lyrics.

“It is meant for me to take a conservative message into the black community,” she said, “and show them that there is a methodology to stopping the death in our community.”

The poor reputation of rap and hip-hop may be justified when lyrics are hostile or morally questionable; however, many songs do not fit the stereotype. There is value in the music, applicable to any conservative, entrepreneur, or American who believes in one’s potential to succeed through effort, persistence, and, on occasion, free styling.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.

Could I Get a Cup of Leftist with a Double Shot of Fracktivist?

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

Coffee is a staple of the modern collegiate experience. It’s nearly impossible to envision the quintessential academic setting without it. And at an institution as rigorous as Cornell, one might find themself reaching for that next cup more frequently that what the doctor ordered.

The good news is, for those of us whom seem to ‘live by the cup’, we can now engage in social change without having to compromise valuable study time. The next time you find yourself in Mann Library’s Manndible Café or in Goldwin Smith’s Temple of Zeus, make sure to check out either the Leftist or Fracktivist coffee blends. Buy one of these, and you can rest assured that although you are allocating precious time which could be directed towards saving the planet to study, purchasing a progressively-titled coffee in Upstate New York is counter-balancing that opportunity cost.

Setting all jokes aside—and whether or not it’s ethical for a Cornell University dining facility (Temple of Zeus in this case) to sell a blend of coffee advertising a particular political stance and policy—what matters the most is the actual integrity of the brand itself.

Both blends are manufactured by Gimme! Coffee, a coffee roaster headquartered in Ithaca, New York with espresso bars located in Ithaca, Trumansburg, and Brooklyn. According to the company’s website, they pay “better than fair-trade prices” to growers and that “sustainability runs through [their] core.”

Not to assume the company is insincere in its progressive promulgations, but if you go to the company’s website in an attempt to obtain information on the brand’s “sustainable” measures you run into a bit of brick wall. In fact, even its respective Wikipedia page (pulling from the short-list of articles citing Gimme!), fails to provide any insights on how this brand is any more socially responsible than nation-wide brands.

Upon further research, I was able to determine that the Fracktivist blend does raise a certain percentage of funding towards anti-fracking movements around New York State—mainly for an organization called Toxics Targeting. This is great because so long as Gimme! is subsidizing a service to check my property’s fracking deposits, the price of ordering such an invaluable service becomes that much more affordable.

What Gimme! seems to neglect to address is the fact that they’re in the coffee industry. Go to the company’s Wikipedia page again, and you’ll notice that their coffee comes from a specific kind of plant called café arabica. Click on the blue hyperlink associated with this plant, and you might notice that the plant mainly (only) grows in Indonesia, East Africa, and Central America. This means, either Gimme! Coffee is using whales and dolphins to transport its inputs across the world, or it is funding the consumption of dangerous fossil fuels.

Whether or not Gimme!’s intentions to incorporate more sustainable measures into its production are altruistic or strategic, investing in new, sustainable technology is inherently cost-cutting in the long-term. It is for fiscal decisions like this that the company may pay “better than fair-trade” prices on its inputs and give away an atrocious amount of potential revenue to “stop fracking now.” The reality is, the brand is a beneficiary of the current progressive trend of linking first world guilt with consumption habits. This business model would not be profitable under any other economic system. Last time I checked, Gimme! Coffee isn’t run by the state, nor is it constrained in any way in its potential to grow other than by existing economic barriers. It is by the grace of the free market this local favorite is now, according to Roast Magazine, “firmly established as one of New York’s premier roasters and coffee bars.”

Christopher Nowacki is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@cornell.edu.

The Anti-Western Creed

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

European Studies experience:

Your jaw drops.

You've just been informed that the objective of your Western history class is to deconstruct the “myth of Western civilization”, which is little more than a sorry tale of violent settler-colonialists bent on destroying the Utopian societies of Asia, Africa and pre-Columbian America. Your professor prefers to identify the West with genocides, colonialism and ethno-chauvinist depravity, not with the feats of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. What is more, the accomplishments of Aristotle, Cicero, Newton, Kant and Locke are the products of the “white male hubris” and are exaggerations, and celebrating their accomplishments is accommodation with the hegemonic Euro-centrist worldview. Whiteness, you learn, is a pathology which is to be totally dismantled and utterly defeated.

Your professor strongly suggests that those who disagree with this view are either deluded, immoral, or self-serving members of the oppressive white power structure, not thoughtful dissidents.

After reading A History of White People, by Irvin Painter, you learn that the West is but a construct, an oppressive state of mind. To say that Western institutions and traditions are both real and unique is to risk dismissal as an orientalist and exclusivist. For this deviation from orthodoxy, you are rewarded with a slate of "privilege"-shaming, and are promoted the class bigot.

Needless to say, conservative historians and writers, like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, are assigned only to be mocked as cis-gendered, patriarchal “dead white men.”

American History experience:

In your American history class, non-victimization themes are either entirely swept aside, or are mocked as ideologically suspect. For lauding the entrepreneurial culture of American industrialists, the bravery of the pilgrims, and the wisdom of the Framers, you’re sneered at and given the distinction of class bigot.

If you mention them too frequently during class “discussions”, you risk being accused of being “blind to the more fundamentally consequential” subjects of minority and women’s discrimination. Those students deviating from (routine) talking points – inequality, white privileged and institutionalized racism - are those that are most likely to invite glares, unwelcome side glances, and outright condemnation due to their “insensitivity” to minorities and women.

Denounced as a collaborator and participant in the oppressive white power structure, you learn that you’re a secret apologist for slavery, Jim Crow, and the displacement of Native Americans. Your classmates, perceiving themselves as victims of an all-encompassing white conspiracy to demean and degrade the “Other”, interpret your questioning as microaggressive and insensitive rather than necessary and reflective. Oddly, they insist on calling themselves “liberals”, even though they silence your views in decidedly illiberal fashion.

American literature experience:

You promptly exit your American studies class in acute agitation, but not in surprise. The course syllabus outlines its all-out assault against dead white men.

You recall, with considerable distaste, the political theatrics of your high school literature teacher who fancied herself a social justice activist. Her enthusiastic, obsessive, and frankly domineering habit of shoving historical victimization themes down your throat have reemerged in a more ideologically flagrant manner here at Cornell University.

So, now, on the Hill, you’re compelled to interpret even the most politically neutral of novels through the interpretive prisms of race oppression and gender-egalitarianism. You learn that America itself is but a manifestation of oppression and greed: an imperialistic, capitalist, outpost of hegemonic white males, with few redeeming values.

By semester’s end, you've become a drone – a well-rehearsed wind-bag - on all questions dealing with historical victimization. Any – ANY passage that even hints at the nature of racial tensions, or gendered stereotypes, or the provocative tropes of America’s “checkered and contradictory” past, is examined at length and with considerable zeal. “No stone of oppression”, your crusading professor reminds you, “is to be left unturned”. With your grade looming over your head, you carry on like the other automatons. You've no choice.

Roberto Matos is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

The Sky's the Limit

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

As the natural enemy of a free market system, an overbearing government harms the well-being of society when it unnecessarily regulates the economy. Not only federal, but even local governments place enormous burdens on companies and individuals, decreasing the productivity of the economy and ultimately making everyone worse off.

Case in point: for many years city regulations in Ithaca’s own College Town had prevented development of new housing for students. The most egregious regulation called for a certain number of parking spaces to be available for students living in apartment complexes—a bed-to-parking-space ratio.

I had the pleasure of speaking to Professor Garrick Blalock, applied economics and management, who is a member of the Ithaca planning board, on different aspects of the harmful regulations.

The minimum parking requirements were originally implemented with the intent to prevent students from parking in front of residential housing around Collegetown. This problem can be easily avoided by restricting parking in residential areas along with decreasing vacancy rates of public parking lots. The parking lot right behind the Cascadilla dorm is currently only at about 60% occupancy. This is unacceptable, as by forcing housing complexes to make their own parking spaces, they are decreasing occupancy of their own parking lots.

Minimum parking requirements increased the cost of Collegetown apartments, because the cost of creating the parking spaces was compensated for in higher pricing of housing. Parking spaces could not be filled at their free market value, as there were too many parking spaces.

Though it seems like a harmless regulation to most students, it has caused a shortage in housing, thus decreased the availability of affordable housing in Collegetown. The dearth of demand pushed the price of parking down, only to be subsidized by astronomically high apartment rents, at around $1200 a month per person to live in some of the nicer buildings in Collegetown. In Binghamton, as a site of comparison, rents are at $840 per month to live in high quality housing of University Lofts. Therefore, non-car owning apartment dwellers were subsidizing the purchase of parking spaces for car drivers.

Additionally, the parking spot regulation prevented development of new residential buildings for students in Collegetown. The requirement to build a parking garage or secure enough land for a parking lot presented developers with an insurmountable cost that disqualified Collegetown as an attractive investment opportunity despite the huge renting population.

With the parking regulations done away with, local entrepreneur Josh Lower is now moving forward with construction of a new student housing complex on 307 College Ave. In this complex, he will put a GreenStar grocery store, 103 beds, and a warm location for students to wait for the bus. As of now, Collegetown is in desperate need of a grocery store, as students must drive or take a bus to Wegmans to buy fresh produce. Also, the bus stop in College Town outside of Stellas is abysmal, as it is located on a crowded sidewalk with little shelter. This project will be a great addition to the community.

The previously-mentioned plan was only green-lighted after the parking lot regulations were eliminated. In addition to Lower’s project, numerous other projects are now in the works or getting started to add more housing in Collegetown. This will lower the price of housing for everyone, as simple economics tells us, because an increase in supply of housing will lower its price. Also, it will increase employment by bringing construction jobs to Ithaca. It is no coincidence or sheer luck that when free markets are allowed to reign, more people are better off than when living under the oppressive, nonsensical mandates of government.

The Cornell Daily Sun has published a few articles about the newly approved projects for building in Collegetown. However, in these articles they did not once mention the reason it took this long for these projects to be approved–the zoning regulations. As a left-leaning paper (though they claim to have no alignment), they wouldn’t dare bash government policies for creating inefficiencies in our local economy.

This example of regulations in Ithaca is a microcosm of overbearing government regulations as a whole. At the national level, there are regulations—too many to count--that harm the economy, creating systemic problems like high unemployment, high levels of debt, and inflation.

Benjamin Rutkovsky is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at bmr88@cornell.edu.

Pay to Play: The College Salary Debate

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

Following a recent court appeal, the University of Texas at Austin might start paying student-athletes a $10,000 annual salary. This unprecedented policy, though not yet officially implemented, has developed from the court case O'Bannon v. NCAA, which resulted in favor of student-athlete alumni. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that they should be given the right to financial compensation if their colleges continued using their personal images after graduation. This decision has set a precedent for future cases that cover whether or not student-athletes should receive a wage.

"Should college athletes be paid?" barely skims the surface of the debate. What should really be discussed is: "What is the main goal of a college sports program?"

On one hand, one could argue that the main goal of a college sports program is to earn profits, sort of like a corporation. On the other hand, the goal of a college sports program could be to allow athletes to continue playing on a competitive level in a sport that they have pursued for most of their lives.

If the goal of the college sports program is to make money, then they should reward good players as companies reward good workers. Even though many sports commentators and analysts have argued that paying student-athletes would decrease the revenue colleges earn from cable providers-because viewers would be alienated by the thought of paid college athletes-- the increase in wages would only result in better sporting results and, thus, an increase in profit.

For a large football school like UT, this policy would imply paying its football players more than their other programs. While UT wants to pay all athletes $10,000 annually, they should reconsider this decision. Like any corporation, it is smart for college sports programs that want to maximize profit to specialize in their successful sports. At the most basic level, athletes should be given a salary if college sports programs want to make the most bang out of their buck.

In contrast, if programs support the belief that athletes should play what they want to play at a collegiate level of competition, then colleges should either pay athletes the same amount or not pay athletes at all. Advocates of the former believe that varsity players should receive more compensation than what they are already given. Currently, the NCAA gives out full ride athletic scholarships to athletes in six sports: men’s football, men and women’s basketball, women’s tennis, gymnastics, and volleyball. For all other sports, colleges decide individually how to portion out a fixed amount of scholarship money to each program. The additional wage would allow these athletes to cover costs not included in their scholarships and help support families that might need financial aid. Believers of the latter, college sports purists, demand that college athletes remain uninfluenced by corporations and sponsorships. While their desire would keep college sports the most simple out of all of these options, it ignores the fact that these athletes should be rewarded for their results.

Both sides, however, have flaws that make their desired results unfeasible. Paying athletes at different levels based on success creates a complicated system. For example, how would a sports program judge how much to pay one team over the other? Furthermore, at what point would a program decide to cut a team? These issues only cover inter-team conflict. What then of intra-team salaries? Should the starting quarterback be paid more than the offensive lineman? Why? What about one wide receiver over another?

Clearly, paying athletes based on success confuses the system too much. Moreover, most college sports programs are horrible corporations. Only powerhouses like UT football earn any profit for their respective schools. In fact, nearly all colleges subsidize a vast majority of their teams.

Paying athletes the same amount, however, is not a logical solution either. First, some athletes do not need the yearly salary. Only athletes who need to support their families should receive additional wages. On a more important note, providing money for players that do not play at all disincentivizes starters to play well. UT's idea of paying every athlete $10,000 a year is essentially Communism at heart. Athletes should, however, receive some form of monetary compensation for their work as a reward system.

For Cornell athletes, an annual salary would only result in more harm than good. Cornell sports already lose the university money; paying every athlete $10,000, which costs a college on average about $6 million a year, would result in the underfunding of many sports teams on campus. Even though athletes might be incentivized to perform better with a $10,000 salary, the underfunding of sports programs would make this result near impossible. Therefore, for colleges that do not make money on sports, like Cornell and the vast majority of America's higher education institutions, the idea of an annual salary does not make sense.

Despite all of these critiques, there is a rational, feasible policy to undertake that would benefit both colleges and student-athletes. Instead of paying athletes an annual salary, allow them to make money from sponsorships and personal merchandise. Signing autographs and wearing a brand name does not cost the college anything and earns the athlete extra money that can go toward supporting personal needs, especially family. Also, allowing athletes to be sponsored encourages them to perform at their best ability in order to attract companies. With this policy athletes not only reap the rewards of their hard work but also avoid the fear of being disincentivized to play or, even worse, the fear of not playing on a college team at all.

Austen Rattray is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at ar547@cornell.edu.

Examining Congressional Acronyms

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

The USA PATRIOT Act, the REPEAL ACT, the DREAM Act – all marketing acronyms with the purpose of advancing legislation through a Congress dominated by gridlock.

For most of history of the United States, names of bills have been non-partisan identifiers for the general purpose of the specific pieces of legislation–such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Otherwise, references to the bills were simply characterized by their codes, such as HR 125 or SB 1860.

Today, when we hear of legislation in the news, it increasingly seems to have a captivating acronym. Congressional acronym use and partisan bill-naming started in the late ‘80s and has skyrocketed since.

Lawmakers argue that this usage of partisan naming is justified because it gives bills identification among the thousands of proposed bills. Legislators need something to give their legislation an edge, something that will make it stick in the memories of legislators, interest groups, the media, and the people. According to the Wall Street Journal, Senate historian Donald Ritchie says, “It’s a matter of scrambling for attention, given the fact that there are thousands of bills proposed and only 3% will pass.”

Most members of Congress find that, today, in an especially gridlocked Congress, media attention is simply essential for consideration and passage of legislation. Creative titles which garner this media concentration, thus, are invaluable.

An increase in representation and accountability arises with this creative naming of bills. Voters and interest groups can easily identify bills in which they support and encourage passage. Those members who vote against these bills can be held accountable at the next election. Members of Congress who do not favor legislation that sounds extremely beneficial to certain groups are required to have strong reasons for voting against the legislation, and, if not, then electoral opponents can use this to their advantage.

Most legislative analysts believe that, most of the time, creative naming is unlikely to make a difference in the final tally of votes. For example, consider the DREAM Act. Republicans were not inclined to support this simply because of the catchy name. Arguably the best creatively-named bill – the USA PATRIOT Act – still was able to yield 66 Nay votes in the House, indicating that names do not mean everything.

Yet, those opposed to creatively naming bills argue that sometimes the name of bills can indeed affect the final vote. Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R, Tenn.) said to the Wall Street Journal, “Legislators use loaded language that raises the stakes for voting no.” Voting against the USA PATRIOT Act can make a lawmaker seem unpatriotic; opposing the Cut the Waste Act of 2013 makes it seem like a legislator supports frivolous spending; and voting against the Sanctity of Human Life Act can make a member of Congress seem immoral.

Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) says, “[It’s] an abuse of the English language,” and titles of bills should not be “an argument for the bill… it ought to be neutral.” In spite of these words, Rep. Frank, when he was Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, banned the use of acronyms in the names of the committee’s bills, he has used this naming in his RISE Act (Removing Impediments to Students Education Act).

Many members seem to take part in this style of propaganda. Almost every legislator seems to do this, according to journalist Noah Veltman. Specifically, Senate Democrats seem to use this technique more than others. Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY), for example, has sponsored 42 bills with creatively-acronymed titles.

Although many European Parliaments and U.S. state legislatures refrain from exaggerated bill titles, Congress seems to be increasing its adoption of partisan bill naming. Even though Congress seems to be alone in this marketing method and even though passage of legislation might not be assisted by this technique, it does provide another means of communication for lawmakers.

Mitchell McBride is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at mlm428@cornell.edu.

Protect the Right to Die

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

Brittany Maynard, diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor earlier this year, sent shockwaves through the U.S. and revived the highly divisive issue of assisted suicide, when she ended her life on Nov. 1. In the time leading up to her predetermined death, Maynard became a vocal proponent of legalizing assisted suicide, the practice of a physician giving the patient the means to end his or her life to escape suffering from terminal illness.

Since Maynard did not have access to her right to die as a Californian, she moved to Oregon to take advantage of its Death with Dignity Act, which permits terminally-ill patients to request that their physicians inject them with lethal medication.

Her decision faced severe backlash and criticism from opponents of the “right-to-die” movement. Socially-conservative politicians like Chris Christie and right-wing Christian organizations such as the American Life League have condemned physician-assisted suicide as reprehensible, and declared that suicide is never the answer regardless of the situation one faces. They contend that it is not only inhumane but also cheapens human life by taking away one’s right to life.

Unfortunately, these critics’ misguided sense of righteousness supersedes a greater and more important moral issue—the right of an individual to freely chose his or her own fate.

In concurrence with Thomas Jefferson’s declaration of the people’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, individuals also have the right to self-determination. Terminally-ill individuals by exercise of their free will, choose to end their life and the state should respect the decision even if it morally disagrees.

Also, it is fallacious to argue that euthanasia violates one’s right to life because an individual who has the option of considering suicide will already be slowly dying and suffering from immense pain. Thus, what interest does the state have in mandating the extension of a life that is essentially ended? By prolonging the continuation of unbearable agony, the government denies the two other unalienable rights without altering the inevitable end result of death. There is no plausible reason with regard to public safety that would compel the state to deny a mentally-competent person the private right to determine his or her own existence.

Furthermore, critics of assisted suicide erroneously contend that the practice impairs the quality of palliative/hospice care, which is medical care that patients receive to relieve their pain and stress. They proclaim that since medicine used in assisted suicide is much cheaper than expensive professional care, suicide would replace normal hospice care as the preferred alternative. They fear that the standardization and widespread availability of assisted suicide will incentivize hospitals to drop the cost-inefficient option of palliative care. Although this may not sound far-fetched in theory, it is absolutely ungrounded in reality.

Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, perhaps the most prominent example of legalized assisted suicide in the United States, actually increased people’s access to palliative care. Barbara Lee, president of the patients’ rights group Compassion and Choices, stated in a PBS interview, “We’ve seen a great resurgence of interest in the medical community in palliative care. Hospice referrals have increased by 20 percent and now Oregon leads the nation in prescription of morphine.” Since doctors must provide all available medical options to patients, there is little doubt that beneficial palliative care is compatible with access to assisted suicide.

Perhaps the most baffling claim of all against assisted suicide is that it will pave the road to legalized murder. In his article on assisted suicide, Professor Robert Walker of South Florida University asserted that its future practices will be “based not on patient choice, but on the choice of others.” The reasoning goes: If people view the termination of life as a beneficial practice, then why should assisted suicide only be restricted to patients who give consent? Opponents of assisted suicide insist that the only way to avoid these negative future implications is to not legalize the act in the first place.

This slippery slope argument evokes images of conspiracy lunatics, who use fear mongering to condemn all national security acts as inciting “Orwellian Fascism.” Such an implausible assertion is psychologically rooted in paranoia and offers no evidence outside of pure speculation. Much like the historical claims that legalizing abortion will cause people to use it as an instrument of genocide, the slippery slope horrors of assisted suicide will never materialize.

Although many on the right are able to argue logically against matters like the expansion of the welfare state on the basis of personal accountability, they fail to apply the same logic on the assisted suicide controversy.

There is no disagreement that people are responsible for their own actions. You can’t tell people how to live, so why tell people they can’t die? If you dislike assisted suicide, you don’t have to pursue such an option, but you shouldn’t prevent others from ending their anguish. All individuals should have the freedom to determine their own course of action no matter how morally reprehensible the outcome may appear to society. After all, the state has no business in defining morality when it conflicts with one’s fundamental liberty.

Jake Zhu is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.

Should We End Cornell's Greek System?

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

The Greek system is under attack nationwide.

Recently, college officials and journalists across the country have been inquiring about the inner workings of collegiate fraternities and sororities, as shown in an article published by The New York Times with the title “Greek Letters at a Price”. This article, in a slightly revamped fashion, was rehashed by our colleagues at the Cornell Daily Sun, applying most of its analysis to the Cornell Greek system in general. Entitled “The Costs of Sisterhood at Cornell,” the article exposed the strict penalty fees to which houses (both sororities and fraternities) and its members are subject in case of violation of the guidelines of the Cornell Panhellenic Council.

Now, you might be wondering, where has all this sudden inquiring and condemning come from? On Sep. 22, Wesleyan University, a co-educational university in Connecticut, ordered all its on-campus fraternities to admit women by 2017, or else they would be forced to shut down. This decision was made in hopes of reducing sexual assault on campus, and was praised by many around the nation and on campus, such as Wesleyan professor Ulrich Pass, as “an important step in the right direction.”

This decision has prompted a larger debate on the nature and viability of fraternities and sororities across the country’s college campuses. The question is now whether they should be even allowed on colleges anymore. : In other words, the question is whether Cornell should end its Greek system as we know it.

The answer is definitely no.

People who want to destroy the Greek system have several motivations. One of them is to protect the female population from sexual assault. If you are liberal, and think of fraternities as “rape factories” (as a student involved in a rape case in Wesleyan described their chapter of Beta Theta Pi), then consider the following. Suggesting that since some members of a self-segregated sub-population (i.e., men drawn to frat life) behave in an uncivilized manner at times, this means that all men who live in frats have that tendency, is similar to saying since some black men in the inner city are gang-bangers, those folks see all black men as potential gang-bangers and thus dangerous.

The people who have joined fraternities or sororities have done so because they wanted to and not because they were forced by some kind of social pressure.. This also implies that whoever participates at their events simultaneously condones their system, or at least their very existence. In fact, I do not believe that many of the people who enjoy criticizing the Greek system would really want to shut it down, considering it is essential to their social lives.

While sororities do sometimes overwhelm their members with hidden dues and unreachable expectations, what they get in return, as well as what fraternity members also get, is what makes the college experience worth it: life-long friendships, great alumni connections, and great social life.

But now, weighing in specifically in Cornell's case, what could possibly be the argument against our current Greek system? There is one: the liberal argument.

We know that there are more than a few people who would be delighted to see the Greek system come to an end. It is those extreme liberals, the same ones who engage in perennial and quixotic protests against their own subconscious all the time, for whom ending the Greek societies would only benefit their agenda of finishing with tradition, patriarchy, and female hygiene. We know who they are, those same ones who protest a never-ending amount of inane causes, soiling Ho Plaza in a regular basis with their hateful speech against dissenters. They will not stop pushing their ridiculous campaigns, forever protected by the Cornell administration, until they finally succeed in taking away the little things that conservatives can still enjoy in this campus, such as the Greek system.

Do not forget this: the man who forced gender integration at Wesleyan, President Michael Roth, had previously been the president of Wesleyan’s Alpha Delta Phi's chapter. It is you guessed it right--the only coed fraternity on that campus.

Liberals will push their agendas on everything and everyone, especially the extreme ones like Roth and the ones we all know on our campus. .A clear message was sent to these groups on November 4, where we showed them how the overwhelming majority of the people repudiate what they represent. They are coming for more, though, which is why we have to stand strong and protect our Greek system if in the near future, as I surely believe, liberal eyes start turning towards it.

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.

"Right" on the Money

2014-12-07T00:00:00Z

The invisible hand of the free market got it right once again.

According to an Oct. 20 Cornell Daily Sun article by Anushka Mehoratra, President David Skorton ended Cornell’s partnership with the VF Corporation, apparel-maker JanSport’s parent corporation, because of its refusal to sign a worker-safety pledge for its factories located in Bangladesh.

President Skorton’s decision is typical of the ever-more-prevalent application of free-market forces to regulate industries. Consumers who desire organic, cruelty-free, fair-trade, or otherwise conscientiously-produced products are increasingly asserting their will through the free market, not governmental regulation. President Skorton’s decision follows community members’ protests regarding JanSport and the VF Corporation’s usage of exploitative, unsafe labor environments in Bangladesh.

In April, a coalition of student groups including the Cornell Organization for Labor Action, Cornell Students Against Sweatshops, and KyotoNOW! protested Cornell’s business partnership with corporations that use sweatshop labor One such affiliation was with JanSport, which supplied clothing to the Cornell Store.

The student groups specifically targeted JanSport after the VF Corporation failed to sign the Accord on Building and Fire Safety in Bangladesh. The Accord is “a legally binding agreement between international trade unions IndustriALL and UNI Global, Bangladesh trade unions, and international brands and retailers,” according to a website dedicated to the matter. Importantly, the Accord was not drafted nor signed by any governmental offices, demonstrating the plausibility of the private sector regulating itself.

In April, President Skorton stated, “JanSport does not do business in Bangladesh, therefore we will not end our licensing relationship. We consider JanSport’s relationship with VF entirely separate from its relationship with Cornell.” However, the university later stated in May that it would sever its partnership with JanSport if, by September 30, the VF Corporation did not sign the Accord.

On Oct. 17, President Skorton upheld the prior promise, officially ending ties with the VF Corporation in a letter to its CEO, Eric Wiseman. According to Mehoratra’s article, “Skorton said that Cornell would be ‘happy’ to renew its partnership with JanSport in the future if the company decides to sign the worker safety agreement.” An Oct. 28 Cornell Daily Sun editorial noted that “Fourteen other universities have also ended relations with VF Corporation; BusinessWeek estimates that these lost deals have cost the company $4 million already, about .33 percent of its net income.”

Anti-capitalists criticize corporations for fixating solely on revenue and profit margins, yet consumers can utilize this money-focused feature to their advantage. Corporations are far more likely to seriously alter their practices in response to a decrease in consumer demand than to a governmental regulation. Whereas corporations respond to governmental regulation simply to the point of compliance – meeting whatever benchmarks a regulatory body has set – companies often aggressively promote new product standards when appealing to consumer interest.

For example, Wal-Mart’s recent expansion of the Wild Oats organics label resulted from an increased market demand for organic products. According to a New York Times article by Elizabeth A. Harris and Stephanie Strom, Walmart sought to increase its standing in “the organic market, in which an increasing number of food companies and retailers are seeking a toehold.”

Walmart’s decision benefits consumers and farmers alike. Harris and Strom’s article noted that Walmart plans on “offering the label at prices that will undercut brand-name organic competitors by at least 25 percent.” Such a decrease should further destabilize the claim that organic products are too expensive for the average American consumer. Furthermore, Harris and Strom report that grain farmers have begun to plant more organic grains in response to market demand. Thus, incentives in the private market caused producers to re-allocate their production to a more environmentally sustainable product.

Yet, the food industry is not the only sphere in which business seek to accomplish ethical goals through the private market. Toms, a for-profit company, has “delivered eye care to care to more than 150,000 people,” and recently given away its 10 millionth pair of shoes, according to a Fast Company article by Jeff Chu. Toms executes a simple business strategy: donate a pair of shoes whenever a customer purchases a pair, thus tying consumption to charity and appealing to consumers with an activist-bent. Toms’ success – Chu estimates its 2013 revenue to be about $250 million – is a testament to the viability of simultaneously ethical and profitable business practices.

In the globalized economy, the consumer dollar reigns supreme. Like the VF Corporation, companies that wish to evade governmental regulations can simply export their production overseas. Conversely, corporations cannot afford to ignore trends in market demand and, recently, the trends have largely been favoring ethically-produced products.

Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.

Civil Liberties Under Assault in Houston as Mayor Subpoenas Church Communications

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

Defenders of religious liberty are outraged at Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s subpoena of “all local church speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity.”

It all began with the opposition to HERO, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which according to the Houston Chronicle bans “discrimination based not just on sexual orientation and gender identity but also, as federal laws do, sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability, pregnancy and genetic information, as well as family, marital or military status,” and “applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions would be exempt. Violators could be fined up to $5,000.”

The ordinance passed in May allows any person to use any gendered bathroom, regardless of his or her biological sex. Branded “Mayor Parker’s Sexual Predator Protection Act” by the Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, this order faces a great deal of criticism.

For example, the law allows a man dressed as a woman or allegedly confused about his gender identity to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. This opens up doors for sexual predators to prey on women and girls more easily, and in general is considered a major violation of privacy. However, Mayor Annise, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, seems to think otherwise.

After the ordinance passed, opponents gathered more than 50,000 signatures to support repeal of it. The city questioned petition’s legitimacy, rejecting many of the signatures and preventing the desired public vote. Later, in August, opponents of HERO and a conservative Christian advocacy group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued the city. In September, city attorneys subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who voiced opposition to HERO, and HERO was placed on hold.

The Mayor faced an incredible amount of heat for demanding text of the sermons. Reacting to the opposition she tweeted, “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.” However, she later revised the original subpoenas, which still cover all other aspects initially detailed, but now demand not sermons, but “speeches.” Now, all that is wanted is “all speeches or presentations related to HERO” as well as 17 categories of information, according to Fox News.

To note the obvious, “speech” is a synonym for sermon, so it’s questionable as to what the mayor was aiming at resolving with the change of wording. Regardless, the subpoena still calls for communication that should be off-limits, and is a complete attack on freedom of speech and religion.

Why is the Mayor so interested in prying so far into the business of the churches? It’s doubtful that there would be interest in investigating a mosque, for example, where views on homosexuality are less than accepting, and where there is the possibility for the evolution of far more radical ideas that threaten national security. Perhaps the mayor simply wants to silence the churches.

Erik Stanley, an attorney representing the pastors, told Fox News, “The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. The subpoenas still ask for information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members.” He went on to explain, “Any inquiry into what these pastors did in standing against the ordinance passed by the city of Houston and encouraging members to sign the petition is a violation of the First Amendment.” But no need to worry, the attorneys aren’t looking for sermons now; they’re looking for speeches.

It is important to clarify that the issue has little to do with homosexuality and acceptance, unlike what Ms. Parker seems to believe. The opposition to the subpoenas is centered on religious liberty and freedom of speech. First Amendment rights are completely ignored in the subpoenas of church communication, and regardless of the reasons for the intrusion, the church is an area off limits. In fact, pastors can say whatever they’d like about the values that the church teaches. It is not wrong for pastors to choose to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Others who choose not to attend these sermons are welcome to teach their children otherwise, but it is wrong to hush these views. Where is separation of church and state? What happened to the Constitution?

The resistance to the subpoena extends nationwide. Texas Senator Ted Cruz recently commented, “Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit.” Respectively, radio show host Rush Limbaugh called the situation “one of the most vile, filthy, blatant violations of the Constitution” that he has seen, and questioned why Mayor Parker is not being pursued.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott called for a prompt withdrawal of the subpoenas mid-October, stating, “The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government.”

The only way to fix this blatant attack on civil liberties is to eliminate the subpoena in its entirety. Parker’s extreme agenda is clearly not welcomed in Texas, and the government should stay out of the private communication of the church. If Mayor Parker is so interested in what is said by the pastors, perhaps she should attend a sermon. Maybe she’d learn something about the ideas of acceptance, basic values, and human rights.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.

Nanny State: Student Assembly Mandates Mental Health Information on Course Syllabuses

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

Cornell’s Student Assembly (SA) recently adopted Resolution 8, a proposal on behalf of students that seeks to mandate the inclusion of mental health information on all professors’ course syllabuses in an effort to help combat student stress and other mental health issues. The proposal now moves on to the Faculty Senate, whose adoption of the measure would make it binding.

The first half of the proposed section required to appear on every syllabus would read:

“It is normal to experience stress at a school like Cornell; it is important to realize when this stress is no longer healthy and instead becomes debilitating. Professors, administrators and students recognize the importance of accommodating this stress and there are a number of resources on campus meant to assist you in times of need.”

On its face, this is a well-intentioned legislative action. At Cornell, stress and academic hardship are copious and can often take significant tolls on students’ physical, emotional, and mental well-beings. There are numerous compelling arguments in support of the resolution: increasing the abundance of mental health information increases the chances a student in need will find it, and the template provides a standardized measure for professors who have not already placed such info on their class materials.

Matthew Henderson ‘16, Student Assembly member, pointed out that, “Students will often read through a course syllabus after doing poorly on a test or after forgetting to turn doing poorly on a test or after forgetting to turn in a homework assignment. Thus, putting the information in a location where students are bound to look in a time of stress made sense to the SA.”

One would be hard pressed to find a professor who isn’t concerned about the mental health of his or her students because of how cirtical th issue has become. According to The American Freshman Norms Report from 2010, students’ perception of their mental health is at its lowest point in twenty-five years. Many consider today’s youth the most stressed generation ever.

However, mental health information on campus is already ubiquitous. For example, every dorm room bathroom has multiple flyers and stickers with contact information for various campus resources regarding mental health problems.

Often times, the stigma of mental health prevents students from seeking proper attention. In a survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 50% of respondents who suffered from a mental health condition did not report it to their school. The real problem is not knowledge of mental health service and support, but instead feeling secure enough to seek help. This is not an issue addressed by Resolution 8 at all.

It is dubious to believe that a standardized syllabus section will cultivate cultural change around mental health awareness. It would be far more effective for individual professors to talk about issues of stress and can direct them to appropriate resources.

The major problem with Resolution 8 is its nanny-state implications. Government mandates always infringe on the rights of the people, and those that attempt to protect the individual from himself are truly the most tyrannical.

Mandates are authoritarian in nature and rarely truly necessary. Resolution 8 strips responsibility from the individual to take care of himself, and gives the SA unyielding power to now go require whatever it wants of the student body and faculty. After passing this resolution, what could be mandated next? The proverbial floodgate could be swung wide open. Granted, this proposed mandate pales in comparison to other more encroaching ones, most notably the “Individual Responsibility Requirement” in Obamacare, which requires every citizen to purchase health insurance or pay an escalating fine. However, the same principles apply on all levels.

Mandates are created on a macro level yet exist to control behavior on a micro level. They transgress the organizing principle of subsidiarity—that a problem should be addressed and solution implemented on the lowest scale possible. In this case, Resolution 8 seeks to solve an incredibly complex problem with a carpet-like solution thrown over every student and professor. This one-size-fits-all thinking is dangerous, hollow, and unbecoming of an institution “like Cornell” as it is somewhat snobbishly distinguished in Resolution 8. Rather, professors and students, on an individual basis, should formulate the ways and means to address and solve mental health issues.

Lastly, reliance on collective legislative or governmental action to solve problems, especially problems of the individual, is dangerously indolent. One example is the past proposal of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to ban sugary drinks of sixteen ounces or more, in order to fight obesity. The idea that mandates by the few can cure the ails of the many is also inherently arrogant. Bloomberg declared that his soda ban (which was struck down by the State Supreme Court) “earned [him his] place in heaven.” Such mandates and decrees erode personal freedom and individual responsibility—the backbones of a dynamic and resilient society.

The implementation of Resolution 8 would do no great harm, nor would it do any great good; by this standard, it should not be implemented. Though pertaining to a crucial topic, it is unnecessary, doesn’t address the underlying problems that prevent students from dealing with mental health, and should not become a mandate to professors.

John Pedro is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jmp488@cornell.edu.

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's Living Wage an Economic Living Nightmare

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

Acting on behalf of his radically progressive agenda, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio issued an executive order on Sep. 30 that increased the minimum wage of city employees covered by the living wage law from the previous $11.90 per hour to $13.13 per hour.

In New York, the living wage law is a form of price control that dictates people must be paid a minimum wage high enough to maintain a “regular standard of living.” The mayor’s office boldly claims that this order could aid the impoverished, underpaid working class by increasing their yearly income from an estimated $16,000 to approximately $27,000. Through such a large increase in the minimum wage, de Blasio hopes to fulfill his campaign promise of shrinking the economic divide between the poor and the rich in the nation’s largest city. Unfortunately for the citizens of New York City, this increase in living wage is just another misguided legislation crafted by liberal progressive politicians like de Blasio who have minimal comprehension of economics.

Although hardly anyone would disagree with the principle that an individual who works tirelessly in a full-time occupation should have the financial means to buy food and pay rent, it is important to not let good intentions distort reality. Despite what benign motives are behind de Blasio’s order, the inconvenient truth is that it weakens New York City’s economic position as a retail center of the world, therefore reducing the number of jobs available to workers surviving along the poverty line.

Despite clear evidence against the practicality of the executive order, Bill de Blasio is determined to not only expand his impractical ideals into other cities in New York but also set the standard of “poverty-reduction” policies for the rest of the nation.

Unfortunately, de Blasio’s decision to increase the living wage is only a scintilla of the massive left-wing movement to “aid the poor” by imposing minimum wage legislation that obstruct free-market economics. Liberals view enactment of such policies as victory for the working poor, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If providing more income through minimum wage helps stimulate the economy, then why not replace the $13 minimum wage with a $100 one instead? By liberal logic and reasoning, this entails that an individual who works 1500 hours a year gains a yearly income of $150,000. Of course, in reality, the only difference between a $13 hourly wage and a $100 one is the degree to which it harms the economy.

First of all, minimum wage hinders low skilled workers from finding a job. In accordance to basic economics, it is only rationale for a firm to hire an additional worker if that individual contributes at least as much value to the firm as it costs to hire him or her. If, for example, an individual lacks the skill or talent to flip enough burgers to match the minimum wage, then the restaurant cannot hire the person. So wouldn’t the individual applying for the job be better off if he or she worked for less than the enacted minimum wage as opposed to not being hired at all?

Furthermore, proponents of the minimum wage forget that money does not originate from thin air. The increase in pay that workers receive is not new income or spending; it comes from another person’s wallet. A rise in wage cost generates no net gain but entails at least one of three negative consequences: employers pay more, customers pay more, and/or people lose their jobs.

Perhaps most outrageous of all is that the minimum wage impedes upon the fundamental freedom of an American laborer to work at his or her agreed-upon wage. The price floor effect of the minimum wage obstructs workers from working at a wage that is below the politically-designated rate, even if it benefits them to do so. Likewise, the employers face financial loss because they are constrained from hiring new workers. When the government obstructs the mutually-beneficial exchange of employers and employees in the labor market, it asserts the dominance of tyranny over compromise. The laborers’ right to work is repudiated in favor of the political elites’ coercive jurisdiction in “protecting the collective good.”

Anyone who denies that the minimum wage restricts people’s freedom to work or alleges that it does not harm employment is essentially rejecting one of the fundamental principles of microeconomics, the Law of Demand, which states without exception that as the price of anything increases, lesser amounts of quantity will be consumed, including workers selling their labor.

By regulating the employer-employee pay scale, de Blasio is not helping to increase overall economic growth, but rather incentivizing businesses to operate outside of the economically-restrained city. Through basic economic analysis involving profit and loss, increasing numbers of businesses will realize the mounting costs of investing in New York and seek to pursue their projects elsewhere.

Even the restaurant industry, a primary supplier of entry-level jobs for low-income individuals, feels threatened by the order. The CEO of the New York State Restaurant Association Melissa Fleischut asserted that “more than ever, restaurants have a choice about where to open and we believe New York City should be adding incentives to open here, not barriers.” By deterring new restaurants from opening, de Blasio exacerbates the city’s difficulty in bringing jobs to economically-impaired communities.

Although politicians love to paint themselves as champions of the working class by proposing minimum wage legislation, they do so in order to garner support from the uninformed electorate. Therefore, it is important for sensible American citizens to analyze the actual impact—rather than intent—of their “War on Poverty” increases in minimum wage. After all, elected officials in favor of raising the minimum wage are those who fail to understand basic supply-and-demand economics. If these lawmakers fail to grasp such elementary ideas, the American public certainly cannot entrust them to craft legislation that could economically advance the nation.

Jake Zhu is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly: TCAT Edition

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

It started when the Cornell University administration ordered the bulldozing of the “Redbud Woods.” It resulted, almost a decade later, in the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit’s (TCAT’s) $740,000 deficit. It reached its conclusion, perhaps, when President David Skorton stated on Oct. 13 this year that Cornell would pay an additional $1.125 million to the TCAT over the next three years.

Despite President Skorton increasing Cornell’s contribution to the TCAT, some Cornell and local community members remain apprehensive, if not standoffish and vitriolic.

On campus, numerous students have organized a group called Save the Pass Coalition. According to its Facebook page, the group seeks “a binding commitment to $1 per ride and… a fair contract for workers, a contract that does not force the burden of the deficit onto the workers.” Their actions have included protests, teach-ins, and marches around campus.

The one dollar per ride figure forms the crux of the debate: over the years, as Cornell ridership has increased while its payments to TCAT have not, the subsidy-per-ride figure has dropped from $1 in 2006 to $0.84 in 2013. The original amount was calculated as the expected cost of a non-Cornellian with a monthly pass to ride the TCAT.

Fiscal conservatives should recognize the delicate balance between adequately funding TCAT—through a model that reflects both the value of a TCAT ride and the TCAT’s marginal costs, including fair compensation for workers—and being weary of throwing away students’ tuition to populist causes.

There is no doubt TCAT is vital to the university’s functioning, but there is equally no doubt in its structural problems. TCAT drivers endure long working hours, and growing monetary deficits sans increased subsidization or internal reforms means drivers will likely lose their jobs. What, then, is the solution here?

Free Passes: a Historical Primer

In 2005, the Cornell University administration commenced the clearing of a wooded area containing many redbud trees to create a parking lot for the new West Campus dormitories. Protestors cried foul, pointing out that Robert H. Treman, a Cornell alum and former owner of the land, requested that the land remain undeveloped when he bequeathed it to the university. According to a June 7, 2005 New York Times article, however, “he made no legal provisions to ensure that.” Although a 2004 ruling by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission declared the area to be a historic site, rulings by the Tompkins County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court both struck down the decision.

Lacking a legal argument, faculty, students, and community members instead questioned the morality of destroying a natural area to create a parking lot. Protestors resorted to drastic demonstrations, chaining themselves to trees and even constructing platforms and taking up residence in the trees’ branches.

When Cornell administrators refused to abandon the development plans or observe a six-month moratorium, the protestors agreed to end the occupation and signed a document with then-president Henry Rawlings III—one which was not legally binding by any means.

“The agreement states that all new students, including freshmen, transfer students, and professional and graduate students, will receive a free transit pass if they do not request or receive a parking permit,” according to a July 17, 2005 Cornell Daily Sun article.

Yet, today, President Skorton and president-elect Elizabeth Garret face the challenges of halting the rise of undergraduate tuition, settling the TCAT’s deficit, and, according to some community members, honoring Rawlings’ promise of free freshman bus passes.

Free Bus Passes: Powerful Incentive or Economic Irrelevancy?

The fundamental problem, as the Save the Pass Coalition argues, is that Cornell does not subsidize the TCAT enough. The Cornell community reportedly comprised 71% of the TCAT’s 2014 ridership, but the university’s payments only constitute 26% of the TCAT’s revenue. To them, this is economic injustice, and is the major cause of the TCAT’s hundred thousand dollar deficits.

But it is an equal injustice to students and their tuition-paying parents to blindly siphon tuition dollars to the TCAT simply because they are asking for more. Before signing blank checks, the administration must ensure that the university spends its funds responsibly and logically.

The logic of providing free bus passes to new students is faulty on a few points. First, riding the bus is not a necessity, it is a luxury. For the average student, a cross-campus trek on foot is feasible even in the dead of winter.

Second, Cornell only provides free bus passes to new students. Why would free bus passes for new students alter returning students’ decisions to bring cars to campus or not? Conceivably, returning students who desire to park their car on campus will continue to do so regardless of whether Cornell continues to provide free bus passes to new students. The maintenance of free bus passes for new students seems to relate only tangentially to the amount of vehicular traffic on campus.

Finally, Ithaca College does not provide free TCAT passes to its students, although students pay a reduced fare of $1 per ride or potentially lower for semester-length pass. Some Cornell community members allege that eliminating free bus passes would create more difficulty for new students who want to go to the Ithaca Mall or the Commons. Ithaca College students, however, still frequently use the TCAT system even without free bus passes. Three dollars for a round trip to and from the Commons or the mall does not seem like an unfair or unmanageable sum.

The “Redbud Woods” incident occurred nearly a decade and two university presidents ago. The intended implementation of the agreement constructed by the Cornell administration and protestors is vague and, as such, should not alone serve as justification for subsidizing bus passes.

Funding the TCAT in a manner that fairly compensates TCAT

employees and reflects the TCAT’s costs is a responsible use of university money. Continuing to pay for free bus passes for all new students due to questionable incentives and decade-old events: not so much.

As a freshman, I use my free bus pass. to ride the TCAT for free multiple times a week. Yet, if tomorrow the university decided to stop paying for my bus rides, I would not protest for a moment. Paying for a bus ride translates into me, a private citizen, exchanging currency for a service, plain and simple.

Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.

Republican Tom Reed and Democrat Martha Robertson '75 Square Off in the Final Weeks of NY23's Midterm Elections

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

This year’s midterm election hits close to home for Cornellians and Ithacans. New York’s 23rd District has borne witness to a wearisome electoral face off between Tom Reed, the Republican incumbent, and Martha Robertson ‘75, a Democratic Tompkins County legislator. Come Nov. 4, the district will know who represents it in the House of Representatives for the next two years.

Reed, a lawyer and former mayor of Corning, was first elected to the House in 2010 in a special election that took place after the resignation of Democratic incumbent Eric Massa, who stepped off after sexual harassment allegations. Reed then defended his seat against Tompkins County legislator Nathan Shinagawa ‘05 by a close margin of 9,464 votes (3.8 % of the vote) in the newly born 23rd district race in 2012.

He is now looking for reelection against Robertson, a Cornell Law graduate who served one term as the Chairman of the Tompkins County legislation, during which, among other things, she voted for a 4-times increase of her own salary and a doubling of the municipal property tax.

While in Washington, Reed has promoted a considerable amount of legislation, including the Pay Our Veterans and Seniors First Act, ensuring pay for active and retired armed forces members during government shutdown, and the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, encouraging businesses to donate their food inventories in exchange for tax breaks. He was also named to the United States House Committee on Ways and Means, becoming one of the only freshmen congressmen to reach a position on one of the most influential legislative committees. He has lately promoted the very beneficial Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, meant to reinvigorate the depressed post-industrial economy of the Southern Tier by creating “a national network of industry-driven, regionally-based Centers for Manufacturing Innovation (CMIs)”.

The 23rd district includes Ithaca and its rural surroundings, spanning across several counties. Whilst most of the Ithaca voters are staunchly liberal, the remaining part of the district is strongly conservative.

The race has evolved considerably in the past few weeks, with overall voter favorability swinging back to Reed’s side. Robertson has stuck to promoting programs and promises widely acknowledged as extremely liberal—or as the Reed campaign puts it, the work of a “crazy Ithaca liberal.” For instance, she has promised during her campaign that her first act as a Congresswoman would be to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Ostentatious political points like this are directed only to the Ithaca’s blindly liberal voters, and, while successful in this city, have failed to resonate with the rurally conservative, financially hard-shipped voters elsewhere

Among the very long list of concerning points promoted by Robertson, she has put forward climate change as the number one issue while representing an economically depressed district that has seen the departure of most of its industry. The 23rd District boasts an 8.0% unemployment rate, compared to the average 6.4% rate of New York State, and the 5.9% national unemployment rate. She was also quoted saying, “Honestly, you have to go single-payer” when discussing the possibility of lowering healthcare costs for the government in a 2009 clip. How would she fund that? “Our taxes would go up”, she responded to this issue in a 2011 clip.

On a more personal aspect, her campaign has perversely focused on Congressman Reed’s former heavier physique, using images of him before he underwent a gastric bypass surgery more than a year ago which helped him drop more than one hundred pounds. On top of this, not only has Robertson barely interacted with the local media, she has actually censored non-friendly media in her events, as The Cornell Review documented last month when she visited Cornell to give a speech at a Cornell Democrats event. Cornell Daily Sun reporters were cleared to video the event while Review correspondents were prohibited.

The fat-shaming attacks, combined with out-of-touch stances that heavily favor the Ithacan electorate and media aloofness vis-a-vis have greatly harmed Robertson’s chances of defeating Congressman Reed.

In a late development, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) pulled back most of its support, including $465,000 destined for television and radio advertisements. The DCCC explained that they do not see “a path to victory” for Robertson in this race.

It seems that Martha Robertson’s fate is already decided. The latest poll by Real Clear Politics published on October 14 placed Reed up by 8 points and labeled the district “Likely Republican.”

This election should serve as a reminder that this kind of out-of-touch, far-left authoritarian figure should start fading away from the political landscape, to show that the reality people live through every day weighs more than whatever the elitist bubble of the college world desires. Local conservatives can only hope that this blow to blind liberalism will come in the form of a crushing Reed victory.

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.

Bill Gates Ticket Scalpers Criticized by Clueless Anti-Capitalist Students

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

When the first distribution of free tickets for President Skorton’s interview of Bill Gates occurred on September 25, those tickets were gone within thirty minutes.

Come the second distribution, hundreds of students waited hours outside of Willard Straight Hall in the early morning to get their hands on them (each student could get up to two tickets). Considering the popularity of the event, it was not all that surprising when an underground trade for the highly coveted tickets immediately sprang up.

For five days, students seeking to buy or sell tickets to the event—a Q&A session between Gates and President Skorton and then with students—flocked to Cornell’s online social networks. In short time, prices rose as high as $165.

Unfortunately, given the enormous demand for tickets, not everyone who wanted to go could ever possibly have fit inside Bailey Hall, which has a maximum capacity of 1300 seats. Anyone with a brain would suggest that the limited number of tickets should go to those students to whom the experience is worth the most. How can this be achieved most fairly? The answer is simple: ticket scalping.

Although many students expressed outrage at this apparent “abuse of the system,” ticket scalping was actually the most effective way to ensure that the tickets went to the students who wanted them the most. The ticket buyers were clearly willing to pay however much the sellers were asking or else they wouldn’t have bought the tickets. It’s that simple.

Some might argue that the buyers had no choice: if they wanted to see Bill Gates, they had to pay the huge amounts that the sellers were asking. The counterargument is simple. The buyers obviously wanted to see Bill Gates, but if the prices for the tickets rose too high the buyers would have just decided not to bother and instead watch the event’s live stream. The fact that the buyers were willing to pay up to $165 for those tickets clearly shows that those tickets were worth at least $165 to those specific buyers.

When discussing this with a friend, he asked me, “Yes, but why would those people who are selling be in line in the first place? Why can’t they be nice and let others who waited in line get a ticket?”

Unfortunately, any system which relies on a community of thousands of people to all act kindly and selflessly, while lovely in theory, is doomed to failure. There was no way to determine which of the students in the line most wanted to see Bill Gates, and thus were “most deserving” of the tickets.

Ticket scalping actually benefits everyone involved. The buyers get the tickets that they may not have otherwise gotten, while the sellers get money. To the buyers, the tickets are worth more than the money, while to the sellers the money is worth more than the tickets.

Since the tickets were originally free, as long as what the buyers paid the scalpers exceeded the opportunity cost of idling in line for several hours, the scalpers would profit. This is a classic example of a free market: prices are determined solely by supply and demand, without outside regulation or intervention. Since the market itself determines prices, those prices are the optimal ones for both parties involved.

Considering how basic the idea of free markets is, it’s a little ridiculous that so many students still can’t wrap their heads around it. The arguments that free market capitalism “isn’t fair” and “doesn’t treat everyone equally” are by no means new. The counterarguments are still just as effective as they’ve always been.

Free markets are a highly effective way to ensure that all participants receive their most preferred outcomes.

Anti-capitalist sentiment on campus is quick to label scalpers as “greedy” simply because they desire money in return for their ticket. Everyone has wants and desires. It’s not greedy to pursue them. It’s what any economic system relies on, outside of communism or totalitarianism.

Let Bill Gates put it to you: “Capitalism has worked very well. Anyone who wants to move to North Korea is welcome.”

Miranda Hawkins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at meh399@cornell.edu.

Dissing the Cornell Disorientation Guide

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

The intellectually elite leftist students of Cornell have struck again. In their latest foray into struggle, a group of anonymous students published a twenty-page “Disorientation Guide” detailing eleven grievances against the university. Self-loathing, misandry, and shame are its central themes, and a sense of entitlement is its underlying premise.

The guide was originally published at the beginning of the academic year, but The Cornell Review only recently learned of its existence. Other campus publications, such as the Dartmouth Review, only recently ran stories on their respective campuses disorientation guides. No two guides are the same, but the coordinated release and common name more than suggests collusion among left-wing students at various campuses.

The grievances of the Cornell Disorientation Guide are all familiar regurgitations of leftist gospel, wherein all that exists is evil and all that could be—if only the guide’s authors were given absolute authority—is good. To disagree with them, naturally, is to incur their wrath. The loving, open arms of the left are closed to the open-minded.

A line-by-line refutation of the Disorientation Guide, tempting as it is, would drag on just as the guide does. Rather, I have decided just to address select points from the first three grievances, and perhaps in subsequent issues I will delve into the remaining ones.

1. Cornell’s ongoing colonial occupation

Cornell, founded in 1865, sits on land that was occupied by the Cayuga tribe until 1779, when George Washington ordered a scorched-earth campaign to drive them off the land. The specific grievance in the guide is that Cornell does not acknowledge its “colonial” occupation of former Cayuga lands. Obviously, the guide authors are unaware of what colonialism is (hint: it’s when one country rules another country or group of people and benefits from exclusive trade policies). Stepping back from the literal definition, it is still

Furthermore, there is no explanation of what such an acknowledgement would accomplish.

Would it lift the 22% of Native Americans who live in poverty out of it? Would it employ the 60, 70, 80% of Native Americans unemployed on some of the largest reservations? Would it alleviate rampant alcoholism so devastating nearly 13% of Native American deaths are alcohol-related? Would it save the one in three Native American women who are raped on reservations? No, but it would make the campus activists feel good about themselves.

This section then takes extreme digression with the idea of colonialism to imply Cornell is the colonial master of Ithaca. The guide criticizes Cornell for only giving Ithaca $1.25 million instead of the $6 million usually requested by Mayor Svante Myrick ’09 or the estimated $6 billion tax bill.

Clearly, the guide’s authors are ignorant of or oblivious to the very obvious fact that Cornell is the economic lifeline of Ithaca. Over 8,000 people are employed by the university in non-faculty roles, and a university report released this year showed that Cornell contributed $3.2 billion to the New York state economy last year. The influx of students’ money keeps the real estate market sky-high, fill the coffers of local businesses, and incentivizes continual investment in this otherwise unattractive place to do business.

2. Consolidating patriarchal power

“Don’t pledge frats! They’re f*ed up and boring. Attacking frats is on the rise!”

So concludes the guide’s next section, an indictment of Cornell’s Greek Life.

It is not incorrect to call the Greek system patriarchal, but the key distinction is that Greek Life is completely voluntary. Joining chapters and attending their social events is not an obligation or duty of any student.

But truly, not all is right and well with Greek Life here or on other campuses. The guide correctly criticizes both fraternities and sororities for objectifying women, creating environments prone to and sometimes encouraging of sexual assault, and glorifying excessive drinking and drug abuse.

But leave it to the left-wing students behind the Disorientation Guide to take a perfectly justified set of complaints and warp it into another facet of so-called struggle. Borderline nonsensical rhetoric (‘‘Attacking frats is on the rise!”) subtracts from the gravity of the real issues. Most readers finish this section laughing at the ridiculous last sentences, completely forgetting all else. Worse, the divisive and truculent rhetoric turns off people who are less inclined to, say, topple the “patriarchy,” but are willing to reconsider preconceived notions about campus Greek Life. The guide authors are destroying their own cause by making a caricature out of it.

It leads me to ponder whether they truly want to end the “patriarchal power” structure or simply rant and rave about it. Probably the latter.

3. Cornell doesn’t care about racism

The call to arms in this section concerns last year’s Cornell Athletic’s “Cinco de Octubre” Mexican-themed event. The event was a marketing stunt for a home football game. It featured all that anyone would expect from something as asinine, and in its aftermath a majority of campus threw a collective fit.

Perhaps this event was racist. Only Mexicans could truly say, and plenty of them on campus said so. In response, Cornell Athletics profusely apologized, Vice President Susan Murphy wrote a letter apologizing, and most of the Cornell Daily Sun’s left-wing editorial board hounded on the topic for days. Compare this outpouring to the nonexistent reaction concerning the flyers specifically targetting a conservative writer of the Cornell Daily Sun. Cornell clearly cares about racism.

Apologies, however, are not enough. The only solution, as the guide authors suggest, is to “intervene” and “change” students’ and administrators’ “internalized oppressive worldviews.” Indeed, the old paradigm whereby institutionalized racism--which is determined by intent not outcome, by the way-- could be eradicated but individual instances not has now given way to a new paradigm: re-education of the masses.

Of course, the same people whose economic central planning leads to collapsing economies want to now foray into social central planning. Venture to guess what the result of that be?

These left-wing students behind the Disorientation Guide, they stare into the distance, the setting sun, with a twinkle in their eyes and envision the day when they can socially engineer humanity to their every whim. To them, a more perfect society is one in which there is a specific result--that is, a certain set of outcomes created by specific values, policies, and beliefs. They will perhaps never learn that a perfect society is not defined by what it does, achieves, and believes in, but rather how and why it does, achieves, and believes in what it does.

All those interested in reading the Disorientation Guide can visit the Review Blog at blog.thecornellreview.com.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

Universal Higher Education a Misguided Policy

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

It’s a part of the American Dream. Regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic background, or any other demographic factor, college is thought to be the great equalizer in the modern day.

According to a 2010 statement from the Labor Department, over 70% of the 2.9 million U.S. high school graduating class was college-bound. That’s up from 57% in 2000, and 54.3% in 1992. Given this astounding trend, one might be led to believe there is a lot of great equality on the way within the coming years.

However, despite more and more students of all backgrounds attending college, income inequality continues to increase in the United States. Whether these trends are correlated or not, if the underlying intent to pushing a universal higher education agenda--as Obama and company have—is to combat income inequality in general, there is a dearth of tangible data justifying such intent.

In his 2012 State of the Union Address, the citizen-of-the-world President mentioned that, “We’re shaking up our system of higher education to give parents more information, and colleges more incentives to offer better value, so that no middle-class kid is priced out of a college education.”

This is all fine and well. In fact, both sides of the political aisle are ultimately vying for the same goal with regards to “shaking [things] up” in order to maximize universal attainment of higher education. However, it is this very paradigm of calling for this reform that is to blame.

In the same speech, the President went on to say that the government ought to “help every hard-working kid get to college and succeed when they get to campus.” The first exception(s) to this assumption that ambition correlates with academic interest are the Zuckerbergs, the Gates, and the Jobs of the world. Attending college was fairly ephemeral in their respective trajectories. And even at an Ivy League institution like Cornell, it is evident that not every student on this campus has the drive, motivation, and/or work ethic of any of these men aforementioned.

It’s easy to fall victim to this fluffy rhetoric: that to succeed one needs to attend college, graduate with a four-year degree, and take up a job in business, engineering, medicine, or law. Although this is a path I and many others have chosen to pursue, it is not one for every ambitious youth.

Not to pull an infamous Obama anecdote, but I recall in high school there was a young man in the grade level above me who was a master carpenter. In fact, he was so gifted in his craft that he had to take time off from school the second semester of his senior year to relocate to the British Isles. There he was utilized for his structural expertise in resorting old castles and other decaying edificial structures.

This example is rather niche. However, what is important to note is the context of the story. I went to a relatively upper-class, suburban, nationally-ranked high school that just this past year sent over 97% of its grads to a four year university/college. If my contemporary had fallen victim to the societal pressures of normalcy (in pursuing a typical four-year degree), not only might society and the private sector be underemployed in the industry of craftsmanship, but so too might he end up economically worse off in pursuing a potentially less lucrative career—all the while putting artificial pressure on the demand for higher education.

This leads to the bulk of the dilemma: the rising costs of education. To put this general upward trend of costs of higher education into perspective consider that according to the Department of Education average public four-year university tuition and fees have risen 101% since 1964 and average private four-year university tuition and fees have risen a startling 137.2% since the same year.

There, of course, are many factors at play when it comes to the rising cost of education. But rising costs on the end of the universities cannot explain such huge tuition increases over the years. The major culprit? The copious availability of government-subsidized student loans.

It seems counterintuitive to point a finger at (or bite) the hand that feeds you, but it really is a simple economic dynamic. Higher demand for college education pushes up its price, and the federal government’s largesse in its provision of student loans subsidizes this growing demand. In fact, according to a 2012 piece in the Washington and Lee Law Review, nearly all students are eligible for federal student loans, regardless of credit score or other financial issues.

If altruism was the only goal here, this would be significantly less alarming. The problem with the manner in which the federal government guarantees loans for those interested in attaining a four-year degree is that the beneficiaries themselves are not buying into private, high-interest loans. In a private loans market, it is probable to believe that the pool of students vying for four-year degrees would return to its previous, 20th century level, as student loans themselves would be valued so high, that interest rates would sky rocket. This would put a negative demand-side strain on universities, which would then lower their tuitions.

As the federal government becomes larger and larger and gains more influence over the education system, it is likely that the current system will never change. The only way for the cost of higher education to at least plateau in its upward trajectory is by instituting some degree of cultural change. Instead of Barack Obama telling every ambitious youth that he or she needs to go to a four-year school to achieve, he should be suggesting policy ideas around championing all skill sets, and to pursue those career paths that are extremely lucrative and best learned at a community college or a trade school, like electrical work, auto repair, plumbing and craftsmanship.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, middle-skill jobs (those that require a certificate or associate’s degree to obtain) will make up more than 45% of new job openings by the end of this year. Also, in terms of job growth, those which require an associate’s degree are the fastest growing at a rate of 19%.

This is where efforts need be allocated. And the federal government doesn’t have to even get involved. These forms of higher education are low cost, both implicitly and explicitly, yielding some of the highest returns on investment in percentage terms.

Education can be a great equalizer, but it is difficult to manufacture equality, especially in the form of student loans. With the way in which the federal government tampers with the loans market, the net result is gross inflation of tuition rates and fees. The quicker that students and parents realize the heart of the tuition/student debt problem, the quicker the education gap and income gap can be addressed and potentially narrowed.

Christopher Nowacki is a student in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@cornell.edu.

Hong Kong Protests, World Watches China

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

Hong Kong currently finds itself embroiled in a political struggle with the Chinese government over the touchy topic of democracy for the quasi-independent island.

In the past, China could afford to stifle internal struggles with brute force with little coverage to worry about. Now, however, outcries against broken promises and images of protesters using umbrellas to protect themselves against tear and spray gas are the dominant themes found in international media coverage, with the movement even being coined the Umbrella Revolution. Hong Kong plays a major role in the global economy, and the consequences of the ongoing protests are set to have a huge impact on both Chinese national policies and the watching world.

A quick history lesson is needed in order to fully understand the situation today. Beijing governs Hong Kong through Basic Law, a system negotiated between the British and Chinese governments in the mid-1980s, well before Britain signed over their territory. Under Basic Law, the region is to be controlled under a “one-country, two systems” form of government; this protects Hong Kong’s capitalist economy and allows its people to have a political system more open to freedom of expression and civic participation than that of the ruling Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. Basic Law is guaranteed for the first 50 years of this agreement and in return, China is responsible for Hong Kong’s national security and foreign policies.

The one country, two systems policy also promised the implementation of universal suffrage, with candidates for Chief Executive to be chosen by a committee, broadly representative of the political parties in Hong Kong. The election in 2017 was supposed to be the starting point for this process, but on Aug. 31, China’s National People’s Congress decided to limit this committee to the same 1,200 members that have selected executives in past elections. This effectively rid the committee of members from the democratic parties within Hong Kong and filled it up instead with pro-Beijing factions.

This breach in policy has led to mass protests, mostly from the student population in Hong Kong. Driven by public fervor, droves of students have undertaken the task to “Occupy Central” and to show their disgruntlement through passive resistance and protests. In turn, the Chinese government has been adamant in declaring that their decision is not going to be revoked or modified and that the protesters should disperse. Inactivity from current Chief Executive C.Y. Leung has done little to allay the situation. Incidents of violence perpetrated by the police and by pro-Beijing thugs have received intensive media scrutiny, thus creating an anti-Chinese sentiment in the global media.

Venus Mia Tse, ’17, has lived in both Shanghai and Hong Kong and views the situation as less black and white than is portrayed. She narrates: “The media’s portrayed the situation in such a biased way that some students are protesting just for the sake of it. One of my friends, after watching YouTube and Facebook videos about the protest, told me how proud she was about Hong Kong people standing up for democracy, yet a few days later she asked me what exactly were the details of the policy set by the CCP.”

Most people unfamiliar with the events in Hong Kong view the situation as a Chinese attempt to suppress democracy, but Beijing has its own national policies to worry about as well. While she harbors sympathy for the cause of the protestors, Tse can also see why the Chinese take such a strong stance on their part. She is aware of the tense political situations elsewhere in other independent regions such as Xinjiang and Taiwan. The people there watch on with interest as Hong Kong tests the political power and might of the Chinese. If China alters its strategy to accommodate their demands, the protests in Hong Kong could become a catalyst for further unrest in other regions, something that the Communist Party simply cannot tolerate.

Essentially, the Chinese government faces several unappealing courses of action. It could instill a heavy crackdown and risk incurring the backlash from the rest of the globe. It could do nothing and let the demonstrations stretch for months on end, thus encouraging other regions to follow suit. Or, it could negotiate a compromise with the protestors, a slow and quite possibly fruitless process given how entrenched both sides are in their views.

Decades of development and prosperity under the guiding hand of the British have endowed the people of Hong Kong with a sense of elevated importance and whetted appetites for personal freedom. But the crisis does not have to do as much as with cultural differences as with Chinese policies and economics. With both sides unwilling to compromise, it remains to be seen whether a peaceful resolution can be reached. The umbrella revolution continues to divide the Far East as democracy rears its head under the heel of communism.

Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as2586@cornell.edu.

When Can We Have a Serious Debate About the Middle East?

2014-10-31T00:00:00Z

“War crimes”, “BDS”, “apartheid” and “genocide”--these are the buzzwords and phrases for anti-Israel protests, articles, and attacks. On American campuses, in cities, and on blogs, the Left applies these epithets indiscriminately and with little regard for the situation on the ground in the Middle East.

Palestinians yearn for, among other things, peace, safety, security, freedom of religion and association, and basic housing and health care. Individuals look to their government for an environment which provides these basic necessities and which allows them to flourish. A government which does not provide these essential rights is not a government at all; a corrupt government cannot be considered a government.

Human shields, kidnappings, tunnels, and rockets--these are the primary “institutions” of the Hamas “government”. Hamas, as a result of a desire to stay in power above all else, uses terror tactics to gain legitimacy within Gaza and around the world. This is not consistent with the laws governing armed conflict or natural law. The American Left needs to understand these basic truths and re-arrange its priorities from solely attacking Israel to helping Palestinians look inward and help themselves. America (especially the Left) needs to hold Hamas accountable for its lack of transparency, its disregard for basic human rights, and its charter (which contains provisions which are contrary to the values Americans hold sacred).

Although neither side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can benefit from the status quo, the Palestinians’, and specifically Gazans’, situation is becoming increasingly dire. So why, even as Gazans continue to suffer, do Hamas and the American Left continue to attack Israel instead of trying to ease the suffering in Gaza? Why not pursue strategies for a peaceful resolution to the conflict? When will Hamas and the American Left get serious about what the Palestinians need—that is a non-corrupt government which cares more about the fact that its citizens squat in graveyards, lack economic empowerment and safety than its own aggrandizement? When will we see a self-aware article in a US journal recognizing the shortcomings of Hamas? The situation on the ground is not just Israel’s fault, as the Left would have us believe.

The hot summer months brought kidnappings, revenge killings, rockets, tunnels, and military action. In this most recent spike of violence, which culminated in a continuous rocket barrage from Hamas controlled Gaza and Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, civilians on both sides of the conflict quickly became the victims. The summer’s events made one things clear: the status quo is unsustainable.

Since 2007, when Hamas took complete control of Gaza, its strategy towards Israel has been both ineffective and irresponsible. Rocket attacks, tunnel building, and kidnappings have replaced hopes for peace and rational discussion. Hamas’ actions over the last seven years certainly do not represent steps to peace. Not only do these reckless tactics endanger civilians living in Gaza, but they also inhibit any sort of progress towards a resolution of the conflict. While Gazans live without consistent running water, electricity, education, and jobs with living wages, Hamas does nothing. Instead of taking practical steps to aid the civilians they claim to be protecting, Hamas uses violence towards Israel as a quick way to attain easy legitimacy and radicalize the youth of the Palestinian Territories. What should be done?

America needs to call Hamas and Arab countries to account. Maybe President Obama has started to make his way in the right direction. In his speech to the United Nations on September 24th, President Obama explained, “the countries of the Arab and Muslim world must focus on the extraordinary potential of their people -- especially the youth.” If it truly hopes to bring the Palestinians forth from isolation, Hamas must begin with the President’s call to action. Instead of radicalization, Hamas should seek education. Instead of investing in rockets, Hamas should invest in its brightest young minds. It should hope to join with universities to send high achieving Palestinian children to the West. In fact, in the same speech, President Obama noted that America would partner with those that seek education as a means for peace.

It is only through education, innovation, and understanding that the conflict can end its final chapter with peace instead of war.

Although the Arab League has boycotted Israeli made goods since 1945, modern Western support for Palestinians has come largely from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which was created in 2005 by Palestinian non-governmental groups and has been co-opted by the extremes of the American Left. This modern iteration of the 1945 boycott not only harms the Palestinian people, but also blocks any hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. There are at least two significant problems with the BDS movement.

The first issue is purely economic. The BDS movement, which aims to alienate Israeli businesses and its economy, probably does more harm to Palestinians than to Israelis. As a “start-up nation,” Israel certainly has achieved economic success. According to Forbes, Israel has, per person, attracted more than double as much venture capital investment than the United States and thirty times more than Europe, it consistently has the most start-ups and patents per capita of any nation in the world, and it has, other than the United States, the most companies listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange.

But while Israel enjoys incredible success, neighboring Palestinians are unable to enjoy the benefits. In a 2013 New York Times Opinion, Ed Husain, a Senior Advisor to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations, noted this burgeoning economic problem. “The main victims of this boycott are not Israelis, but Palestinians. Israel’s economy is booming, while Palestinians languish in abject poverty. The decades-long Arab boycott has failed miserably. An estimated 70 percent of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem live below the poverty line.”

For any university student, the most pernicious aspect of the American Left’s defense of the Palestinian people is the misguided boycott of Israeli academic institutions, scholars and ideas. Across the United States, calls for academic boycotts of Israel, or still worse declarations of Israel as an apartheid state guilty of genocide, twist, pervert, and radicalize the conflict. Israeli society is in fact as introspective and critical of its own government and policies as any Western society. The refusal, by members of the American Left, to acknowledge, and listen to, Israeli scholars, shuts out one of the most valuable resources for peace. It is only through a marketplace of ideas, which includes contributions from Israeli academics, that the status quo can be altered.

What is equally troubling about the Left’s recent strategies and ideas is that they often originate with students. In many circles, wrongly accusing Israel of atrocities has suddenly become the cool, liberal thing to do. If young adults, who are meant to be learning about open discourse and understanding, believe in a restriction of dialogue as the mechanism for resolution, the conflict will never end. If students continue to believe that the only true democracy in the Middle East is guilty of genocide, nothing can be done.

Instead of holding protests on college campuses that accuse Israel of atrocities, young adults of the Left should pressure their institutions of higher learning to partner with schools in Gaza and the West Bank. They should strive, through education and communication, to end the radicalization of the Palestinian youth.

Hamas needs to commit itself to ending the plight of civilians in Gaza in a peaceful manner. If a new Hamas, one committed to economic reform, education and against radicalization, emerges instead of an organization committed to furthering its own illegitimate goals then peace and security are attainable. If this shift in strategy occurs, the onus will be on Israel to do its part to achieve a just peace.

Until this change occurs, and the American and European Left, pro-Palestinian groups acknowledge that the road to peace begins with marketplace of ideas, and not anti-Israel slander, the status quo will remain. Until this change occurs, Israel will be justified both morally and legally to meet aggression with military action in its own self-defense.

Jonathan Furman is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jmf358@cornell.edu.

*This article was originally published by the Cornell Political Reivew on their website.

Domestic Terrorism in the U.S.

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Domestic terrorism is here, and almost nobody is talking about it.

In June, 19-year old Brendan Tevlin was killed after being shot eight times by 29-year-old Ali Muhammad Brown, who randomly ambushed the teen when he was driving alone in his car. Brown, a confessed terrorist, has also admitted to three other murders in Washington State. The murders, according to Brown, were carried out as retribution against the U.S. for lives lost in the Islamic world. According to local news station Q13 Fox, Brown stated, “My mission is vengeance... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, all these places where innocent lives are being taken every single day… All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.”

More recently in late September, 30-year-old Alton Nolen brutally beheaded 54-year-old Colleen Hufford in the food processing plant where he worked, and stabbed 43-year-old Traci Johnson after being fired. The victims seem to have been randomly targeted, and had not Nolen been shot and injured he probably would have gone on to murder more.

Investigating police asked the FBI to assist in the investigation due to the similar nature of the attack to recent acts of terror by ISIS, specifically their videotaped beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as well as British aid worker David Haines. According to the Associated Press, Nolen had been trying to convert several employees to Islam. He also reportedly had several pictures of behadings on his Facebook page.

The spread of jihad has infected not only Americans, but apparently has reached Europeans as well. According to New York Daily News, 16-year-old Samra Kesinovic and 15-year-old Sabina Selimovic have fled their homes in Vienna to join ISIS. The girls posted photos of themselves online wearing burkas standing next to terrorists holding Kalashnikov rifles, causing authorities to fear that they will recruit more impressionable teens.

These are only some examples of the spread of radical Islam so close to home. This strange attraction to groups like ISIS--which holds girls as sex slaves, forcibly converts its prisoners to Islam, and beheads children--is beyond comprehension. Something that seems so evil is apparently now somehow desirable and has managed to become normalized in a gruesome and twisted way.

We are so afraid to talk about Islamic terrorism in a negative light for fear of sounding offensive that the discussion of domestic terrorism has been silenced. Compare the media’s coverage of the Michael Brown shooting, for example, and the murder of Brendan Tevlin. Compare also the public’s and the Obama administration’s reactions to the events. The shooting of Michael Brown by police created mass outrage, violent protests, and unrest that continues today. Attorney General Eric Holder and three White House officials attended Brown’s funeral. For Brendan Tevlin, whose family held a quiet and peaceful candlelight vigil, the White House looked the other way, and the country remained oblivious of the gruesome tragedy and undisputed act of terror that occurred in New Jersey.

We as a nation have become dangerously reluctant to criticize radical Islamic terrorism. The fear instilled in Americans of saying something that may be offensive has prevented the necessary conversations from happening, in effect normalizing terrorism in the most dangerous manner.

The rise of domestic terror is real, and even worse, is slipping away quietly into history ignored and unnoticed.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.

Conservative Daily Sun Columnist Attacked in Anonymous Flyers

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

An anonymous individual or group distributed flyers featuring Cornell Daily Sun columnist Julius Kairey with the text “Daily Sun Columnist and Racist Rape Apologist” across campus some time during the days of Sep. 17 and 18.

The Cornell Review has been the only campus publication covering the story, after it was made aware of the existence of flyers on North Campus between freshmen residential halls. A student unassociated with their distribution uploaded pictures of the flyers found on north Campus to the popular Facebook page ‘‘Overheard at Cornell.’’

On the night of Sep. 18, fifteen more flyers were found randomly distributed throughout the stacks of Olin Library. It was later reported that more flyers were found in the Catherwood Library in Ives Hall.

Currently, the Review cannot ascertain who is responsible for the distribution of these flyers. Most likely, the flyers were meant to smear Kairey because of his recent Daily Sun articles. Kairey writes a bi-monthly column entitled “Always Right” where he articulates conservative opinions on various topics.

Several national media outlets, including Campus Reform and The College Fix, have published stories about this incident, but the Daily Sun and university administration have been mute.

I do not even know where to start trying to explain how wrong this attack is in every aspect imaginable. My history major peers and others well-versed in politics surely know about the era when politicians and people who stood up against dictatorship in Communist China during the Cultural Revolution were publicly humiliated, their pictures—or the people involved themselves—exposed to the crowd, accompanied by denigrating and objectifying messages. Stalin was also known for using similar techniques on disloyal members of the party, ultimately leading to their execution, or “purge.” It does feel like there is an interesting correlation between totalitarianism and the need to purge dissenting opinions from society.

Perhaps something similar is happening here?

It seems so: the groups fighting for a Communist/Palestinian/Flower-loving/Pansexual/Occupy/Etc. society have gone all the way to publicly shame a fellow student in order to censor him and establish their view as the only version of facts allowed to be discussed on campus.

Every time Kairey publishes his thoughts on controversial issues like racism or rape culture, his articles receive most of the comments on the Sun’s website, mostly as a backlash for expressing conservative views on Cornell’s biggest newspaper. Moreover, most of these comments do not even come in the form of criticism, but mainly as personal attacks, such as “Not only has Cornell failed you, Julius, by allowing you as a student to squeak by with no evidence of ability to think critically or analyze something intelligently, but they are failing the rest of their students and whoever is reading the Daily Sun by publishing a piece like this” in response to his article “Islamophobia and Racism” published early September.

This situation has reached a point in which we must ask ourselves: Why has this gone so far? What are these people’s intentions? Do they pretend to harass this man, and by extension the rest of the campus, all the way self-censorship? Why has Cornell not taken any measures to bring back order yet? I can say that, as a writer in a newspaper that is constantly signaled and discriminated for its views, I support Kairey because I understand how difficult it is to express these view on such a beacon of liberalism like Cornell. And yet, most people keep siding with cowardly groups who shelter behind their shared resentment and dirty pamphlets.

Kairey is of recent the single-most attacked person on campus, yet the Cornell Review is the only newspaper covering a situation of public harassment that should concern the entire Cornell community, but that many people choose to ignore because of who is being attacked. What is really shameful is the fact that those people involved in political life on campus have not risen to defend someone who is being oppressed.

Julius Kairey spoke up, and now we are speaking up for him. I can only say one thing: freedom of speech on campus is in great danger if it is left for fringe groups to control. Nevertheless, I still trust that most of Cornell, that silent majority, will speak up when they will be forced to defend that most sacred freedom.

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.

All Quiet Upon the Hill

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Welcome to Cornell, where the expression of contrarian political beliefs in a well-reasoned, thoughtful manner inspires such great indignation and fury that the only appropriate responses are personal attacks and smear campaigns.

Such must be the thinking of the anonymous culprits behind the distribution of the Julius Kairey flyers. Hiding behind the small, white flyers that so proudly and boldly lie to all those who happened to see them, these cowards are actively trying to change Cornell’s precious motto of “Any person, any study” to “Certain people, certain studies.”

In a free society, there is nothing wrong with different individuals and groups holding different opinions; there is equally nothing wrong with expressing them. But to the distributors of these flyers, there is no correct ideology, no acceptable way of thinking, except for their own. On their high and mighty thrones—completely absolved of privilege and prejudice, no doubt—they dictate who may think and what they may think.

My purpose here, however, is not to rip into the flyers’ distributors or defend Kairey, as the front-page piece in this issue already addresses that topic.

Really what stuns me the most about this entire incident is the fact that both Cornell’s administration and the Cornell Daily Sun have not outright condemned the flyers.

The Sun’s chief editors, on the Monday following the Thursday and Friday discovery of the flyers, did publish a paltry Letter from the Editor entitled “Fostering Appropriate Conversation.” The letter makes an oblique reference to the incident, and fails to use key words like “Julius Kairey,” “flyers,” and “condemn.” Evidently the Sun’s three most senior staff members cannot even muster the courage to defend Kairey, one of their own writers, in name.

On Monday, Sep. 29, over a week after the flyers were first discovered, President David Skorton published an editorial entitled “Free Speech and Civility: Are They Incompatible?” basically re-iterating the Sun editors’ vague, gaseous treatment of the situation. Only Daily Sun columnist Deon Thomas wrote a meaningfuly condemnation the flyers, in a piece entitled “The Art of Constructive Criticism.”

Despite national news outlets covering the story, there has been no official press statement from any administrator condemning the flyers. Inquiries sent to Cornell Media Relations and the Bias Response Program have gone unanswered.

The point here is not that the Daily Sun or Cornell officials have to defend the content of Kairey’s writing, but that they have failed to defend his dignity and his freedom of speech. Weakly saying that students should be civil is a start, but it is not an acceptable end. Essentially, the Sun and the administration have cavpitulated to the students behind the flyers.

If only the most influential groups on campus would adhere to the wisdom of Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

'Culture of Sensitivity' Wrong About Redskins

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

The United States is impugned once again by the dominant vice in American politics: the culture of sensitivity.

On Sep. 12, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state announced the introduction of a bill to deprive of the NFL of its tax-exempt status due to the organization’s refusal to alter the name of the Washington Redskins team. In her crusade to encroach upon American culture with political correctness, Senator Cantwell is supported by many Native American tribes and Native American interest groups, such as the National Congress of American Indians, which believe the name of the team is offensive to Native Americans.

The hypersensitive, politically correct left argues that the term “redskins” is a hateful form of stereotyping that has negative connotations about the Native American ethnicity. This claim, however, is completely unfounded since the “redskins” name is not only inoffensive to the vast majority of Native Americans, but is actually a historical title adopted by the Native Americans themselves.

The organizations that argue “redskins” has hateful historical connotations fail to understand the actual historical context in which the title was coined. In a BBC interview, Ives Goddard, the senior linguist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, stated that Natives Americans created the term simply to differentiate themselves from the white Europeans with whom they interacted. Goddard bluntly asserts that “redskin” is “[was] used by [Native Americans] and the idea that it would be derogatory doesn’t make any sense.”

Furthermore, team owner Dan Snyder has stated that the “redskins” name was adopted in the 1930s to honor the Native American people and several Native American football players of the time, rather than patronize them, as many leftists assume. Given these historical truths, it is inconceivable as to how the name can be misconstrued as a defamatory stereotype rather than the honorary tribute it originally was and remains today.

In spite of what you might think, neither a majority of Americans nor a majority of Native Americans have a problem with the “redskins” name. A recent ESPN poll found that 71% of Americans are against changing the name. In the Native American community, the acceptance for the name is even higher: a 2004 national survey revealed that 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the name. Thus, the anti-”redskins” campaigns are catering to a small minority of Native Americans and hyper-sentive liberal progressive that seeks to misrepresent the views of the majority by acting as the un-appointed head spokesperson.

So if there is no racist historical background to “redskins” and public opinion is generally accepting of the name, then what is fueling the outrage? To resolve this dilemma, one must realize that the Redskins controversy is part of a larger problem that must be addressed—the oversensitive liberal culture of America.

In modern society, the “political correctnes police”--the PC police-- respond to the concerns of individuals who find nearly everything to be offensive. These individuals seek a society where everyone must carefully examine everything that is said because there is no telling who one might verbally offend. John Banzhaf, an activist law professor at The George Washington University, is a prime example of the PC police: he petitioned the FCC to ban the on air use of the word “redskins” on the basis that it “amounts to obscenity akin to profanity and a hate crime.”

However, even if the “redskins” term is historically offensive, there is still no reason to legally cripple the NFL, or any other private organization, just to appease the feelings of a select few vocally-aggressive individuals. For if such a name is forced to be legally changed simply because it hurts some people’s feelings, it would represent a significant abandonment of the free speech rights granted to all Americans. There is no telling what else the left-wingers might censor merely on the basis of “political incorrectness.”

The Redskins controversy is only one example of the expansive culture war that the progressives have waged on the rest of the nation, a war where victory for them heralds severe restraints on First Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, it is reasonable to expect that political correctness will only continue to expand over the next few decades. Therefore, it is the responsibility of an informed American citizen and voter to disentangle him or herself from the sentiments and emotions that encompass important issues and formulate an opinion based purely on logic and reason. For if Americans neglectfully allow this trend to continue, the fundamental liberal axiom—‘your rights end where my feelings begin’—will ring true and replace the free-flowing diversity of thought in traditional American vernacular with the tyrannical groupthink that camouflages reality to appease sensitivity.

Jake Zhu is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.

Feminist Logic: Anti-Rape Nail Polish Part of 'Rape Culture'

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Until now, nail polish has never been used as a self-defense mechanism. Four students from North Carolina State University may be about to change that.

Ankesh Madan, Stephen Grey, Tasso Von Windheim and Tyler Confrey-Maloney have developed a nail polish that changes colors when it comes into contact with common date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol, Xanax and GHB. While wearing the polish, which has been dubbed “Undercover Colors,” a woman can simply slip a finger into her drink and instantly know if it has been drugged.

It’s not every day that someone comes up with a simple, practical, and even stylish option for women seeking to defend themselves against date rape. It almost sounds too good to be true. But of course, this genius development has not gone unchallenged.

The feminist backlash against Undercover Colors was immediate and widespread. Despite being the most vocal anti-rape advocates, many feminists are arguing that the innovative nail polish actually places the blame on women who get raped, rather than on men who rape. In an article for the Guardian, Jessica Valenti writes, “Prevention tips or products that focus on what women do or wear aren’t just ineffective, they leave room for victim-blaming when those steps aren’t taken.”

Victim-blaming is certainly never the right way to respond to sexual assault. The possibility of victim-blaming occurring, however, should not preclude women from having access to self-defense methods. Preventative measures should not be considered as putting someone at risk for victim-blaming. Instead, they should be considered a self-defense method that empowers women to avoid becoming victims in the first place.

Valenti goes on to write, “We should be trying to stop rape, not just individually avoid it.” This is a common feminist argument, but does not address the reality of the risk that women face. Writing for the Telegraph, Claire Cohen advises “…we talk to young boys and men, have conversations around consent and teach them not to rape in the first place.”

Great, but what do we do about the men who will go on to rape anyway regardless of what Ms Cohen will tell them when they are just little boys?

While teaching men not to rape sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice it’s not so easy. We’ve been actively encouraging people not to murder and steal for thousands of years, but those lessons have yet to take effect on the entire population. Most men do not commit rape because they think it’s morally right to do so. The fact that men should not rape women does not change the fact that some do.

According to a 2012 National Crime Victimization Survey, there are an average of 237,868 rape victims per year. Clearly, rapists are out there, and they’re not convinced by feminist arguments. While women are still threatened by the possibility of sexual assault, why shouldn’t they be encouraged to defend themselves?

In an April Facebook post, the students behind Undercover Colors stated, “Our goal is to invent technologies that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime.” The key word there is “empower.” Undercover Colors could give women the power both to protect themselves and to identify potential predators.

In the same post, the students wrote, “Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught.” By making date rape drugs risky for men to use, Undercover Colors may accomplish more than just sparing many women from being victims of rape, a worthy goal in itself. This tool may lead to the exact result feminists are clamoring for: preventing men from raping in the first place.

Miranda Hawkins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at meh339@cornell.edu.

Binder Full of Prospect

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

It’s hard for most to recall a particular Tuesday night any year in the past, but for Mitt Romney, Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 is anything but a vague memory. For many of those who watched the 2014 Netflix original Mitt, one phrase embodies the entirety of the election: “Does anyone have the number for the President?”

Whether or not Romney was the more “presidential choice,” his apparent capitulation and acceptance of defeat, as indicated by the aforementioned quote, is why many red ticket voters ridiculed the candidate throughout the election. For example, during the election right-wing pundit Glenn Beck attacked then candidate-Romney for agreeing with the President on matter of foreign policy in the Syrian civil war.

All this being said, fast forward almost two years, and we have a national debt above $17 trillion (and counting), another war (or whatever the President calls it) in Iraq, Russia reverting to late-20th century foreign policy, a war (or whatever the President calls it) on the Mexican border, and a President who is only a light-year away to amateur status on the PGA tour.

It certainly leads to the question “what if?”

What if the Mormon who makes $21.6 million a year was president now, and not the guy who ensures the American people that ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is “not a Islamic organization”? If you find yourself asking this question frequently or even just recently, you may not be alone.

A recent Iowa Caucus poll of Iowa Republicans revealed a stark plurality of support for Governor Romney in a 2016 presidential run at 35% of Republican voters—ranking as the only category in the double digits.

The buzz about Romney seems to be a growing trend across states and polls. In fact, in a similar poll conducted in New Hampshire by Suffolk University and the Boston Herald this past June, Romney lead by a plurality against other potential select candidates at around 24% of Republican primary voters.

Still, many critics are quick to diffuse any Republican partisan rhetoric on the prospects of another Romney run come 2016. For instance, according to a joint poll conducted be NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, while 30% of polled Americans have positive impressions of the Governor, 39% still hold negative impressions.

Assessing these findings with a degree of speculation, it is hard not to conclude that Governor Romney might succumb to the same fate as has already happened once (in a way twice) before. With the progressive student left, which prides itself on spreading propaganda across social media and the blogosphere like “how long would it take Mitt Romney to earn what you make in a year?” calculators and other sophomoric devices attacking the Governor’s success, the future looks bleak for any Republican candidate - especially one who is so tangibly successful.

This of course is no two-way street. According to various financial disclosure reports, President Obama himself is now worth up to $7 million (that’s a 438% gain since initially running for office). And even potential Democratic front-runner former Secretary of State, and Benghazi scandal suspect number one, Hillary Clinton, is said to be worth over $21 million according to a popular online net worth calculator. When is the last time either President Obama or Hillary Clinton was publically disgraced for their ugly greed?

Perhaps this is just my integrity whining, but it doesn’t seem too fair that what can make or break candidate these days is bad PR due to “too much success.” This isn’t to discount the other short-comings of Romney’s candidacy in 2012, namely his lack of ‘ground game’ in Ohio and other swing states, but it certainly raises another question about reputational equity based on partisanship.

As Governor Romney continues to dismiss the notion more and more, he is further opening himself up to attacks from both the right and left on the consistency of his partisanship and platform. Many recall the “health care flip-flop” allegations brought against Romney leading up to the election. Many ridiculed him for his critical views of Obamacare while not even commenting on his contributions to a more socialized healthcare system in Massachusetts.

Not to capitulate to the leftist media on this one, but I have to agree to a certain extent. While Governor Romney remains one of the most humble, good-hearted, truest candidates to come out of recent history, he doesn’t quite fit the GOP bill.

In a valiant effort to reconfigure Congress in the 2010 mid-term elections (and even managing to take back the House), the Republican Party won many elections on the sole basis of pledging to overturn Obamacare and to stop further bureaucratic atrocities.

But how does the GOP attempt to add to the momentum in 2012? Run the “flip-flopper” who invented Obamacare.

It’s a lost cause trying to fully understand what happened in November almost two years past. Is it coincidental that notorious radical leftist billionaire George Soros owned a good deal of 2012 ballot machines in Ohio? Or that in certain precincts (over 100) Obama won over 99.9% of the popular vote? This is another debate for another time. But what is evident is that with changing demographics come changing trends in voter outcomes. The feat of electing an African American to the office of president is an indicator of these changing voter outcomes.

What will need to happen come 2016 (or whenever the party is ready) is significant party realignment by the GOP. The fact that in Iowa, although Romney leads outright, there is still significant percentage awarded to Rand Paul, an arguable “libertarian conservative,” speaks to this cultural and demographic shift. As right-leaning youth grow up with more socially left-leaning values, it is hard for me to believe that any young people come 2016 will be looking to vote for a Jeb Bush, a Rick Santorum, or a Mitt Romney.

Time will tell who is to be the GOP front-runner in the next presidential election. For the time being, what will undoubtedly affect party chances in 2016, are midterm outcomes this November. Let’s just hope ACORN doesn’t register the rest of the Disney clan this time (if you catch my drift).

Christopher Nowacki is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@cornell.edu.

U.S. Should Not Send Combat Troops to Ukraine

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Ukraine has long been a country divided between East and West, and the ongoing crisis in the Crimea is representative of the vast schisms in political and economic ideals within the war-torn nation.

In basic terms, western Ukraine finds itself leaning towards the prosperous European Union (EU), fueled by a powerful class of businessmen and oligarchs while eastern Ukraine maintains strong ties to Russia, with Crimea having a 59% ethnic Russian population. Opinions are also stratified by age: younger generations favor modern Western ideals while those who lived through the Cold War era are often adverse to change and want to stick with the East. Ukraine thus finds itself straddled at the edges of both Russian and Western influence and the eventual conclusion of this situation will have a profound impact on the global economy and political landscape in Europe—for better or worse.

However, it would be entirely too risky and unviable to send American military forces into the beleaguered nation, because of the staunch position of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and because the vast majority of the American public has become wary of entering a prolonged militarized conflict where no direct American interests are at stake.

Russia’s primary goal with the seizure of the Crimea and the support of pro-Russian rebels is to improve its stagnating economy and to re-extend its political influence into former countries of the Soviet Union. The grand scheme is the creation of a Eurasian Union, a customs bloc to rival the EU, but really goes beyond just trade and economics. As noted, it’s really about creating a bloc of pro-Russian satellite countries. Ukraine has been the first real test grounds for this strategic restructuring of European geopolitics, and the fate of Ukraine will have a huge impact on the effectiveness of this proposed coalition. For instance, Ukraine is a huge part of Russia’s energy trade; 80% of the natural gas that Russia sends into Europe goes through pipelines in Ukraine. Even the smallest actions conducted by the EU in the past, such as the Eastern Partnership Program, have created major resentment within the political spheres in Russia, which view any sort of European eastern expansion as a direct threat to Russian interests.

If the mere proposal of extending Western influence irks Russia, it is not difficult to conclude that putting American boots on the ground to support Ukrainian sovereignty would not go down well with Putin and his cronies. It would be like attacking an anxious but ferocious tiger, and could seriously harm US-Russian political relations which were already strained due to the situation in the Crimea. The conflict could escalate to something more than just a purported civil war or limited guerilla insurgency in eastern Ukraine.

This is not to say, however, that the United States and EU should just sit back and let the situation resolve itself. Ukraine cannot win a sustained war against steadily escalating Russian military action. Economic action rather than military force is the best way forward because it target Russia’s Achilles heel: a commodity, export-driven economy.

Economic sanctions have already proven to be quite effective in curbing Russian economic growth. The United States and a coalition of other countries have imposed sanctions on a multitude of Russian and Ukrainian officials and businesses said to be linked to the seizure of Crimea and the on-going crisis in eastern Ukraine. Travel bans and the freezing of assets were followed by more severe sanctions; several Russian banks were blocked from U.S. and European capital markets. Consequently, the Russian finance, energy, and defense industries have been hit hard. According to Robert Kahn, an economist for the Council on Foreign Relations, there has been a $75 billion capital flight in this year alone. Future measures can target the prohibition of sale to Russian businesses or government energy equipment and technology, and an arms embargo.

Russia suffered from a noticeable slowdown in economic growth and investment in the first quarter of 2014, and the rapid impact of these sanctions suggests that their continuation will have a serious dent on the Russian economy in the short-term and long-term. Therefore, such sanctions must be continued in order to discourage the Russians’ belligerent behavior against Ukraine.

While there is an argument to be made for direct American military involvement, we live in a country where the government is beholden to the people’s will. And the people do not want to fight.

Americans have become wary of sending troops over to solve the rest of the world’s problems, especially after the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which 6,000 troops made the ultimate sacrifice and $1.3 trillion dollars were spent. Whether the latest crisis happens in Ukraine, Syria or Gaza, the American public is unwilling to contribute military forces for conflicts which do not pose a direct threat to American interests. In short, the public support that Moscow could garner for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine would dwarf the commitment and support that US leaders could garner, simply because the public is not ready to commit to another war or conflict so soon after the debacles in the Middle East.

Ukraine’s fight to defend its national identity is admirable and the struggles of the Ukrainian people against the might of the Russians rightly elicit sympathy and support, but there simply aren’t enough benefits in sending our troops to the region. It would merely exacerbate an already volatile situation and might place the US at the forefront of a conflict it really doesn’t need to join.

Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as2586@cornell.edu.

Conservatives vs. Libertarians

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Over the course of the last six years, President Obama’s time in office has seen a strengthening of unity between two related yet sometimes competing tenets of thought associated with the political right: conservatism and libertarianism.

Libertarianism is usually described as the combination of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and non-interventionism. Whereas conservatism can be divided into fiscal or social conservatism, libertarianism is entirely concentrated on expanding liberty to the fullest extent possible. For example, the typical conservative is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but libertarians consider it a matter of individual freedom and are more likely to support legalization.

Although differences exist— most notably within the realms of social issues and foreign policy—these two political philosophies share the fundamental concern for the freedom of the individual in relation to a limited government.

In the past few years, Senator Rand Paul has taken it upon himself to mediate and bridge the gap between mainstream conservative thought and libertarianism. Elected to the Senate just in 2010, Paul is now often mentioned, along with numerous other Republicans, as a serious presidential contender come 2016. This is a significant mark of the developing mutual influence of libertarianism and conservatism on American right-wing politics, which for now the Republican Party dominates. Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, thrice campaigned for the presidency—once on the libertarian ticket and twice as a Republican—all being quixotic quests that excited his base but earned him ridicule from mainstream Republicans.

One issue that tends to split libertarian candidates is whether they should run as Republicans or Libertarians (or Independents). Also, libertarian-leaning voters often debate the merits of political victory or ideological pureness. Given that Paul is the most prominent proponent of libertarianism on the national stage today, the latter strategy of running as a Republican for greater appeal and support base appears to produce more influential results, though it requires compromise to reach such a position.

As the leading libertarian on the national stage, Senator Paul has shown himself to be much more pragmatic and politically adept than his father at gaining widespread acceptance of libertarian ideals.

In March 2013, Paul emerged as a national hero in the aftermath of his thirteen hour filibuster holding up the nomination of current CIA Director John Brennan. Motivated by outrage against the Obama Administration’s drone policies, especially the secretive nature of their legal justification and the then-unanswered question of whether American citizens on U.S. soil could be targeted by drones, Paul earned praise from across the political spectrum, including liberals like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Such a response illustrates the uniqueness of libertarianism, in that it appeals to many who would never have given traditional conservatism a second thought. The filibuster also served as an exemplary highlight of libertarianism’s constitutional focus, as Paul’s filibuster was about clarifying the legal boundaries and restrictions on drone policies, not about politics.

Libertarian candidates often find their most ardent supporters to be youthful political participants, as evidenced by past libertarian campaigns on the national level, including those of Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. This is not a characteristic associated with conservatism, which often struggles to appeal to young voters. In the 2012 Presidential Election, Governor Romney won just 36% of voters under the age of 30, in contrast to President Obama’s 60%.

With regards to doctrinal differences, libertarians are much more open to debate on social issues, including but not limited to same-sex marriage and abortion. Libertarians have also spearheaded critical national conversations on drug legalization policies and oppressive incarceration practices, whereas conservatives have directed most of their recent focus to national defense funding and other economic priorities. Furthermore, libertarians often comprise what is seen as the “isolationist” wing of the GOP because they are more cautious of participating in foreign military excursions. Despite this caution, some libertarians like Senator Paul have been supportive of the formation of an international coalition to combat ISIS, the Islamic terrorist group that currently controls large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Despite these distinctions, libertarians and conservatives alike are united in their strong defenses of individual liberty, lower taxes, and economic freedom.

Although liberal media coverage often focuses on the splintering of Republicans along such ideological lines, the presence of these sometimes differing viewpoints has been a boon, not bust, for the Republican Party.

The diversity of viewpoints and accompanying intellectual and political potential is exemplary of “big tent republicanism,” the notion that any and all are welcome within the confines of the Republican Party, a term dating back to the days of Ronald Reagan. This healthy debate and vigor has led to the rise of reform conservatism, a movement to promote liberty, simplify government, and expand social mobility. Notable reform conservatives including Senator Mike Lee of Utah—who also identifies as a libertarian—hope to do this by fostering efficiency through a broad series of domestic policy reforms, particularly within the areas of healthcare, immigration, and federal tax policy.

This influx of new thinking has and will continue to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the “party of ideas,” a crucial development as the party looks towards winning the White House in 2016.

The similarities between conservatives and libertarians far outweigh their differences. As Ronald Reagan articulated in a 1975 interview with Reason Magazine, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” This natural alliance will play a significant role in reshaping American politics for the foreseeable future, as both conservatives and libertarians set their sights on what Lord Acton called “the highest political end”—liberty.

John Pedro is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jmp488@cornell.edu.

University Should Do Away with Mandatory Tapestry Presentation

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

For freshmen, “O-Week” was a brief, memorable period of time that consisted of meeting new people, attending fun social events, getting acclimated to Cornell, and attending mandatory presentations deemed “graduation requirements.”

One of these mandatory presentations was Tapestry of Possibilites, Cornell’s own theater group Ordinary People, who describes themselves as a “social justice and peer education theater troupe,” sponsors and performs in Tapestry, which seeks to educate students about diversity awareness and acceptance.

However, Tapestry is so charged with progressive subject material that it is no stretch to say that it is designed to push a progressive, multicultural agenda that goes beyond simple diversity awareness.

The performance came off most appalling with a scene that depicts a hall meeting between students and their Residential Advisor (RA). When a girl confesses to being “gay” as the rumors about her suggest, everyone else on her floor, including her RA, comes out as being homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual. (Yes, apparently pansexuality is a thing now, where a person could love anyone despite gender and sexual orientation.) Everyone, that is, except for one boy, who is then badgered to confess what his sexual orientation is. The boy is initially hesitant but finally admits that he is a heterosexual. The others immediately ostracize him, insisting he must have “some bi in him” and that he “shouldn’t tell [students’] dads when they come to visit for parents’ weekend.”

Of course, the heterosexual being ostracized by his gay counterparts is supposed to satirize the type of scrutiny that gay students often feel. Fine, except that later in the scene the narrator encourages the hetero student to explore the wide spectrum of sexuality and to not limit his options. The narrator advises the student to experiment with his body, especially with his anus.

It is absurd to think that a school recently named the 15th best university in the nation has a graduation requirement that encourages students to explore their “butt hole”—actual quote.

First and foremost, it is not the university’s job to tell students what they should do with their bodies and sexualities. Second, it is disturbing to think that Cornell should even take a stance in encouraging rampant sexuality.

The irony is this: while Tapestry discourages students from labeling and identifying individuals based on their sexuality, it introduces the concept of a spectrum of sexuality, thus implying a system of categorization and labeling. So while the LGBT movement tries to beat down sexuality as a societal construct, its mere existence perpetuates sexuality in an extremely ostentatious way.

Another noteworthy sequence of scenes involves a young white girl and her Hispanic friend, who asks the other to join a minority club with her; the white girl politely declines, explaining she would not belong. Later the white girl attends one of the minority club meetings where the group is planning a protest in response to an incident where some white fraternity brothers threw empty bottles and yelled, “Hey Trayvon!” at a black student. The members of the minority organization become angry with the white girl for not taking a passionate stance and wanting to join their protest. She is ridiculed for trying to pursue a non-race related campus issue.

These scenes obviously paint whites as the automatic bad guys, not just because of the imagined bottle-throwing incident (see bottom), but also because of the white girl’s disinterest in joining her friend’s club. The message to the audience is that all white people either specifically target black people, or they don’t care when it happens. Not only are whites played as folks who wink to racism, they are made out to be the instigators of racism—period.

It thus seems Tapestry’s one goal is to perpetuate the progressive narrative that white heterosexuals are responsible for all of society’s ills simply because they are white and heterosexual. Despite advocating for equality for all, Tapestry does not even apply its critique equally to all groups.

It is disturbing to think that this type of bias—that the university is allegedly on an offensive against—is mandatory for all students to graduate. What kind of Orwellian system does this school belong to where it attempts to indoctrinate every student into its absurd world of politically correctness and multiculturalism?

Lastly, for all the precautions Tapestry takes to make sure no student ever offends another, the mandatory presentation itself is blatantly offensive to a portion, albeit a small portion, of the Cornell community: those that uphold conservative values.

Robert Dunbar is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rjd276@cornell.edu.

*This article incorrectly identifies this scene as an "imagined" occurrence. A similar incident did take place on campus back in 2012.

Hyper Hypocrisy: Getting Rich Off Anti-Capitalism

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

During the summer, documentarian and world-renowned Hollywood liberal Michael Moore finalized his divorce from Kathy Glynn, his wife of 22 years. Files released from the divorce proceedings reveal facts about Moore’s personal life that directly contradict his anti-capitalist, anti-establishment underdog persona.

For all of his anti-capitalist drum-beating, Moore has done phenomenally well in the American capitalist system: a net worth of $50 million, a $2 million lakefront property, a large Manhattan condominium, and seven other properties.

Moore loves to portray himself as a fellow work-a-day American, often stressing his humble upbringing in post-industrial Flint, Michigan. The reality is that Moore has amassed his great personal wealth by directing and starring in some of the most successful political documentaries of all time, such as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. Most recently and most ironically, Moore criticized the United States’ capitalist system in his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story, which closed with the millionaire working class hero stating, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil.”

Yet, Moore has achieved great wealth in the capitalist system due to the commercial success of his films and the wise Wall Street investments.

Following Warner Bros. Entertainment’s $3 million acquisition of Roger & Me, Moore wrote on his blog, “I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn’t understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system that I did not agree with).” Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, however, revealed that Moore did the exact opposite and purchased stocks in multiple large corporations, some of which Moore has criticized in interviews and his movies.

During an interview with Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, Schweizer stated that, based off Moore’s Schedule D tax forms, at one point Moore owned, “2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 shares of Sonoco, more than 4,000 shares of Best Foods, more than 3,000 shares of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 shares of Bank One, and more than 2,000 shares of Halliburton.”

Just to emphasize the importance of the last statement: the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, a film that criticized Halliburton’s role in the Iraq War, invested in Halliburton.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Moore made a film called Sicko that criticizes the United States health care system and praises that of Cuba, but he also invested in Tenet Healthcare, Pfizer, and other healthcare corporations.

Moore goes to great lengths to conceal his financial success from the general public, and often tries drawing arbitrary distinctions between himself and other multi-millionaires. During a 2011 interview with Piers Morgan, Moore stated, “I spend my time, my energy, my money on trying to up-end this system that I think is a system of violence, it’s a system that’s unfair to the average working person.”

Apparently, the best strategy for upending a “system of violence” includes not only operating within but also investing money in that very system.

Moore quickly points to inequalities in the United States society and blames capitalism, ignoring that the capitalist system allows him to easily purchase products and machines with which to create his films. The capitalist system allows Moore to employ workers who have chosen to specialize in filmmaking. The capitalist system enables Moore to enter into contracts with production and distribution companies, many of which raise capital through the stock market. Yet Moore’s narrates a capitalism of exploitative corporations, soul-less investments, and an oppressed working class.

Why then does Moore, a beneficiary of the free market, openly criticize and passionately loathe capitalism? Perhaps he feels guilty about living in such extravagance and thus seeks to offset his success by attacking the capitalist system. Even while driving around in hybrid Cadillac Escalades and buying up real estate, Moore touts his worn-in baseball cap and shaggy locks, attempting to minimize the visibility of his wealth.

Alternatively, maybe Moore has grown to love the advantages of living in the uppermost class and wants to continue to maximize his fortune. Why deviate from a successful formula? Thus, as a new, controversial topic catches the populace’s attention, Moore spins out a documentary to match, be it about capitalism, health care, or gun culture. His record of producing polarizing, fervent films allows him to remain in the public consciousness, a limelight away from which he certainly does not seem to shy.

The great irony here is that Moore is in fact one the greatest capitalists of our time. He found an untapped market, seized it, innovated it, and reaped enormous financial returns, no different from John D. Rockefeller or Steve Jobs. His anti-capitalist narrative in the end only serves to fatten his bank account, and he knows it.

Moore’s fault lies not in the fact that his films achieved commercial success, causing him to earn a personal fortune. In fact, Moore’s ascent from the working to the upper class due to his hard work represents the ideal functioning of a meritocratic free market. Rather, Moore errs by crafting extremely biased, opportunistic films that pander to anti-establishment sentiments and fail to present a complete picture of the subject matter.

How do working-class citizens in Forest Home, Michigan, the site of Moore’s $2 million lakefront property, view him?

“He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich. Why he decided to live in this conservative area, I’ll never know,” said resident Gary Tracy to The Detroit News.

The moral of Moore’s story does not regard any particular economic policy or system, but rather the importance of vigilantly evaluating sources of critical media. Although a talented filmmaker, Moore displays a desire to say anything to capture the public’s attention and sell tickets, even while committing the exact opposite of what he preaches.

Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.

The Forty-Four Percent Not Proud to be American

2014-10-04T00:00:00Z

Forty-four percent of Americans are not proud to be American, according to a Pew report conducted in July. We are not proud of our administration, our justice system, our history. Our poverty, scandal, corruption. We are not proud of our grappling, mudslinging, and manipulative political parties that love to play a blame-game, trying to see who can hit harder and who can rack up the most points. And we are right not to be proud of these particular things. But we still need to be proud of our country and the roots that she stands for.

How did we come to this? Over the last three centuries, we have somehow lost our hope, our faith in the system, and our faith in ourselves. Today’s youth is trying to pick up the pieces of a puzzle and put it back together, but we have never seen the picture on the front of the box. So what exactly are we trying to fix? We’re stuck in a mess we cannot help but inherit. It really is a mess, and probably way worse than what your room looked like before your mom finally snapped and decided it was going to be cleaned up ASAP- and by you. The problem is that you didn’t necessarily make the mess this time. So that sucks, and we don’t know where everything is supposed to go.

People say that it is important to stand by what you believe; the problem is when you can’t seem to form an opinion without every side trying to manipulate you into supporting them to clean up the mess their way. It is all about power and racking up numbers, and it’s true for every political party and affiliation. This war for our support, fought with logic, passion, and every kind of emotional appeal, has left us dazed, confused, and frustrated. No wonder we are not proud to be Americans.

What do we have left to believe in? It seems that now, hope is more than lost. How many of your friends and family despise or are ashamed of the American system? Optimism has been stripped away, generation by generation, by the ever-changing world, by the administration, and by our own self-doubt. And that is understandable when you look at our not-so-proud moments and different forms of injustice still not only prevalent, but thriving.

America is not perfect, but it never claimed perfection. Take your pick of things that you don’t agree with; we can all admit that there are plenty. But if you can promise the love of your life to stay despite his or her imperfections, is it so hard to say the same about this country? We can still love her and stand by her. America is a struggle; she is finicky, temperamental, she has made mistakes, and she has trusted the wrong person time and time again. She has been taken advantage of, manipulated, hurt. And she has definitely done her fair share of causing pain. But she can also be forgiven, and she herself can forgive. She is only human, and humanity is not always nice to look upon. But it can move forward.

Right now, forward feels very stagnant. We do not know who we can trust, and we never feel safe. We don’t trust politicians or our justice system, and the 99% scream that we are doing something very wrong. We must come to a place where we are not afraid to find the truth, and where we can decide what values we really want to instill in this country so that we can trust it again. We need to decide what picture is on the front of the puzzle box, so maybe we, the young generation that gets to clean up the mess, can stop trying to put pieces blindly where they will never fit. So many of our generation scream for social justice, economic equality, and green energy, and sure, these are happy ideals. But far too many of our young people cannot see the whole picture. They can only see pieces at a time, and don’t necessarily understand all of the consequences of pushing policies like these. We need to remind each other why we agree with certain ideals, and then think about what meaning this has for the Constitution and for our economy.

However, while we agree change is necessary, our fear of defeat at the hands of an opposing party or ideology has caused a massive power struggle that has resolved nothing. We are so afraid that if we let go and try to understand other opinions, what we consider the “other side” will win, and challenge our existing personal morals and goals. When all divided sides are consumed with battling the others for supremacy, everyone loses. The politicians lose, sure, but the American populace loses more. Because nothing gets done.

Only Americans can decide if we can be something to be proud of. We have allowed ourselves to get to this point over decades and centuries. We stopped paying attention to the bigger picture: freedom. Freedom to fail, succeed, to say and do what we want, and so much more. At her roots, America is freedom corporeal. If we can remember that, we can be proud again. We are not proud because so many shameful things have happened, and politicians are too busy posturing and vying for power to protect and elevate this country to what it could be. It is essential to remember that the past does not define the future. Policies and money talk, but so do we.

Love America’s imperfections; don’t write her off as a lost cause. We don’t have to be proud of her darkness, but we do have to stand by her, because everything that she has done has been for us. There is so much more that we need to accomplish, and we will always be a work in progress because perfection does not exist, no matter what fairy tales tell you. Don’t be afraid to call America yours; she really has so much potential, even though we are not sure what the front of the box looks like yet. And underneath the dirt and grime that 44% of Americans are still stuck wading through, America sparkles.

Alexis Cashman is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at arc269@cornell.edu.

Ithaca's Ferguson Moment

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

Just over three weeks ago, the Ithaca community was flabbergasted to discover that a white police officer had drawn an assault pistol on four—no, two—minority teenagers. In a cloud of confusion, several reports of this case have come to conclusions about these “racially-charged” and “senseless” actions taken by the Ithaca Police Department. Coincidentally occurring on the same night of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri this case faces similar scrutiny and criticism.

According to the police report, around 11 pm on August 9, Ithaca Police responded to two reported vehicle arsons and a burglary in progress near Esty Street. Two off-duty officers were called as well, one arriving with his belted IPD badge. Another officer, after observing the same individuals repeatedly bike by the scene of one arson, requested the officers to investigate.

The report goes on to explain that after the suspects saw the emergency lights, they fled on their bicycles, and the police units on scene followed them. The Investigations Sergeant then identified himself as a police officer and ordered the individuals to stop, and when they eventually did, the Sergeant unholstered his gun to the “low ready” position (apparently due to his lack of information of the individuals or their intentions) and told the suspects to lie down until other officers arrived on scene. Note that the gun was not pointed at the suspect, but taken out of its holster as a precautionary measure. After searching the teenagers’ backpacks, police released the suspects without charges.

Does racism and police brutality exist? Of course it does! But so does every other type of crime and injustice—I quote a part of the title of a book by physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw: “Everything that can happen does happen.” My point is not that we should dismiss the possibility of prejudice in this or any case, but that it is unwise and quite dangerous to make assumptions based on mere hunches, emotional distress, or events that took place 750 miles away. As students, staff, faculty, and supporting community members of an Ivy League institution, one would expect higher standards of critical thinking than those that caused the immediate reaction of this case—namely, the assumption that race is an underlying cause of the events that took place the night of August 8. Careful analysis is required to fully understand potentially complex situations such as this one, and it requires patience, thought, and attention to detail—not impulsive conclusions based on personal feelings of victimization.

Race aside, there are many other factors that must (and have) been evaluated that led the police to pursue the teenagers on August 8. To start, the officers had probable cause as stated above—the suspects repeatedly passed the fires and fled at the sight of the police car’s lights.

The officer’s drawing of his gun also sparked an unnecessary abundance of controversy. People must bear in mind that police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs in society; every day, a police officer must worry about being able to come home to his family in the evening—all for the sake of protecting the public. The incidents that took place before the teenagers were pursued that hectic night and the events in Ferguson earlier in the day only increased the extra measures of precaution the police rightfully decided to take.

Due to the stressful nature of police work, mistakes are made. Unfortunately, when they are, the mistakes are costly and high-profile. In this case, a chaotic sequence of events in combination with an understaffed department led to actions that may have not been the wisest (such as sending the unmarked officer alone to pursue two of the three teenagers, even if for only a minute, according to Ithaca Times). However, I would have to defend the officers’ actions considering the circumstances of the case.

Common sense reports that the staffing issue would only benefit from a better economy.

It seems that even our educated populace is succumbing to the societal culture of victimization. Today’s society allows little room for reason before the emotional bandwagon begins to play a role. Our generation has been taught to question authority, question the traditional, and question what works in hopes of making things better, yet some are unable to question the new direction that society is headed.

Mark LaPointe is a junior in the College of Engineering and can be reached at mnl38@cornell.edu. Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu

Who, What, Why: Conservatives at Cornell

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

First, I’m going to make an assumption about you, and then you can make an assumption about me.

My assumption: As a Cornell freshman, you are smart, curious, and scared.

Your assumption: As a Cornell conservative, I am stupid, close-minded, and scared.

The more astute reader will realize I actually made both assumptions, but I think you get my point. To be a conservative—or a libertarian, as I politically identify myself—at college is certainly not easy, for it carries a lot of undeserved baggage.

However, why would I, or any of you, with great intellect and energetic, inquiring minds want to get by easily? Or want anything but a challenge? To maintain, cultivate, and mature one’s beliefs and ideas about politics, economics, and the like at Cornell, or at any college campus, is an enormous feat. To do so in the conservative or libertarian paradigm is a near-Sisyphean struggle, but it is definitely worth it.

So, to all the conservatives, libertarians, neoclassicists, Republicans, and those who are decidedly not liberal or progressive in the Class of 2018, I offer an unparalleled opportunity.

The Cornell Review is the campus’s only conservative-libertarian publication, and it is your avenue and tool by which to express the beliefs and opinions you know are true but are assaulted, aligned, and countered everyday on campus. Whether these ideas or beliefs pertain to politics, economics, philosophy, or culture, the Review is your solace and springboard to hone your writing and debating skills and in turn defend your beliefs to a wide readership of people who mostly disagree with you.

Though we purport to be the “Conservative Voice on Campus,” this publication has no set ideology. Indeed, our current staff varies from libertarians to paleoconservatives. There is no litmus test, no battery of policy questions given to new members to determine if they “fit in.” Chances are, if you’re still reading this, you do fit in.

And no, we’re not all Republicans and we do not necessarily support the Republican Party.

No doubt you have heard the horror stories of the domineering and sometimes crazed liberal presence at colleges and universities, especially at the Ivies. It is all true. Among students and faculty, liberalism and progressivism reign, with the occasion socialist and communist thrown in to spice things up. I suspect you are already familiar with them—the Ivory Tower Intellectual Limousine Liberal types.

Otherwise put, the overwhelming majority of people you will meet at Cornell are those whose political ideology is captured by the umbrella term “leftist”—that is, any of the following: liberal, progressive, or socialist (Democrats, too, but that is a political party, not an ideology).

The Cornell Review is comprised of individuals who are the exact opposite: conservatives and libertarians. Whereas leftists are collectivist, we are individualist. Whereas they are close-minded and perform groupthink, we are open-minded and prone to debate each other as much as we debate them. Whereas leftists seek to drum up controversy at every opportunity, we seek to ascertain a rational understanding of reality, current events, and contentious issues.

I could go on. Indeed, as you read other campus publications this year, talk to friends and classmates, and listen to some professors, and then read this newspaper occasionally, you will learn for yourself the truth of my statements above.

Before I go on, I need to make an important disclaimer: I am not here to victimize myself or any other Cornell conservative. To be frank, the hardships any of us might endure are manageable, if they even are true hardships. Most of the time, the worst you will have to put up with is listening to pseudo-intellectual babbling and similar nonsense: For example, a professor’s casual dig at Republicans/conservatives/Bush, etc., that has nothing to do with the lesson or course material. Indoctrination is a constant threat, and it appears in varying forms: sometimes clear and present, sometimes subtle, sometimes undetectable.

Even if you never become involved politically on campus, it is of paramount importance that any conservative or libertarian at college remains keenly aware of the liberal progressivism on campus. It very easily creeps up on you, and sometimes it simply overwhelms you. Liberal progressives have the powerful tool of peer pressure, and they use it to win over the malleable minds of young people that seek, and sometimes crave, acceptance.

What is this peer pressure pressuring you in to, exactly? Intellectual conformity predicated on either ignorance or the refusal to think.

The latter is in fact much more dangerous. Of the many vices you may succumb to at least once in college, let not refusing to think be one. It will be dangled in front of you more than anything else, I assure you. Refusing to think will often win you acceptance and social inclusion. In return for the luxury of refusing to think, you have to sacrifice your values. Unfortunately, too many of our peers pay this steep price.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is never totally avoidable. No one has every life experience or knowledge of every esoteric topic. The best you can do is to continuously learn, to strive and yearn for knowledge and new perspectives, and talk to as many people on campus as possible.

My last point is for all those who say, either seriously or wantonly, that “politics don’t matter” or “my involvement won’t affect anything.” I ask you to look at the world around you, to see the wrongs of statism, leftism, terrorism, etc. growing and winning, whether at home or abroad. People behind these ideologies never think their involvement doesn’t matter, and that’s why they are triumphing everywhere you look.

Of course, writing for The Cornell Review won’t stop these forces, but entering and fostering the debate now will, down the line, ultimately result in some good for this country, the world, and you.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

The Campus Rape Epidemic Cure

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

One could mark the Duke Lacrosse Scandal of 2006 as the beginning of “The Campus Rape Epidemic” — or, at least, it was the first time everyone started talking about it. Since the Duke verdict was laid down in early 2007 (as an ironic aside: it should be noted that the Duke lacrosse players were in fact falsely accused, or so the courts ruled), ‘rape culture’ has become all most feminists can talk about — besides The Patriarchy, that is.

In 2011, “The Campus Rape Epidemic” boiled over. The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education issued the “Dear Colleague” letter, which invoked Title XI, calling sexual assault a form of sexual discrimination (just think for a moment about how suspect that logic is), and urging colleges to crack down on campus sexual assault.

Now, the sentiment of the anti-sexual assault crusade is a nice one. Sexual assault is, obviously, a very bad thing, and it should not be tolerated. However, the anti-sexual assault crusade is like pretty much every liberal feminist crusade in two crucial aspects: first, it’s based on faulty premises and tenuous-at-best logic, and second, it has very quickly devolved into a witch hunt.

You may have noticed that I’ve already pointed out some of those faulty premises and bits of tenuous logic: the Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the event that introduced everyone to the “rape epidemic” was actually a case of false accusation.

And again, can you really call sexual assault sexual discrimination? Are muggings in New York City a form of racial discrimination? Just because something happens mostly to a certain demographic doesn’t mean it was motivated by prejudice. Correlation is not, in fact, causation.

But it goes deeper than that. The statistics feminists tout describing the supposed sexual assault epidemic on campuses nationwide — for example, the Campus Accountabiltiy and Safety Act’s claim that 1 in 5 female college students has been raped— have been shown time and time again to be incorrect and based on bad methodology. Most studies say that the number is more like 3-5%, roughly in line with nationwide rates. True, that rate could be lower, and should be zero, but there is almost certainly no “campus rape epidemic,” no more than there is a “nationwide rape epidemic.”

But now, I’ll offer a counterargument: Who cares, other than statisticians? The anti-sexual assault crusade may very well be based on bad facts and worse statistics, but who cares? Is it not still doing good on college campuses nationwide? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: sexual assault is an intolerable evil. Why shouldn’t we do whatever we can to put an end to it? And in that sense, I can’t blame the crusaders.

However, the truly frightening part of the anti-sexual assault is not my first criticism; it’s not the movement’s poor foundations. It’s my second criticism: the campaign against sexual assault has very quickly devolved into a witch hunt.

Since the Dear Colleague letter, campuses have in fact begun to crack down on campus rape, and so far they’ve mostly done so by cracking down on the due process rights of the accused. Most colleges rely on their own tribunals to try sexual assault cases, rather than sending alleged offenders to court. Post-2011, these tribunals have gone from a bit inept and ill-equipped to deal with major cases (they lack the powers and resources of legitimate courts and police departments) to inept, ill-equipped, and outright unjust.

The injustices of the college tribunals are best enumerated by example. All of the following cases actually occurred, and to make it challenging, I’ve limited myself to presenting cases that hit the news only this summer (this is, after all, the summer review edition):

A student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, recently filed suit against the university for “pre-judgement” in his sexual assault trial. He was not given copies of case documents beforehand; he did not get to present key evidence in his defense; his testimony was repeatedly interrupted by the tribunal; and his questions were ignored. Furthermore, the complaint against him never called what he allegedly did rape, assault, or even harassment. Despite never actually being accused, he was found “responsible”’ for sexual harassment and misconduct and forced to move off campus.

Also at UMass Amherst, a student was denied his degree a week from graduation, after the university decided to subject him to further discipline for a nearly 5-year-old sexual assault case, which his lawyer says was settled three years ago, in 2011.

At the University of Cincinnati, a student was subjected to a months-long disciplinary hearing, even after a grand jury refused to issue an indictment for sexual assault against him — which means that there was not even a preponderance of evidence in the case. The hearing then refused to allow the student to defend himself, disallowed evidence the police found crucial in determining his innocence, refused his right to cross-examine witnesses, and gave the student redacted copies of reports.

At Yale, to be found ‘culpable’ of rape, the university needs only a preponderance of the evidence (that is, not 100%, not 99.99%, but 50.01% is proof of guilt). The process also denies the accused the right to an attorney and the right to cross examine witnesses. Even under these measures, a student was found ”not culpable,” but the university issued a no-contact order against him anyway, and he was forced to attend “sexual assault training.”

An Occidental student was expelled for rape, even after being acquitted by the police. A professor said he fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he “had a high GPA in high school, was valedictorian, was on the water polo team, and came from ‘a good family.’”

I could continue with further examples, but I’d really rather not. I can only take so much. Each of these students has been permanently branded a rapist — or at least as someone ”mandated to attend sexual assault training” (which is practically just as bad), despite the fact that, in many cases, they were found not guilty by the actual justice system.

These violations of student rights will continue unabated unless someone acts. The recently announced Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a bipartisan bill deemed to be the be-all end-all of campus sexual assault legislation, contains no protections for due process rights. If anything, it will encourage universities to keep on doing what they’re doing, and that’s no solution at all to a problem that very well merits one.

There are organizations out there fighting the good fight. For example, FIRE, the Foundations for Individual Rights in Education, primarily known for protecting students’ first ammendment rights by attacking restrictive university speech codes, has also been involved in many lawsuits regarding students’ due process rights.

My advice is twofold. For everyone reading this: call your congressman and tell him you’re concerned about due process in university trials of sexual assault. They might even listen. You could also get involved with FIRE (check out thefire.org), or even just read their well-updated blog.

And, for the men reading this: get to know a notary public and make sure you get that consent in writing. California, with its recently passed “Affirmative Consent” Bill, already basically requires students to do just that. And if you can’t beat ‘em, you might as well join them in making sex a real downer.

Nathaniel Hunter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu

Israel in the Eyes of the United States

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

Israel has recently been the focal point of much unfound criticism, new anti-Semitism, and groundless assumption in the U.S., and our leaders have chosen to be less than supportive--to say the least--of our ally as it continues in its struggles with Palestine.

Anti-Israel protests and sentiments are on the rise across the world, even in this country. Yet, the reasons many people give for this rising tide of so-called anti-Zionism are the products of ignorance. Those uneducated about the conflict assume that Israeli forces are the evil ones in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, without understanding the full story. This unfortunate belief is infecting the country, and creating an enormous amount of fear and hatred toward the country struggling to defend and protect its people.

This unsubstantiated dialogue thrives in the White House. Our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused Israel of disrespect, stating “We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.” Meanwhile, Clinton seems to believe that she has control over Israel’s decision-making as she recently spent 42 minutes on the phone attempting to stop construction in East Jerusalem, to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not comply. Great idea for Hillary, considering her own actions.

President Obama, too, has shown incredible disrespect for Mr. Netanyahu. For example, in March Obama left the Prime Minister “to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family,” as reported by The Telegraph.

Further, according to Fox News reporter Anne Bayefsky, “President Obama denied Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request to meet with him in September, despite the Iranian peril” and “President Obama’s UN ambassador, Susan Rice, didn’t even attend the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly in September – during which he made a plea for global attention to the Iranian threat.”

These are only a few examples of the poor treatment of a close ally, and a demonstration of how this administration is causing US-Israeli relations to deteriorate. While traveling the world kissing the feet of our enemies and insulting our friends, Obama and his administration continue to weaken our reputation as a global world power, as well as the perception of Israel in the public eye.

Resentment toward Israeli policies can be seen in recent, often anti-Semitic protests and social media activity, for example. Celebrities, too, are becoming involved, with the recurring “#SavePalestine” tweets and more anti-Israel demonstrations.

Most recent claims against Israel are simply untruthful. One claim: Israel is an apartheid state.

First, apartheid in South Africa was a legal system developed to segregate whites and blacks, and involved separate schooling systems, beaches, living regions, and hospitals. Non-whites were not allowed to vote or run a business in white areas, and they were surely not allowed to participate freely in government. The facilities assigned to non-whites were often far inferior to those supplied to whites, and the entire effort was aimed at a mass separation due to racial prejudices.

To compare Israeli governmental policies to apartheid is an extremely inaccurate claim, especially considering non-Jews in Israel have complete representation and voting rights, and Arabs (some of the Israeli government’s toughest critics) are actually encouraged to participate in Israeli government, according to Israel’s Declaration of Independence. The documnent urges Arabs to “participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

This certainly does not sound like the harsh, instutionalized and legal segregation of apartheid.

On to another topic: Is Israel a warmonger, lacking concern for human life? Many think so, including Tehran’s Foreign Ministry who called Israel just that in response to Netanyahu’s statements on a CBS interview, where Netanyahu stated “...Our clocks are ticking at a different pace. We’re closer than the United States; we’re more vulnerable. And therefore, we’ll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does. But as the Prime Minister of Israel, I’m determined to do whatever is necessary to defend my country, the one and only Jewish state, from a regime that threatens us with renewed annihilation.”

Netanyahu went on to encourage the U.S. to keep a military option on the table, stating that he could not see enough of a sense of urgency from the United States in this important matter of the encroaching Iranian atomic bomb.

This statement from Netanyahu demonstrates not that he is looking for war, but that he is responsible in terms of self-defense. As he stated in the same interview, he assured that he would “not wait until it’s too late.” Responsibility should not be mistaken for recklessness, especially in a case as extreme as Iran’s threat of nuclear weapons attack and Hamas’s threat to destroy the entire country and its people.

Israel has been accused of targeting women and children and recklessly, ruthlessly killing Palestinian civilians. When presented with the slanted media coverage sympathizing with Gaza and unbalanced numbers of casualties, the average person has reason to believe that there is truth to this. However, without an understanding of Israel’s Iron Dome and highly advanced defensive and offensive techniques, one cannot fully understand these statements.

The Iron Dome, Israel’s air defense system that intercepts missiles coming from the Gaza strip, has saved countless civilian lives. It is claimed to have approximately a 90% success rate in curtailing these deadly attacks from Gaza, and is a major source of protection from civilian death. This protection system is not often considered when comparing the numbers of casualties on both sides, but is an important piece in the cause of Israel’s smaller death toll. This is only one example of the precautions by Israeli forces are made possible with the technology that does not exist on the other side.

In line with the Iron Dome, Israel has made a clear effort to protect and save its people, whereas Hamas--according to the recent letter of a 30-year-old tunnel digger working under Hamas control--has abused its workers and caused them to face extreme hardship and death in many cases . These workers include not only adults, but also children.

Proof comes in the form of a letter smuggled out of Gaza detailing a man’s experience digging the tunnels Hamas’ soldiers use to infiltrate Israel. The unidentifed Palestinian wrote: “We heard about the tunnels that Hamas dug and I understood that I helped them. We pray that the world will help to free us from the fearful and cruel Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. I pray for death to all Hamas members and that we will get freedom and a chance to live a normal life for our children in Gaza. Inshalla.”

As Netanyahu stated, “We develop anti-missile systems to protect, we use anti-missile systems to protect our civilians,” he said. “They [Palestinians] use their civilians to protect their missiles. That’s the difference.”

For Israel’s sake, as well as our own, it is crucial for Americans to look at the conflict as well as Israel’s defense mechanisms with an informed eye. Especially in this extreme time of need, we should be offering Israel abundant support and lending our concern--not unprecedented anti-Semitism, demeaning name-calling, and blatant, baseless hatred.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu

Big Red Brother is Studying You

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

The Cornell Chronicle released an article this summer regarding a study about “emotional contagion” via Facebook. The article released on June 10 described a research project conducted by Prof. Jeffrey Hancock and doctoral student Jamie Guillory (now attending University of California, San Francisco) of Cornell University and Facebook researchers that investigated the communicable effects of emotional manipulation on social media sites, particularly Facebook.

In the experiment, 689,003 of Facebook’s 1.3 billion users were presented with news feeds generated by a modified content selection algorithm. The modified algorithm reduced the amount of positive or negative content of a user’s news feed. The user’s following status updates were then analyzed to determine whether the change in news feed emotion correlated with a subsequent change in expressed user emotion.

But the study published June 2 entitled “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks” by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science-Social Science sparked quite a bit of controversy. For one, there was initial confusion about Cornell University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the study. Secondly, many Facebook users were surprised to find out that they had (or had not) agreed to participate in such studies when they signed up for Facebook. The seeming lack of “informed consent” gives rise to potential issues of mental and emotional health along with a concern for user privacy. Of course, there was also the aspect of potential government involvement in the study as well.

Initially, Princeton University Prof. Susan Fiske, who edited the study, expressed concern on whether the study was approved by Cornell’s IRB. In an article by The Atlantic, she noted that the Cornell researchers explained that the study was approved since “Facebook apparently manipulates people’s News Feeds all the time.” However, it was later clarified that Cornell IRB had approved the use of a “pre-existing dataset,” which implied that the data and the methods used to obtain it were already approved by another organization, presumably Facebook. The more significant implication of this statement is that it reveals the data had already been collected prior to Cornell IRB’s review.

A media statement released by the Cornell Media Relations Office confirmed that the IRB was consulted after the study had already taken place. However, the IRB defended the researchers by adding that no review of the study was required in the first place because the Cornell researchers involved had access only to the research results.

The trouble with Cornell IRB’s approval is that it unquestioningly accepted Facebook’s approval process. While the Cornell researchers did not have access to confidential user data in any way, the ethical validity of the study was left up to Facebook. As an independent review board, IRB would have been wiser to analyze the study independently and conduct the appropriate actions necessary if ethical issues were found.

The American Psychological Association (APA) requires informed consent, or consent using “language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons,” of research participants. While the current Facebook terms of service marginally seems to obtain informed consent of its users, the terms of service at the time of the study—before the policy update in May 2012—does not according to The Atlantic.

The APA further requires the notification of all study participants “no later than at the conclusion of data collection” for the “deceptive research” that the study conducted. Under the same guidelines, it also requires the study to “permit participants to withdraw their data.” No actions that suggest compliance with these guidelines have been reported by the study.

Some other issues raised about the study have been addressed to varying degrees. User privacy seems to raise much less concern because the study reports that no confidential user data was seen by researchers; user data was analyzed by software that reported only the results of the findings.

However, a great ethical concern lies in the fact that this study altered the mental health of people, unbeknownst to them. While most find no difficulty in coping with slightly more negative articles, the possibility remains that those that are mentally unstable could have been more drastically affected by the study. The extent of the study’s health effects are uncertain and are likely to remain so due to the difficulty in measuring such complex effects.

An initial press release by Cornell University claimed the research was funded in part by outside funding sources, including the U.S. Government. It was later corrected in an update from Cornell’s Media Relations Office that “While Prof Hancock, like many researchers, has conducted work funded by the federal government during his career, at no time did Professor Hancock or his postdoctoral associate Jamie Guillory request or receive outside funding to support their work on this PNAS paper,” according to an article from The Guardian.

Cornell University is one of several universities nationwide that is involved with the Department of Defense’s Minerva Research Initiative, which funds universities in research that improves “DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S.” according to the Minerva Research Initiative’s website. Prof. Hancock has conducted research funded by the federal government, including the Minerva Research Initiative, in the past as with many other professors at Cornell and from other universities. However, the University insists that no federal funding was requested or granted for this study.

Prof. Hancock was unavailable for commenting.

Mark LaPointe is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at mnl38@cornell.edu

ISIS, the U.S., and The Forever Wars

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

The Revolt Against Civilization

While many in the Western intelligentsia inveighed against Israel’s offensive against Gaza in July, a far bloodier ordeal gripped the countrysides of Syria and Iraq.

A wayward cult of Sunni militia made its way across Northern and Western Iraq, razing villages, seizing American-made munitiations, capturing strategic garrisons and sending the largely Shiite Iraqi army (such that it is) in a tail-spin.

Ancient Christian communities - predating the arrival of Islam in Iraq - were systematically terrorized and massacred, with members of the Islamic State gleefully showcasing their gorry handy-work on social media. Crucifictions and beheadings of Christians, Shiite Arabs, Sunni Kurds and Yazidis left little doubt about the manancial nature of the Islamic State’s intentions. The death toll has surpassed several thousand in Iraq since early June. The death toll in the mirroring Syria conflict is rapidly approaching 200,000.

Despite reports that the Islamic State (IS, also know as ISIS or ISIL) is meeting reversals at the hands of American airstrikes and hard-nosed Kurdish counteroffensive, this well-funded, well-trained, and well-armed group of 17,000 self-described “holy warriors” shows little sign of abating in its quest to establish its draconian “Islamic Caliphate.”. Under this regime, all opposition is to be swiftly crushed, with little regard for human compassion, and with utter contempt for the laws of war.

Painful Irony

The Islamic State’s base of operations, Syria, will remain a refuge for its fighters IS regardless of what occurs in Iraq. IS now guards its front against the equally ruthless Bashar Al-Assad. Because its stronghold in Eastern Syria is far less tenuous than is its control in Northern and Western Iraq, US military and intelligence officials are now recommending airstrikes against Syria’s Sunni extremists.

Because such intervention would undoubtedly divert pressure from the Syrian despot’s Iranian-backed regime in Syria, the thought of intervention in Syria against IS can be greeted with a chuckle. After all, just one year ago, the US was considering intervening on behalf of some of these very same anti-Assad rebels, who’ve become more radicalized in the year since.

The Western world once stood ready to punish Assad. Now it stands ready to wage war against the dictator’s Assad’s enemies in Syria. This news comes to the delight of Iran’s Shiite proxies throughout the region (namely Hezbollah), who would love nothing more than to see the United States fight against a bitter Sunni rival.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely chuckling as well. A year ago, he warned that opposing Assad in Syria would merely empower the most radical elements in the region. His prediction proved correct. For all its faults, the Assad regime is one of the few forces of stability in this troubled region. American foreign policy analysts and pundits are now cringing, since they are now forced to flirt with the notion of partnering with the loathsome Assad against a more ferocious enemy. Putin and the Iranians are chuckling again.

With the “moderates” in Syria besieged from both the Assad regime and the Islamic State, American officials are still considering subsidizing these enfeebled groups, even though they have little potential of gaining traction and recruits. The Islamic State is gaining ground every day, while the “moderate”, Western-backed rebels cower, with little chance of retaking either Homes or Aleppo.

As noted by Fareed Zekeriya, in his Washington Post article “the Fantasy of Middle Eastern Moderates”: “the moderates [aren’t] that moderate. As they [become] authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements [grow] and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS [gain] tacit or active support.”

Zekeriya argues that, in a context of misery and hateful violence, “moderates” don’t thrive. They merely become extreme, or they get overshadowed.

As the bloodbath intensifies in Syria, another Putin prediction proves correct. The Arab Spring in Syria was hardly a struggle for democracy. It was, and is, part of a sectarian power struggle between Iranian-backed Shiite forces on one side and Arabian-backed Sunni extremists on the other. It has nothing to do with the traditional Western notions of “freedom” or “liberty.”

Observation on American Intervention: Interloper or Savior?

Some Muslim commentators and political figures are now urging the United States to escalate involvement in the region, and not turn back. As Islamic State laid siege to Kurdistan, and prepared to massacre thousands of Yazidis in early August, Iraqi officials begged for American support. In early June, after Iraq troops fled in the wake of Islamic State, leaving behind expensive American equipment, Iraqi officials pleaded for assistance. Even now, as Islamic State prepares to massacre Shiites in the Iraqi town Amreli, the same call for American police power rings forth. At a July White House Ramadan dinner event, Muslim attendants chided Obama for what then appeared to be hesitation to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria.

What is this?

After years of chiding the US as an imperialist interloper bent on recklessly encroaching upon the Muslim-world’s affairs, the US is the first nation whose aid is both expected and demanded by many Muslim human rights activists, by liberal idealists at the United Nations, and by the editorial board of the Washington Post. “How can you ignore the Syrian tragedy” they cried throughout 2013 and 2014. Meanwhile hardly a peep is heard for Islamic countries to fight their own wars. Where are the calls for Saudi Arabia and Iran to set aside their eternal rivalry, which is driving the sectarianism throughout the region?

The expectation - on the part of neoconservatives, liberal internationalists and many Muslim human rights activists - is that the United States insert itself in the centuries-old rivalries which plague a region at war with itself, that Americans pick-and-choose which blood-soaked faction to endorse and fund, and that Americans fight the wars started by other countries. For every bloody rivalry in the Muslim world, is it really necessary for the US to choose sides between?

In one instance, the US is named-and-shamed for not intervening to save the Middle East from the massacres which its inhabitants eagerly partake in (see: Syria), and in the next instance, the US is demonized for “meddling” in Middle Eastern affairs. This is a no-win situation for the US in the court of international opinion.

At the Doorstep of Europe and the Arab States

Puzzlingly, the United States is now fighting an enemy whose resources were supplied by American “partners” in the Arab Gulf States. That’s right. The Islamic State is the recipient of private donations from our very own “allies” in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. These Arab states sowed the seeds of bloodshed in Syria by endorsing the Sunni militants, so why don’t we see calls for the Arab League, Saudis and other Gulf States to put boots on the ground to end the crisis enveloping in Syria?

As European states look on curiously and uselessly at their war-torn neighbors in the Near East, one wonders why they aren’t called upon to intervene against IS. After all, thousands of the fighters who comprise the Islamic State’s forcesforces are European born-and-bred. Many of the Islamic State combatants will eagerly return to Europe, inspired, equipped, trained and ready to mobilize Sunni recruits in order to form terror cells. From a security standpoint, Europe has more reason to be alarmed by the Syrian and Iraq catastrophes than does the US.

Europeans have grown complacent with respect to the problem of Salafi extremism, and they are only now beginning to consider the possibility that the US is not the only state with global responsibilities.

A Blessing in Disguise

As the US expands its aerial campaign against ISIS, one bit of good news emerges from the ashes here. We’re finally seeing signs of mutually recognized and appreciated interests between the variegated political entities of the Middle East: Turks, Saudis, Iranians, Kurds, Shiite Arabs in Iraq, Shiite militia in Lebanon, may finally find a reason to cooperate. A pariah state lays flush against each of their borders. It is held hell-bent on destroying all borders in the region. Let us hope that these rivals answer the call, rather than wait for the United States to unilaterally solve their myriad problems.

Roberto Matos is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

Israel-Hamas Conflict a Deadly Propaganda War

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

3,055. That is the number of missiles Hamas launched into Israel since the current conflict between Israel and Hamas began on July 8, according to the Israel Security Agency. The Palestinian supporters will argue that these rockets are harmless in comparison to the high-technology arsenal the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) possesses. But facts and morality speak for themselves: there is no reasonable claim that can justify 3,055 promises of sheer murder that are day-after-day randomly cast upon Israeli children and women who are as innocent as any children and women of the Gaza Strip.

Keeping this in mind, we know that the main characteristic of the conflict the mainstream media has highlighted has been the alleged “asymmetry of powers” between Israel’s military and Hamas’ terrorist forces. Nevertheless, what the mainstream media and pro-Palestinian activists have not mentioned—and do not intend to—is the essential role of Hamas in the denial of peace.

Hamas, the elected leaders of the Gaza Strip, continue to indoctrinate Palestinian society with their anti-Israel, anti-Semitic clarion calls. This brainwashing fuels the passion of men, women, and, most egregiously, innocent children that both ensures Hamas’ continued power and the continuance of the deadly conflict with Israel.

Since the conflict’s beginning, Israel has targeted numerous weapon compounds spread across Gaza which were estimated by Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence) to contain at least 2.5 tons of warfare material. Shin Bet estimated the cost of those 2.5 tons of weapons to have cost several millions of dollars to procure, which sounds like a considerable amount of money spent on the glorification of death when the Palestinian people remain largely in poverty.

The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that when Hamas came to power in 2007 its annual budget was just $150 million; in 2014, it grew to an estimated $900 million. During the same time, Hamas’ civilian and military payroll swelled to $500 million as its number grew to 45,000, representing a nine-fold increase.

So where are the playgrounds, the schools, the hospitals that should have been built with the important amount of money that that the United States and other countries have given to support Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)? (The PLO is the terrorist organization that controls the West Bank, and that has been responsible of several attacks worldwide since the 1960s).

On top of everything, we learn that the schools and hospitals that actually stand there—mostly built by the United Nations as neutral places for learning and treatment—are constantly used as weapons storage facilities and shelters for Hamas’ terrorist fighters.

In light of these truths, I ask you, the readers, especially those who find Israel at fault or in the morally inferior stance, a series of questions that you should probably keep in mind before choosing sides in a war that ultimately has no winners: Why has no one talked about the responsibility of Hamas in the deaths of their own people? Why has no one condemned the fact that these alleged “resistors” hide behind innocent women and children, using them as human shields, instead of fighting like real soldiers? Why has no one noted that Hamas has always been the first to attack, to breach 6 ceasefires in the 5 weeks of the conflict, and to foster martyrdom amongst little children as a glorified way to die?

Most of the critics of Israel place undue focus and scrutiny on Israel’s response to Hamas’ missile attacks. Yet, they ignore the fact that Hamas initiates every exchange of fire, and that unlike Israel, whose goal is self-defense and self-preservation, Hamas seeks to wipe out Israel.

According to Hamas’ Foundational Chart, “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

Now, why does no one notice the thirst of annihilation of terrorists whose only self-proclaimed purpose in life is the elimination of an entire country and its people, even if it means the sacrifice of their own people?

These rock-solid facts are indisputable, just as the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorism is indisputable, and just as the intentional overlooking of these facts by mainstream media is indisputable. The blood of thousands of people, and of their own people, is uniquely in Hamas’ hands.

The ball has been put in Israel’s court by the international community, but it should actually be on Hamas’ side. Israel bears the brunt of condemnation, and is forced to take blame for the entire conflict, when Hamas had, and still has, the key to peace.

Instead, the terrorists have time after time chosen to engage in the sacrifice of their people to annihilate another, while their leaders enjoy the sweet life of “yihading”—watching the conflict on TV from their five-star hotel rooms in Qatar, as anchors of Egyptian Al-Tahrir TV have repeatedly pointed out in a story covering the conflict. According to this Egyptian television coverage, leaders such as Ismail Haniyah and Mohammed Shtayyeh proudly pointed out the forced sacrifice of Gazans who climbed on top of building roofs to get hit by rocket fire, even after Israel Defence Forces had taken unprecedented measures to warn Gazans of upcoming rocket fire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a CNN interview on July 27th with Candy Crowley, asked something that people who choose to have opinion on this conflict should think about:

“What would you do? Would you say, all right, we can’t do anything because they are hiding behind civilians? That is their whole strategy. You would actually give them immunity. You would give terrorist organizations a powerful weapon if you say that democracies, a legitimate democracy, cannot act against a terror organization because it is using civilians as a human shield, and therefore it should absorb attacks on its own civilians, on its own forces. You are giving them a tremendous victory. And I think that’s wrong. I think you want to minimize, as we do in any way that we can, civilian casualties. And we don’t target civilians. But you don’t want to give the terrorists the immunity because they use civilians as a human shield. That’s a mistake”.

In the same segment, Mohammed Shtayeh, Palestinian Economic Council Minister, responded then in a ludicrous statement that “President Abbas has actually come to terms with Hamas that they are accepting a two-state solution. They are ready for quiet, this long-term quietness.”

A touching anecdote confirms my claims and the argument that one must see beyond the superficial propagandizing of terrorists to truly understand the dynamics of this conflict. Judith Smith, an Australian pro-Palestinian volunteer said in commotion when asked about her views on the subject:

“When a little kid blew himself up next to me, I opened my eyes and saw the real face of how things worked in Palestine: kids are taught the only education that is worthwhile is the one Allah will give them in heaven”.

In light of this uncensored testimony, perhaps those who champion Hamas will become more aware of reality on the ground, instead of endlessly repeating the propaganda that is so often mislabeled as news.

I want to close this article with a statement that roughly quotes Dennis Prager of the Columbia School of International Affairs:

“There are 22 Arab states, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia. There is 1 Jewish state, roughly the size of New Jersey, who is willing to coexist in peace with the Arab world, in a place that has historically belonged to them. Why can’t the single Jewish state be allowed to exist?”

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached as2747@cornell.edu

Could Six Californias Be Better Than One?

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

California is big. According to Tim Draper, the mastermind behind the Six Californias plan, it’s far too big to do anyone any good. His solution to this problem is a relatively simple one: split California into six new states.

Draper says of his plan: “if we have six Californias and we in effect disolve the one we’ve got, those six allow us a new start.” And he’s correct, though not for the reason many would expect. Six Californias would definitely reshape the American landscape.

The Inevitable Rise and Rebirth of the GOP?

Many have latched onto the plan as support for stronger political partisanship, a sort of ‘equal party representation.’ California has long been a blue state, though the blue clusters almost exclusively on the coast and in the cities, while the rest of the state is pretty strongly red. And so, some have suggested this balkanization as a way for Republicans to take back the electorate.

In actuality, the political situation on the federal level would be mostly unchanged. Of the six new states, two (Jefferson and Central California) can be expected to lean heavily Republican, two (Silicon Valley and West California) can be expected to be strongly Democratic, and the remaining two (North California and South California) will be fairly competitive, if district voting patterns remain consistent. So that’s a net zero on that front.

Local Government

The real reason to put faith in the Six Californias Plan is its potential gains at the state and local levels. It’s common sense that smaller, localized governments do a better job of executing the will of the people and working in those people’s best interests, and that is what this plan offers.

If you’ve ever seen one of the many television spots advertising California tourism, you know one thing: California is not just Hollywood and the beach. It is one of the most ecologically, economically, politically, and culturally diverse places on the planet. The state has absolutely everything.

And all of this has already self-segregated into regions that roughly match up with, well, the six proposed states. It’s not as if everything happens everywhere. Agriculture is almost exclusively relegated to central California, technology, business, and entertainment to the coast. Everything north of Sacramento is already practically its own country. The divides are already there, it’s just a matter of formalizing them.

Surprisingly enough, that could happen. The Six Californias Initiative has made it to the California ballot in 2016, gaining 1.3 million signatures (presumably mostly from good ol’ secessionist Jefferson, a plan that’s been kicking around since the 1940s and just refuses to give up), significantly more than the 800,000 required to get on the ballot.

A Small Damper

However, in all honesty, it won’t happen. At least not in 2016. Even if the initiative were to pass, which is somewhat unlikely, it would still have to make it past Congress and the President – and that could totally happen.

At this point, the best most supporters of the plan can hope for is enough votes to scare people. Like, 20, 30% of the ballot. Just enough people egging on balkanization to get Sacramento nervous. Six Californias won’t happen, but some serious thought may be given to expanding county and local authority.

And really, that’s the goal of this whole campaign: more local power. A government that can actually give the people what it promises. It’s not as if this is just some utopian ‘ideal form of government’ that we’re pushing just for the hell of it – there are, in fact, actual problems with the current California regime, many of which could be solved by more local, personalized care.

Take, for example, the drought-to-end-all-droughts that’s been rocking California since late 2013: no state legislation has been able to handle mass water shortage in any meaningful way. One source of this problem is that California has at least half a dozen different ecosystems, and that a one-size-fits-all water management plan simply does not exist. A far more intelligent way to handle this is to allow each region to construct its own, custom-fit plan to manage its water and its environment.

Similar problems also arise in job creation: funneling money into technology and infrastructure works great for people in LA and Silicon Valley, but leaves everyone in the rural half of the state high and dry (drought pun intended).

Maybe Not New States

There are definitely problems with creating six entirely new states. The amount of new legislation to be passed would be absolutely massive. Some sort of contract would have to be negotiated regarding the aqueducts funneling water across the state. Something would have to be done with the Universities of California and California State Universities. And someone would have to build an actual, proper city somewhere in Jefferson.

At this point in the state’s economy, maybe this labor isn’t worth it. But there are compromise positions: say, for example, shifting some power out of the tyrannic hands of our Governor-Or-Something-Or-Other-For-Life Jerry Brown and into local governments. Maybe put just a little of that money into the hands of local governments, and avoid further High-Speed-Rail-caliber wastes of money..

Or we could just split the state into NorCal and SoCal. That would be starting point most Californias could agree upon. Otherwise, ship off us into the Pacific.

Nathaniel Hunter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu

No Stone Left Unturned: Armed With FATCA, IRS Now Has International Authority

2014-09-07T00:00:00Z

The U.S.’s newest export is its onerous tax law. Armed with FATCA—the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act—the IRS now has the power to access Americans’ foreign bank accounts in its crusade to reel in tax evaders.

FATCA was an amendment to the 2010 HIRE Act, quietly tacked on as a sure harbinger of government “revenues,” and became law July 1 of this year. This global tax law requires all Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) to report on all American accounts in excess of $50,000 or face a freeze out from access to U.S. financial markets, a disastrous consequence for financial institutions. If the FFIs do not turn over all American account information—account numbers, balances, names, addresses, and U.S. identification numbers—to the IRS, further punishment comes in the form of a 30% withholding tax on all U.S.-originated income. (For further analysis of the finer tunings of this byzantine scheme consult white papers on the topic provided by the Tax Executive Institute.)

So far, over 80 countries and over 77,000 financial institutions have signed on to abide by FATCA, including notable tax havens like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Even Vladimir Putin signed a law recognizing FATCA and mandating making Russia’s financial system become IRS-compliant, though Putin waited until only one day before the deadline.

FATCA is the latest, and seemingly most powerful, weapon in the IRS’s arsenal to enforce its system of taxing worldwide income. Along with the African country of Eritrea, which has a GDP per capita of $776, the U.S. is the only other country in the world to tax its citizens based on income they earn anywhere in the world.

Momentum for a law like FATCA can be traced back to an unprecedented 2009 deal struck between the U.S. government and Swiss bank UBS. The Swiss bank avoided criminal prosecution by agreeing to hand over account names suspected of belonging to U.S. tax evaders and by agreeing to pay the Department of Justice $780 million in fines. In May of this year, Credit Suisse paid $2.6 billion for similar charges. These number combined makes up about 1% of the estimated annual amount of money the US government misses out on due to tax evasion.

Expectedly. FATCA has financial institutions on edge. A Forbes article from 2011 claimed that compliance costs alone—not including penalties and fees—could amount to $100 million per institution regardless of any wrongdoing. A single overlooked, undeclared American account can trigger the 30% withholding tax on all of the FFI’s U.S. income. The fallout on the finance industry and the economy at large is incalculable, but almost certainly negative.

FATCA will pay for itself if it manages to bring in at least $800 million a year in tax receipts. However, the law was passed without a cost-benefit analysis or regulatory impact study, so it is unknown just what ramifications the law could have on US and foreign financial institutions.

Furthermore, even though it imparts massive power upon the IRS, the law is vague in regards to exactly whom it concerns. FATCA stipulates FFIs must turn over information on clients who are “US Persons,” a definition which includes green-card holders and non-citizens with financial ties to the U.S. In fact, the Economist quoted a tax professor from McGill University saying even Canadian snowbirds spending enough time in the U.S. could be “caught in the net.” The same article even questions the impact on the IRS itself, claiming that the agency might not have enough staff to deal with the mass influx of information from the FFIs.

Those experiencing the immediate negative impact of FATCA are the 7 million American expats. Foreign banks are declining to accept new accounts from Americans living abroad, lest they face possible future fines, taxes, and regulatory costs. Perhaps most notably, Deutsche Bank is closing its U.S. accounts in countries like Belgium where it does not have enough of a presence to keep up with the increased compliance necessary to maintain these accounts.

FATCA also boosts the U.S.’s legal extraterritoriality to unmatched and unprecedented levels. Georges Ugeux, founder of business consulting firm Galileo Global Advisors and citizen of both the U.S. and Belgium, called the law “bullying and selfish.”

With the flurry of problems and controversy surrounding FATCA, the IRS announced in May that there would be a two-year “transition period” where those institutions making good-faith compliance efforts would be exempt from taxes and other sanctions. This move buys time for companies to prepare for whatever FATCA might entail; according to a survey by Deloitte, 92% of CFOs of North American companies reported being unprepared for FATCA’s implementation.

Still, a growing number of politicians, businesspeople, expats, and privacy advocates are calling for the complete repeal of FATCA.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is currently seeking to do so, saying the law “has inadvertently ensnared every United States Citizen living overseas due to its overzealous invasion of privacy and punitive taxation and enforcement.” The RNC also cited a Times magazine article that reported on the sevenfold increase in Americans renouncing their citizenships between 2008 and 2011, due in part because of the passage of FATCA. In 2013 2,999 more renounced their U.S. citizenships, and in the first quarter of 2014 more than a 1,000 did so as well, according to the Economist.

Outside of the financial- and economic-themed news sources, the FATCA issue has been relatively underreported. Understandably, the nation is currently focused on the other controversy surrounding the IRS and its alleged targeting of conservative political groups. Furthermore, the intricacies of FATCA are mired in the relatively esoteric realms of international finance and banking.

Nevertheless, FATCA is one of the most important developments of the decade in the realms of international law and finance and privacy concerns. It has augmented the IRS into a truly unprecedented international policing power, and it stands to reshape the world economy in ways that are contrary to free markets, free exchange, and harmonious business and political relationships with foreign countries.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu

A History Of Cornell Conservatism (Part III)

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Fast forward from the 1970s, and the Reagan Era led to an outburst of conservative newspapers across the country. The unheralded success of the Dartmouth Review at Dartmouth College inspired conservative students at other institutions to found similar newspapers. The Institute for Educational Affairs, founded in 1978 to assist conservative academics, created The Collegiate Network in 1984 to offer these groups technical and financial assistance.

Jim Keller, a Government major, founded The Cornell Review in the spring of 1984. Ann Coulter, an undergraduate in the College of Arts and Sciences, edited the paper in the same year. The Review soon became successful as an outlet for students disaffected by the university's perceived leftist slant. The paper drew immediate and critical attention for its discordant rhetoric and "shock journalism."

During the 1980s, The Review assumed a socially conservative stance while attacking affirmative action and communism. It notably criticized university-sponsored ethnicity-oriented residential communities, known as "program houses," as segregationist. While embroiled in several controversies, it continued to defend free speech through outspoken journalism and creative satire. In 1986, leftists voiced their opposition to the paper by seeking out and shredding nearly every copy of one issue at a multitude of locations on campus during the early morning hours after delivery.

Later, The Review's social conservatism started mellowing, and it ran articles in defense of homosexual marriage and abortion as well as articles opposed to those practices. This prompted the inception of a rival publication called The Cornell American in 1992. Craig Hymowitz, who was the chairman of the Cornell College Republicans and who had a troubled history with The Review, is credited with the original vision for the publication. In January 1992, Hymowitz, Jonathan Bloedow, and Hartley Etheridge founded The American Society, an independent organization formed to "advance classical American values, and to publish a journal, The Cornell American."

The first issue, entitled "The Endangered American," was published in March 1992. It contrasted with The Review in appearance and style, but most notably in tone—the older paper was known for its unconventional humor and lampooning of campus excesses, inflammatory to its critics. The new publication was even and philosophical but pretentious and boring, to fans of The Review. The situation paralleled that of Peninsula and the Salient at Harvard.

The American garnered media attention across the United States with its second issue, entitled "Residence Life: Guilty as Charged." This issue made several allegations against the University’s resident advisor training program.

While even-toned in style, the paper's ideological development tracked rightward, reflecting socially conservative views. It heavily criticized the university's health clinic for its links with Planned Parenthood and the high local abortion rate; the College of Human Ecology, accused of hostility to traditional morality and views of family; and Cornell's ethnic-studies-oriented program housing, which it blamed for left-wing indoctrination and increasing racial tension.

The American was unable to secure a strong financial base. It was repeatedly denied funds from the Collegiate Network, of which The Review was a longstanding member, and found it difficult to retain advertisers. It lost momentum after Bloedow's graduation in 1994 and published its final issue in 1996, after which most of its remaining staff joined The Review. The American Society persisted until 1998 as a sponsor of speakers and other campus programs.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.

President of Panama: "Fight One More Round"

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

On Thursday April 11th, President Ricardo Martinelli of the Republic of Panama spoke at Cornell. Officially, President Marinelli was supposed to talk about the importance of education as he has recently started a student exchange program with Cornell University. However, the President gave an entertaining and inspiring speech that focused mostly on his achievements in office as well as general lessons on success.

Before being elected to presidency, Ricardo Martinelli was a successful businessman. He established the “Super 99” grocery store in Panama, which grew to become one of the largest store chains in the country. However, he also wanted to influence politics. He eventually ran for president, where he received 60.3 percent of his countrymens' votes.

As a successful businessman, President Martinelli has much in common with traditional Republican Party values. “I wouldn’t hire any politicians to work for my stores. [And I] certainly wouldn’t hire any politicians to the run the country, telling businesses what to do.” Prior to running for office, President Martinelli believed that the government, through its overburdening control, was diminishing Panama’s ability to be economically successful. The only way to change this, according to Martinelli, was to enter politics and enact his own policies.

While in office, President Martinelli has lowered the personal income taxes for all individuals, as well as corporate taxes, to stimulate economic growth. Furthermore, the President remains focused on eliminating government corruption and limited regulatory effects on the economy. He has also signed free-trade agreements and agreed to global taxation laws to eliminate tax shelters in Panama. As Martinelli stated, “No more hanky panky.”

But besides his conservative policies, Matinelli also assumed a populist outlook. For example, he signed a major government project on education and infrastructure, and granted legal status to all illegal immigrants in Panama. However, these policies are moderate in comparison to the free-market initiatives that the President has focused on throughout his term.

President Martinelli also gave some advice on achieving one's goals. First and foremost, the President promoted the importance of education. Martinelli stated that becoming educated is critical in being successful in all areas and professions. Even in government, the President said, “Government is important…this is not the job for your dumb cousin.”

Running for president as a businessman was difficult for Ricardo Martinelli. “Businessmen are seen as wanting to grab and have everything for themselves," he said, "it makes things difficult.” But Martinelli was able to overcome this common bias and eventually achieve success in politics. He left us with this message: “Whatever you want in life, you can accomplish. We all make mistakes and all have downfalls. But you always want to fight one more round.”

How Does Alum SE Cupp Conceptualize Conservatism’s Future?

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

When conservative political commentator and author SE Cupp visited campus in early April, she was asked by a member of the audience what her advice would be for the Republican Party. SE stepped up to the board behind the podium, took a piece of chalk, and drew two lines: “We need to stop judging our party leaders based on this,” she said as she pointed to a horizontal line, “and more like this,” she said drawing a vertical line.

Cupp’s horizontal line conveys the current state of the party. Candidates are judged based on how conservative or not they are regarded. On one end of the line is extreme conservatism, on the other end, alleged conservatism.

A glaring deficiency of the party is its lack of unity. Depending on district demographics, conservative politicians are either trying to “out conservative” one another or distance themselves from “those crazy Teabaggers."

For example, Republican leader such as John McCain and Chris Christie are called names like “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) because people believe that they are not true conservatives or conservative enough. Meanwhile, leaders such as Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul are viewed as crazy extremists. Even a politician who lacks qualities such as critical reasoning and effective public speaking can still be lauded as a good leader for toeing the party line (think Todd Akin).

Like Cupp, I believe that the Republican Party is tearing itself apart based on this measurement scale. The party is still struggling to define itself, much less effectively convey and market itself to independent and wedge-issue voters. The party is losing stamina, even without the help of liberals, because of negative party rhetoric from within. SE Cupp suggests that we reframe our conversations based not in terms of “on how many issues does this candidate toe the party line?” but “is he or she an effective leader”?

This is where Cupp’s vertical line comes in to play. It is a line that measures political effectiveness. One candidate will not necessarily be a more or less effective leader than another because he or she is more ideologically conservative. At the top of the effective list, Cupp places charismatic leaders such as Christie and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. At the bottom, she says, should be leaders like Todd Akin. According to Cupp, we need to find the effective conservative leaders, promote them, and cut off funds from the ineffective leaders.

Cupp’s points are provocative because they evidenced themselves in the 2012 national election. During the primaries, Republican candidates spent so much time ripping each other apart that they lost a great deal of legitimacy in the public’s eyes. In terms of the horizontal conservatism scale, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann were pegged at one end as “the extreme conservatives” and Mitt Romney at the other end as “the rich moderate who may not be conservative enough.” They were criticized on where they fell on the conservative ideological scale, not on their effectiveness as leaders.

Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu

Bridging the Cultural Divide

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Since Alexis de Tocqueville first alluded to it in the 1840s, American exceptionalism has defined us as a nation that is unique not for its wealth or its form of government but for its distinct civic culture. Unlike the rigidly stratified societies of Europe and Asia, Americans see class as something much more malleable, something which can be bridged by common experience and background. Yet if scholars such as Charles Murray are correct, this unique culture is rapidly coming to an end.

One need only look at the divisiveness of modern politics to see that Americans are much more conflicted than they were in decades past. But Murray--the author of The Bell Curve and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute--claims that this divide goes beyond ideological or religious beliefs and stems from a fundamental inability of two groups of Americans to understand one another: upper class and working class whites.

In a lecture Murray delivered this past Monday entitled Coming Apart at the Seams: America’s New Cultural Divide, he spoke about the rise of a “new upper class” and “new lower class” in white America which have developed two exclusive cultures out of the ashes of a once unified American culture. While the America of fifty years ago saw a much deeper understanding between the upper and working classes, Murray says that today’s classes have grown so far apart that they risk undermining the idea of class mobility that is so fundamental to the American identity.

When looking at the new lower class, Murray points to four main factors which have driven the radical shift towards a new culture which is incongruent with the working class of the 20th century. First, he notes that the decline in marriage rates, while applicable to people from every social class, have a much more pronounced effect on the composition of working class families due to the higher incidence of single parenthood and the loss of community involvement inherent in raising a family. Second, the new work ethic of the American working class--where one in eight working age men are not even in the labor force--undermines the ethos of productivity and industriousness which once defined the working class of America. Third, the steady erosion of religion in America--though again a phenomenon seen throughout all classes--affects the working class disproportionately because the civic commitment and charity which religion promotes has disappeared with very little to replace it. Finally, the simple erosion of trust amongst neighbors, co-workers, and peers brought on by civic disengagement has culminated in the loss of inspiration and aspiration for a higher quality of life.

While liberal single-parent apologists celebrate these turns of events and applaud the destruction of the old, “outdated” social codes of conduct and behavior, Murray correctly identifies these same norms as an essential component in the building and maintaining of social capital in our society. Without the moral compass which once encouraged industriousness, civic engagement, and community involvement, the working class has lost much of its mobility and guidance towards a higher standard of living. In essence, the new lower class is defined by the belief that the American Dream is dead, and while many will pay lip service to the notion, few will have the drive or the belief that it can be attained.

Murray then turned to the new upper class, saying that its emergence was the result of the rapidly transforming economy of the mid-to-late 20th century. Noting that colleges have become more focused on recruiting the smartest people possible, Murray said that the “brains [became] worth more in the marketplace…”. Sociability and general social skills, once an essential component of attaining a prestigious job or college degree, became less important as firms began to seek out those with high intelligence to the exclusion of all others. Over time, this created an environment which was “screened for IQ," as Murray put it, and people in these prestigious positions interacted with one another much more exclusively. Prior to the 1960s, the culture of the upper and lower classes was much more symbiotic. The growth of this high IQ “bubble” has led to a distinctive culture which is divorced from the influence of the working class.

Today, the ramifications have spread into everything from politics to popular culture to demographics, with much of the upper class now physically as well as culturally isolating themselves in what Murray calls “SuperZips”: zip codes in which the highly wealthy are concentrated and the lower classes are financially barred from joining. Murray was quick to point out that while the rise of a new upper class culture is not in and of itself a bad thing, the fact that those in this class are ignorant of the quandaries of the working class--especially given that they are the leaders and policymakers--is very troubling.

Murray then directed his attention to the audience: a group of highly-educated people with elite credentials unlike anything that would ever be seen amongst the lower classes. After thinly qualifying his thoughts by saying that modern prerequisites for an Ivy League institution entail some form of civic engagement, Murray was rather clear in his belief that the majority of Cornellians are inculcated with the worldviews of the upper class bubble. In a quiz entitled “How Thick is Your Bubble”, Murray implied that many of us are so isolated from the working class culture that we can’t even say that we’ve seen, let alone experienced, the rigor of such a lifestyle.

Many of us like to think of America as a meritocratic society wherein one’s class is determined more by one’s dedication to work and perseverance than by chance of birth. But as the cultural divide between classes continues to grow, we face the very real possibility of an America where even the richest man from a blue-collar background has no hope of propelling himself into the world of the upper class. Murray hopes that a cultural shift can eventually bridge the divide, but such a change can only start when the two groups stop growing apart and begin to find common ground again.

Christopher Slijk is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cps95@cornell.edu

Looking Back, Looking Forward

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Four years into my higher education and I’m still a Republican. (Go ahead and settle up your bets.)

I say “four years in” and not “almost out” because, the truth is, I’m not even halfway done. I’ll be going grad school in the fall, and even if I weren’t, I sincerely hope I wouldn’t be finished with my education. Hopefully, I will never be finished with that.

Robert Frost once said, “Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” Sage words for a conservative in the blue city of Ithaca. I’ve met many, in fact, who wondered why I came to such a liberal school in such a liberal town. Why not go to Pepperdine? Or Hillsdale, a college essentially dedicated to promoting conservative political values?

The first part of my answer is that, frankly, I don’t understand why anyone would want to be surrounded by only like-minded people. Despite the public sentiment to the contrary, as a conservative, I really do value diversity. I cannot imagine how dull life would be if I talked only to other conservatives. Indeed, some of the most influential people in my life, some of the people I am most grateful to know, hold political opinions vastly different from my own.

Were I surrounded only by political yes-men, I also cannot imagine how weak my convictions would be. The best test for convictions, after all, is opposition. I’ve found that the best way to be sure of yourself is to listen to what others have to say. The best way to know your own opinions— their strengths, weaknesses, and true foundations— is to learn the opinions of others.

My time at Cornell has confirmed these theories. Being in constant contact with people willing to discuss, to engage, and to analyze issues from a variety of different perspectives has given me extraordinary opportunities for intellectual and personal growth. As Cornell students, I urge Review readers to take advantage of these opportunities: Involve yourselves in the campus community, partake in discussion and debate of all kinds, and under no circumstances cut yourselves off from those with whom you disagree.

Don’t get me wrong, if you do this, you may find yourself convinced by an opposing argument; you may find yourself changing your opinions. But that is no great loss. It is a far greater loss to live and believe in error for lack of a will to learn. This is my advice to you as students and citizens.

I have another piece of advice for you as conservatives. When the time comes—and it will come— that you have been stuck in a stuffy, dark classroom for hours on end, mulling over quasi (or full-on) socialist ideology with your professors, that you feel you are on the brink, I encourage you to do one thing. Step outside, take a breath of fresh air, and simply take a moment to think on how beautiful it is that people are free.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

The Diversity Question

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

When the outgoing Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Review pronounces that he will be writing his last article about diversity, it can raise a few eyebrows. For whatever reason, people do not trust conservatives with the subject.

But I love this school, and I would not be able to sleep at night if I felt that I was not contributing to its excellence.

The conversation about diversity and inclusion has been of the utmost importance on campus this semester, with divestment and immigration being similarly compelling. President David J. Skorton’s email to the Cornell community on May 1st reminded many students that their role in the University’s diversity initiatives is not completed.

The revision to the “Toward New Destinations” campaign highlights these renewed objectives. In this document, the administration describes the next steps for diversity.

I believe that the email and revision are misguided because they do not mention the most important detail: an acknowledgement of what students have done to “increase diversity” this year.

While the administration has highlighted some of the steps that they have taken, the report neglects the work that students have done. Considering that diversity is an issue that affects the student body first and foremost, one would be wise to look towards students for a model of how to address diversity initiatives. The “Toward New Destinations” report overlooks the lessons that students have learned during the past few years.

In retrospect, 2013-2014 has been another revolutionary year for diversity initiatives on the Hill.

For starters, the Student Assembly created a Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion this year. Whether you agree with the ideology behind the position or not, even “conservatives” must admit that it is in line with Cornell’s diversity initiatives. The position formalizes that the student body is interested in taking part in the discussion – a big step for diversity initiatives. However, the Student Assembly Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion does not yet have a seat at the table of the University Diversity Council.

Part of the role of the student government is the responsibility to represent us in discussions with the administration. What is the purpose of the extra Student Assembly position if the administration will overlook it? Having a seat on this administrative task force would increase the students’ voice and lead to more optimal solutions for the University.

Next, students analyzed the pros and cons of enacting an additional curriculum requirement that dealt with diversity, inclusion, and social justice. Again, whether you agree with the ideology behind the requirement or not, the conversation that the proposal spurred highlights what is so great about diversity: students with different ideologies and different backgrounds discussing the optimal solution to the diversity question. The honorable discourse from both sides gave me great hope for our generation.

Finally, one of the most traditionalist-minded institutions at Cornell, the Greek System, has shown just how accepting of change they are. The Inter-Fraternity Council executive board is currently spearheading the return of the “Delta Series” – an interactive speaker series that would bring all New Members of the Greek Life into a room together in order to engage in presentations from diverse Cornell communities. Potential speakers include professional fraternities, minority organizations, sexual health groups, and entrepreneurs. If done correctly, this series is an effective, concrete way to bridge communities at Cornell and promote a culture of inclusion, without compromising the inherit goodness of the Greek System.

One need not agree with each of these policies, but it is necessary to recognize our fellow students’ willingness to find outside-of-the-box solutions. When conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, rich and poor, and males and females, take part in the discussion, our society can reach the most optimal results. That is the beauty of our democracy. Conservatives must not be afraid to address the diversity question, and this year we have not.

Why, then, does the University’s renewed diversity initiative fail to recognize the work that has already been done?

The reason can be found in the Section II(4) of the March 2013 update to the “Toward New Destinations” campaign: measurement and context.

As with any initiative, a form of measurement and accountability is necessary; however, the measures in this report miss the mark, because they contradict the integrity of the initiatives laid out in the rest of the report. Instead, these measurements assess diversity with numbers.

“Assessment should rely primarily on data from or about constituent populations,” reads Section II(4). It goes on to argue that “wherever possible, the efficacy of diversity initiatives should be assessed in light of centrally-maintained institutional data and widely-accepted definitions of key concepts,” because “this practice facilitates internal comparisons (such as across units at Cornell) and external bench-marking (such as with peer universities).” The success of Cornell’s diversity initiatives depend on how our data compares to the data of other colleges. Furthermore, the success of individual colleges depends on how they compare to other colleges at Cornell.

At the end of the day, according the report, diversity is a numbers game.

This model of self-evaluation is far different than what the student body has explored this year. While student leaders plan to execute the idea of diversity and inclusion by bringing various interests into the room together, the University is calling for data to be taken, compared, and used to motivate target groups to do more.

The problem lies in that when diversity is measured by comparable numbers, incentives to have better numbers will always exist. Acting in their best economic interests, individual colleges will then continually push after a non-existing line.

What kind of precedent does this set for the student body, whose leaders have been more than willing to answer the University’s call?

After nine months of memorable experiences and invaluable lessons, I find that my message is not all too different than it was back in August. For love of self, of school, and of country, it is necessary to question those who govern you. For when every viewpoint is heard, society can reach its optimal solutions.

In terms of the diversity question at Cornell, that means realizing the flaws in the University’s plan to measure diversity.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu

A History of Cornell Conservatism

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

A candle flickers before it goes out. Just before its demise in 1998, the Cornell American Society tried to revive the Cornell American but was unsuccessful. Publication resumed only in the spring of 2004 when Ryan Horn, a paleo-conservative graduate student attempted to create an alternative platform for the expression of conservatism on campus. Horn was critical of the Review, which had become too moderate in tone and too libertarian in its philosophy, and did not provide a strong voice for the right.

From a group of like-minded students who assembled to form the group "Cornell Literary Society", the first issue of the new Cornell American emerged in March 2004, titled Unholy Matrimony. But unlike the first rivalry, in which the Review's treatment of the American was bemused (even publishing a satirical issue entitled The Cornell Canadian) and the American steadfastly refused even to acknowledge the existence of the Review, the two publications now spar openly.

However, despite the rivalry, which preceded the merger of the two newspapers, the age of the American was most noted for a controversy over a proposed Academic Bill of Rights at Cornell.

The Resolution on Academic Freedom - based on David Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights - was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of Cornell students, including the editors-in-chief of The Cornell American and The Cornell Daily Sun. The resolution stated that the "SA affirms the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity". These principles were the following:

(1) Students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the disciplines they study.

(2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting viewpoints where appropriate.

(3) Faculty should not use their courses for the political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.

(4) All faculty should be hired, fired, or promoted and granted tenure on the basis on their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise.

(5) Selection of speakers and allocation of funds should not discriminate on the basis of political or ideological affiliation.

(6) The obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature, or any other efforts to inhibit the civil exchange of ideas should not be tolerated.

The debate on the Academic Bill of Rights started on May 6, 2004. At the beginning, the SA representative Michelle Fernandes tried to eject Ryan Horn from the meeting. Horn, who was a well-known conservative journalist on campus, had brought a digital camcorder to the event to record the debate. Fernandes raised an objection to Horn's presence saying, "Point of privilege. I want [him] to stop videotaping." Horn replied, "Respectfully, no." Nick Linder, president of the SA, then ordered, "As chair, I have to ask you to leave the meeting. It's my duty to uphold that. Turn that off or leave"

Horn expressed outrage and cited his First Amendment rights. He defiantly ignored Linder's decision, remained in his seat, and secretly videotaped the entire affair.

Following the camcorder fiasco, Cornell Democrats president Tim Lim - thinking he was speaking off the record - slammed the Academic Bill of Rights as "a publicity stunt [by] neoconservatives such as David Horowitz." Lim then went on to claim that promoting academic freedom was a part of a partisan conspiracy engineered by the College Republicans.

Then the assault on freedom came in the form of amendments. Leftist Brennan Veys amended the resolution by removing two key phrases from the bill: (i) "students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects" and (ii) "all faculty should be hired, fired, and promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence." He claimed that including these clauses in an Academic Bill of Rights was an "insult" to Cornell's faculty.

When Veys was confronted with certain facts - namely that 97 percent of Cornell's faculty are Leftists and that 21 of 23 government department professors are registered Democrats - he shook his head dismissively. Ross Blankenship, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked Veys, "How comfortable do you think a Cornell student is in writing an essay in support of President Bush?" At this question, the Democrats laughed hysterically, indicating that Blankenship was paranoid.

When the votes were tallied (8 in favor, 9 against), SA president Linder announced his final judgment, "The chair will cast a vote in, uh, the negative." He then smirked at the co-sponsors of the bill, waved them off, and said, "Have a nice day." And with that, the Academic Bill of Rights died at Cornell.

Thus, citing the document's objectives as "redundant," "irrelevant," "insulting," and "objectionable," the SA determined that academic freedom was unimportant to the campus. Besides, banning Horn from videotaping the meeting was required to ensure that the resolution failed under a cover of tolerance. The Left’s inclination to resort to censorship and intolerance for intellectual diversity became apparent at that moment. Indeed, an important part of the mission of the Review since then has been to resist such totalitarian instincts to silence and censor diverse political opinions, and defend the most basic of our freedoms—freedom of expression—within the student community.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.

Puerto Rico Statehood: Do You Believe in Democracy and Equality?

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

My home, Puerto Rico, has been an unincorporated territory of the United States since the 1898 treaty that ended the Spanish-American War. Island residents became American citizens with the enactment of the 1917 Jones Act. Nonetheless, as the United States Supreme Court has confirmed, Puerto Rico is subject to Congress’ plenary powers under the Constitution's Territory Clause.

As a result, my fellow Puerto Ricans and I do not live in a full democracy. We cannot vote for the President, even though we serve in large numbers in the U.S. military and have won five Medals of Honor. We lack two United States senators and five voting members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Instead, we are limited to a single, non-voting delegate in the House. In other words, we do not have a vote in the government that makes our national laws.

This colonial and anachronistic state of affairs contradicts our nation’s fundamental democratic values. The principle of representative democracy simply does not apply to the 3.7 million Americans (more than the population of 23 states) currently residing in Puerto Rico.

Moreover, this territorial status opens the doors for the federal government to treat us unequally under the law. The Island receives roughly half of the federal funding it would receive if it were a state, resulting in the economy of Puerto Rico lagging far behind the rest of the country.

Many federal programs—such as Medicaid, Nutrition Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income—treat Puerto Ricans worse than our fellow citizens in the 50 states. For instance, in 2010, Puerto Rico received about $1 billion in federal Medicaid funding, while Oklahoma (a state with a similar population size) was granted nearly $3.5 billion. Also, our workers pay full federal payroll taxes, but obtain only some benefits under Medicare, which is partially supported by those same taxes. As American citizens, we do not deserve such discrimination.

This inequality has had a severe impact on our quality of life, as well as on Puerto Rico’s ability to develop economically. For example, since 1976, the Island’s unemployment rate has averaged 15.5 percent—while the U.S. national unemployment rate has averaged less than 6.5 percent. Our current poverty rate is 45.1 percent, more than twice that of Mississippi, the nation’s poorest state. In addition, Puerto Rico’s $18,689 income per capita is one-third the national average and half that of Mississippi.

Consequently, during the last decade, Puerto Rico has experienced a massive population exodus. About 4.8 million Puerto Ricans now live in the continental U.S.—one third of whom were born on the Island—which is far greater than the 3.7 million who still reside on the Island. Most of these individuals would prefer to remain in Puerto Rico, but given the current unfair political structure, relocation is the only way to enjoy the full benefits of U.S. citizenship.

Last November 6th, the people of Puerto Rico made history, expressing their desire to leave behind territory status. The local government, under the leadership of former Republican Governor Luis Fortuño, held a two-question referendum on its political status. Of 1.8 million voters, 54 percent said that they did not wish to continue under the present territory condition.

Furthermore, among the three valid non-territorial status options (independence, free association, and statehood), out of the 1.4 million voters that chose an option, 61 percent voted in favor of statehood. We made our voice heard loud and clear.

In light of this, Puerto Rico’s congressional representative, Pedro Pierluisi, on Wednesday introduced H.R. 2000—a bipartisan bill that sets forth a process to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state of the union. Now the next question is: Will Washington listen?

A myriad of congressional leaders have been longstanding proponents of equality for Puerto Rico. For example, in recent weeks, prominent Democratic leaders like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and senior Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY) voiced their support for resolving Puerto Rico’s political status problem.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama included in his budget proposal $2.5 million to establish voter education initiatives and conduct the first federally sanctioned plebiscite in Puerto Rico’s history.

Similarly, Republican leaders have historically been advocates for Puerto Rico’s statehood. President Ford believed “that the appropriate status for Puerto Rico is statehood.” President Reagan argued that he looked forward to “welcoming Puerto Rico with open arms.” Also, both the elder President Bush and his son have stated their support for statehood. More recently, conservative leaders like Rep. Peter King and Grover Norquist have embraced the statehood cause as well.

All of these leaders understood that perfecting our union is a process. We abolished slavery after the Civil War in 1865, recognized a woman’s right to vote in 1921, and decided that separate was not equal in 1954. Under our Constitution, there is only one way to ensure full self-government and equality for the people of Puerto Rico, and that is through statehood.

As Rep. Pierluisi remarked at a recent event cosponsored by Cornell in Washington, “The struggle for statehood is a fight for civil rights and a fight for human rights.” This issue transcends partisan politics; it is about right and wrong. After 115 years of inequality, it is past time that we have the same rights and responsibilities as our fellow American citizens.

Now I ask you: Do you believe in democracy and equality?

Julio A. Cabral Corrada is a graduating senior concentrating in Business and Government. He can be reached at jac553@cornell.edu

Interview with SA President Ulysses Smith

2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Q. How would you explain the controversial end to the election? What are your feelings about one of your opponent's disqualification?

A:That was a terrifying experience! We all were kept in the dark about what was occurring at the time. All the other results came out and we were forced to live in suspense while all of this was happening. This was all due to challenges being filed. When a candidate or any student feels that a candidate has violated the election rules, they can file a challenge against that candidate. Every candidate was made aware of the rules. We sat down like third graders and read them aloud at the mandatory meeting, so we all knew what they were and we had a responsibility to uphold them. It is unfortunate that someone was disqualified, but I do think that decision was made at the end of a very long and fair review process. If candidates were permitted to break the rules publicly, jeopardize the fairness of the election process, and receive no repercussions, many students would likely feel less enthusiastic about the SA as a whole. It would just seem like another corrupt, resume-padding group. In the end, I respect the process and the outcome. All the candidates had great ideas and great platforms, and I really hope that they will continue to stay involved with the SA going forward.

Q. What will be the first thing you will pursue in your new position? What is priority number one?

A:My term technically does not start until the first day of June, but we are already looking at bringing about some structural changes to the SA this year in preparation for next year. The first couple of things will be internal—we are cleaning house. We are going to change our committee structure and do some consolidating. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary or redundant committees and create committees that can attract a broad range of students. This also cuts down on the number of committee chair positions on the SA. With fewer job titles available, we can put more representatives out amongst their constituents. That will be followed by an education process this year. I think you would be hard-pressed to find even five SA members who have read our Charter or our bylaws. That will change this year. Having members who do not understand that our mission is to be an effective voice for students and who do not understand the various processes that we have in place to fulfill that mission is a disservice to the student body. Neither EVP Balik, nor myself are tolerating that anymore.

Q. How will you fulfill the promises you made over the campaign?

A:We have a fantastic group of people who got elected this year! The beautiful thing is that we all ran on similar platforms. We may disagree in method or how to get there, but for the most part we have very similar goals. My big goal is to improve the student experience for all students. That means from the moment you step on-campus during Cornell Days, Diversity Hosting Month, or the Pre-freshmen Summer Program all the way until you graduate. That means everybody—not just the people with whom we agree and not just the people with whom we get along. My job as President is to coordinate all of the efforts of our representatives and to make sure that they are engaging all students to the best of their abilities. We want to see, not just more inclusive policy, but more informed policy. I also must be the advocate for students in all settings, especially with upper administration. I think many students feel that the administration often makes decisions without adequate student input. A lot of us feel that some administrators are very disconnected from the student experience—they aren’t on the front line—and that results in flawed policy. I plan to introduce the various perspectives of students to the administration and to make sure that the SA is the bridge between the student body and a largely disconnected administration. In order to do that, we have got to overcome this culture on the SA of talking to a select few people and not really trying to learn what differing perspectives actually exist.

Q. What is the biggest challenge that faces the SA?

A:Our biggest challenge is ourselves. We have to overcome a culture that is filled with resume-padding. We have to overcome the stigma of a bureaucratic nightmare and a waste of time. The reality is that many SA representatives do a lot of great work that goes unnoticed because it is overshadowed by the presence of this idea that we are useless. Our reputation precedes us, negatively. To be honest, we will never prevent self-interested individuals from getting elected to the SA. That being said, we can certainly make them work when they get elected. I am not willing to tolerate the idea that representatives can sit back and do nothing while various groups are dealing with major issues. We are students too. We did not get elected to sit on Mount Olympus, enjoy a few perks, and pass judgment. We got elected because enough people believed that we each had the ability to effectively bring about positive change in this campus. That is what we are charged with doing, and that is what we are going to do.

Q. What should the average student expect now that you are President?

A:You all can expect a more noticeable SA presence; not in the sense that big government is taking over, rather that our members will be doing a lot more grassroots activities. You will notice more representatives actively soliciting your opinion. You can also expect that I will not compromise on my stance regarding active engagement of our constituents. You better believe that I will still be as open and, sometimes painfully, honest in my critiques of the SA as a whole. If we are not performing the way we should be, or the way the student body at-large thinks we should be, then we will change that. The only difference is that now I am in a position that allows me to critique, change, encourage, and lead the SA in a different direction. I expect the students to hold me to that. I expect the SA to hold me to that. I expect students to keep us busy and accountable to their needs.

A Libertarian Revival?

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

Meg Whitman, John Huntsman, and Richard Hanna, along with dozens of other Republicans, recently signed an amicus brief defending same-sex couples’ right to marry.

No, that’s not a typo.

The brief was to be filed in the Supreme Court case on Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, which will appear before the court at the same time as the now-infamous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a heterosexual union for the purposes of federal law. Whether it was a result of cries for “limited government” coming from within and without the Republican Party, an attempt to expand the party’s appeal among youth, or an effort by some Republicans to defy House Speaker John Boehner, the amicus brief is welcome respite from the party’s history of anti-gay rights activism.

As a proud Republican and a supporter of same-sex marriage, I have often lamented the lack of vocal gay-rights activists in the party. This lack has obvious political advantages, given the party’s alliance with the religious right. However, it is dismaying to those of us who believe the government should have little to nothing to say about what constitutes a “proper” romantic relationship or a “proper” family.

The fact that the Republicans’ recent call for the legalization of same-sex marriage comes in the form of an amicus brief advocating for recognition of the institution as a constitutional right may be worrying to some, even among its supporters. And, indeed, whether same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the “equal rights and privileges” clause—or any other clause—of the Constitution is an entirely separate question from whether or not it ought to be legal in all 50 states.

For the time being, though, I suggest that we—as Republicans and as citizens—accept the amicus brief for what it is—a sign of political and social progress that I personally thought was decades away at best.

The brief was put together by former RNC chairman (and openly gay man) Ken Mehlman, and now reportedly includes over 100 Republican signatures. Notable signatories include former World Bank President and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and former governor of New Jersey Christine Whitman.

Perhaps this sudden outpouring of support for same-sex marriage on the American right is indicative of a libertarian revival within the Republican Party. And if this is true, the party and the country alike are in for an interesting, tumultuous, and promising generation to come.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Dearth of Diversity

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

In one way or another, the concept of diversity pervades every piece of marketing that America’s colleges and universities distribute to unsuspecting students and parents. Diversity today assumes primacy in every conversation about the state of American higher education. The attainment of diversity—whose definition remains as uncertain today as it did when the idea was first introduced as indispensable in education—seems to have become a virtuous goal unto itself.

Certainly at Cornell University, diversity is viewed as part and parcel of education itself, an undoubted blessing if absorbed properly, and a transgression if ignored.

Yet, one is hard-pressed to find among Cornell’s marketing and public statements mentions of intellectual or ideological diversity.

Fine. This is not unexpected. For the better part of the past five decades, academia in America has served as a bastion of liberal oneness.

Cornell, much like most American institutions of higher education, cares far less—at least in public, operational terms—about intellectual or ideological diversity than it does about racial or gender diversity.

But what about Cornell’s own conception of diversity? Does the university implement its own idea of diversity consistently and thoroughly?

The following appears as one of Cornell’s many statements on diversity: “Cornell is committed to extending its legacy of recruiting a heterogeneous faculty, student body and staff; fostering a climate that doesn't just accommodate differences, but engages with them; and providing rich opportunities for learning from those differences.” However, the most untrained eye can observe that, even according to its own conception of the matter, the university continues to endorse an abhorrent lack of diversity.

Take, for instance, the Department of Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. The department, founded presumably in response to what some students and faculty perceived to be a bias against, and underrepresentation of, women, ironically is engaging in the very same practice of homogeneity that it likely sees throughout academia in the hiring of men. Of the department’s 28 core faculty members, a grand total of 1 is male. But not a word emerges from either the students or faculty in the department about its lack of gender diversity. Might not a man have different and, indeed, probably unique knowledge worth the time of students and faculty of FGSS?

Similarly, the Department of Africana Studies is riddled with conspicuous contradiction. Presumably, this department, too, concerns itself with promoting diversity. It was, after all, founded in response to protests by a group of black students who demanded an academic discipline, among many other things, such as independent housing on campus for the black community. Or does the department care merely about promoting diversity through the continued employment only of individuals from the African diaspora? It certainly appears that way. Of the department’s 12 core faculty members—including tenured and tenure-track professors and language lecturers—all appear to be of Africana heritage. According to the prevalent metric system of diversity used by Cornell, it seems that an addition of a professor of another race might only increase the diversity of the department. Then, why has the department not hired such an individual?

Surely, numerous departments at Cornell behave this way, manipulating a term as innocuous as diversity into an unruly beast that encroaches daily upon classical liberal education. But the two departments mentioned here possess a particularly strong penchant for resorting to vague and apocryphal language found only in diversity’s dictionary. If given the opportunity, they would likely claim that they provide a special place at Cornell for promoting this now-meaningless thing called diversity, specifically for groups historically underrepresented in academia.

Maybe the explanation for homogeneity in these departments is grounded in reality: there simply aren’t many males who want to teach feminist, gender, and sexuality studies or individuals from outside the Africana diaspora who want to teach Africana studies. But that simply should not be, at least according to the reasoning that racial and gender diversity advocates use when discussing affirmative action or discrimination in higher education. The real reason for this imbalance is that the departments are discriminating against particular groups of people.

There is no way to explain away the transparent contradictions between the university’s diversity policy and its supposed commitment to a competition of ideas. If gender and race are the crux of diversity, then there is little to no diversity in FGSS and Africana Studies, departments created partly to provide an infusion of diversity to the university. On the other hand, if the university finds it acceptable to leave untouched the lack of racial and gender diversity in these departments, then it is quite unfair for it to advocate for diversity (generally through altered recruitment policies) in a number of other departments and disciplines in order to manufacture heterogeneity. Is it not?

It appears that the university wants diversity. But only when desirable.

Raj Kannappan is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rk398@cornell.edu.

Byline Funding: The 6.5 Million Dollar Baby

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

The Cornell Student Assembly is often viewed as a hollow instrument designed to give students the illusion of student governance on Cornell’s campus. However, the Assembly, in a few areas, has significant influence and power. One of its major powers resides in the members' ability to distribute the $6.5 million in byline-funded organizations at Cornell.

Every year, each student pays a student activity fee. For 2012-2014, the fee was $229. The Student Assembly’s Appropriations Committee then divides this fee and allocates it to various “byline-funded” organizations. Every two years, these organizations reapply, making for an exciting but stressful process that will begin next fall.

“This semester, as it is a non byline funding year, we review the allocation from the 2012 cycle," remarked Don Muir, '15, a member of the Appropriations Committee since his freshman year. "Each byline-funded organization provides us with an update on their spending and their plans for future expenditures.”

During the off-year, the Appropriations Committee meets with each organization in order to give these groups a chance to present information and arguments for their funding needs. These reports are then compiled by the Vice President of Finance and reviewed for a vote. Thus, the off-year is an extremely important time for different organizations to make a case for funding needs. After the Appropriations Committee reviews each organization, the members vote on whether or not to increase, decrease, or maintain the group’s funding.

“The off-year decides which organizations will get funded," said Cameron Pritchett member and liaison for the Appropriations Committee. "Funding is given first to the organizations that fulfill service to for the students. Because the activities fee is functionally a tax, the organization must access all the students."

In addition, the Student Assembly passed a Resolution this year creating a “follow up task force” that is designed to create a continued dialogue between the Committee and the organizations after funding decisions have been made, according to Pritchett. This task force is important for the organizations because it allows for increased information to be communicated to the Committee, hopefully allowing for better decision making by the Student Assembly in the future.

However, not every group is guaranteed to be funded.

“The byline funding process is sometimes pretty contentious. In the past, there have been groups that have been denied funding by the Appropriations Committee. One reason this may occur is that a group may be better fit to receive [Student Assembly Finance Committee] funding or some other alternate form of funding, such as through an umbrella organization,” said Muir. Another reason for disqualification is an organizations inability to involve the majority of students on campus, The Committee must decide which groups get cut, which is often difficult.

Because the Student Assembly, vis-à-vis the Appropriations Committee, has substantial control over byline-funding, there is this potential for politics and bias to influence the decision-making. The candidates for Student Assembly President this year all talked about the need to continue increasing objectivity in the process.

Both Muir and Pritchett spoke of the strides that the Committee continues to make in order to best represent the needs of all students.

"Overall, we do our absolute best to make objective and unbiased decisions during the allocation process,” said Muir.

The newly established task force is an example of these efforts.

Understanding the byline funding process is important for every student because it is a micro-example of a government type institution using students’ functional tax dollars towards expansive programs. Which organizations are funded either through the Appropriations Committee or the Student Assembly Finance Committee (which is funded through the appropriations Committee to fund less comprehensive organizations and their durable goods) determines how the student government leads Cornell. As such, every student should be aware of the Committee’s actions and take into consideration Student Assembly member’s beliefs when voting during elections.

“It’s important for students to pay attention to who they elect because the people want [elected members of Student Assembly] to be competent and objective when making these decisions,” concluded Pritchett.

Bill Synder is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

There is No Moral Case for Divestment

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

The Student Assembly passed a resolution, on February 7, demanding that Cornell University divest its endowment from the fossil fuel industry by 2020. Cornell is now one of over 250 campuses on which students have called upon their administration to take a stance against the use of fossil fuels. This “divestment movement” was inspired by Bill McKibben, America’s leading environmental activist (sorry, Al Gore). Most known for his efforts to block the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, McKibben began a new project last July - divestment. In a Rolling Stone article titled, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” McKibben calls for Universities to divest their endowments from the fossil fuel industry.

This is not the first divestment movement to find its way to Cornell. In the 1980s, a campaign to divest from companies affiliated with the apartheid regime in South Africa swept college campuses across the United States. As a result, Cornell and 154 other campuses divested and 80 cities, 25 U.S. states, and 19 countries agreed to take economic action against these businesses. The strength of this movement rested in the powerful moral case against apartheid.

McKibben now seeks to create a similar nationwide movement to divest in the fossil fuel industry, similar to the campaign of the 1980s. Likening the two as sister causes, McKibben is pushing for Universities to send a message to the oil industry that their practices are unacceptable. But there is a problem with his logic: the fossil fuel industry not inherently immoral. The need to divest in companies associated with the apartheid regime was an easy case to make; the human rights violations were, without a doubt, a shock to the conscience. The fossil-fuel industry does not produce this reaction. The companies that make up this industry are not only pillars of our economy, but of our society. So before we write off all oil companies as enemies and sell off all of our stock, let’s consider the impact of the oil industry on our University, our country, and the world.

The current discourse has operated on the unchallenged assumption that investment in oil is inherently wrong. The debate does not consider whether fossil fuels are "good" or bad", but rather, solely is about whether or not the sheer evil of the oil companies warrants divestment from them. For example, in his resounding call to divest, Bill McKibben stated, "The planet does indeed have an enemy – one far more committed to action than governments or individuals ... It has become a rogue industry, reckless like no other force on Earth. It is Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilisation." While oil may be a finite energy source, can we truly consider Cornell’s relatively meager investment supporting Earth's public enemy number one? Is it fair to say that we, and future Cornellians, will shamefully look back on our Cornell experiences because a portion of its endowment portfolio consisted of oil securities? The zeal of the Student Assembly, KyotoNOW!, and other pro-divestment groups have halted any of these questions before they could be asked. Now, we face an idealistic coalition unwilling to contemplate the long-term effects of demonizing oil companies and pressuring Cornell into heedless divestment. Simply removing our endowment funds from the oil industry will not spontaneously generate affordable, realistic sources of renewable energy. It will only serve to satisfy the naive ideologies of a few interest groups, while oil companies will react unscathed and find eager, new investors to replace their meager losses.

Divestment is a form of economic boycott, and while all consumers have the right to choose what they financially support, it traditionally employed, and successful with, cases of near-absolute or absolute morality, such as South African apartheid. Fossil fuels may be unsustainable and environmentally suboptimal, but they are not “immoral.” Despite its flaws, petroleum technologically evolved our society beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors. From global transportation to guaranteed warmth, oil historically and presently has given our society incredible opportunities. Conversely, apartheid brought suffering to millions of South Africans. The moralities of these two situations are clearly distinct. Divestment was an appropriate tool to put pressure on the South African government, but now it has become a reawakened instrument to hastily expedite politically partisan agendas under the guise of total moral urgency.

Certainly, the development of alternative sources of energy is crucial for the survival of the human race. Fossil fuels are a finite energy source and will eventually be depleted from the Earth. However, a lack of sustainability is not a position on the wrong side of history. The traditional energy industry provides our country with efficient, reliable power and transportation while creating hundreds of thousands of stable middle class jobs. This is not a feat that alternate energy companies can simply or presently replicate, regardless of how much money the public sector subsidizes or the private sector invests. Ideology does not drive innovation and creating a literal “power" vacuum will not hasten the development of alternative energy sources. Investment in oil companies is also critical for our international energy independence. By continuing domestic oil development, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, the traditional energy industry is reducing our reliance on OPEC and other foreign oil cartels, which reduces both the undue influence of unfriendly nations and the need for American military intervention. Furthermore, petroleum companies are actively researching and developing renewable energy sources, simply by the nature of their business: if they are bound to a finite resource facing depletion, they must adapt by innovation or dissolve. Leading firms such as Exxon Mobil, Raizen, BP, Total, and Chevron and spent billions of dollars in the last decade investing in renewable energy projects that are developed by industry experts and reliant upon the successes of their respective companies. As one small example, Exxon Mobil has recently partnered with Synthetic Genomics Inc. to develop algae-derived biofuels, a project that is possible due to Exxon Mobil’s early operating budget of over $30 billion. These top firms have the financial capabilities, expertise, and influence to shape the future of the industry, and we simply cannot divest in oil without divesting in the critical foundations of renewable energy. Thus, the totality of what oil companies produce, both the good and bad, are undeniably linked to future energy sustainability. By divesting now, we are hindering many of our best hopes of developing long-term, renewable energy. Fossil fuel companies are not static organizations and by perpetuating these misconceptions, the divestment coalition will only succeed in stifling progress and opportunity for Cornellians and our nation as a whole.

On that note, there are few investors more deserving of profits from the oil industry than Cornell University. Stock in oil keeps Cornell endowment in good health, which makes it possible for Cornell invest in sustainability projects here on campus and offer alternative energy programs for students. Projects such as the $1 million Green Revolving Fund would not be possible without a strong endowment. Cornell can afford to train future leaders of the energy industry because of its investments. Furthermore, by owning stock in the industry, colleges maintain voting rights in company elections. If we divest from these companies, we needlessly discard the direct voices we have in exchange for virtually nothing. Who should be voting for the next Chairman of Exxon, Cornell or some Wall Street investor?

So before we risk the financial health of our University to support this political cause, let’s consider the long-term harm divestment would cause for our school, country, and world. Before we sign on the dotted line for every initiative waving a green banner, we must consider the consequences of our actions.

Jessica Reif is a junior in the Industrial and Labor Relations School and can be reached at jar453@cornell.edu. Kyle Ezzedine is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and can be reached at kje35@cornell.edu.

Joy Division: A Story of CPAC 2013

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

“So, what are you selling?”

The man with me in the elevator was dressed like a cowboy, assuming he was from somewhere in Europe and had never seen a real cowboy. He looked at me, smiling through his rhinestone sunglasses while his friends chuckled at his question.

“I don’t suppose I’m selling anything, sir” I answered.

“Well hell son, why are you here then?” he replied.

“I suppose I’m here to be sold something.”

“And what are you being sold?” The man took off his sunglasses.

“I suppose I’m being sold the American Dream.”

The group laughed, and stepped out of the elevator. As they walked away, the cowboy said over his shoulder, “I hope that works out for you, kid.”

This past weekend, while most Cornellians were finishing prelims and packing for various ports-of-call around the country in celebration of that magical time of year known as “Spring Break,” I—and thousands of other conservatives—headed to Washington, D.C. to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, more commonly known as CPAC.

"What is CPAC," you ask?

To quote Kobe Bryant (and, coincidentally, Newt Gingrich), “I wish we knew.”

I am not ashamed to admit that I was a CPAC virgin. As such, I decided that prior to walking through the doors of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, I needed to do my research about what might await. First, the basics: CPAC was conceived in 1973 by a group of individuals who would become the American Conservative Union (ACU). They determined that it was necessary to create an event that could rally like-minded conservatives together around one cause. In order to inspire their fellows, they would invite the biggest names in the Republican Party to speak at their event, the first being then-governor Ronald Reagan (in 1974). From that point on, CPAC grew to become the behemoth that it is today, with thousands of attendees enjoying a schedule brimming with lectures from the most well-known conservative figures in the country. Furthermore, CPAC serves as a rallying point—a place where conservatives can come together and strengthen their bonds. Upon leaving, individuals theoretically go back to their respective corners of the nation reinvigorated, ready to champion the conservative cause while knowing that thousands of others are doing the same. In this way, we can each make a difference.

This is the message put forth by the ACU on the CPAC website, and who is to tell them that they are wrong? Certainly not me, the CPAC virgin. After reading all of this, I could not help but be excited for the event. I thought, I may reflect upon this weekend years from now, and realize that I bore witness to the reigniting of an entire political party—that I was there when the GOP rose from the ashes of November 2012 and emerged to become a beacon for an increasingly fragile base of conservatives. I sincerely hoped this to be true.

I suppose this is where a modicum of irony is to be found in relation to the current state of my weathered relationship with the Republican Party: I was going to CPAC 2013 hoping for change.

I wish I would have ended my CPAC 2013 research on the webpage of the event itself. As is the case with any large gathering of Republicans, it did not take long for the media to gather like optimistic vultures soaring high above the fray on self-righteous thermals, waiting to swoop down and attack at any sign of weakness. And weaknesses they had found. The ACU decided not to invite New Jersey governor Chris Christie to speak at the event this year. They also declined two groups of LGBT conservatives known as GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans a seat at the table, a decision which has caused several individuals to withdraw support for CPAC. In fact, it seemed easier to find more opinions on people that were NOT invited to the event than on those that were.

However, the media has quite often proved themselves to be less than trustworthy when it comes to unbiased reporting of right-leaning political events. I decided I would do my best to maintain my unabashed enthusiasm for what would surely be a wonderful weekend spent forging new friendships and reigniting my conservative fire.

I arrived at the Gaylord National Resort on Wednesday night, the eve of the convention. After checking into our room, my fellow travellers and I (Cornell Review Editor Noah Kantro and retired editor Lucas Policastro) decided to do a little pre-game exploring. As we walked around the site, I couldn’t help but marvel at the sheer size of it all. It was during our walk down CPAC’s radio row that I saw the first of many potential warning signs that things may not end up the way I pictured them.

“Man, the NRA is pretty well represented,” Noah commented. They weren’t the only ones.

“Have you ever heard of ‘The Tea Party Network’ before?” I asked.

Lining radio row, the biggest and gaudiest sets were being set up for no less than six different outlets affiliating themselves with either the NRA or the Tea Party. They were also being placed in the most prime real estate positions: right next to the entrances of the main ballroom, where all of the biggest speeches and panels would be conducted, and where every attendee would be sure to see them. The only question was whether they were in those prime real estate positions because CPAC was trying to push them on people, or because CPAC was catering to its audience.

The rest of the weekend was a typical convention blur, with numerous highs and lows. It was incredible to see a huge turnout of conservatives under the age of 25, yet it was embarrassing to see how they acted in the hotel lobby around 1 am. It was great to see how many members of the new media were represented, yet it was unsettling to see how many were fostering and spreading extremist views.

There were some truly amazing speakers, such as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Newt and Callista Gingrich, and the reemergence of Willard Mitt Romney. It bothered me that these great speakers were forced to share the stage with the likes of Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin. I very much enjoyed seeing panel discussions on intellectual property law and an all-female panel that played out like a conservative version of ‘The View.’ On the other hand, there were panels that were so awful that they bordered on offensive, such as the panel on immigration reform, and the now-infamous panel “How to Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You’re Not One?” which espoused the virtues of proving your commitment to diversity by simply telling people that you are a ‘Fredrick Douglass Republican.’ For the record, this discussion was not sponsored by CPAC; rather, it was sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.

In essence, this is what the overriding theme of CPAC became. We were bearing witness to the split in the Republican Party between the GOP and the Tea Party, with one side stubbornly sticking to its old ways and the other seeking a more aggressive and confrontational approach. For me, it was extremely awkward and more than a bit sad, because in all honesty I don’t care for either of them. I was left with an existential dilemma. CPAC 2013 was breaking my heart, and it forced me to question whether there was anyone out there that I could believe in.

At 10:00 am on the last day of the convention, I got my wish.

When I first heard about him, I was sure that Dr. Ben Carson was just a new flavor-of-the-month for the conservative media. I had heard that he spoke during President Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast, and that he used his time to take subtle shots at some of the President’s initiatives. I just assumed it would be a matter of time before either the GOP or the Tea Party would get their hands on him and parade him around as their new symbol. I also assumed that CPAC 2013 would be his grand unveiling, and that within the first five minutes of his speech I would be able to tell who got to him first.

Then Dr. Carson spoke. It didn’t take five minutes. Within the first two I was convinced that this man was not looking for media attention, he was not selling anything, and he was definitely not dishing out the same tired lines of the GOP or the Tea Party. Dr. Carson is something all-together new, and provided a voice for the people who feel just like me.

CPAC 2013 was the official debut of the Carson Conservative.

Judging by the response of the people in the audience, Dr. Carson’s message resonated in a way unlike that of the Tea Party. I struggle with a way to put this delicately, so let’s just say that I believe Dr. Carson will be embraced more by people who read than by those who watch TV. I do not know if Dr. Ben Carson will run for President in 2016. What I do know is that he has provided a blueprint for how educated conservatives can speak their minds and put forth new, common-sense ideas without having to resort to the aggressive tactics of the Tea Party or the worn-down methods of the GOP.

CPAC 2013 did its best to deliver upon its promises. For those that identify most with the Tea Party, there was plenty to be excited about. GOP supporters were likely to have enjoyed the convention as well. Even people with political identity crises like myself were provided with something to rally around.

On Saturday afternoon, I tried to find the cowboy from the elevator to let him know that I had found what I was looking for, and had been sold on Dr. Ben Carson. Eventually I found him walking around alone, looking slightly disheveled and not at all pleased. Perhaps there was no one at the convention willing to buy what he was selling. Maybe he was unable to find someone to sell him what he was looking for. Either way, I decided not to share my news with him. As I learned with Dr. Carson, the best discoveries are those that are made on your own.

Mike Navarro is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at mln62@cornell.edu.

Is the Family Being Destroyed?

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

“Destroy the family and you destroy society." These chilling words describe Vladimir Lenin’s devious plan to carry out such a sinister plot. For most of human history, the family — defined as one male and one female parent and their children— has stood as the central unit of society.

In Europe, Asia, Africa and, later, the Americas, people lived, and frequently worked, as family units. Today, in the high-income world and even in some developing countries, there has been a shift to a “new and improved” social model. Increasingly, family no longer serves as the central organizing feature of society. An unprecedented number of individuals, approaching upwards of 30% in some Asian countries, are choosing to steer clear of child bearing altogether, and often marriage as well.

The post-familial phenomena has been most evident in the high income world, most profoundly in Europe, North America and particularly, wealthier parts of East Asia. Yet it has bloomed also in many key emerging countries including Iran and other Islamic nations. The reasons for this shift are complex, and vary greatly in different countries and cultures.

In some countries, such as those in East Asia, the nature of modern competitive capitalism often forces individuals to choose between career advancement and family formation. As a result, these economies are unintentionally setting into motion a wave of destructive forces to their future workforces, consumer bases, and long-term prosperity.

The widespread movement away from traditional values found in Hindu, Muslim, Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, and Confucian worldviews, has also undermined familialism. The new emerging social philosophy encourages more secular values that prioritize individual personal socioeconomic success as well as the personal quest for greater fulfillment.

Conservatives, including the Weekly Standard’s Jonathan Last, regularly cite declining birth and marriage rates as a result of expanding government. This is a direct threat to the right’s political survival. Meanwhile, progressives have labeled attempts to commend a committed couple with children as inherently damaging and needlessly condemnatory to the new social order.

Societal norms, which once virtually mandated family formation, have begun to morph. The new norms are reinforced by cultural influences that tend to be concentrated in the very areas with the lowest percentages of married people and children—dense urban centers. A majority of residences in Manhattan are designed exclusively for singles, while Washington D.C. has one of the highest percentages of women who do not live with children, at 70%. Similar trends can be seen in London, Paris, Tokyo and other cultural capitals of the world.

A society that is increasingly single and childless is likely to be more concerned with serving their current needs than addressing the future-oriented necessities of children. Since older people vote more than younger people, and children have no say at all, political power could shift towards non-childbearing people. We are tilting more into a ‘now’ society, geared towards consuming or recreating today, as opposed to nurturing and sacrificing for tomorrow.

The most noticeable impact of post-familialism lies with demographic decline. It is already having a profound impact on fiscal stability in Japan and through southern Europe. With fewer workers contributing to cover pension costs, even prosperous places like Singapore will face the same crisis in the decades to come.

A diminished labor force and consumer base also suggests slow economic growth and limited opportunities for business expansion. For one thing, young people tend to drive technological change, and their absence from the workforce will slow innovation. For many people, the basic motivation for hard work is reinforced by the desire to support and nurture a family. Without a family to support, the very basis for such a work ethic will be changed, perhaps irreversibly.

Seeking to secure a place for families requires us to move beyond reminiscence for the long-departed 1950s era and focus on what is possible given globalization, urbanization, the ascension of women in a competitive capitalized society. In Europe, Asia and America, more and more young people do not express the same desire to have families as previous generations did. Amidst all the social change discussed above, a basic desire for family needs to be fostered and encouraged by our wider society.

My purpose here is not to judge people about their personal decision to forego marriage and children. Instead, I seek to initiate a discussion about how to create or maintain a place for families in the modern world. In the process we must ask some tough questions about our basic values and the nature of the cities and societies we are now creating.

It is impossible to deny that gay marriage causes the decay of families. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage contribute to the breakdown of the family unit and violate the natural structure of marriage established over thousands of years. One doesn’t have to be a person of faith to recognize that gay marriage should not be legally sanctioned in this country.

An article in the Weekly Standard described how the introduction of authorized gay unions in Scandinavian countries is destroying the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock. Social scientists have been warning that if this fractured family problem continues, there will be many kids with several “moms” and “dads,” six or eight “grandparents” and even dozens of “half-siblings.”

Is there a problem with the decay of families and a fractured family unit? Yes; psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the ideal environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Sadly, the breakdown of the family unit is not the sole problem here.

Civil rights activists who are in favor of same-sex marriage maintain that no one has the right to vote on someone else’s marriage or interfere with someone else’s happiness. If legal marriage between homosexuals continues to expand to other states, the family will comprise of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights”.

Allowing homosexuals to marry will open the door for those who think they have the “civil right” to get married to more than one person because it makes them “happy” and “doesn’t hurt anybody”. I must make it completely clear that to be against same-sex marriage is not hatred or discrimination towards homosexuals. It is the refusal to accept their immoral attitudes and actions. If the major faiths, history, psychology and nature all argue in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman, why is there even such a controversy today?

On the same twisted side, many Democrats praise the rise of “single-ism” demonstrated by the increasing number of women in their 40s who never had children. This demographic has more than doubled since 1976. Pollsters like Stan Greenberg applaud single women as “the largest progressive voting bloc in the country” and essential to the continued growth of the left.

Perhaps the largest threat from collapsing fertility is the aging of society. Consider “the dependency ratio,” which measures the number of people in the workforce compared to retirees. In other words, how many working people are needed to support those over age 65? In 1960, before the decline in birthrates, that ratio was 9 percent in the 23 most developed countries. Today, it is 16 percent across these advanced countries. By 2030 it could reach as high as 25 percent.

Countries with the longest history of declining fertility face the biggest fiscal crises. By 2050, Germany and Singapore are predicted to have roughly 57 people above age 65 for every 100 workers. In the United States, this ratio is expected to rise by 50 percent to roughly 35 per 100 workers, even if the current decline eventually reverses.

If birthrates continue to decline, Western nations may devolve into impoverished and lethargic nursing homes. Without the foundational support of strong families, children are likely to be more troubled and less productive as adults.

These changes are not theoretical or insignificant. Europe and East Asia, pioneers in population decline, have spent decades trying to push up their birthrates and regenerate aging populations while confronting the resulting political, economic, and social consequences. It’s time for us to consider what an aging, increasingly child-free population, growing at a slower rate, would mean for the United States.

As younger Americans individually avoid families of their own, they are contributing to the growing imbalance between older retirees and working-age Americans, potentially propelling both into a spiral of mounting entitlement costs and diminished economic robustness, while creating a culture marked by hyper-individualism and dependency on the state.

Crudely put, “the lack of productive screwing could further be screwing the screwed generation.” In the coming decades, success will ensue to those cultures that preserve the family’s place as a social unit essential to a fruitful society. It’s a vital case we need to make as a society, rather than counting on nature to take a disgraceful course.

Michael Loffredo is a sophomore in the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning. He can be reached at mjl343@cornell.edu

A Golden Thread for Iowa?

2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

Let us tell you a tale of two cities.

It is the worst of times in Washington, DC. The capitol is a mess. It’s a blindingly partisan dystopia where Republicans rant about Democrats and Democrats slam Republicans, where crises are manufactured and precious little is accomplished. It’s a schoolyard fist fight on the deck of the Titanic, as the American people look on in dismay.

It is the best of times in Ithaca, NY. The city, or more specifically East Hill, is actually in relatively good shape. President David J. Skorton has led Cornell University to increasing national prominence. His Reimagining Cornell initiative, with Provost Kent Fuchs, is a strategic vision for worldwide leadership in education. The Technion-Cornell Innovation Institute in New York is a foundational pillar of this vision. He has generally championed freedom and rights for both students and immigrants. He has “Pledged to End Hazing” and has worked to promote mental health on this campus and across the nation. He has pioneered stringent research ethics across all disciplines. During six recessionary years, he has raised over four billion dollars for the endowment.

Yes, this is a tale of two cities that would drive Charles Dickens to despair. Let us propose an innovative, compelling solution to the depressing dichotomy.

Senator Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa has announced his retirement, leaving an open Senate seat in the 2014-midterm elections. Coincidentally, President Skorton called Iowa his home for the 26 years preceding his arrival in Ithaca.

Do you see how the tale unfolds here? A unique opportunity to share the “Cornell Way” with the nation has been presented!

Skorton returns to Iowa, runs for Harkin’s seat and measurably improves the tired gene pool in the Senate. Washington, D.C. becomes incrementally less partisan and incrementally more functional. There could be a happy ending to this Dickensian tale, and without resorting to those pesky guillotines!

This vision is not impractical, we assure you. Many Iowa politicans have been unimpressed by the possible contenders thus far. Meanwhile, President Skorton’s appeal and name recognition stretch far beyond Cayuga’s Waters, due to those numerous public campaigns that we have as passionately been criticizing for the past seven years. Some on campus have even reached the conclusion that these endeavors are actually a sign of our President's desire to solve our nation's imperfections on a much larger scale. Well, Mr. President, the opportunity has now presenting itself.

The bottom line is this: the country needs a statesman more than Cornell needs its president.

Now, having established that this proposal would steer us clear from Dickins' revolutionary narrative, the real questions have only begun. Could President Skorton be that nonpartisan statesman? Could he be the golden thread for Iowa during an important moment in our nation's history.

After all, as the son of a Belorussian immigrant raised in the heart of the midwest, Skorton surely is a poster child for the American dream, right? Let us not forget that he is a musician, a strong family man, a doctor who both teaches and practices, and a genuinely interesting person, who—oh, by the way—has taken very strong stances against issues that the common observer would think have little effect on operating a public institution.

Let us be honest. The Cornell Review has hardly been a steadfast supporter of the administration throughout our history. There are a few (quite a few, actually) areas where we disagree with public stances and decisions that the University has made, and our writers and editors have been determined to highlight these imperfections. A new reader would not need to look very heard to see what we are talking about.

But we’re talking about our University’s President here! The man's name will be on each of our diplomas. That man now has an opportunity to shepherd a larger herd, a herd with more pressing needs. Let him be a shining example of the statesman America needs, not the politician we want.

Can Obama Really Do That? Yes, He Can.

2013-03-26T00:00:00Z

Believe it or not, despite our many years as a nation and the many presidents that we have had, no-one is quite sure what the President can and cannot do. Specifically, lawyers for the Executive and some legal scholars believe that the Executive has virtually unlimited power when Congress doesn’t explicitly stop it from acting. Needless to say, thanks to ideas like this, today the President has more power than ever before – and that’s a very dangerous thing.

In a concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Justice Jackson outlined what is now commonly cited by those defending Executive power as the framework for power relations between Congress and the Executive. Justice Jackson viewed Executive power as falling into three categories: (1) where the President acts with express or implied authority from Congress, (2) where the President acts in the absence of Congressional authorization or prohibition, and (3) where the President acts in defiance of Congress. Within this framework, at least theoretically, the President has the most power when acting with express authorization from Congress, the President has the least power when he acts in defiance of Congress, and the President is in a sort of “gray zone” when acting without any statement from Congress. Predictably, many lawyers in support of Executive power vehemently argue that the President can pretty much do whatever he wants when in that gray zone.

Thus, when Congress is silent, President Obama can theoretically do quite a bit. This includes, but of course is not limited to, utilizing drone strikes, wiretapping American citizens, and declaring informal military actions against foreign countries. As long as Congress hasn’t said something about it via a law or otherwise (and as long as Congress is too divisive and conflicted to say anything about it ex post facto), President Obama can pretty much do anything he wants. Even if President Obama acts in a way that could potentially violate the Constitution itself – say, through wiretapping American citizens – it would take lengthy judicial procedures to stop him, and those lengthy procedures would give him plenty of time to act as he pleased before he would be stopped by the courts. This is precisely why, when asked if the President could use drone strikes domestically, Attorney General Eric Holder said yes – after all, his answer was consistent with an interpretation of Executive power that allows the President to do anything he wants.

Needless to say, it’s time for Americans to fight back against this trend – it’s time for Congress to seriously limit the Executive.

Some politicians in Congress have done just that, including Senator Rand Paul. The reason why it is important for politicians like Sen. Paul to stand up and complain about even the contemplated use of drones on American soil is not only because it brings American attention to the issue of domestic drone strikes, but also because it can facilitate the Congressional prohibition of Executive action contemplated by Justice Jackson in Youngstown. Admittedly, Sen. Paul isn’t going to single-handedly stop President Obama from leveraging Congressional ambivalence – but by bringing the issue to the table, he is starting the mechanisms that could explicitly prohibit President Obama from acting outside of the public’s interest by using drone strikes. In other words, as silly as it sounds, merely getting Congress to talk about something is a way in which Congress can begin to limit what President Obama can do.

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that we will ever see a Congress with the guts to directly challenge the authority of the Executive, as there will always be a party with an interest in giving the Executive as much power as possible. Take, for example, the hypocrisy of the Democrats in recent years. Democrats incessantly complained (and, in many cases, rightly so) about President Bush’s abuses of Executive power, but they have since gone silent as President Obama acts in a similar fashion. Even though Democrats would have gone positively apoplectic had President Bush contemplated using drones on American soil, they were (initially) mysteriously silent regarding Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that President Obama could do just that. Of course, this sort of hypocrisy is far from limited to Democrats – Republicans unfortunately did the exact same thing when George W. Bush was in power.

There are some valid arguments as to why a strong Executive is useful. Where the President can swing the sword of the American military without having to beg permission from a notoriously slow and self-interested Congress, he can act more quickly during times of crisis. Moreover, given how reluctant Congress is to act in a way that would anger their constituents, the President can leverage his power and be the “bad guy” in a way that Congress would never contemplate.

The problem with these arguments is that they simply aren’t the way that our government is structured. The people (via Congress) get a voice, even when that voice may be conflicted and slow. After all, one of the best reasons to give Congress (instead of the Executive) the warmaking power is to ensure that a hot-headed President doesn’t launch the U.S. into expensive wars that the people do not support.

To be blunt, I’m not sure if we will ever see Congress regain the power it lost to the Executive. It would take effort, time, and a party willing to act (at least in the short term) outside of its self-interest to do so. It might even take outright revolution. But one thing is clear: the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive is skewed, and the consequences arising from this imbalance are getting worse and worse.

Ignorance on Immigration

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

Three words currently reign supreme in Washington: comprehensive immigration reform.

At stake are millions of potential votes.

Since the end of 2012, a bipartisan group of eight senators has worked to develop an immigration reform package. Earlier this month, an immigration reform bill drafted by President Obama and his advisors was leaked. Apparently, it will serve as a backup in case Congress fails to deliver “comprehensive” reform. It seems that on immigration reform, Democrats and Republicans agree on the oft-repeated declaration, “The time is now.”

Politics, for all the criticism it draws, is often eventually able to help elected officials hone in on the crucial details of important issues. The current immigration reform debate, however, is a case in which this has not held true.

Historically, when discussing immigration reform, presidents and Congress have quite intently focused their efforts on the issue of providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. President Obama and the 113th Congress are no exception.

The White House and Congress have, to date, argued over such details as the length of the border between the United States and Mexico; timelines for deportation of illegal immigrants; crime thresholds for refusing a pathway to citizenship; and the scope of back taxes.

Yet, they have almost entirely ignored legal immigration. Except to mention in timid fashion—as if there should be any doubt in the first place—that they will require illegal immigrants to go to the back of the line. Much of the impetus for this ignorance is political calculation. However, if the White House and Congress have genuine concern for the growth and vitality of the United States, they will heed the need to reform the legal immigration process.

The U.S. legal immigration system is outdated, illogical, and backlogged.

Currently, there are approximately 26 million legal immigrants in the United States. According to the immigration process as it stands today, it will take at least 5 years for them to receive their green card. They will then have to wait at least another 5 years to take the citizenship exam in order to become naturalized citizens. Many legal immigrants are perfectly willing to go through this slow and bureaucratic process. Yet, why must they wait when apparently those who are here illegally can escape this process altogether?

Obama and Congress would do well to focus first on accelerating the granting of work visas, green cards, and citizenship to legal immigrants.

Similarly inefficient is the process for allowing foreign university students to gain permanent legal residency. Tens of thousands of international students, even those who have earned Masters and doctoral degrees and have been hired by an American employer, return to their native country each year following graduation because only employers have the ability to apply for a green card petition for these students. This petition, however, does not guarantee that the student in question will eventually receive his green card.

Many of these skilled foreign students would like to continue to live in the United States in order to take advantage of the superior professional opportunities available here. In the process, they would provide valuable contributions to exactly the sectors of the economy—medical, technology, and financial services—which need help.

Obama has continued to emphasize the need for skilled workers in the STEM—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—fields. There currently exists a population capable and willing to fill part of this void: legal immigrants. If allowed to become permanent legal residents and citizens more quickly, they would have stronger and more incentives to pursue high quality jobs here rather than return to their native country.

Obama and Congress continue to view immigration in purely electoral terms. They therefore resort to grand ideas of providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. They should instead view immigration as a tool to help the United States grow its economy robustly. Their goal should be to attract and keep immigrants capable of contributing to this growth.

Thus, any deal on immigration reform should follow this simple and logical precept: restrict illegal immigration immediately and simplify and accelerate the legal immigration process.

Raj Kannappan is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rk398@cornell. edu.

Faux Dylan Mania Erupts at Cornell

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

With the announcement that Bob Dylan (+ Dawes) will play Barton on April 14th, students went bonkers with excitement. After one day, the Facebook event had over 1,000 attendees. Some would call this heartwarming—a younger generation paying respect to one of its elders. I call it an epidemic.

Faux Dylan Mania is a remarkable yet common psychological phenomenon. It can be traced to a related syndrome, Dylan Projection Disorder (DPD), which first appeared in the late 1970s after Dylan’s conversion to Christianity. Feeling abandoned, Dylan’s largely non-Christian fanbase began looking for ways to minimize, and eventually deny Dylan’s conversion. The delusion was powerful, with Dylan winning his first Grammy in 10 years for his gospel song “Gotta Serve Somebody”. (Realizing they were duped, they mocked him for the next two years with “Best Inspirational Performance” nominations.)

Realizing that his poetic and evangelistic reach (and record sales, if you believe he cared) would suffer, Dylan fed confusing information to his fans, saying “I’ve never said I’m born again” and that he belongs to “the Church of the Poison Mind”. The objective observer saw that this was typical independent Dylan, who was distancing himself from the evangelical movement, but fans fell headlong into Dylan Projection Disorder and believed that the old Dylan had returned. He never did. Dylan continues to incorporate religious themes into his lyrics, even releasing a Christmas album in 2009.

DPD is classified as a projection disorder because sufferers ascribe a false persona to Dylan which suits their ideological need to be seen as intellectual children of the 60s. For this group, Dylan is the perfect hipster chieftan. Dylan was indeed a part of the civil rights movement, but his lyrics were sufficiently vague that a broad progressive message was stretched over them. Dylan was a projected character from his earliest days: he had much to say, but it was not leftist; rather, it was conservative. Don’t believe me? This should suffice:

“I had a primitive way of looking at things and I liked country fair politics. My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who reminded me of Tom Mix, and there wasn’t any way to explain that to anybody. I wasn’t that comfortable with all the psycho polemic babble. It wasn’t my particular feast of food. Even the current news made me nervous. I liked old news better.” (Dylan’s autobiography Chronicles 2004)

One more:

“I really wasn’t so much a part of what they call ‘the Sixties.’” Even though you’re so identified with it? “Evidently I was, and maybe even still am. I was there during that time, but I really couldn’t identify with what was happening.” (Rolling Stone 2012)

The true genius of Dylan is that his identity is hidden in plain sight. Bob Dylan is the most universally praised conservative on Earth. Reading contemporary accounts of Dylan in this light is extremely gratifying. For example, President Obama suffers from DPD too: “There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music… I remember, in college, listening to Bob Dylan, and my world opened up.” Actually, Barry, you were just looking for validation, and you projected onto Dylan. He was singing for wisdom and respect, not progressive politics.

Obama recounts Dylan performing “The Times They Are A-Changin’” at the White House in 2010: “Finishes the song, steps off the stage—I’m sitting right in the front row—comes up, shakes my hand, sort of tips his head, gives me just a little grin, and then leaves. And that was it—then he left. That was our only interaction with him.” Despite Dylan’s snub, Obama displays classic DPD: “I thought: That’s how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don’t want him to be all cheesin’ and grinnin’ with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise. So that was a real treat.” Obama awarded Dylan the Presidential Medal of Freedom two years later. Dylan on Obama: “Look, I only met him a few times. I mean, what do you want me to say? He loves music. He’s personable. He dresses good. What the fuck do you want me to say?”

I hope you’re starting to realize that Dylan has grown to coyly appreciate being misinterpreted. He knows that his very existence is a seed of contradiction embedded within the liberal consciousness.

Though times have a-changed, the pathology of Dylan Projection has remanifested in a new generation. Faux Dylan Mania (FDM) incorporates all the symptoms of DPD, but appears in a wider population of casual music consumers. “His music has been inspirational for over 50 years and we’ll all be able to take something away from his visit”, proclaims one afflicted student. What inspired this student? Perhaps it was Dylan’s anti-Vietnam activism, as the Cornell Daily Sun notes: “much of Dylan’s music has become emblematic of the Civil Rights Movement and of protests against the Vietnam War”. Ah, the deep delusions of FDM. From 1968:

Probably the most pressing thing going on in a political sense is the war. Now I’m not saying any artist or group of artists can change the course of the war, but they still feel it their responsibility to say something.

Dylan: I know some very good artists who are for the war.

Well, I’m just talking about the ones who are against it.

Dylan: That’s like what I’m talking about; it’s for or against the war. That really doesn’t exist. It’s not for or against the war. I’m speaking of a certain painter, and he’s all for the war. He’s just about ready to go over there himself. And I can comprehend him.

Why can’t you argue with him?

Dylan: I can see what goes into his painting, and why should I?

…

My feeling is that with a person who is for the war and ready to go over there, I don’t think it would be possible for you and him to share the same values.

Dylan: I’ve known him a long time, he’s a gentleman and I admire him, he’s a friend of mine. People just have their views. Anyway, how do you know that I’m not, as you say, for the war?

–––

If you’ve read this far without having an existential crisis, you are cured. Love him or hate him, you are now equipped to understand Bob Dylan.

I’d like to thank the Cornell Concert Commission for allowing Dylan to invite himself to Cornell. Dylan’s choice of a college tour is notable—I leave it to the reader to see why.

Lucas Policastro is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.

Originally published on the Cornell Insider.

Stand With Us

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

On February 11, Cornell Hillel and StandWithUs sponsored an event called “Israel Soldiers Stories.” The innovative program brings a diverse group of young Israeli soldiers to college campuses all over the U.S. The goal is for them to share their testimonies of what actually occurs on the front lines; stories different than those we may see in the headlines.

Two experienced combat soldiers, Yishai and Sharon, spoke openly about their time serving in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on missions in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank. Their stories are both eye-opening and heart-breaking, providing the listener with deeper insight into the ongoing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Putting Morality above Revenge

Yishai’s story begins while he was eating in the cafeteria of Hebrew University in Jerusalem where he studied law. It started out as a typical day at the University, but things turned horrific when he witnessed a massive explosion occur in the center of the campus. This was a terrorist attack led by Hamas, leaving many wounded and seven dead at the scene.

Soon after the attack, Yishai, a soldier of the IDF, received knowledge that the mastermind behind the attack was a low-profile Hamas leader the IDF had codenamed Jeremy. The IDF had been searching for this man for close to six years, and they finally had a clue as to where he was headed next.

Jeremy was off to Nablus, thirty miles north of Jerusalem. Yishai described Nablus as a seemingly nice city, with schools and parks and playgrounds, but underneath such disguise is a stink hub of terror. Yishai and his troop followed the van carrying Jeremy until they reached a house in the ancient center of the city. They entered a house adjacent to the one Jeremy was parked outside and watched as the van door opened. Along with Jeremy was his wife and between thirteen to fifteen children. Yishai’s troop set up their weapons and waited as Jeremy walked throughout his house with his wife in arm.

He suddenly disappeared into a center room within the house and Yishai wanted to shoot. As mentioned before, Jeremy had been wanted by the IDF for close to six years and they finally had the terrorist at their fingertips. He immediately called the base, as is standard procedure in the IDF code of ethics. An Israeli soldier cannot shoot unless given permission by the base and only in extraordinary circumstances.

To Yishai’s dismay, the base told him not to shoot. They said it was too risky, for women and children were near the man. Protecting them was more important to the IDF at this moment of crises. Although Yishai felt offended, his troop waited three long hours before making the call to finally bust inside the now dark and quiet house.

Nobody was found upon entering, and a search was led throughout every room of the house. In the center room, where Jeremy had disappeared beforehand, they found nothing but a carpet. Yishai lifted up the carpet, and underneath—a tunnel. The terrorist had escaped and the troop was horrified at this missed opportunity to finally get him.

Just five years before, there was literally no information about this man at the IDF. Now, they had him in plain sight and one gunshot could have ended the terror, but they could not shoot.

To this day, Yishai believes that the decision called by the IDF base was in fact the right one. He explained that as a soldier in the IDF, one must make a distinction between who is a terrorist and who is an innocent woman or child. Even if there is a chance that all of Jeremy’s children become terrorists like their father, in the present moment they are children and as such are protected by the IDF.

Twenty Seconds to Save Her Family

Sharon’s story begins in 2006 with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Their kidnapping essentially sparked the month-long war with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah. The men were brutally beaten and died while under Hezbollah custody. Israel had negotiated a deal with Lebanon to release the dead bodies of the two soldiers in exchange for the release of one of the most vicious Lebanese terrorists, Samir Kuntar, along with four other jihadists. The terrorists were welcomed back with shouts of praise from their people whereas Israel was left mourning over the two dead soldiers.

Sharon explained the fear she had when Hezbollah, under the leadership of Samir Kuntar, began aiming missiles once again at Israeli civilians. She spoke of the strategy used by Hezbollah; one that avoids the incredible strength of the Israeli army and targets the weak spot of Israel—the civilians.

Her responsibility as a soldier in the IDF was to predict where the missiles would land and warn the people to run for shelter. She had roughly twenty seconds from each missle launch to take care of this task. On the day of her account, she tells of twelve missiles fired into Haifa, a mid-sized city frequently the target of terrorist organizations. This destination particularly resonated with Sharon because it is the town in which she grew up and where her family still resides. On her GPS locating device, one of the missiles was headed right for her street, near her house, in a family-oriented neighborhood.

From the time of its firing, she had twenty seconds to predict the location of impact. Turning on the sirens to warn the town took five, giving her family and the other civilians a whopping fifteen seconds to reach shelter. After the explosion she saw seven missed calls on her phone but wasn’t allowed to answer until she left the base. Once off of the base she called back the number—it was her father.

He thanked her for saving their lives, telling her that the explosion hit a mere ten seconds after they took shelter under the stairs. The pride and honor she felt from saving civilians like her family pushed her to pursue a career as an officer in the IDF.

The most striking aspect of the stories told by these two Israeli soldiers is the level of ethics held by the IDF. Commonly referred to as “The Spirit of the IDF,” it is basically the Ten Commandments that govern the soldiers at all times and in all situations. Both Yishai and Sharon agreed that IDF Law is much stricter than International Law when it comes to caring for civilians and taking precautions before action. It is also as a result of this code of ethics that the IDF has one of the lowest rates of PTSD in soldiers and veterans.

According to Yishai and Sharon, it is truly sad that the other side does not want to see the day when peace reigns over the region. The duo explained how the Palestinian terrorist groups are using women as human shields and rising up a new generation of terrorist children. A Palestinian woman taking a class with Sharon once spoke words that Sharon will never forget: “One day we will free Palestine and wipe out all the Israelis.”

Sharon’s expression of grief is felt by many Israeli soldiers and civilians who want nothing more but to see peace come between the two sides. She talked of an instance when she heard that Palestinian “peace” protesters would be on her college campus. The protesters were anything but peaceful and used their weapons to kill a defenseless group of Israeli counter-protesters.

Still, the IDF holds the highest standard of ethics among the great armies of the world. As best declared by former Israeli Prime Minster and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yitzhak Rabin, “We’ll fight terror like there’s no peace, and make peace like there’s no terror.”

Michael Loffredo is a sophomore in the College of Architecture and Art Planning. He can be reached at mjl343@cornell.edu.

The Post Office Pickle

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

So apparently the U.S. Post Office wants to stop delivering small letters (and only deliver packages) on Saturdays. This, according to the USPS, is projected to save the company $2 billion a year. And yet the Left is absolutely livid.

The USPS is basically a postal corporation with a lot of congressional strings attached. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to establish the USPS – meaning that it is one of the few constitutionally mandated government agencies. While the USPS seems to have a lot of freedom to manage itself, Congress has frequently involved itself in USPS operations, from setting the price of mail to requiring the USPS to pre-fund 75 years worth of health care benefit payments for employees. Despite this micromanagement, being owned by the government has its benefits: the USPS has a monopoly over small letters and over your mailbox, meaning that no matter how poorly it is run, it is the only game in town for certain forms of mail.

The USPS is obviously not doing terribly well nowadays, and there’s no reason for anyone to be surprised about that. E-mail has pretty much decimated the small letter market, and the slow trod towards paperless business has made the USPS increasingly useless in modern society. Private package delivery companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all eating into the USPS’s market share. And, perhaps even worse, Congress is forcing the USPS to make insanely stupid business decisions such as the aforementioned funding of health care benefits for employees not even born yet.

So the USPS is doing badly, and they want to cut Saturday delivery. Given how badly the USPS is doing, this is totally understandable. The USPS is hemorrhaging money, so no-one should deny them the ability to cut some costs, right?

But, like I said, the Left is pissed off. Why?

The answer isn’t as simple as I’d like to to be, because the Left is inventing pretty much every reason possible to justify forcing the USPS to deliver on Saturdays. For example, the Left seems to believe that seniors will be harmed by a lack of delivery on Saturdays, as that might prevent those seniors from receiving medication by mail by an extra day. The Left has also made the argument that the USPS, by being forced to offer equal rates across the nation, helps connect citizens in remote parts of the country in a way that would (somehow) be harmed by the cessation of Saturday delivery. Some others in the Left have also made the argument that cutting Saturday delivery would potentially throw the USPS into a death spiral, in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts sort of way.

Of course, most of these arguments are hypothetical and hyperbolic. The real reason the Left hates this plan so much is that it takes away something they think they “had.” The Left – massive proponents of things being done by the government using tax money – likes the idea of the USPS, even if it is an outdated and antiquated mess. By conceding that the USPS is doing badly, the Left would be forced to admit that the robust free market – that is, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. – can do what the government can do, but better. For a party advocating single-payer healthcare and bigger entitlement programs, that’s a death blow.

A single day without junk mail is not going to hurt anyone. Sure, there might be some hypothetical grandmothers in the middle of nowhere who desperately want their life-saving medication on Saturday. But the USPS still plans to deliver packages on Saturday, meaning that those hypothetical grandmothers will be just fine. Canada has been doing fine with 5 day delivery for years and, to my knowledge, no Canadian grandmothers have died as a result of it yet. In fact, the only thing those hypothetical grandmothers will lose out of this entire gambit is simple: a whole lot of junk mail. In a post-Saturday delivery world, Grandma might actually have to wait two days before getting her exploitative credit card offers.

If we are to learn anything from this entire ridiculous debate, it is that the Right must learn to approach the Left not on its own terms, but by understanding its incentives. Instead of sitting around arguing with random talking heads on the Left about inane things like medication delivery for hypothetical grandmothers that don’t exist, the Right should address the underlying issue with the USPS: that it is a dying service that might be worth letting free so it can manage its own demise. Five day delivery is not the magic bullet that will save the USPS, but it is the first step in cuts that might keep it alive for as long as we might need it.

Holding Student Government Accountable

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

The Cornell Review is pleased to announce that we will be hosting this year’s Student Assembly presidential debate in partnership with the Class Councils. Candidates Stephen Breedon and Ulysses Smith (but unfortunately not Jay Lee) will be answering—and hopefully arguing over—questions from the Cornell Review editorial board. We are also pleased to announce that Slope Media will be filming the debate, so even if you cannot attend, or if this column finds you after the elections are over, the recording will be viewable on our website.

For most of the student body, it seems that this year’s campaign has so far been less than informative. At the candidate forum last Saturday, sparsely attended and hosted mainly by various racial minority organizations, it seemed as if every candidate’s pitch centered on their concern for diversity, their past efforts to promote it, and how their own ethnic and economic backgrounds position them to promote it in the future. While these concerns might be expected at an event hosted by such groups, it seems more and more that catering to special interests has become the main focus of the SA as a whole. Recently the SA spent time debating and voting to financially divest from fossil fuels, a resolution quickly vetoed by President Skorton. Gargantuan efforts last semester were put into again creating a mixed gender housing option, in which the Daily Sun recently reported only 87 students have expressed interest.

We intend to ask the questions that really matter to the Cornell student body. We want the candidates to define the role of the SA and the president’s proper place in it. We want students to know where the candidates stand on specific issues. We want students to know not what the SA will impose upon the student body, but what it will do for the student body.

The Student Assembly is constantly wringing its hands over the lack of student concern for its resolutions and machinations. Perhaps the representatives would not have this problem if their activities better reflected the concerns of the average student. Take for example a recent comment on the Daily Sun website by commenter Uzenzo. In response to news that fundraising will begin for a bronze statue of Touchdown the Bear, he said, “$250,000 for a bear statue? Does anyone even try to solicit donations for important things like student housing, financial aid, and department funding?”

The powers that be on campus—especially the SA— spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on minutiae rather than issues that matter to students. Our representatives focus on diversity when countless diversity initiatives, offices, and clubs already exist. They focus on mixed-gender housing instead of doing whatever is in their power to reduce the ever-rising costs of on-campus housing. They look into university-wide requirements on “social justice” when students already have too few opportunities to choose classes outside of their majors.

The SA does not represent the average Cornellian; it represents activists. It caters to the demands of specific student organizations and interest groups who claim to speak for the entire student body, or for the environment, or for some subsect of so-called social justice.

Going to events and listening to activists who come forward with their naïve dreams are great ways for representatives to pad their resumes and gain traction in campus politics, but in order to be an effective government the SA must reach the type of people, often the vast majority of students, who do not frequent events or join activist clubs. Visiting a residence hall on a weekday afternoon and asking students questions about their problems would produce solutions to more real issues than attending multicultural dinners— something that candidate Ulysses Smith spoke about at the last forum—ever will.

As young conservatives, we realize that our influence on a national scale is non-existent, but on campus that is not the case. By engaging in Cornell's issues as students with genuine interest in what the SA does and who they represent, the Cornell Review will hold student government accountable.

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell.edu.

A History Of Cornell Conservatism

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

Much to the surprise of some of us, Cornell has had a long tradition of conservatism. Both Ezra Cornell and A.D. White were Republican Senators in New York and the University has been associated with some prominent names in conservative thought and politics. But this history has been hitherto undocumented and this series of articles shall be an attempt to rediscover our traditions and look back at our past.

It all began last month when I retrieved some editions of the Conservative humor journal “The Pink Elephant” dating back to 1969 from Carl A. Kroch Library’s Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections. A group called “Young Republicans of the Big Red” published the journal. These editions show that even in those days, people were shielding free speech, academic freedom and intellectual diversity on campus with characteristic wit and creativity. It was the culmination of these efforts that was reflected in the foundation of the Cornell Review in 1984. While we may not agree with everything that was said then or even with the manner in which opinions were articulated, some of our roots can be traced back to that publication.

The humor is unmistakable. Liberals are shown burning the effigies of Reagan long before he ran for President, claiming to speak on the behalf of half of mankind, and demanding disproportionately severe punishments. Some of these trends continue to this date.

But at the same time, in a discovery that might lead us to revisit our perception of the long-standing leftist bias on campus, these editions leave no doubt as to what it has meant to defend liberty at Cornell. An aversion to institutional conformism, belief in constitutional freedom, skepticism towards radical change and faith in the core principles of limited and sensible government run through the pages of the journal best known for its strong reaction to the Willard Straight Takeover of 1969. The foundations were strong but the magazine did not last long. Its staff graduated and it was discontinued after a year.

Besides campus activism, a more dynamic intellectual circle had come up at the Telluride House, a branch of the Telluride Association founded in 1911. Paul Wolfowitz and Francis Fukuyama were undergraduate residents of the House then. Both of these men studied under the philosopher Allan Bloom who served as a faculty mentor of the Telluride House. The tradition continues to this date even though the House has lost its conservative touch.

But it seems that between 1969 and 1984, conservatives on campus did not have a well-defined medium to address their views to the entire campus community. There were occasional political columns in the Sun and some of them took a right stance on national and campus events but the space for the expression of independent opinions was created with the foundation of The Cornell Review.

Ted Cruz: Republican Honey Badger

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

It is not often that a freshman senator makes many waves at the beginning of his term. It is typically a period of time reserved for learning about how things work, learning where the bathrooms are, and making some new friends.

Ted Cruz is not here to make friends. In fact, the list of people whose feathers are being ruffled by the new senator from Texas is beginning to look like a “Who’s Who on Capitol Hill” list of Democrats. Chuck Schumer. John Kerry. Chuck Hagel. Barbara Boxer. What is even more surprising are the members from his own party that Cruz is rubbing the wrong way. John McCain felt in- clined to yank on Cruz’s leash when he attacked the character of Senator Chuck Hagel during his nomination hearing for secretary of defense. Ac- cording to Politico, Republican Sen- ator Lindsey Graham remarked, “the one thing I will say to any new senator—you’re going to be respected if you can throw a punch but you also have to prove you can do a deal.”

Judging by his actions thus far, Ted Cruz is not interested in making deals either. As of the end of January, Cruz was on the losing side of every single vote placed in front of him, a striking 0-11 record. That number includes votes against the nominations of both John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, suspending the debt ceiling for four months, and the federal aid package for victims of Hurricane Sandy. Cruz later explained this vote, saying that “[e]mergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions on unrelated spending."

Senator Cruz’s brashness has also made him a prime target for the media. Chris Matthews compared Cruz to noted communist-chaser Joseph McCarthy for his attacks on Hagel. Joe Scarborough compared him to a “carnival barker at a local Republican event.” Cruz has been ripped apart by The New York Times, Politico, Forbes, and numerous other outlets. The question at hand is this: by using this aggressive approach, is Senator Ted Cruz helping or harming the GOP?

Senator Cruz has stated that he considers going 0-11 in a Democrat-controlled senate to be a perfect 11-0 record in defense of conservative values, and in a sense he may be right. But what happens when he needs to make deals to push forward his bill to repeal Obamacare? At some point, he is going to need the cooperation of a handful of Democrats in order to make progress on anything he puts forward. Being on the wrong side of prominent Democrats such as Chuck Schumer may make that difficult. However, if there is one thing that we have learned over the years, it is this: if the mass media so actively hates a conservative, then clearly he must be doing something right.

Maybe Cruz is exactly what the GOP needs to wake up from its current stupor. Maybe his fervor will remind old-school Republicans that they are in office to fight on behalf of their constituents and the sanctity of the Constitution, not to roll over and play dead for the arrogant, would-be-king that the President is more and more revealing himself to be. Maybe we don’t need a Senate filled with Republicans that act ex- actly like Ted Cruz, but we need Ted Cruz to remind Republicans to start acting more like Republicans.

Mike Navarro is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sci- ence. He can be reached at mln62@ cornell.edu

Believe in the Kendrick Hype

2013-03-04T00:00:00Z

Throughout the past week, Cornell students have been responding to the announcement that Kendrick Lamar will be the headline performer at this May’s Slope Day. During these discussions, however, students should be cautious not to take the nature of our annual spring concert out of context.

Gone are the days when the spring concert was an inconsistent event, like it was throughout the Vietnam War. Gone are the days of the “Take Back the Slope” Campaign, when thousands of students rallied together in response to the administration’s compliance with the new national drinking age of the late 1980s. These students did not want to see the Slope Day that they loved compromised by the administration, who called to make the event entirely alcohol-free, even for 21-year-olds.

These events are not too removed from our school’s collective memory. In fact, the power struggle between the students and the administration for control of Slope Day was rather heated as recently as the mid-1990s. In 1991, for example, students responded to the cancellation of the event by flocking to the Slope in the hundreds. It was then that the administration realized that they must have a role in the event, for students would gather to the Slope regardless of whether there was an official event of not.

Today, roughly two decades from these events, the largest concern for the student body is whether the headliner for the annual concert is enough of a star. This move toward the “modern” version of Slope Day can be dated to 2003.

In that year, student leaders joined forces with the administration to form the Slope Day Programing Board. The new, byline-funded group brought Rusted Root to Ithaca for a day that included catered food, controlled drinking, and non-alcoholic games. Over the next decade, the Programming Board would bring household names to Libe Slope, including Kanye West, Drake, Nelly, and the Pussycat Dolls, to name just a few.

This year’s concert marks a continuation of this recent trend. Kendrick Lamar is an up-and-coming Hip-Hop artist, much like Kanye West was in 2004.

Slope Day Programming Chair Yang Zhao commented on the students’ response to the announcement.

“People are either very excited about the choice,” he remarked, “or just don’t know who Kendrick is.”

Zhao’s comments echo much of the overall sentiment this past week. With the existence of Slope Day never in doubt, the largest concern for students was who the musical choice would be, and Kendrick’s Hip-Hop appeal made him the most compelling candidate.

“Rap/Hip-Hop was a popular genre according to our Slope Day student body survey,” continued Zhao. “I think that if the people who don't know who Kendrick is give him a listen, they will learn to appreciate how talented he really is.”

In reality, the Slope Day hype should not be limited to the musical selection. The students’ acceptance of Kendrick’s performance may be the most memorable, but it is not what Slope Day has been about since its founding. Instead, it is a day for students to come together and celebrate the commonalities that make us Cornellians.

In the weeks ahead, the Programming Board will work to continue to onboard volunteers and work for the overall good of the day’s activities.

“[Our] next steps are planning out our promotional campaign, logistics, and Slope Fest,” said Zhao.

Slope Fest, a now stable element of the Slope Day activities, was first introduced in 1999. It came as an effort to promote non-alcohol related student merrymaking leading up to the concert. Recent activities have included carnival games, giveaways, dance, and singing competitions.

This is a far cry from the broken Slope Day of 1991.

This progress throughout the last decade to bring consistency to the event has given Cornell students something that they know they can look forward to after a long, cold semester. Therefore, the fact that students are now most worried about the performer should be a welcoming sign. Kendrick’s strong following among a core group of students will spread throughout the entire student body and lead to a successful event.

At the same time, however, students should continue engaging in ways to improve the overall Slope Day experience, like our predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s. As the byline-funding process begins to enter the limelight, students will have exactly that opportunity.

Regardless of how structured the event becomes, in order to maintain the tradition we all love, Slope Day must be kept in the hands of students, with limited administrative interference.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu

Parallels in Men's Soccer and Baseball

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

The stadium erupted and emotions began to run wild. The Big Red had just clinched the Ivy League championship. For the first time in a decade, players, coaches, parents, and fans were celebrating the successful end to their teams’ season.

In 2012, this was the setting for two growing programs within the Big Red community: Men’s Soccer and Baseball.

When the Cornell community thinks of athletics, their minds immediately turn to some of the best teams in the college sports circuit. The Ice Hockey program for both men and women has been a powerhouse for many years. Going into the upcoming season Men’s Lacrosse is ranked 7th in the country, as is the Wrestling team midway through its season.

In the early days of last May, the baseball team clinched their first conference title since the Ivy League Conference incorporated baseball into their ranks in 1993. Just six months later, the Men’s Soccer team clinched their first outright Ivy League Championship since 1977.

Today, these teams represent two of the most popular and tightly-knit group of athletes that Cornell offers. The stories of these athletes and their struggles to reach the top, which have been overlooked by many, are the true sign of their character and an indicator of future success.

So just where did these two teams come from and what has lead to their phenomenal performance on the field over the past regular season?

The Big Red baseball team finished in last place in 2011, posting a disappointing 10-30 record. Down the road, the men’s soccer team had been making steady improvements since hitting rock bottom with a 1-15 record in 2008.

Through grueling training, hard work, determination, and unique team atmosphere, both of these teams were able to make the jump from the basement of the Ivy League to league Champions.

“Nothing but our best was expected in every moment that we were on the field whether it was practice or in games,” said junior second baseman Brenton Peters. For the baseball team, success came in the form of a senior class of veteran leaders supplemented by a phenomenally upbeat and talented freshman class.

Now graduated players such as Brian Billigen, Marshall Yanzick, Brendan Lee, and Frank Hager had been freshman when Head Coach Bill Walkenbach became head coach and the team finished tied for first place back in 2009. These players experienced success very early in their collegiate playing career, and were bred into Coach Walkenbach’s program from day one. They were able to convey a calm yet aggressive clubhouse attitude that carried the team throughout the season.

“I think the intensity that we approached the game with in practice everyday definitely benefitted us when we got into the situations where everything was on the line,” continued Peters.

On the field, Billigen led the team in nearly every offensive category and signed a contract to play professional baseball in the Arizona Diamondbacks system. Rick Marks, a transfer, mentored a young Big Red pitching staff while posting a stellar 3.48 ERA over the course of the season.

Filling in the holes in 2012, the freshman class was tenacious and made an immediate impact on the Big Red rotation and lineup. In order to go from worst to first, the team needed a strong group of incoming players and this class fit the bill.

Utility man Kevin Tatum who started 43 games for the Big Red last season had the team’s third best batting average and on base percentage, providing a key offensive spark in the order. Starting pitchers Brian McAfee and Brent Jones combined for a 10-3 record accounting for a third of the teams overall wins.

Closer Kellen Urbon broke the single season saves record with 9 and received recognition after recognition from Ivy League Rookie of the year to most recently being named a pre-season all-American for 2013.

“I just tried to go out there and not let my team down. They had worked hard to get us in a winning position, and it was my turn to help the team win,” said Urbon in regards to his approach as the Big Red’s closer.

The Big Red baseball team also saw incredible improvements from returning players in 2012. It is hard not to mention Chris Cruz in any article written about this team. The sophomore right fielder broke the single season record for home runs last season recording his 12th homer in the bottom of the 11th inning at Hoy Field to win the Ivy League Championship Series.

Sophomore Connor Kaufmann threw a no-hitter against Dartmouth early in the season, and then went on to secure three Ivy League Pitcher of the week recognitions en route to a 7-2 record. Peters flashed the leather last season and developed into one of the toughest outs in the league, posting a .442 on base percentage out of the leadoff spot in the lineup.

“Baseball to me is all about confidence, and nothing takes it out of the pitcher and the fielders behind him more than a guy who has long at bats and then gets on base after the whole ordeal is over,” Peters said.

While all of these accomplishments allowed the team to statistically defeat their opponents, it was what happened behind the scenes in the clubhouse that allowed them to make such a terrific run. Coach Walkenbach and his coaching staff stress a team oriented and mental skills approach to playing the game that is truly unique to the Big Red.

“We needed to expect to win in order to be successful, it really is all about the mental game and it was a key to our success last season,” remarked Walkenbach.

Isolating each at bat or each pitch and taking the game one step, one-inning at a time, the team found ways to scratch out victories in games they never should have won in ways no one could have predicted. The team atmosphere and camaraderie that exists amongst the players on this team is unprecedented. They are not just teammates as their friendships extend far beyond baseball. Many live together and you would be hard pressed to find one player on the team without at least one of his teammates at his side.

“To see the way the team gelled was just a dream come true; everything fell into place,” continued Walkenbach. “And the guys enjoyed the heck out of each other’s company. We had a blast on the road. People were stepping up in big situations and playing.”

Similarly to Coach Walkenbach, Head Soccer Coach Jaro Zawislon joined the Cornell Athletics community four seasons ago. Tasked with improving upon a 1-15 season, Zawislon came prepared with an established program designed to make his team a contender. His program stresses four core values: academics, passion and love of the game, lifestyle, and soccer playing ability. In other words, this team has been built from day one on the prospects of working hard inside and out of the classroom, loving the game enough to sacrifice everything for the goals of the team, and putting together a lifestyle that allows players to better themselves as individuals and as student-athletes.

“This season is an outcome of our players commitment to hard work, to self improvement; it is an outcome of their hunger for success, credit to the players in how we got there,” said Zawislon.

With this program in place, the team began to improve year by year. In 2011, they made huge strides towards accomplishing their ultimate goal of winning the conference by finishing 8-2-6. The players put in the time individually throughout the off season, hitting their benchmarks and were primed for a big 2012 season; a season in which they posted a 15-1 record to clinch the Ivy League title.

“This team surprised a lot of people this year and that's a credit to the team as a whole,” said senior goalkeeper Rick Pflasterer.

The team itself operates as a unit, and in a sport like soccer where the individual is much less important than the group, this synchrony amongst players makes their 2012 success even more understandable. Ask any player or coach on this team about themselves and they will quickly point you in another direction, recognizing the importance of the overall team performance.

“Throughout the last four seasons there is no star on this team; the star on the team is the team itself. That’s where the strength of this team has been from the beginning, that’s what makes this team successful, and what will continue to bring them success,” Zawislon said.

That being said, without the on field success of certain individuals, an Ivy League Championship would not have been possible. Daniel Haber’s production on the field was nearly unstoppable. The Ivy League Player of the Year, who recently signed on to play professionally in Israel, scored an unprecedented 18 goals in 2012 season. Haber’s contributions on offense accounted for nearly half of the goals made by the entire team throughout the course of the season.

In addition to Haber, the season could not have been achieved without Pflasterer’s shutdown play between the goal posts. Starting in all 17 games this season, he recorded 40 saves and held opponents to just 13 goals. Pflasterer also recorded five shut outs while preventing Ivy League foes Columbia, Yale, and Princeton from scoring a goal on his watch.

“As a goalkeeper, I try to do all of the little things right and then make that big save every once in a while when the team needs it,” said Pflasterer.

With both teams coming off of their biggest years in recent history, 2013 brings with it high expectations and promise for big success. Keep an eye on these two teams moving forward as they may soon be stealing the show as top athletics teams at Cornell.

Alex Gimenez is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at ajg322@cornell.edu.

Student Assembly Wants to Amend the Curriculum

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

The scheme to enact a universal social justice requirement at Cornell University was first proposed in May 2012. A group of protestors, referring to themselves publically as the “Assembly for Justice”, led the cause. Throughout the semester, they solicited the support of the campus’s staunchest student lobbyist organizations, and they were getting respectable attention by November.

Their idea was to add an additional distribution requirement to the Cornell curriculum. This slew of courses, broadly referred to as the Social Justice Requirement, would be mandatory for all colleges. They believed that such a requirement was necessary in response to allegations of bigotry on campus.

The demonstrators have since pushed their idea to the top of the Student Assembly’s agenda. At the moment, campus leaders are responding by dedicating a considerable amount of resources toward this initiative.

Ulysses Smith, the former Architecture & Art Planning Rep that has now been given the title of Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion, is currently leading the effort. Even he, however, has expressed disbelieve that the idea is still being discussed.

“I actually didn’t think there was any way we would get that done this year or anytime in the near future,” remarked Smith. “Then again [the idea] kept coming up at a lot of different discussions with different administrators, so we decided to see what this should look like if we execute it.”

According to a report compiled by Smith and Chelsea Cheng, clerk of the Student Assembly, the requirement could be an additional distribution requirement for each of the individual schools, or it could be a universal requirement through the University, like the swim test.

“We met with a lot of the different assistant deans, just to get an understanding of the various processes these colleges have in order to bring about curriculum changes,” he remarked.

At the first Student Assembly meeting of the semester on January 31st, it was decided that college representatives should reach out to their respective college Deans.

While student representatives meet with these administrators, there exists very little knowledge as to what this requirement would entail or why the Assembly has put it so high on its agenda. There is also no explanation for why last semester’s calls for diversity initiatives have transformed into the loosely defined social justice initiatives, causing many to question the intentions of the activists.

The Student Assembly’s efforts thus far have not been focused on addressing this question of intent. Rather than addressing why the curriculum must be changes, their efforts have been focused on learned how to change the curriculum.

This top-down effort demonstrates that amending the curriculum is no longer an initiative of a select group of radical activists. Rather, this initiative is part of discussions between numerous campus leaders and will be a significant issue in Student Assembly elections later this semester.

Meanwhile, members of Student Assembly executive board are talking about plans to make headway on this issue immediately. In their weekly meeting, they have established a two-year timeframe for enactment.

Because of the lack of understanding as to what the requirement actually is, the considerable amount of effort being put toward it has come as a surprise to many. Some are arguing that amending professor syllabi does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Student Assembly. Others argue that their leaders are wasting their time with an initiative that will ultimate prove futile. Still other students point to the fact that many schools already have a similar requirement, and that trying to bring them under a universal rule would actually decrease diversity, not encourage it.

It should be noted that the 2012-2013 Assembly has made substantial strides in improving communication with students. They have shown a willingness to hear student feedback on all of their initiatives. Knowing that the student justice requirement will be high on the group’s agenda for the spring, students now have the opportunity to share their opinions and affect the potential policy through conversation.

General student body negligence could allow this initiative, which began in the hands of a small group of activists and was pushed by select campus lobbyist, to find its way to the desk of President Skorton.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu

Gun Control

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

Since the Connecticut shooting in December, gun control has been at the forefront of political discussion. While the average student might question whether or not guns should exist in society, few people examine the existing constitutional and legal precedents that define American law. As such, the Federalist Society [Editor's Note: and the Cornell Law 2nd Amendment Club], on January 29th, hosted a gun control debate to help clarify such complicated and often controversial legalities.

The purpose of the debate was to clarify the legal aspects surrounding the national discussion on gun control. Alan Gura, the constitutional lawyer who successfully argued the Heller v D.C. Supreme Court case, and Professor Michael Dorf, Cornell Law professor and noted Constitutional law scholar, focused the debate on how the local and federal courts should evaluate gun legislation.

According to Gura, the Supreme Court has defined much of the Second Amendment. “[The right to bear arms] started with history. ‘Bear’ meant to carry,” he remarked. “Heller says the core purpose of this amendment is the right to defend yourself.”

By this definition, the Supreme Court has effectively created a precedent in which some basic level of gun ownership is protected under the Constitution and that people are allowed to use guns in a defensive manner. This suggests that for the foreseeable future, gun ownership will remain a part of American society.

However, Gura qualified his statement. “Heller says there are some restrictions, such as the banning of guns in sensitive places.”

“The rule derived is that the manner [of using and owning guns] can be regulated.” As such, although gun ownership will remain a part of American society, Congress and local governments can place certain levels of restrictions on gun ownership.

Professor Michael Dorf had little disagreement on Gura’s assessment regarding the legalities of gun rights. However, Dorf highlighted some ambiguous elements within the ruling.

“The Supreme Court will probably allow a right to defend yourself and a right [to use guns] in the home and public space,” he commented. “But what methodology will be used for weapons outside the home?”

Because the ruling was partially vague, the government has given an unclear opinion on practical matters regarding gun ownership and use. For example, what constitutes a “sensitive space”? According to Dorf, these unanswered questions are important in understanding gun legislation.

As the discussion progressed, both Professor Dorf and Mr. Gura argued the more appropriate methods of judicial interpretation that define gun restriction. According to Gura, the U.S. Constitution can be read through its framers’ intent. Thus, according to him, the Second Amendment and the framers intent of this right must be viewed in a historical context in order to accurately and effectively establish the right.

Gura took this logic one step further in interpreting the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment presupposes the use of weapons used in the military. Technology has changed, which affects the right. However, technology does not change the [idea] of common use.” Based on the historical context of the amendment, individuals have the right to bear weapons used for common or personal use. Allowing individuals to carry common weapons was how effective local militias formed and what consequent court cases have considered protected under the Second Amendment during the time period.

Professor Dorf, however, contended that the right is vague as well as outdated and thus a more interpretive perspective should be used. “What is necessary for self-defense might be lower [than the weapons used for personal use]. But this is completely arbitrary.”

Dorf argued that understanding the mindset of the framers is impossible. Given that the language of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court cases are somewhat vague, American legislators must use their own personal judgment.

By doing this, Dorf argued that the Second Amendment could be standardized to the needs of society today, rather than the historical context of the past.

Whether an individual perceives the law from a “conservative” or “liberal” viewpoint, these issues are both controversial and unclear.

What is the difference between using a gun at home and in a public space?

What constitutes common use?

All of these questions are worth considering and debating. Americans have to accept that the right to a weapon is a fundamental right, and the use of a weapon in cases of self-defense is a core American value stated in the Constitution. Government and society can debate the legal formalities and constitutional restrictions regarding gun control, but at the end of the day, guns will be protected. If society disapproves of this Constitutional value, then an amendment should be passed. Until then, guns are here to stay.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the school of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

Legislative Ratcheting

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

Whether an assignment or massive legislation, it goes without saying that anything rushed will be of poor quality. As simple as this statement may be, it appears that Congress has yet to figure this out.

Let’s be honest here: a lot of really terrible things have happened recently. From Sandy Hook to Hurricane Sandy to the ever-looming issues present in the U.S. economy, the latter part of 2012 was a pretty bad year. For many Americans, there is a growing fear that things outside of our control are harming us when we are least prepared for it, and that fear is beginning to erode away at our confidence as individuals and as a country. Every time some new disaster appears, our confidence (and our money) is whittled away, making us feel more and more helpless in the face of disaster.

Legislators at both the federal and state level are busy waving the legislative pen around like an imaginary sword, trying to fight off the mental dragons of fear and uncertainty. The sad irony is, of course, that what they are doing is nothing but another form of so-called security theater: that is, it feels effective and safe, but it is anything but actually safe. It’s simply exploitation of the politically useful fear of the American public.

Take, for example, the Obama Administration’s recent gun control proposals. The Administration’s proposals—which recommend everything from requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales to providing mental health counseling services in schools—could, at least in some sense, be seen as an admirable attempt at fixing worrisome issues within the current gun control regime. The problem is, these proposals are not the kind of fixes that would have ever prevented the Sandy Hook disaster. There is absolutely no proof that, had these laws been in place before the shooting at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza would have been stopped from doing what he did.

Sure, the Obama Administration’s proposals sound helpful—phrases like “increased criminal background checks” always sound scintillating and powerful. But such proposals would have done nothing. Like it or not, the Obama Administration is using Sandy Hook as a bootstrap to justify new impositions on Second Amendment liberties—even though there is truly no connection between the new proposals and the tragedy other than a sense of fear.

Of course, many Republicans are equally guilty of this kind of reactionary, bootstrapping legislation. Ever since the NRA accused violent video games of fostering violence in America, certain Republican legislators have been aggressively pursuing anti-entertainment policies in the wake of Sandy Hook. For example, Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah has recently proposed a bill that would not only make the (currently voluntary) ESRB ratings label on videogames mandatory, but that would also impose severe penalties on retailers who sell, rent, or attempt to sell or rent Adults Only (“AO”) rated video games to minors. Yet again, there is absolutely no proof that this would have prevented Sandy Hook and no proof that it would have any substantial effect on violent behavior. Instead, such legislation exploits the sense of fear and dread that emerged from Sandy Hook to enact policies that impinge upon the liberties of the American public.

The big problem with legislation like the examples above is that it has a ratcheting effect upon the liberties enjoyed by American citizens. When emergencies are used as bootstraps for unwieldy but plausibly helpful legislation, legislators may slowly but surely encroach upon the liberties of American citizens while avoiding criticism or serious debate. As more and more emergencies arise that scare the American citizenry, legislators are given more and more chances to move the proverbial ball down the field. The net effect, of course, is that the average American walks away with less freedom than he had before.

It’s time for a reality check: there will always be emergencies and horrible events that we cannot prevent. No matter how advanced and educated we are as people and as a society, certain horrible things—hurricanes, shootings, and the like—will occur, reminding us of the fragility of both our own lives and of the fragility of the society we have built around us. This is, of course, scary. But the answer to this fear is not to buckle to asinine legislative ideas and the mob mentality of post-emergency reform movements. Rather, we must learn to adapt and to recover where we are harmed, and we must learn to bond together rather than point the finger at anything and everything we find harmful in society.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Fraternities Beware

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

In the administration’s attempt to end pledging as we know it, the Greek community at Cornell has now reaffirmed, with the ejection of the Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity, that medical amnesty applies only to violations associated with alcohol and drugs and not those associated with pledging. Until last fall, medical amnesty had been the absolution a chapter receives for calling 9-1-1 in the case of a medical emergency.

The problem here is not whether the university should attempt to end pledging, which is an historic tradition and a valuable experience if done right. The problem now is that fraternities at Cornell, who actively engage in both pledging and drinking activities, must consider the immense pledging violations associated with calling for help.

It seems easy to blame an individual fraternity’s leaders for stalling or not calling for medical assistance when a situation becomes so dire that professional medical help is the only option. But consider the all-too-common occurrence of individuals, who have likely consumed a significant amount of alcohol at a “pre-game”, arriving at a fraternity’s house at a time where pledging violations may be apparent. If those individuals become sick, the President or other risk managers in the fraternity must determine if the situation is so bad as to require medical assistance.

With the administration’s recent ruling, these risk managers will likely raise the bar for how sick someone must be before they endanger their fraternity’s recognition by calling 9-1-1. This is exactly what the alcohol medical amnesty policy was put in place to prevent. Without applying the policy to all infractions, its purpose is negated.

Being an outsider looking into the Greek system at Cornell, it may seem silly for the President of a fraternity to delay calling for help in any situation. The issue is that the President of that fraternity, upon taking his position, becomes entrusted with protecting and prolonging an organization that may have existed on campus for over a hundred years and is responsible for answering to many dedicated alumni.

Regardless of the hazing violations TEP may have been guilty on, the fraternity’s leaders made the correct judgment in calling for medical assistance. The University, in response, repaid the fraternity by revoking its recognition. In President Skorton’s attempt at ending fraternities as we know them, he has encouraged a system that endangers at least a third of the student population at Cornell.

Risk managers who must make judgment calls as to whether someone needs medical assistance are already under-qualified to do so, but are disincentivized from reaching out to capable professionals. I believe the University must eliminate these deterrents and encourage fraternities to reach out for help regardless of the level of pledging violations they may be involved in.

Until the administration makes amnesty universal for all types of infractions, fraternity members, and other Cornellians who may be at fraternity houses, will continue to be in danger.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell. edu.

Gandhi Championed Right To Bear Arms

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the President counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the struggle for Indian freedom.

Today the left claims that much of the original purpose of the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—has become obsolete and irrelevant. But it is important to note that the British advanced a similar argument for gun control while presenting their rule as the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. Since then we have revised our assessment of the empire.

It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was important to resist totalitarianism. During World War I, Gandhi called for the repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in unequivocal terms: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”.

The right to bear arms was also listed among Gandhi’s 11 demands presented to Lord Irwin before the famous Salt March of 1930. In his letter addressed to the Viceroy of India dated March 2nd, 1930, just before the commencement of mass civil disobedience, Gandhi argued passionately for the right of citizens to bear arms:

"And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?…It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal disarmament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness."

It seems clear that Gandhi saw the right to self-defense and to resist government usurpation as consistent with his unwavering faith in non-violence. Some of his arguments appear to be even more relevant now, when in the wake of the horrendous incidents of sexual violence in India, thousands of women have petitioned the government for more gun licenses. In the capital, New Delhi, which was recently shaken by the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year old, some 1,200 women have asked the Police Department to issue them firearm licenses.

One might grant that the extensive and perhaps unconstitutional gun regulations proposed by President Obama were a product of great public outrage due to a rash of high-profile gun homicides. But these provisions might not help in achieving his goal of reducing mass shootings. More importantly, the President shouldn’t forget that the right to bear arms has been associated with struggles for independence from tyrannical rule around the world.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu

Farewell, Madame Secretary

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

The Secretary was furious during her Congressional testimony, cloaking the State Department’s failure in a mask of indignation. She railed against the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, throwing at her interrogators inane platitudes such as this: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” She was referring to the laughable idea that her own administration had sprung up after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi—that the attack was a result of some anti-Islam video produced quite miserably by some sad man in California. Well, Ms. Clinton. It actually does matter whether this video caused protestors to breach the walls of our consulate—as some in the Obama administration have claimed—or whether anti-American sentiment caused the attack.

In order to deflect more detailed questions about the decision-making process at State and the White House—which allowed top officials like UN Ambassador Susan Rice and Press Secretary Jay Carney to conclude that one arbitrary video caused a group of armed individuals to kill four American public servants— Clinton stated repeatedly that she was more interested in making sure that America would never have to endure another Benghazi. But if this is the case, then is it not logical to want to understand the actual cause of the attack? Apparently not.

Of course, many have pointed to the obvious: that the George W. Bush administration was not held accountable for the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or for taking the United States into a disastrous war in the troubled country in the first place. Yet, to argue that this administration does not have to provide an explanation for a specific foreign policy failure because the previous administration was not compelled to provide in public testimony an honest account of the decision-making process that allowed it to make a large blunder, is a miserable failure of responsible leadership.

After Clinton’s utterly unrevealing testimony, Obama and his outgoing Secretary of State practically held hands and sang sweet nothings to each other in a 60 Minutes interview with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, who, by the way, has revealed himself to be an obsequious journalist when speaking with the President (In a 2011, Kroft fawned over Obama in an interview when the President claimed extraordinarily that he was, at worst, the fourth best modern president). The President heaped much praise upon the woman whom he accused in 2007 of lying to American voters about the economic and foreign policies she would pursue were she to win the presidency. He proclaimed, “I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had.” Say it ain’t so, Mr. President.

What Clinton will be most remembered for is the dignity and stability that she brought to the State Department. This merits little more than praise for workmanship and competence. It does not, as Clinton’s biggest supporters would like to claim, signify any extraordinary accomplishment.

President Obama should know that the list of great secretaries of state remains unchanged from before Clinton’s assumption of the post. It includes such greats as John Quincy Adams, who, worked with the president in developing the Monroe Doctrine and oversaw the purchase of Florida from Spain; George Marshall, who helped craft the post-WWII policy of containment and developed the Marshall plan for reconstructing postwar Europe; and Henry Kissinger, who helped implement the policy of détente with China and established the concept of “shuttle diplomacy”. Unfortunately, for Obama, his Secretary of State will not join these diplomats in the annals of history.

What Clinton did during her tenure is represent America in a dignified manner, a prerequisite for the position of Secretary of State, not a quality deserving of praise. She has no doctrine to her name. She has not solved any major global issues. She has been unimaginative. She has few notable accomplishments, one of them being the Asia Pivot. This, however, came down largely from the White House. In other words, her tenure has been neither troubled nor terrific. It seems that she has done just enough to build a path to the West Wing. It appears that over the past four years, she put to use the valuable knowledge that she gained from federal bureaucracy and the Washington cocktail circuit—do what you can to move up the ladder.

Raj Kannappan is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rk398@cornell.edu

Only a Band-Aid

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

I was enjoying a quiet night at home, when suddenly the peaceful silence was interrupted by the sound of gunshots.

A quick look out my window revealed nothing out of the ordinary. The normal sounds of Collegetown revelers had returned to the nearly-deserted street below. But the next morning I awoke to one of those all-too-familiar “Crime Alert” e-mails. Hurriedly, I read through it in more-than-typical detail, needing to find out if the incident reported was “shots fired”. And so it was.

Admittedly, I was rattled when I found out that the sound I heard the previous night was in fact the sound of a gun being fired quite literally on my street corner. I even contemplated not writing this article. Perhaps the shots were a sign—a prohibition against writing about the perils of the recent liberal push for stricter gun control.

But this doubt that I once thought could be the voice of some prophetic prudence, I later realized was the voice of fear. Freedom, after all, can be a scary thing.

It is easy to tell ourselves that people die of gunshot wounds, and so guns must be outlawed. It is easy, this act of scapegoating, and it fulfills a common human desire to find “the bad thing” and “root it out”. And while guns may be obvious targets for this desire, we must remember that people killed each other long before guns existed. Guns are not the problem. The truth is that people sometimes do terrible things, and that will continue to be the truth whether or not they are allowed to own guns.

Perhaps it is hard to admit that the real problem lies not with weapons technology but at the very root of human nature. After all, that cannot simply be rooted out. We are stuck with humanity and all its flaws. We should not, though, let our instinctual drive to find something dispensable to blame for society’s worst ills deceive us into thinking that the presence of guns is the root of violent crime.

It is frightening to think that our fellow man is both the true source of such violence and that he is a free creature, but this fear must not stop us from allowing him his freedom. We must not be compelled by our fear to slowly imprison ourselves in laws and regulations, to strip our freedom to do this-and-that simply because, “It might be dangerous.”

Everything might be dangerous.

Such is life, but to let our inability—or, rather, our unwillingness—to cope with such a permanent state of potential threat drive us toward some terrible fate of democratically-imposed tyranny—that would be a great tragedy.

We must live with each other and rely on each other to act justly. That is the price of society. We must do this even when it is uncomfortable. That is the price of free society.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Chucky Strikes Again!

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

The Obama administration’s decision to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel has undoubtedly been the source of partisan controversy since Christmas. Since 2002, the Nebraskan congressman—who dutifully secured two purple hearts as a veteran during his time serving in Vietnam—has puzzled political analysts with his bizarre deviations from his rank-and-file conservatives on major foreign policy questions. His antics range from bizarre positions concerning the US-Israeli alliance and the Iranian Nuclear proliferation to blatantly inaccurate predictions with respect to the Iraq Surge in 2007.

Most troubling of late, however, is Hagel’s bumbling and inarticulate performance at his recent confirmation hearing. The strikingly unrehearsed Hagel was unprepared to respond crisply to the exceedingly pointed GOP questions, which he and his advisers surely knew were due, given the whirlwind of controversy surrounding his nomination in the first place, and given Hagel’s reputation as an unorthodox Republican.

That Hagel was so unprepared to withstand the onslaught which McCain and Graham unleashed is perplexing. Even more bewildering is the subpar quality of his offered responses.

First, he botched a direct question regarding his mistaken prediction that the 2007 surge in Iraq would fail. McCain brooded over the opportunity to address the Senator, taking him to task on his failure to support the escalation of involvement. The Nebraskan refused to admit that he had been in error, which incited McCain’s ire:

“Your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether I vote for your confirmation or not,” remarked McCain.

The perception that Hagel’s record of inaccurate predictions on foreign policy might continue is growing, even among dispassionate observers and moderate journalists.

Second, and more embarrassingly for Hagel according to the New York Times, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham directed Mr. Hagel to “name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.” Mr. Hagel, who in 2006 claimed that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates Congress, failed to name even one example, and admitted to this with a sort of lamblike submission. Ted Cruz, who arranged for Senate aides to play a damning recording, insinuated that Hagel believed that Israel had committed war crimes. In 2009, Hagel wrote a letter to Obama, urging him to initiate negotiations and direct talks with Hamas, a position which the Washington Post calls “so extreme that” even Obama seemed appalled.

Third, although (the otherwise meek and equivocating) Hagel set forth an assertive and staunchly forceful endorsement of American might in order to stave off claims that he would oversee the dwindling of America’s diplomatic and military influence abroad, conservatives on the panel expressed skepticism toward his commitment to this worldview.

Of particular worry was the ambiguity of his stance toward remedying the Iranian nuclear crisis. In 2007 Hagel wanted to open direct, unconditional talks with Iran, a position which still baffles foreign policy strategists. Moreover, Hagel’s history of opposition toward “keeping all (including military) options on the table” with respect to prevention seems troubling, given that the agency which he’ll oversee may very well be forced, sometime in the next 18 months, to launch a preemptive military strike in conjunction with Israel against the Persian state.

In a moment that caused both sides of the aisle to grow weary, Hagel promised that he strongly supported the Administration's (non-existent) support of “containing” Iran, a claim which is self-evidently preposterous, since Obama supports prevention, and not containment. This blunder was so striking that Hagel had to be handed a note reminding him that no such “containment” policy exists.

In light of his prior votes against imposing harsh sanctions on the Persian state, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and his tepid support for the US-Israel alliance, the prospect of Hagel overseeing operations at the Pentagon has proved harrowing for skeptics and casual observers alike.

After all, how can a man who is to oversee and operate one of the most vital national security and intelligence organs in the country, be so confused about his administration’s core foreign policy stances (especially one of the most critical of national security questions)? During the hearing, there were points at which it appeared that Hagel didn’t even know his own position on certain matters—like sequestration and defense budget slashing—that will be of such spectacular import during the coming months of possible fiscal austerity.

The matter has even irritated a few Democrats. Most notably, reports Politico, former White House secretary David Gibbs remarked on a NBC “Meet the Press” panel that he found it “disconcerting” that Hagel was not ready for some of the questions directly linked to running the Pentagon.

“The disconcerting thing, obviously, for anybody that watched it was [that] he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that, quite frankly, he knew were coming,” Gibbs said. Having witnessed her colleague succumb to McCain’s relentless siege, even Claire McCaskill attested to his impotency.

Furthermore, although White House strategists are confident that the Nebraskan will be confirmed, none have argued that Hagel performed well during the hearing. In fact, Hagel has created second guessing in the White House. The New York Times and Washington Post report that, according to a member of Obama’s team of advisers on Iran, the stumbling performance seemed “somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible.”

At this juncture, it remains unclear why, precisely, Obama decided to select Hagel to replace Panetta, who insists that Hagel was victimized by an inquisition of overzealous conservatives.

What is clear, however, is the decidedly acute irony which has become evident to historically-minded observers of this debacle. This is a man who not only once claimed that Sarah Palin (a staunch opponent of Obama) was qualified to be Vice President in 2008, but whose record is “precisely the anti-sanctions, anti-Israel stance” which Obama furiously denied was the embodiment of his foreign policy worldview in the 2012 election.

We can now candidly declare that politics makes for strange (and strikingly misguided) bedfellows.

Very comforting, no?

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu

Is Africana Studies Relevant as an Academic Discipline?

2013-02-12T00:00:00Z

The context of an academic discipline is as important as its content, because the parameters of our knowledge are often defined by the manner in which we choose to learn, teach and research. Several disciplines that were once regarded as legitimate areas of human inquiry have now become obsolete. A few centuries ago, students could get respectable degrees in alchemy or phrenology, which are now widely recognized as pseudo-sciences.

Added to this list are several ventures in the humanities that were undertaken as a consequence of war and colonialism in the 19th century. For instance, Egyptology began with Napoleon’s campaign in the Mediterranean in 1798. A contingent of Enlightenment scientists and scholars who accompanied the French expedition to Egypt laid the foundations of Orientalism. Similarly, Sinology emerged as the study of classical Chinese language and literature and Kremlinology as that of Russia. And Indology, the study of India, pioneered by German scholars August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Arthur Schopenhauer, flourished in the context of romanticism and British rule.

Each of these disciplines was intended to serve an important purpose in its time. To many Europeans, the East was an exotic place of alien, primitive and even barbaric people. The “Orient” as opposed to the “Occident” was a land of magicians and snake charmers. Societies such as the Royal Asiatic Society (1824), American Oriental Society (1842) and German Oriental Society (1845) were formed to decipher the incomprehensible and to equip colonial rulers with a better understanding of the peoples they sought to govern. But following the retreat of colonialism and perhaps in response to Edward Said’s criticism of the Eurocentric approach toward Middle Eastern, Asian and North African cultures in his influential book Orientalism (1978), these disciplines were either discarded or radically altered. Those scholars that still managed to survive had to take recourse to Marxist historiographies in their celebration or dismissal of indigenous cultures as per the wishes of their patrons.

Under the garb of academic sophistication, some of this fabrication resurfaced in the form of “diaspora studies” in our times. Ideas of economic determinism and class struggle were more than evident here. The “diaspora” was viewed as a distinct oppressed class of people sharing ethnic identities. The members of the diaspora had been detached from their ancestral roots and dispersed by the forces of imperialism, slave trade, conflict and resettlement. The concept of Africana Studies is to be located within this context, as it is presented as an investigation into the African diaspora. But the greater problem that we encounter here is that this diaspora might not even exist.

Here, it is important to distinguish between African American Studies and Africana Studies. To conflate the two would be a mistake. African American Studies is an academic discipline directed toward the study of the history, culture, politics, and literature of African Americans. On the other hand, Africana Studies or Africology focuses on all peoples of African origin, both in Africa and in the African diaspora around the world. As stated on the website of the Africana Studies and Research Center at Cornell, this field studies the cultures of the people of African descent not only in the United States but also elsewhere in the diaspora:

“Africana Studies is a tradition of intellectual inquiry and study of African peoples. Using a transdisciplinarian approach, Africana scholars document the global migrations and reconstruction of African peoples, as well as patterns of linkages to the African continent (and among the peoples of the African Diaspora).”

This description raises two questions: 1) Does the African diaspora exist? 2) If it does, how do Africana studies contribute to our understanding of the issues and challenges faced by this diaspora? I would argue that this diaspora might not exist as we assume it to and that even if it does exist, Africana Studies might not help us address the issues of the people of African descent in a significant manner.

First and foremost, one should note that the basis for the African diaspora is race. Other commonalities such as shared cultural values or historical experiences are not of great consequence because they do not contribute to the idea of a distinct diaspora. If historical experiences were to constitute its basis, then the diaspora would have to include all peoples of former colonies within its ambit. Besides, geography is not a cohesive element, because the diaspora is spread across thousands of miles and covers about a third of the world. Africana Studies is divided into three concentrations representing the three regions of the African Diaspora: Africa, African America, and African Caribbean. The enormous diversity within the African diaspora in terms of language, religion, ethnicity and nationality demolishes the argument of shared culture. Within Africa, too, great differences are apparent as one travels from Egypt to South Africa. Similarly, African Americans have little in common with the people of African countries. Even recent immigrants to the US from Africa face problems and challenges that more closely resemble those experienced by immigrants from other countries.

Further, even when Africana claims to address the histories and cultures of all peoples of Africa, it does not give sufficient attention to several large communities of the continent. There is no course in Africana that documents the migration of North African Arabs to America and Europe. While it puts great emphasis on the arrival and settlement of people of African descent in the New World, there is no mention of the large concentrations of indentured laborers from India and China who landed in Mauritius, Madagascar, South Africa, and the Caribbean, to name a few. Don’t these communities also belong to the African diaspora? The fact that Africana does not seem to be concerned with this question makes one doubt the basis for its selective conception of the African diaspora.

A glance at the list of courses offered by the Africana Studies Department at Cornell also proves this point. For instance, ASRC 1500 (The Shape of American Culture: An Introduction to Africana Studies), ASRC 3660 (Race, Migration and the American City) and ASRC 3031 (Race and Revolution in the Americas) are taught along with ASRC 2670 (History of Modern Egypt), ASRC 4600 (Politics and Social Change in the Caribbean), ASRC 4672 (Nationalism in the Arab World) and ASRC 4303 (Nationalism and Decolonization in Africa). The department also offers an assortment of language courses in Swahili, Yoruba and Arabic. To be fair, most of these courses are cross-listed with other departments such as History and Government. One should also note that ASRC 2670 and ASRC 4672 are not taught by Africana faculty but happen to be conveniently cross-listed. But the disparate nature of these studies contained in one department reminds one of the “cabinet of curiosities” that a colonial adventurer would assemble upon his return from the Orient. One can clearly see that these courses hardly present a coherent narrative. The only thread that runs through them is that of race, which is not only inadequate, but also erroneous in some respects.

When I first developed these ideas, I took the liberty of circulating them among some friends. One person expressed broad agreement with my thesis that Africana Studies is actually an inversion of Eurocentrism and added:

“We still haven't overcome the assumption of the superiority of the 'Eurocentric' approach to subjects, and this approach still underlines our fundamental assumptions, firstly because it forms the basis for the vast majority of our doctrinal writings and research, and secondly because it seems to be embedded in our minds. This hinders a more broad-based enquiry into subjects.”

But others objected to this thesis on several grounds: “The existence of a particular racial diaspora is neither presumptuous nor precarious. It is a fact.” “Bigoted understandings of race surely were a major cause of the diaspora and were intimately related to the experiences of peoples in that diaspora….The big picture is that proximity causes peoples to have common historical experiences.” Others contended that the thesis was “decontextualized from the reality of racism in America” and that “pretending racism never happened is a failed strategy”.

It is true that the social construct of race has deeply shaped the history and development of African American Studies. African American Studies is a product of the Civil Rights Movement and the first Black Studies program was started at UC Berkeley in 1969. The creation of similar departments across universities once played a significant institutional role in supporting academic views that were marginalized from the mainstream discourse. On the other hand, Africana Studies first began as a direct consequence of the later stages of colonialism, when European interest in African cultures grew in the 1890s. It was only later that the two disciplines were integrated to encourage a global approach to studying the diaspora. So, the point that I wish to raise is not against African American Studies but rather against Africana Studies and, indeed, all other forms of diaspora studies.

Race is a social construct that has no technical basis, and it is difficult to deal with cross-continental issues on the precarious presumption that a particular racial diaspora exists. This assumption is a relic of the colonial era that somehow persists in our times, at least in some areas. Today we cannot imagine a department on Aryan studies because we understand that the notion of an “Aryan people” is fictitious and dangerous. Correspondingly, we should also desist from viewing Africa overwhelmingly in terms of racial identities and focus more on the internal nuances of the challenges facing the continent and its people. It is a welcome sign that Africana Studies along with some other disciplines, is proceeding in this direction.

However, in its core conception, Africana Studies seeks to provide a unique “African experience” with an Afrocentric perspective. The idea that a discipline has to be centered around one perspective, whether it is Eurocentric, Afrocentric or Sinocentric, is itself a product of imperialism. Africana Studies is premised on the acceptance of a colonial projection onto Africa, its inversion and outward reflection. So, as a concept, it is no different from Eurocentric approaches to the world. It should now be recognized that it is a poor and naïve strategy to combat Eurocentrism with Afrocentrism. Rather, it would allow far more comprehensive study if scholars could work with and express a juxtaposition of different perspectives. But most importantly, race must be addressed in an appropriate manner, and this cannot be done through the mistaken projection of a pan-global sense of commonalities onto what is, in reality, a very diverse collection of people.

A Senior’s Reflections: Misha Checkovich

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

As the saying goes, Cornell is the easiest Ivy to get into, but the hardest one to get out of. The conditions here can be brutal, but they also offer an opportunity to sharpen your intellect and refine how you think about what you know, and more importantly, what you don’t know.

It is no secret that the vast majority of people on campus and in the city of Ithaca are solidly left of center, if not radically so. For all of the chatter about diversity, the one type of diversity that most crucially needs to be addressed has fallen by the wayside: diversity of thought. We can have every color, every religion, every socioeconomic background, every shade of gender and sexual identity along the continuum, but if these people, boxed into the Left's social demarcations all think exactly the same way about the issues, then we have fallen into the dark abyss of groupthink. What is the point of having Universities sell themselves as beacons of intellectual inquiry if the end result would be the same as if we had all just gone to reeducation camps?

To address this issue from a conservative standpoint, only two things are necessary. The first is to know the facts. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up succinctly: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

We all know that the Republican Party and the conservative movement at large have taken a huge hit in that arena, given the monstrously false claims that sucked so much oxygen from the news cycle and the broader economic message that I will not repeat them here. Once liberals and conservatives work from the same set of facts, then we can move forward to a genuine, and perhaps even productive, debate. This is actually trickier than one might think. For example, the Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue flowing to the federal treasury in the following years despite lower marginal tax rates. This will never stop the Democrats from blaming Bush for anything and everything, but it should be noted that the Bush tax cuts resulted in greater-than-expected revenue to the federal treasury, not less, to correct one of the larger misconceptions floating around.

This leads to the second point: do not be afraid. What I mean by that is don't let a fear of being unjustly labeled a racist or sexist or bigot or whatever hinders your expression of a conservative viewpoint, especially when you have facts to back up your position.

But also, don't be afraid to admit when you might be wrong about something, and be open to other (fact-based) opinion. As impossible as it seems, liberals do argue with some irrefutable facts that we must address instead of dismiss. We cannot continue, and this goes for people on both sides, to dismiss the other viewpoint as being grounded in hate or ignorance or some other bad intent. Some people may come from that angle, but they cannot be allowed to dominate how we discuss issues with each other, especially when we know people of good faith from all sides.

I have met some incredible people on campus who are near-Marxists, and the hardest thing, but one of the most rewarding things, was to come to understand why they hold the opinions that they do. The exposure to their ideas helped me to understand better why I hold the opinions that I do. In short, you must know why you believe something, why other people believe another thing, and be able to confidently articulate the differences with facts and without fear.

Misha Checkovich is a graduating senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@ cornell.edu

The Next Generation of Politicians

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

A few weeks ago, I attended a public lecture by Charles Murray at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. The room was filled with DC interns eager to hear Murray talk about his book Coming Apart, which explores the cultural differences that have increased the disconnect between lower and upper-class white Americans. Though I was skeptical of some of Murray’s more controversial ideas, such as his belief that the U.S. should eliminate internships and the SAT, I took away some valuable lessons that I think most Cornellians would appreciate.

Murray’s bold statements accurately describe the vast majority of well-educated America. Murray highlighted that unlike in previous decades, in recent years, high-I.Q. Americans now dominate elite colleges, marry each other, and often live near each other in over-educated cities like DC. Members of this upper-class send their children to schools with children from other upper-class families. They watch shows like Downton Abbey and Mad Men, not Judge Judy or Oprah. They physically and culturally isolate themselves from the rest of society.

Why should the upper-class connect with the rest of society? Murray argues that individuals who disconnect themselves from the lifestyles of other classes will end up making rash generalizations about the rest of Americans, whom they barely know. Murray criticized the often arrogant good intentions of the upper-class. He pointed out that people of the upper-class often claim that they know what is best for society, and think they know what is best for the vast majority of America. Often these well-educated Americans believe that the rest of society is not capable of making informed judgments about diets, politics, family or jobs. For example, many are quick to label the Tea Party as ignorant white hicks without taking the time to actually talk to Tea Party members and understand their perspectives.

If you are interested in public policy, politics, or law, you definitely must understand different perspectives in order to make the best policy decisions. The next generation of well-educated politicians and leaders will be far more capable of making wise decisions if they attempt to relate to and connect with the community. Underlying elitism is separating the classes faster than income inequality. Murray rests blame on both upper-class liberal and conservative individuals for this underlying elitism. He also suggests some ideas for the next generation of well-educated leaders to reduce this dissonance.

He told the group of interns to spend two years in a foreign country. He said they should earn $2,000 of their own money, and book a one way plane ticket abroad. He suggested that they pick countries where they would be in the minority. (Sorry Downton Abbey fans, England does not count.) In addition, he said they should not speak the languages of their countries of choice, and should attempt to learn them while there.

Bottom line: get out of your comfort zone. By learning to cope and adjust to new surroundings, you will gain confidence in yourself and become more in tune with the lives of individuals different from you.

If spending two years in Kuala Lumpur is not your thing, Murray has some reasonable solutions. He proposes that individuals of the upper class and lower classes engage in a community. They should talk to each other and know each other’s needs. In such an ideal society, individuals would be slow to generalize about each other and quick to bring their community together. That is not to say that the upper-class must give up their lifestyles. (You can still watch Downton Abbey.) After all, Murray himself is not afraid to embrace upper-class culture. He even left the lecture early to attend Don Giovanni with his wife. Instead, the next generation of well-educated individuals should be conscious of this gap between the upper and lower classes, and should take the initiative to connect with people unlike themselves. So maybe, when you graduate, you should move into a neighborhood where at least some of your neighbors are not your best friends from Cornell.

Caroline Emberton is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences, spending the semester in the Cornell in Washington program. She can be reached at cme67@cornell.edu.

“Missing Girls”

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, was recently sponsored by the ILR Alumni Affairs and Development to talk on campus about what she believes it means to be pro-choice. The main point of her lecture was that “freedom of choice is more than a right, it is right,” and Saporta attempted to illustrate this with examples of women who needed abortions for health or financial reasons. Rather than desiring that abortion be safe, legal, and rare, Mrs. Saporta’s talk indicated that it should be safe, legal, and widely accessible.

Saporta highlighted the cases where women have needed abortions for health or finance reasons. In terms of health reasons, she cited both physical and emotional health issues—a woman who needed chemotherapy and a woman who had been raped. She also decried the murder of Dr. George Tiller and seven other abortion providers. The struggles of women should not be dismissed, nor should the violence that led to eight murders be condoned. But neither should the deaths of millions of babies by way of abortion or infanticide be taken lightly.

Many conservatives are willing to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, or safety of the mother. It is unlikely that the legalization of abortion will ever be reversed, for institutions, once placed, usually are not. However, not every abortion is caused by rape, incest, or danger to the mother. This is evident not only in the United States, but in many countries—most notably in China.

This year, China underwent a transition in leadership, and women now make up about twenty-five percent of the political leadership. The figure is not too alarming, because the United States has an even lower percentage of women in government leadership positions, but NBC reported a growing concern about China’s “missing girls.” Because of the country’s one child policy, many couples decided their only child had to be a boy.

Though for many years it was illegal in China to learn a baby's gender before birth, many did so anyway, and if the unborn was female, an abortion may be performed. Even worse, if an ultrasound was not done to determine the child's sex, baby girls were killed shortly after birth. The male to female ratio, now around 6 to 5, is expected to cause a “huge societal issue.” Around a third of women in one village in China admitted to having abortions for sex selection.

There is an argument that abortion has helped women in emergency situations, and it is true that for many women, having reproductive control (not just abortions, but less-controversial forms of birth control as well) has allowed them to sit at the tables of government leadership. But there are mothers who are leaders in government, including the “Mom Communists” in China. Many women who marry and have children choose to focus on raising their kids, and it can be difficult, though certainly not impossible, for mothers to be politicians. But when the use of methods of reproductive control becomes too extreme, it does not allow women to sit at the tables of leadership: it prevents them from doing so, as the millions of baby girls killed by abortion or infanticide might tell you if they could.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

Is China the Next Superpower?

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

The Center for International Studies, on November 14, held a debate attempting to answer the question, “Is China the new superpower?” David Lampton of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University critically debated China’s prospects as the new global power. China’s decade of economic expansion, with the second largest GDP in the world, might lead one to believe that China is in fact the next United States. However, these keynote speakers put both China’s recent advances, and problems, in a more global perspective.

The mediator, our own Professor Allen Carlson, asked three major questions: (1) Is China the next superpower? (2) What is China’s global impact? And (3) how should the United States respond? While this was supposed to be a vehement debate over China’s current and future global power, both speakers had relatively similar answers: not yet.

Despite all of China’s economic gains, China has yet to gain the substantial authority a well-defined superpower maintains, such as military strength, established soft power, and a stable government. The economy, though a critically important aspect of a nation’s power, is not solely what makes a superpower dominant. For example, according to the speakers, China has claimed no real desire for global influence other than to maintain healthy trade. China’s military spending still remains between two and three percent of its GDP, which is significantly lower than that of the United States.

As such, China’s only substantial increase in power is derived from its continued economic growth. However, according to Communist officials, the economy must continue to grow at a rate of at least 7% each year to maintain a prosperous and stable nation. While China has been successful thus far, this is a very difficult goal that, if failed to meet, could challenge the political order of the Chinese nation. Therefore, according to the speakers, China’s growth in power comes with substantial obstacles.

Where Professor Lampton and Professor Friedberg differed was their overall opinion on China in regards to American foreign policy. Professor Lampton argued for patience because of China’s accomplishments. Forty years ago, China was a completely controlled economy under radical Communist rule. Now, China is described as “capitalism with Chinese characteristics.” China enjoys not only a substantially more free market economy, but also more political freedoms compared to Maoist China. These advances in economic wealth and general freedom have, according to Lampton, provided hope for a more politically friendly future for China.

Professor Friedberg, on the other hand, argued for a more balanced approach to China. According to Friedberg, China has become much more capitalistic and progressive, but America must maintain a balance between power politics and economic placidity. China is not a democratic nation, and thus America must maintain global dominance in the face of Chinese aggressions. But this must not destroy the United States’ and China’s intertwined economies.

China is no doubt a rising player on the global stage. With a quarter of the world’s population, and a skyrocketing economy, China certainly has promise. But its government is also faced with major obstacles. A growing economy and an increase in middle class citizens has put substantial pressure on the Communist government to reform, and economic inequalities threaten to divide the nation. It is difficult to be both communist and capitalist, and only the future will determine if China really is the next superpower.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

Sexual Violence at Cornell

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

Over the course of the semester, Cornell has seen several high profile and horrific acts of sexual violence on campus. These acts are sadly a consistent part of college life, one that is a terrible blemish the institution of Cornell. The student outcry has been appropriate in its sense of public outrage, but has been misguided in many respects.

I would like to mention a couple of things before I start. This article does not mean to diminish the importance of rape awareness or the efforts of many concerned citizens on campus. There is absolutely no place in this world for such a terrible crime and it is the responsibility of everyone at Cornell to report observed incidences of it.

Instead, this article is written to provide clarity on rape in general, and to stress effective allocation of both personal and financial resources.

Nationally, the incidence of rape has been flat over time. Although there was an uptick during the 1960s and 1970s, since the 1980s the overall rate has been flat. As you can see in Chart 1 and Regression 3, the rate of rape is not sensitive to the passing of time, common causes of crime in general, or standard prevention strategies. While there is a degree of variance in the overall rate, nationally the average has been flat at 48.8 per 100,000 since the 1980s. Also, please note that, while I have provided Regression 2, which shows an increasing rate of rape, to show the progression of analysis, in my mind Regression 3 employs the proper method of analysis.

While there is a higher degree of variance within Cornell reported sexual assault data, as well as a more limited data set, a basic analysis indicates that on average, there are between two and three forcible rapes on campus per annum. This indicates that the acts of sexual violence over the semester have not deviated from the five-year average.

Given this fact, it is safe to say that the student and administrative response has been due to the public nature of the attacks, not a statistically significant spike in the number of rapes.

As an institution, Cornell is naturally very interested in preserving its reputation. And as buyers of a Cornell education, this is very important to students as well. That does not mean that Cornell does not care about sexual violence on campus, but the school has multiple priorities.

Take for example, the issue of suicide on campus. Due to a series of high profile deaths, Cornell decided to spend a large amount of money putting up fences and installing nets to stop jumpers. This happened despite the fact that Cornell has a statistically normal suicide rate and that there is no conclusive evidence showing that nets prevent suicides. While there is a possibility that Cornell has better numbers than I do, the decision more likely was designed to shore up the school’s reputation and legal liability. The Onion summed it up well in an article about our suicide prevention nets: “I imagine nets are probably more cost-effective than providing suicidal students with psychiatric care and medicine.”

The same is true of the school’s response to rape on campus, and the student governments’ response to other high profile incidents. Efforts to expand the Blue Light Shuttle service, while popular among certain representatives, would have no impact on the rate of rape on campus, even if successful. While the expansion might change the nature of the attacks slightly, I think even that is a stretch. Meanwhile, it is a costly measure ($395 a night) that creates the illusion of safety, rather than true safety. The same can be said about late night monitors and other preventative measures the Assembly proposed.

My article so far has not dealt with the issues of date rape and unreported rape. These are definitely matters that needs to be dealt with. In my mind, they are areas of sexual violence in which preventative measures can actually reduce the overall rate of rape. However, little that the administration or Assembly has proposed will impact that type of crime.

The last thing to note is, of course, certain articles and initiatives promoted by members of the student body, such as “educational” seminars on rape for freshman and even Cornell employees. While it would be premature to comment on any initiative without knowing program content, here are a couple of thoughts. First, the Cornell party scene has drastically changed over the last two years, and this fact indicates that maybe blanket education initiatives are irrelevant for a large portion of the student body. Second, I have doubts about how effective such initiatives would actually be. For better or worse, Alcohol and drugs tend to cause people to for¬get tedious freshman information sessions. Finally, I think that such efforts would ignore more effective rape prevention strategies such as responsible drinking, the buddy system, and generally safety-conscious behavior.

Sexual violence on campus is something we as a student body need to combat in every element of our lives. Although proposed efforts are appealing, they are costly and not the most effective measures. What we need is a true dialogue about sexual violence on campus, not freshman lectures. While I am not sure what an open discourse should look like, or how to implement one, I do know that a top down approach is not going to change mindsets or behavior.

Contact the Cornell Review at cornellreview@cornell.edu.

Affirmative Action Band-Aid

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

The Supreme Court is poised to potentially make affirmative action a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Prepare yourselves: the Left is going to have an aneurysm. But it really shouldn’t—a ruling making affirmative action a violation of the Equal Protection Clause would be less about racists “winning” and more about a positive shift in society.

For some time, the Supreme Court has accepted affirmative action in the way party-goers handle a drunk, vomiting fratboy: they have tolerated it, albeit with great disdain. Current affirmative action law hinges around two cases—Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)—that essentially hold that, under strict scrutiny analysis, affirmative action by the State is legal only insofar as government actors consider race, but do not create quotas for specific racial groups or ethnicities. At the moment, this logic is still good law, but in Grutter, Justice O’Connor explicitly gave it a sunset provision: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” The Grutter Court wasn’t kidding around about this time limitation: it explicitly required that current affirmative action programs have a “logical end point” and be “limited in time.”

In other words, under the exacting standards of the Court’s strict scrutiny test, affirmative action is only justified as a temporary fix to fight the specter of pervasive racism in society, and as that specter recedes and America becomes less divided, the State becomes less and less justified in implementing affirmative action programs.

Nearly ten years later, the Court may be poised to declare that the specter has (at least somewhat) receded and that strict scrutiny no longer permits affirmative action. The Court recently granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case involving two women who allege that they were denied admission to the University of Texas because its admissions program took race into account (and thus, at least by inference, equally or less qualified applicants were admitted instead of the two women due to their race). The fact that the Court even granted certiorari in this case is strong evidence that the Court wishes to reanalyze Grutter, leading many commentators to believe that Grutter may soon die a quick death and affirmative action by the State may be henceforth declared a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Is the death of Grutter a desirable result? Yes, regardless of the fact that discrimination may still exist today.

Grutter and cases before it—even Brown v. Board of Education—were decided with the image of historical racism in mind, and the entire concept of affirmative action was structured around the idea that certain minority groups in America needed help fighting against discrimination that was sewn into the fabric of American society. In this sense, affirmative action was not a perfect solution or even a great one—it was a Band-Aid slapped on a bleeding wound in society implemented in order to fix a massive issue that couldn’t be remedied with slow surgical precision.

But today, discrimination is shifting in form, and affirmative action may very well be holding back societal recovery.

At its worst, discrimination in America was institutionalized in the law—from restrictive property deeds to elections. This discrimination manifested itself in education, from explicitly “black schools” to de facto segregation of minorities in school districts. But discrimination is becoming less institutional and more cultural. While African-Americans may no longer have to worry about being deliberately pushed into a segregated school, they now deal with a culture that promotes “us-vs.-them” thinking through music lyrics, “ethnic” television shows/channels, and the like. Affirmative action isn’t exactly poised to fix a racist culture—it just (at least theoretically) helps fight against the systemic manifestation of historical racism in education. Thus, while affirmative action may have been a valuable approach to fighting societal racism as early as ten years ago, it is increasingly less so today as racism changes in form and effect and as schools are less blatantly segregated.

The problem is that affirmative action, in many ways, encourages the us-vs.-them mentality that can foster the cultural discrimination which erodes society. When universities across America blatantly give imaginary points to applicants of a different race, they draw lines in the sand between races, determining who is a “minority” and who is in the nebulous “majority.” Admitted and unquestionably qualified “minority” students often find themselves with an imaginary asterisk placed upon their admission to a prestigious school by those suspecting their admission was the result of affirmative action instead of hard work and intelligence. Programs like those operated at the University of Texas are sometimes blatantly racist, making questionable decisions like lumping all applicants from Asian countries into an “Asian” category despite the enormous variety of cultures present in Asia. And, as a recent article in the New York Times noted, affirmative action has caused significant harm to Asian-Americans, who are frequently finding themselves rejected to schools of their choice as those schools deliberately avoid admitting a disproportionately “Asian” entering class. In other words, where the government has forced various racial and ethnic groups apart through programs like affirmative action, it has discouraged those same groups from merging back together.

If we want to help minority applicants be competitive in the application pools of top schools, the solution to the problem is fixing the terrible public school systems that under-serve these students, not assigning imaginary points. Minorities wouldn’t need imaginary University of Texas-style points if local school boards—especially those in inner cities—did not create cesspit schools filled with incompetent (yet somehow tenured) teachers and hopeless students. Why should affirmative action fix on the back end what reform (or even privatization) of public schools could fix on the front end?

Admittedly, there very well may be some purposes served by affirmative action, and the proverbial bleeding wound of discrimination may very well have not sealed up like many think it has. Nonetheless, now more than ever, it appears that affirmative action may cause more harm than it causes good. Fisher v. University of Texas isn’t about whether discrimination exists, it isn’t about WASPs trying to take over America, and it certainly isn’t an attempt at bringing back Jim Crow laws. It is about society growing and considering ripping off the Band- Aid. It seems like it’s about time.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Under the Radar

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

Our nation decided the answers to many questions on November 6th, some more publicized than others. One that perhaps did not get the publicity it deserved was California’s Proposition 35. Nominally a proposal to increase the penalties for sex trafficking, Prop 35 contained another provision that should have been—though apparently wasn’t— very controversial.

Namely, Prop 35 requires all registered sex offenders (not just those convicted of sex trafficking) to continuously register their Internet service providers and identifiers (such as user names) with the government.

Disturbingly enough, no one—not even the proposition’s eerily rare opponents—seemed to notice this egregious civil rights violation until after it passed with an overwhelming 81% of the vote. To their credit, the American Civil Liberties Union did come out against Prop 35 and has now filed a lawsuit to stay its enforcement. However, their involvement could have and should have been much more public. It is beyond me, for instance, why the ACLU didn’t write against the proposition in California’s voter information booklet. This booklet is published by the office of the California Secretary of State, is available online, and is distributed to registered voters statewide. It contains summaries of each proposition on the ballot, as well as arguments for and against each submitted by various supporters and opponents.

But the ACLU wasn’t featured in the pamphlet as an opponent of Prop 35. In fact, the only ones writing against it were Norma Jean Almodovar, Starchild, and the president and CFO of an organization called Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project, Inc. For those who do not know, Norma Jean Almodovar is a former Los Angeles police officer, the title of whose book From Cop to Call Girl pretty much says it all. And Starchild, too, is an “erotic services provider” and an outspoken Libertarian activist.

On the other hand, proponents arguing for Prop 35 in the voter booklet included multiple self-proclaimed human trafficking survivors, the California Police Chiefs Association, and a county District Attorney.

So, you don’t need a degree in political science to be able to tell who was winning the PR war on Prop 35. If you could call it a war—or even a low-grade military action. According to a California PBS station, not a single financial contribution to an anti-35 group was ever reported. And this is opposed to the over 200 contributions reported to have been made in support of Prop 35.

Among Prop 35’s financial backers were the National Education Association and the California Teachers Union, whose political clout in the state could possibly help explain the lack of public opposition to the proposal.

The take-away point from all this, though, is that there were virtually no visible opponents to Prop 35 who were not involved with the sex industry. And even those opponents, in their voter booklet arguments, did not cite the requirement that sex offenders register their online identification information with the state as a reason to vote against it.

California’s normally vocal and tumultuous political community was curiously quiet about this issue and seemed curiously unaware of the dangerous precedent Prop 35 sets for the privacy rights they are normally so adamant about protecting.

With any luck, this issue and others like it will not remain out of the spotlight, for the day we as citizens start ignoring small but definite attempts to revoke our civil rights and liberties, will be a dark one for democracy and for human freedom.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Too Soon to Think About 2016?

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

I’ve been told it’s time to take the Romney sticker off my laptop and face reality. Looking back at this election season, I’m still unsure exactly when things went wrong. It seemed so certain: we had a President with over eight percent unemployment competing against a candidate with a clear plan to produce jobs. Despite this fact, over sixty-two million people chose to reelect President Obama.

In losing, we have been given an opportunity to learn, and now have four years to produce a candidate who is able to attract a wide range of voters. For some, considering who will run in 2016 is a conversation for a future date. But for me, the future is all that we have to look forward to.

There is one Republican, in my mind, who would be an exceptional Presidential candidate: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, Governor Jindal recently obtained national coverage by criticizing Governor Romney’s “gift” comments and argued that Republicans must fight for each vote and must stop saying stupid things.

To some, the 2012 election was proof that Republican ideals are no longer desired in this country. Governor Jindal, on the other hand, is arguing that success for Republicans will come not from a change in ideology, but a change in rhetoric. From statements about the forty-seven percent of Americans to assertions of “legitimate” rape, conservatives this election season have found various ways to alienate voters who may have ultimately agreed with their core beliefs. Instead of using offensive slogans, Jindal believes that conservatives must develop detailed policy initiatives and trust the intelligence of voters to make the right decision.

Further, Jindal is an individual that can inspire two groups that the Republicans failed to attract during the 2012 election: the youth and minorities. A minority who is the son of Indian American immigrants, Jindal’s early success, from his Rhodes Scholarship to his two-term governorship, has given him an inspiring background that, coupled with his views, can attract minorities, college students, and also the more typical conservatives.

As an Asian-American, I am personally inspired by Governor Jindal’s brilliance, success, and steadfast belief in his ideals. Though I don’t agree with all of his views, he has proven to be an effective leader in the State of Louisiana, improving the health care system there while cutting its costs. Additionally, he understands that the rhetoric of the Republican Party must return to its core value of inspiring Americans towards the American Dream.

So, before I can take off my Romney sticker and face reality, I want to be assured that my laptop can soon advertise the name of a capable Republican candidate like Bobby Jindal.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell.edu

A Land-Grant Fishing Expedition

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

From a purely academic point of view, most undergraduate distribution requirements at Cornell are unjustified.

Our function as a land-grant university is the starting point for any discussion of curriculum. As public servants-in-training—even those of us not in the contract colleges—our mission as students is to become proficient and productive members of society. The colleges must make this happen by teaching those proficiencies either by-the-major or via universal requirements (hereafter, “requirements”). So, how do requirements affect the land-grant mission?

It is ironic that two of the three undergraduate contract colleges have the least restrictive requirements. Human Ecology is essentially fully tailored-by-major; ILR includes some humanities to break up the intensive college curriculum. The more preprofessional of the endowed colleges, AAP, Engineering, and Hotel Management, have some. CALS has a moderate amount, but none compares to the behemoth liberal curriculum of the Arts school.

How do these disparate approaches affect outcomes like public service, positive research output, and post-graduation employment? Unfortunately, we cannot make apples-to-oranges comparisons between the colleges due to their vast differences in structure and funding. Further, graduate unemployment (excluding those who go to graduate school) is not informative: 34% in Human Ecology; 4% in ILR; 23% in CALS; 18% in A&S (2011 survey data).

Clearly, we need to ask better questions about the purpose and effectiveness of requirements, justifying their enormous impact on the academic landscape at Cornell. That sounds expensive and slow, so we can start by weighing current claims against the burden of proof.

The Arts school claims that its liberal education “will change the way you think, challenge your assumptions, and make you take a deeper look at the world around you. It will…prepare you for a lifetime of intellectual growth and adventure.” Gladly, having endured this adventurous process, I am indeed adept at challenging assumptions. Liberal requirements were romanticized centuries ago, long before modern policymaking practices were developed. Consequently, there is a severe lack of evidence that requirements are necessary for students to develop an advanced ‘personal epistemology’ during college. (Reading the Review, however, is essential.)

Admittedly, it is difficult to perform experiments on students. Until social scientists swoop in and save the day, administrators ought to take a more open-minded perspective on how students prefer to prepare themselves for public service. Consider undergraduate research, one of the most enriching student endeavors. It allows undergrads to become highly proficient in a specific field of their choice, as well as practiced in the most modern, applications of knowledge. It is almost never a course requirement, and it is usually pursued directly by the student, for disproportionately few credits, with little to no help from the standardized curricula. In fact, it is the antithesis of the requirement. It competes directly with distribution courses on eager students’ schedules.

Now, read once more the Arts school’s claim about liberal education: “…change the way you think, challenge your assumptions, and make you take a deeper look at the world around you…prepare you for a lifetime of intellectual growth and adventure.” It could just as easily be talking about research. What is the value in such a broad claim? It seems more likely that the supposed worldliness and mental hunger of Arts students is merely an artifact of selection bias, those socially-minded students having applied to the Arts school in the first place.

There is a great deal to learn from requirements in the humanities and elsewhere, but it is imperative that students be allowed to seek mental maturity in their field of choice. Would the productivity and average GPA of Engineering students go up if they could replace their humanities with study time or sleep? Would students get more out of a stint at the Cornell Daily Sun or the Cornell Review in lieu of a Freshman Writing Seminar? How many students ever use their foreign language for more hours than they spent learning it? Getting to the core of the matter: how many students actually want requirements, regardless of whether or not they enjoy them?

We should be frightened that so many basic questions remain about the validity and cost-effectiveness of broad requirements, especially amidst high graduate unemployment, increasing tuition, and a world increasingly in need of advanced professionals. In the absence of data on requirements, our colleges ought to look to their own critical, public-benefit-driven programs—the ones we came for—rather than burning credits at the altar of Arts & Sciences.

Lucas Policastro is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences, and is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Review. He can be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.

City Regulations Are Driving Up Your Rent

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

Like many urban centers throughout the United States, Ithaca’s Collegetown neighborhood is plagued with rising rent prices and a deteriorating housing supply. As a result, real estate developers cannot provide quality housing at reasonable rents to students. Housing reform needs to be made in order to ensure that students can find comfortable living space at a reasonable price.

The only way to meet such demands is to remove limitations on real estate development.

Government regulations are currently restricting private sector developers. They are preventing them from taking advantage of the full potential of the land they develop, thus constraining them to offer a limited housing stock. With demand of housing exceeding supply, the market produces higher prices than would provide optimal efficiency.

Such regulations can be seen as a failure of land-use policy across the United States, and one of the major reasons quality affordable housing cannot exist in America’s greatest cities. Ithaca is no exception. In order to make Ithaca more livable for students, we must rethink some of the most restrictive land-use regulations imposed by the local government over the Collegetown area.

First, there is an off-street parking requirement in Ithaca mandating the construction of one parking space per three persons renting. In a building housing 300 students, for example, there must be 100 parking spaces.

In response, Ithaca developers have three course of action, if they chose to build in Collegetown. They can build parking underground, build parking at ground level with housing above, or build a parking lot which takes up valuable city land. Even before one brick is laid in the construction process, the parking requirement alone constitutes up to and over a million dollars in capital and opportunity costs. That is money that could be used to improve the quality of housing built. It is money that also drives up the cost of rent for students.

Considering that most students do not have cars on campus and that parking should not be the government’s problem to begin with, a policy without such regulation would prove more livable.

Likewise, the city government imposes a regulation that limits building land coverage to 40%. In the suburbs, this regulation would work fine, but we’re talking about apartments for students in an urban neighborhood. The other 60% of the land is valuable and should be used to increase the supply of housing. Without this regulation, developers would have more freedom in providing the kind of housing students want according to their needs, leading to maximum efficiency.

Finally, most of Collegetown has a building height restriction of four stories, with a few places allowed six stories. A regulation in building height again limits the developer’s creativity in providing more housing at a better quality for lower rents. This would occur without decreasing the developer’s profit, as it allows for lower marginal building costs per unit. It is also much more environmentally friendly and economically sustainable—two characteristics the city of Ithaca should strive to promote.

Thus, deregulating land use within the city would encourage creativity in the private sector. It falls upon our elected officials to understand the students’ voice and realize that the housing restrictions are crippling the student experience and greater Ithaca economy. Encouraging innovation in real estate development is the only way to bring about real housing reform in Ithaca and throughout the United States.

Michael Loffredo is a sophomore in the College of Architecture and Art Planning. He can be reached at mjl343@cornell.edu.

Tocqueville’s Prophecy Fulfilled

2012-12-04T00:00:00Z

As with most things, the 2012 election’s outcome should be examined through the lens of a decidedly historical interpretation. Therefore, we shall seek the answers to our questions in the past, for our upcoming future was predicted more than a century ago, and by a foreigner at that.

During his travels across the United States, which was still in its embryonic stages during the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville’s aristocratic convictions were challenged by the utterly unique and exceptional political culture he encountered here on the bustling North American continent. There can be little doubt that he was impressed with the economic opportunities associated with upward social mobility offered in the States, and found stimulating the narrative of the “Common Man”, which was embodied in the life of the illustrious President Andrew Jackson.

But Tocqueville did not hesitate to express some disquiet about what he defined as the potential for the “tyranny of the majority” to dominate and for the emergence of a so-called neo-aristocracy of manufactures which might tyrannize the citizenry. These worries have been exhaustively and tirelessly discussed by academics in the intervening years and will be ignored here.

But one of Tocqueville’s less publicized reservations concerned the vulnerability of the democratic citizenry itself. His warnings undoubtedly bear quite heavily on the electoral happenings which recently swept the US and bear just as severely on the cultural implications we can now clearly observe.

He asked: Would Americans grow so obsessed with the promises of upward social mobility and the hypnotic narrative of “equality” that they would ultimately be willing to sacrifice their liberties to an all-encompassing and ostensibly benevolent mega-state in exchange for promises to secure their material comfort and protect them from the rigors of the civic landscape? After all, if the citizenry is so moved by its infatuation with material acquisitions and personal effects, it would surely be prone to voluntarily surrender its agency and power to the government in order to secure the abundant benefits of the state. Tocqueville feared that the people would be bribed.

Indeed, promised Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the day would come when conditions would motivate the citizenry to turn in complete exasperation, after shallow disillusionment with “freedom”, and eagerly seek to inaugurate the rise of an “‘immense and tutelary power”, which “takes it upon itself” to “secure [their] gratifications, and [which would] watch over [their] fate.” Hoping to be parented and spoon fed for the sake of placating their growing list of petty tastes and material demands, the citizenry would sow the seeds of its own future domination by willingly surrendering its powers to an expansive, growing, parentally benevolent guardian.

Hence, the citizens will embrace a culture of dependence by becoming co-conspirators in their own undoing: the state will in effect “keep [them] in perpetual childhood” out of overweening concern for their own welfare.

Instead of relying on individual initiative and self-determination, the democratic citizenry can now be said to hail the state as its “sole agent and the only arbiter of [its] happiness.” This scenario is pitifully ironic (and sounds remarkably familiar to modern observers), because the formerly free citizens shall slowly slide into a state of firm dependence on its overlords ruling the state apparatus, and this robs them of their free thinking and freely-wielded faculties, and hence “free agency” is the primary and ultimate victim of this new arrangement: “Thus it everyday renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself.” It “reduces [them] to be nothing better than a flock of timid [...] animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

Tocqueville's clairvoyance clearly extended to the 21st century. He accurately envisioned the emergence of an all-encompassing nanny state that would, in the spirit of benevolence, “provide for their security, foresee and supply their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manage their principal concerns, direct their industry, regulate their descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances. What remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.”

In light of the Frenchman’s warnings, we can now declare with confidence that the foundation of the American political tradition has irreparably shifted its course and, frankly, its cultural trajectory, just as was predicted. The bulk of the American electorate now appears to no longer be motivated by the stout and reliable ethos of rugged individualism, personal agency, and self-reliance. The recent election’s results bespeak the fundamental sentiment of our new national character, one we can now characterize as the cheerful surrender of our national exceptionalism.

Once animated and spiritually motivated by promises premised on the principles of free enterprise and cultural independence from external societal “assistance” (mostly Federal interference), key demographics of the American political community have enthusiastically celebrated the replacement of the entrepreneurial culture with both the entitlement culture and the victimization narrative (the culture of excuse-making). They now insist upon the rapid acceleration of policies consistent with Cultural Marxism. They now embrace what Tocqueville astutely branded “perpetual childhood”. The cozy crib of the ostensibly benevolent governmental parent is simply too irresistible. Contrasting the two philosophies, Tocqueville wrote, “That power is absolute [...] provident [...] and its object [is] to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors”— meanwhile, the skills of its citizens atrophy due to open refusal to cultivate and work in the name of self-reliance and personal autonomy. Independence be damned!

In short, the once venerated narrative of personal initiative was utterly rejected in a second straight election. What is more, policies geared toward empowering both the private sector and the private citizenry to innovatively cultivate its ingenuity through aggressive removal of restrictive and burdensome impositions by the government seem to have been successfully rebuffed. Terms like “job creation”, “personal responsibility” and “self reliance” are either scoffed at or construed as selfishly provincial concepts. Any statesmen caught using them are dismissed, ruthlessly belittled, dubbed heartless, denounced as cruel and greedy, and altogether condemned as anachronistic.

The children of the entitlement culture yearn for the expansion of their safety net regardless of the costs, regardless of the price their own creative capacities experience. Eagerly seeking gratification from their bureaucratic parents, they now wallow in the culture of dependence, perpetual childhood and voluntary surrender of their own abilities, and await the spoils of class antagonism. This seems reminiscent of what Tocqueville brands timid flocks of animals refusing to elevate themselves to manhood (workhood).

Hence, the steadily intensifying vilification of the tradition of robustly individualistic self-reliance has become mainstream rhetorical fodder for the consumption of the masses and election campaigns of cunning public officials (not statesmen). We are helpless to deny that for decades our academic establishment, our elite press outlets, and our entertainment mediums (popular culture) have cleverly pursued a strategy aimed toward undermining the cornerstones of self-reliance by large and expanding segments of the electorate. These new segments are nothing more than “an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives”, as Tocqueville warned. They voluntarily sow the seeds of their own subservience, and have become the enthusiastic architects of their own spiritual degradation.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the School of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@ cornell.edu.

In the Debate Space with Sam Nelson

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

In a sit-down interview, Sam Nelson, director of the Cornell Forensics Society (Speech and Debate), and Senior Lecturer in the Cornell Forensics Department, offered his insight and unique perspective on the three recent presidential debates.

Nelson indicated that the secret of every academic debate is not necessarily to persuade in general, but merely to persuade a uniquely defined and targeted audience, and to tailor one’s arguments with that specific audience in mind.

“In non-critical debates, or in front of a political audience, the rationale for engagement is somewhat different,” noted Nelson. The vast majority of the individuals in the audience already know who they will vote for before the debate is even announced. But they are watching in order to determine why they will vote as they plan to.

Thus, observers of a political debate are “watching simply because they are in search of clear reasons to vote for the candidate they already know they’ll be supporting,” he added. They merely watch to affirm a decision that has already been made in their minds. Hence, there are a very small percentage of voters who base their decisions on who actually “wins” the televised debates.

“Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your political perspective, that three percent of voters is potentially critical in American elections, especially because of the importance of undecideds in battleground states,” cautioned Nelson.

Nelson’s rapid but cogent assessment was that Romney arguably won all three debates, or at least secured a 2-1 victory overall.

After all, his performances appeared (1) sufficiently concrete (impressive) and (2) he made no major gaffes. Based on the conventional criteria for winning presidential debates, he obviously won the first debate, in which he aggressively pursued Obama, who was decidedly weak in style and lacked animation. Romney’s entire crisp delivery, demeanor, presence and temperament appeared presidential. This carried over into the second debate; although Obama “fought back hard,” Romney was merely required to hold his own (rhetorically) sufficiently while still appearing presidential.

As for the foreign policy debate, Romney, who might have initially appeared to be at a disadvantage, fulfilled his role in that he didn’t show considerable weakness in substance, he stood toe-to-toe with the president on his own turf in a substantive manner, he didn’t make any obvious blunders, and he “appeared reasonably intelligent.”

The unspoken implication, which was the subtext of Nelson’s analysis throughout the interview, is that Romney’s debate performances did not offer his supporters – and even undecideds – any glaring reasons not to vote for him, given the criteria set forth here. In fact, he did quite the contrary.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

After I’m Dead and Gone

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

There are many important issues at stake in this election, but it should be clear to all young voters that we are fighting over a political system designed by politicians for individuals who have long since left this world. Our healthcare and social security programs were designed when my grandma was born, our social policies when my dad was born, and our military policies just after I was born.

While this is a tremendous testament to the stability of American politics, it is also a product of generational shortsightedness. Policies designed with the best intentions and under tremendous pressure were also designed poorly and have left trillions on the table. It would be narrow-minded to say that this isn’t a universal problem; all countries with a vibrant democratic system are prone to certain policy inefficiencies, but that does not mean we, as future recipients and taxpayers, should not demand more from our government.

As youth voters, it is not only our responsibility to voice our concerns but also to promote policies that leave the next generation in a position to realize their own political and social goals. This article is not an endorsement of a Presidential candidate, but rather an explanation of what I want to leave for the next generation.

Health and Wellness

The New York City ban on large sugary drinks is indicative of the larger flaws in our healthcare system, and the relationship between costs and the government. While I abhor the measure’s effect on my ability to be a consumer in the marketplace, the ban is a logical step for local governments that are increasingly being called upon to pay for individual health costs.

The government involvement in healthcare insurance for the elderly, the poor, and a variety of other groups leaves taxpayers sensitive to the poor health decisions that individuals make on an everyday basis. Be they proactive decisions such as smoking or eating certain foods, or passive decisions such as failing to work out, it all results in higher costs for the government, and therefore to us as taxpayers.

Due to this sensitivity, the government has been forced to tax, ban, and regulate its way out of the problem. In the case of the first, since politicians dictate taxation, the objective is usually revenue maximization rather than deadweight loss minimization. On bans, the result is additional deadweight loss, for the government usually fails to take into account the benefits of non-monetary factors. Regulation, usually seen as the least pervasive of the three, is reduced in effectiveness by our government’s bureaucratic systems.

The market’s solution to his problem has been to connect individuals to not only the costs, but also the benefits of their decisions. This means tying premiums to everyday health measures, and providing incentives for healthy decisions. If we are to solve the crisis of healthcare in this country, which is cost, we need to align incentives and take it upon ourselves to make healthy decisions.

Retirement and Support for the Aged Poor

The role that Social Security plays in supporting most individuals in retirement is well-documented. The program has gone from a basic insurance program, which most people never lived long enough to collect from, to the primary source of retirement income. This system we have in place, like most government insurance programs, is built on demographic ratios and thus is not designed to meet the demands of future recipients.

The program fails on two fronts. First, it fails to provide individuals with an adequate risk adjusted rate of return relative to investments in the marketplace. Individuals in public and private pensions regularly obtain higher return than social security, with great long-term security. This results not only in trillions in opportunity cost, but it also helps maintain the income inequality gap in this country.

Second, it does not provide enough support for individuals on the very bottom of the spectrum who rely on it for the entirety of their income.

Therefore, for the next generation, we need to shift Social Security from a retirement system back to a social safety net. Allowing individuals to invest in the marketplace would not only allow them to share in the returns gained by the 1%, but would also pump trillions back into the economy, providing jobs for millions out of work.

Electoral Reform

I consider debate around social issues to be heavily tied to our election law. Despite all the concerns with both presidential candidates, there hasn’t been any real support for a 3rd party candidate. This is somewhat surprising given the fact that Ross Perot made two semi-successful Presidential runs, despite less concern about candidate quality. While I’m not going to speculate on the recent shift away from third parties, we can all agree that our current system simply promotes the status quo politically.

While electoral reform is a major challenge given the need for legislation to get anything done, this is arguably the best solution to social problems in the country. Reaffirming the strength of our democratic process will ensure that all voices will be heard, not just those in swing states. For me, this means instant runoffs and an abolishment of the Electoral College, but there are plenty of other good ideas out there. Either way, we need some change to a system where change is quite lacking.

The glaring omission to this small and incomplete list is, of course, the economy, which I’ve left off purposely. Issues such as taxes and regulation are mostly short term and will change countless times over the next couple of decades. Even problems related to the debt, which are paid for over 30 year periods, are short-term. While I think there will be some resolution to the financial crisis related to entitlements, that issue will have to be resolved when I’m gone.

This election is not going to solve the many problems holding back our economy and social progress. The negative rhetoric and partisan politics are preventing any serious efforts for reform. However, there is no long-term legislative plan for government. Everything is focused around 2 and 4-year cycles, so it is impossible to really play the long game with candidates and messages. Therefore, if we are to realize genuine reform for the next generation, it’s going to have to start on November 6th, 2012.

Battleground Collegetown

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

The Collegetown area is the core of social life for Cornell students. It provides substantial housing options and hosts many of Cornell’s social activities, such as parties and fun eateries. But Collegetown has its share of problems. Understanding both the benefits and problems regarding Collegetown should be an important for all students. And thus it also has become a battleground for the Ward 4 political arena.

The Collegetown Neighborhood Fair was a good first step in introducing general knowledge regarding Collegetown. The Collegetown Student Council, whose main duties include improving the Collegetown area and enhancing relations between students, landlords, and local residents, organized the neighborhood fair. The fair was meant to enhance community relations and engage students with information regarding Collegetown, specifically housing.

To this end, the fair accomplished its goals, but this is only a first step in dealing with the issues of Collegetown. The fair only provided basic information, such as student housing forums and general safety information.

To be informed about the issues, however, students need a deeper level of understanding. In a recent interview with the Cornell Review, Eric Silverberg, President of Collegetown Student Council, discussed how students can get involved.

“Regardless of whether a student intends to join our Council, all students – simply by being mindful of their conduct – nevertheless, can take ownership of a neighborhood that so many call home,” stated Silverberg.

The student council is a great way for individual Cornell students to get involved, but much of Collegetown’s problems lie in the policies instituted by larger government institutions, such as the Ithaca government. Thus, simply being mindful can at best only improve the general ambience of the area. Students, unaware of the real issues, cannot hope to help with the problems facing Collegetown.

What is meant by Collegetown problems? Eric Silverberg and the Collegetown Council explained that economic development, student relations, and safety were the main issues involving Collegetown. This statement scratches the surface of the problems facing Collegetown. And while many of these problems are complicated, they are nonetheless important for students to understand.

As a student looking to rent in Collegetown, I have first-hand experience with off campus housing options. One of the biggest problems is high rent. Living in a small apartment with four people can costs over $900 a month, making it very expensive for students. In addition, high rent affects the cost of business and thus makes conducting a small business more difficult.

This is an important issue, but it is rare to see students actually discussing realistic solutions. For example, government regulations and high property taxes are some primary causes of higher rent. Reducing these burdens, by instituting pro-growth policies, would be pragmatic and fiscally responsible solutions to the problem. And by examining these issues within the lens of politics, students can become more engaged in their community and more accurately incur change.

Another problem facing Collegetown, and the Cornell Community, is the recent sexual assault cases. Reducing crime is a more difficult problem to solve, and with Ithaca’s government in debt, it may seem like not much can be done. Surely the first step is promoting responsible conduct for students, but more can be accomplished. Again, these issues represent problems with local polices. What are the government, and the even Cornell administration, spending money on? And why are more resources not being devoted to protecting the people?

At the fair, the Police handed out pamphlets with general safety information, but again, this only is a first step in solving the problem. Students should be more actively engaged with the government, and demand at very least a shift in spending towards essential functions of government, such as the police. In conjunction with a more fiscally conservative economic policy, the police might actually be able to do more for students instead of simply telling people to lock their doors.

With such issues facing Collegetown, it’s no surprise that the area has become a local battleground arena.

“If we are going to use city resources wisely, we must prioritize,” stated Misha Checkovich, a Cornell student running for Ward 4 Alderwoman. “There is clearly not enough money in the budget to do everything everyone might wish. My main concerns, and I believe every resident's main concerns, are safety and infrastructure: the basic foundation to any great place to live and work.

With this theme of prioritize, Checkovich has suggested what some of input would be as the only student and only Republican on the Council.

“My priorities are to improve the streets, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes to make living and working in Ward 4 not only easier but safer for everyone. I also want to address building safety and resident safety issues. This particularly includes fire and housing safety and the personal safety of residents.”

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the first step in becoming a responsible citizen is being aware of the issues. Collegetown isn’t simply a place near Cornell, it is an opportunity for students to get involved with politics and actually enact visible change in their community. These problems have real solutions; they merely need a student-led community ready to fight for them.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

The Other Big Bird: The FCC

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

Mitt Romney’s now-infamous comment about de-funding PBS has sparked a firestorm of controversy between Republicans and Democrats across the nation, but this firestorm obfuscates a larger point the Right should address: the government should not only stop funding the creation of broadcast content, but it should also stop regulating broadcast content as well.

There is a reason for the government to be at least indirectly involved in broadcasting. Without regulation, radio and television airwaves could be flooded with various signals from competing entities, potentially rendering wireless technologies unusable or unreliable due to signal interference and varying transmission standards. Thus, it makes sense for a governmental entity to play the role of wireless spectrum referee where no-one else in the free market can and where true laissez-faire competition would destroy the proverbial commons.

In 1934, Congress created an organization tasked with doing just that: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Broadly, the FCC regulates who broadcasts what, how, and when, predominantly to prevent signal overlap and to foster national standards (including the ATSC standard, which is the signal for digital television). The FCC even holds auctions of various electromagnetic spectrum, which not only help police the airwaves but help make the government some serious dough.

But the FCC isn’t all about technological standardization and auctions – it has long since established itself as a national censor, establishing what can and cannot be said on broadcast radio and television. FCC decency regulations cover everything from swear words to nudity, and the FCC heavily penalizes any broadcast radio or television channel that deliberately or accidentally broadcasts content in violation of these regulations.

In other words, the modern FCC is the governmental equivalent of a doting, highly puritanical mother that can levy multi-million dollar fines.

The issue of the legality of the FCC’s censorship power has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court in numerous cases, though the Supreme Court has been less than clear regarding what the FCC can and cannot do. In 1978, the Supreme Court held in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation that the FCC could regulate indecent broadcast content in certain circumstances. Much later, in 2009, the Supreme Court decided in FCC v. Fox Television Studios that the FCC could ban “fleeting expletives” on broadcast television, and that the prohibition thereof was neither arbitrary nor capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, in that case, the Court expressly refrained from considering the case on First Amendment grounds. On remand, and almost as a direct challenge to FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Second Circuit vacated the FCC’s fine on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the FCC’s regulations were unconstitutionally vague. After granting certiorari (again), the Supreme Court (in the 2012 version of FCC v. Fox Television Studios) held that fines imposed before the “fleeting expletives” rule came into effect were the result of “unconstitutionally vague” regulations, but simultaneously upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate television licenses where its content regulations were not unconstitutionally vague.

In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the FCC has the power to regulate content in spite of the First Amendment, but this ruling is so narrow that it may be all but destroyed by subsequent cases.

Accordingly, at least for the time being, the FCC isn’t just a regulator of the technical side of broadcasting: it is also a (dubiously constitutional) censor, making normative decisions about what content should and should not appear on broadcast television.

The FCC’s censorship power is quite dangerous. As I have argued in this column before, the government is ill-equipped to determine what is and is not appropriate in art, especially in a way that gives fair notice to those who create content. Current FCC regulations are awkward and inconsistent, allowing grotesque depictions of violence in shows like Law & Order while simultaneously prohibiting even the slightest hint of Janet Jackson’s nipple on television. Even assuming that censorship is indeed necessary, modern technology (such as swear filter boxes and the “v-chip”) censors content perfectly well without FCC assistance.

Any good Democrat would argue that the funds going to the censorship-tasked department of the FCC are so little that cutting them would not save us from the deficit. Of course, this is very true – considering the fines levied by the FCC for decency violations, the FCC’s censorship efforts likely fund themselves. Nonetheless, just as with the funding of PBS, the important question here is normative, not quantitative: it is about whether or not the government should be involved in broadcast regulation at all, not whether or not cutting it would save a lot of tax dollars.

Just as much as it should not be involved in funding the creation of broadcast content, the government has no place in regulating broadcast content. While the technological side of the FCC is a positive force in the community, the censoring body of the FCC has done little other than enforce dubiously “moral” values upon the American public.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Learning to Appreciate the Small Things

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

After two years away from Cornell in the South Korean Army as a combat medic, I returned to Ithaca this semester as a senior. The Army had forced me to mature but nevertheless, as a senior, I needed to get a job. Or at least decide what to do after graduation. Thus, I was forced to ask myself what I liked, what I disliked, and the multiple other questions lost seniors ask themselves.

Last week, my Islamic history professor seemed to attack the heart of my problem when he asked our class, “What have you truly learned from your Cornell education?” Some of us ventured a few feeble squeaks but nobody seemed to have answers that were worth sharing. I privately indulged in my own thoughts and indeed wondered what I will have truly learned from Cornell after I left. Would Winston Churchill, international monetary theory, and French be what I learned at Cornell? Or was it something else?

In my attempt to conjure an intelligent answer to this question, I reflected upon my recent experiences in the South Korean Army and my discussions with other ex-military students on campus. Maybe these students, who had also experienced life outside school, would give answers, and answer they did.

So, I decided to write a short article about their stories—stories which seemed worth sharing with the Cornell community.

Chris Johnson, a graduate student at the economics department, told me his tale. After college, Chris had served in the United States Marine Corps as an infantry officer. As he conducted two combat tours in Iraq, Chris was forced to adjust quickly. He seemed to downplay the dangers he had faced when he said, he was “lucky” to have had been in a relatively safe area in Iraq. After Iraq, Chris came to Cornell to pursue graduate studies.

Chris admitted there were issues in adjusting to life after the military. He humorously stated, “They [Chris’s parents] had to remind me that my sister was not one of my marines and I could not speak to her as such.”

When asked what the military had taught him though, Chris’s voice changed.

“I had a friend that I trained with and was killed on his first tour to Afghanistan. He had just married his girlfriend and they had moved to Japan. I also had a Marine in my platoon who deployed with me to Iraq and we returned back to the US, but he volunteered to go immediately back to Iraq and was killed by an IED.”

Chris added the following: “You learn not to take for granted what we have. I know a lot of great people who have sacrificed a lot to be here [Cornell], so, I’m not trying to take that away from them at all. But I just know that, when you know what we’ve seen in the military, and had to live in that environment, you just learn not to take for granted friendships, your relationships with your family, and air-conditioning, running water. Things could be a lot worse, very easily.”

Eonho Lee ‘13, formerly a UN peacekeeper with the UN Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL), also commented on his military experience.

“Let’s be honest. I understand Cornell is diverse. I am myself a part of that diversity, being an international student. Yet we’re all college students; we’re, for the most part, protected from extreme situations such as starving to death or witnessing personal acquaintances getting killed. The Army introduced me to a diversity I had never encountered.”

He continued, “There was a buddy whose father that was a part of a gang dealing with the prostitution industry. Another guy in my unit had attempted suicide, only to be stopped by another person at the last minute.”

Eonho was brave enough to conclude, “At first, I unconsciously belittled them. Yeah, I might have felt sorry for some of them, but I was arrogant without my knowing it. I made assumptions. However, after mingling with these guys, I found out they had qualities I did not. I really learned that every person has a story. Every person has something he or she can teach me.”

Dave Blome, another former U.S. marine who had served in Iraq, and current graduate student in the history department, pointed out another benefit we often overlooked:

“Cancer survivors might say the same thing. But I am appreciative most of just being able to move my arms and legs. Being able to enjoy the sun. Having the capability to ride my bike when I have the time. Back in Iraq, I came to terms with the prospect that in 15 minutes, 30 minutes or an hour, everything might be dark—that I would be dead. I haven’t forgotten that. Now, little things like a good laugh with friends or family remind me of how great it is just to be living life.”

Perhaps though, the last word goes to Junhyung Lee ‘15, a computer science major in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Junhyung had served as a Thermo Observational Device (a special camera that sees objects in red, yellow, and orange, depending on the temperature of the figures) specialist on the heavily fortified North-South Korean border. The two Koreas are still officially at war, and border skirmishes are not uncommon as nearly 1 million armed men stand guard in bunkers, staring at one another across the border.

After his service, Junhyung commented on what he had learned to appreciate.

“I missed Sprite. I missed the freedom to walk over to a soda shop and buy a can of Sprite without worrying about reporting, getting permission, or potentially being shot at.”

Indeed these students’ stories convey the thanks and appreciation we often forget to give our friends, families, classmates, fellow employees, and in general, our opportunity to learn. And of course, our sprites.

But, to go back to the question my professor had thrown: what have we learned here?

These students gained an appreciation of the many things in life we forget to thank, not because those things are unimportant but rather because they are so essential that we take them for granted. Let’s learn to appreciate the small things in life, because if we think about them, they may not be so small at all.

Now or Never for Conservatism

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

Next week’s election is quite possibly the last chance for the great American experiment. The notions of limited government, personal responsibility, and the civil society imagined by our founding fathers are on the verge of final collapse. Why? As President John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our population has moved so far away from this ideal that it may be impossible to recover.

This is personified by the rise of such voters as the Obamaphone Lady. The surprising part is not that she would sell her vote, but that the price would be so low. The existence of citizens like her points to the absolute failure (and corruption) of the civic education of the American population. Rush Limbaugh described this sentiment best, saying, “So these are the people that don’t like Romney because of what he said about 47 percent? No, these are the 47 percent!... She knows. She knows how to get this free Obama phone. She knows everything about it. She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an  Obama phone.” The unnamed Obamaphone Lady personifies the 47% Romney spoke of. The candidate was widely criticized for this “gaffe”, but the sub- stance of his comment is correct. 47% is exactly where the incumbent stands in the polls as of October 30.

This group is not merely made up of those dependent on the government as Romney suggested, but is a coalition of government dependents and their idealistic enablers. After Obama’s objectively disastrous term, and facing as vanilla and unobjectionable a Republican as Romney, these 47 percent are sticking by Democrat ideals. If they cannot be converted in this election, with the economy, foreign relations, and social cohesion this bad, they never will.

If the Obama reign has been insufficient, no presidency and no events will ever be enough to allow a widespread reverse of liberal indoctrination.

This trend has been worsening since the days of the Great Depression. Our current state has followed from an endless string of policies and regulations that have corrupted the minds and souls of the citizenry for the benefit of those temporary leaders and guardians of our society—politicians. Now, the progressive dream is on the verge of having more popular support than the American dream.

All of this though, was predicted centuries ago. Benjamin Franklin said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." He was echoed by Alexis de Tocqueville, the first outside analyzer of the American system: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” More than 200 years later, have we finally reached the point where those who would vote only in their selfish interests outnumber those who vote with the future good in mind?

If Obama wins this election, it will signify that the 47% has become more than 50%, and that the permanent descent into soft tyranny has begun. The Democratic creation of and subsequent dominance, race- baiting, and demagoguery of the country’s demographic shift ensures this. Conservatives will be a minority in our own land, prevented by the nanny state from living the way we want

in the country we created. If Romney wins, there is still time to postpone Franklin’s prediction. There will still be time to answer the challenge of Samuel Adams: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached nk366@cornell.edu.

America, This Is What You Voted For

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

If you haven’t been paying much attention to politics this election season, start now.

Contained in this article is in- formation every American should know. Before you cast your vote, be- fore you make up your mind, and be- fore you even discuss politics with one more person, take five minutes out of your day to read it.

The Obama Administration faced some controversy earlier this year when the existence of its so-called “kill list” of al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists became public knowledge. Suspects on the list were designated for “kill or capture,” and critics were troubled by the government’s endorsement of what was essentially a document authorizing the assassination of a slew of terror suspects who had never stood trial—some of whom were Americans.

Politically tricky as President Obama’s use of this list might be, however, it is not my main concern here. My concern is with a 16-year-old boy named Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was an American citizen. I say was because he was killed just over a year ago by an American drone. Despite the fact that his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was on Obama’s hit list, Abdulrahman’s death was not an unintended or unavoidable side-effect of the drone strike that ended his father’s life. To the contrary, Abdulrahman was killed in a separate strike two weeks after his father’s death.

Though Anwar al-Awlaki was a known al-Qaeda member who actively encouraged terrorism against the US, his son had no such record. In fact, according to Esquire’s po- litical blog, he hadn’t seen his father once in the two years before their deaths.

What is the Obama Administration’s explanation for all this? Firstly, it should be noted that, after Abdulrahman was killed, Yemeni officials incorrectly reported his age as 21. Now, though, we know he was only 16. Secondly, shortly after the killing, Time reports that a US official said Abdulrahman’s death was in fact a case of collateral damage, though not related to his father’s assassination. The official claimed that the drone that killed Abdulrahman (and his teenage cousin and several others) was meant for al-Qaeda member Ibrahim al-Banna, who was also killed in the attack.

However, a video featured on The Atlantic’s website shows White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs giving a different explanation to a reporter. Speaking of Abdulrah- man, the reporter points out, “It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, with- out trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.”

Gibbs’ response is as follows: 

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

So, there you have it. The White House has apparently taken to defending Abdulrahman’s killing. Despite the fact that he was a child. And an American citizen. And never convicted— or accused— of any crime. According to Press Secretary Gibbs, the simple misfortune of having a criminal in the family was enough to seal his fate as the victim of a deadly attack launched by his own country.

I don’t believe I need to say how sickening this position is, no matter what your political leaning. If you’re a tough-on-terror security hawk, your first concern should be the protection of American citizens like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and the endurance of the legal protections—including the right to due process—that help make America a country worth fighting for. And if you’re a civil rights activist who was moved by Obama’s promises to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (which, by the way, is still open), you should be shocked and maddened at his administration’s evidently flippant attitude toward the killing of a supposed-to-be-presumed-innocent American citizen.

As Americans, we generally don’t believe the identity of a person’s father should deter- mine his year ly income or  where he goes  to school, let  alone whether  or not he lives  or dies; and as  a country we  would be fool ish to deny Abdulrahman’s killing and the White House’s subsequent defense of it the scrutiny they deserve. We would be foolish not to ask ourselves whether the man we put in the Oval Office four years ago is the one we want running things four years from now.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

The Stakes Are Too High

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

It is abundantly clear that the case for removing President Obama on November 6th can (and should) be made on entirely economic grounds.

Frankly, any lengthy diatribe here about foreign policy would amount to a needless distraction for three reasons. (1) The recent presidential “debate” has exposed the striking degree to which both Obama and Romney essentially agree on critical foreign policy questions: stated commitments to staunchly support Israel, devotion to preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and a pledge to limit military interventionism; (2) the prevailing sentiment, largely shared by foreign affairs analysts, that the greatest threat to national security is, in truth, the lethargic state of the economic recovery and the outstanding severity of the debt; (3) the acknowledgement among the vast majority of voters that pocketbook issues should obviously predominate over all other questions. For these reasons, we shall focus entirely on the economic case for removing Obama.

First, we are powerless to deny the glaring truth that the U.S economy desperately relies upon the optimism and confidence of its small businesses, the dynamism of its entrepreneurs, the rate of their start-ups, and the vitality of the markets which they are responsible for generating. Assuredly, the trajectory of the recovery cannot possibly improve if small-businesses and large companies feel under siege, or lack confidence in their future prospects, and are therefore unwilling to engage in robust economic activity. After all, they amount to the overwhelming majority of enterprises in the private sector (estimation: 95%), and employ some 52% of American private sector workers according to the Small Business Administration.

We are also powerless to deny that these very agents of economic growth have felt alienated by the policies of the Obama administration. The confusion and fear which has been induced by Obamacare, in particular, has reportedly rendered a paralyzing effect on an astounding number of small business owners. Its already mounting costs could very well prompt startled business owners, who simply cannot afford to bear its burdens, to accelerate the laying off of its workers. This fact is commonly recognized in most chambers of commerce and manufacturing associations across the nation. Beset with trepidation, their members are overcome by a sense of anxiety and uncertainty about their immediate prospects, especially if Obamacare survives.

Frankly, our president has utterly failed to instill confidence in much of the private sector, and has thus failed to prompt them to rapidly accelerate job creation. The consequences have never been so clear. Without certainty, businesses forego investing, forgo hiring (job creation), forgo increasing employee wages (which would yield higher take-home pay), forgo risk taking, and forgo market expansion.

A president who fails to successfully motivate small businesses to engage in these vital activities—investing, job creation, risk-taking, market expansion and the awarding higher take-home pay to its employees— can appropriately be labeled an enemy of small businesses, in both perception and reality. Moreover, Obama’s failure to remove a sufficient number of regulatory burdens in the form of excessive red-tape, which are known to obstruct start-ups, blemishes his record, and only suppresses economic optimism all the more. His promise to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, though advertised as solely targeting the wealthy, will likely affect high in- come owners that are still struggling to keep their small businesses afloat.

In other words, many of those Obama promises to tax are at the forefront of small businesses job creation efforts. Imagine the costs!

The implications for middle-income families have been palpable. The rate at which job creation has occurred has remained staggeringly low for dozens of months. Meanwhile, the rising cost of healthcare, the persistent decrease in take-home pay, the increasing difficulty to cover the costs of utilities oil and gas are all exacerbating suffering. The 23 million unemployed or underemployed, for years, is most indicting. Obama’s inability to bring about even gradual reversals of these trends is a harrowing blight upon his record.

Given the severe human toll which the currently poor business climate is taking on American families, do we not have a moral imperative to vote for a viable alternative to the status quo?

The ushering of Romney into office itself will assuredly stimulate hope in the private sector, since the office would finally be occupied by a man who sympathizes with and relates to the struggles of small business people in an intimate fashion. He probably has a better sense for what they urgently need and could engage in dialogue more comfortably with them than Obama.

Thus, Romney’s mere presence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide. With the gradual dismantling of the regulatory scheme burdening small businesses, and with the implementation of a more small- business friendly tax code, we can expect to see an acceleration of hiring, more risk taking, more investment and less hesitation to partake in innovation. Most importantly, take-home pay is likely to rise under his tenure given these robust conditions.

Second, we turn to debt. Can there be any greater embarrassment to a president who, pledging to cut the deficit in half, instead presided over massive increases of the debt by $1 trillion each year of his term? Should there be any limit to our outrage in the face of a $16 trillion debt? Can anyone conceive of the degree to which the upcoming generations will be burdened given this figure? Should we not wallow in grief when we hear the incumbent pledging to expansions of budgetary outlays? Are we to somehow ignore the likelihood that the deficit will reach $20 trillion by the end of a second Obama term unless drastic alterations to the social safety net are implemented soon? Was anyone else depressed and exasperated to see our president forgo responding to this devastating indictment of his policies? How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to?

This brings us to the third and final justification for voting against Obama. Given the incompatibility, venom and acrimony which has simmered – and will continue to persist – between the Obama Administration and the Tea Party Congress, it seems likely that gridlock, political stalemate and low legislative productivity will also persist. This would be unacceptable, since no coherent economic agenda for reviving small businesses or reducing the deficit would be engineered in such a situation.

When Romney takes office, he will find a Tea Party Congress that will be at least somewhat eager to work with him given the similarities between their worldviews. Romney will serve to reign in the legendary hardline positions taken by Tea Party members in Congress.

As for the Democrats in the Senate, who will likely maintain their majority in November, it seems likely that they would yield, however reluctantly, to the firm pressure of the electorate by agreeing to some gradual reforms to the social safety net by agreeing to a budget reduction settlement. Nor would they hesitate to agree to tax relief for small businesses (it would amount to political suicide for them to refuse). In exchange, they would be granted the credibility to act as the gatekeepers of legislation passed by the Tea Party House of Representatives.

Romney’s history and experience of negotiating with a legislative body dominated by Democrats should instill public confidence in his ability to engineer a bipartisan consensus. He’s a pragmatist.

After the litany of his failed promises (regarding the still- high unemployment rate, the deficit and healthcare costs), the case for reelecting Obama appears increasingly weak. Most indicting, he has largely refrained from describing a substantive narrative or coherent vision for the upcoming four years that is uniquely different from that of the past four years. He has failed to articulate a clearly defined set of policy prescriptions and solutions that would move a thinking person to support him again.

What change will come about if we reelect you Mr. President?

Since “nothing” appears to be the answer, our responsibility is clear. We have a moral obligation to support the alternative to the incumbent. We should settle for nothing less. The stakes are too high.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cor- nell.edu

A Woman Voting for Democracy

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

The battle lines in the war on women have been drawn. Obviously, known to any sentient being, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side. I know because Eva Longoria tells me so, and in language I can't repeat here. I know because Debbie Wasserman Shultz shrieks it at me every so often on TV. And, since Sandra Fluke is endorsing Obama, I guess I know which way to vote now to fulfill the duties of my gender.

I will be voting for Mitt Romney.

Why would I be voting for such a racist misogynist—especially since I am both a minority and a woman? Because these women are totally out of touch with what many women want from a president, and they have badly misrepresented what Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are all about.

Firstly, I do not believe Mitt Romney is either racist or misogynistic. Being against amnesty for illegal aliens is certainly not racism, and if being against federally mandated contraception coverage is misogyny while capitulating to the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East and elsewhere under the banner of multiculturalism is not, then water is dry, Cornell is a bucket full of sunshine, and Barack Obama is a competent president.

Secondly, these women are (essentially) professional liars. Eva Longoria makes her (extremely lavish) living pretending to be fictional characters. What she contributes to society is not tangible, is not life-changing, and certainly does not come from a place of deep contemplation and scholarly pursuit, let alone a place of absolute truth. Sandra Fluke is a professional activist, who is bound to a partisan agenda that takes into account no other world views and no other solutions except that which leftism propagates—facts or, more importantly, opposing viewpoints be damned. And Debbie. Oh, Debbie. Her untruths and deceptions are legion, and well-documented. Where and how do these women find the gall to proclaim themselves the standard-bearers of my gender? Where did they ever get the idea that they represent all women and anything that is not in line with their views is by definition not what a real woman is?

What offends me is that they claim the mantle of womanhood (and without input from a huge swath of those women they claim to represent), that what they speak is undeniable, and that anyone who disagrees is de facto deficient in some way. Is someone who votes for Mitt Romney—who is certainly more accomplished than Barack Obama could even dream of being prior to his election to the presidency—really stupid? Or do they just have different priorities and a different set of political principles?

Certainly conservatism proper, which is grounded in centuries of political philosophy and reasoned inquiry, not to mention real-world experiments, is not some kooky off-shoot of some obscure political tradition. Conservatism (or classical liberalism) is what gave birth to the Western world. To wish to preserve our tradition of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government that has given rise to the freest and most prosperous society in the history of this world is not a small matter. So, when we—women, conservatives, minorities, what have you—want to vote for Mitt Romney because we believe it is he who will best execute the duties of the office in that tradition, we will do so without any of the racist or misogynistic motives that the Left unfairly ascribes to Republican voters.

I think it is appalling to write us off as dumb or racist or other vulgarities. We are trying to participate in the hallowed civic tradition of voting, and to hear that our choice is basically evil is highly undemocratic. To write off half of the electorate as hopelessly and fundamentally bad because of our preferred candidate (and by extension, our political philosophy) is dangerous to democracy and freedom itself.

I understand that it is part of our democratic tradition to protect speech, even offensive and vulgar speech. So, I am in no way calling for these women to be silenced. What I am going to call for instead is for people to look beyond identity politics, to look beyond the ideological boxes the Left has placed subsections of society in, and accept that people of any gender or race or creed can vote, in good faith, for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and that they will do so without nefarious motives.

Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu.

Fact-Checking with Sandra Fluke

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. In the presidential and vice-presidential debates, the verbal sparring is evidence enough that a skirmish of sorts is underway. The candidates are not alone in this battle of wits (if you can call it that); everyone from well-informed and well-known comedians to Twitter members who display the creative possibilities of spelling and grammar are weighing in. It is true that some constituents do not have time to be informed about all the issues, but that being the case, is anyone qualified to vote?

The United States’ forefathers were not altogether agreed on the point, but they probably could not have foreseen the extensive media that exists today, able to inform the masses with more ease and expediency than ever. The problem is that it does not always do so. Sandra Fluke, ’03, had a question-and-answer session with Cornell students and asserted we should “demand more” from the media.

Fluke stated that the common conservative qualm that she was testifying for tax-funded birth control is false: she was actually asking for privatized insurance at that time (even though she is generally in favor of tax-funded birth control). Fluke stated that the people in conservative media—“all of them”—are “angry” and have a “strategy” with which to “silence women’s voices” by “hate.” Such a generalization seems to be in opposition to her assertion that she only speaks when she knows all of the specifics.

She admitted that, although she was and is not an expert, she believes she was qualified to testify because of her ability to observe the circumstances around her. She then decried the depersonalization and dehumanization of anonymous social media, and believes to “hear from someone you know is more powerful” than listening to the media. Of course, most people dispensing information or opinions to their friends got that information from the media in the first place, and not all of it is true.

When it comes down to it, everyone is qualified to have an opinion; everyone has access to consciousness, even if not everyone articulates it with equal excellence. Every individual is qualified to determine what is best for him or her, and vote accordingly.

That is why Americans vote—because they believe that an individual knows his or her interests better than a large government Leviathan does. It does take some effort to discover the truth about issues and candidates, since candidates have, as ever, resorted to smear tactics and telling us what their opponent has done wrong rather than telling us what they are going to do right. Fact-checking websites, docking both sides for their untruths, have popped up and garnered thousands of hits.

It’s important to know the truth, not only on principle, but also because it will inform our decisions and affect our impact on our society. Ms. Fluke emphasized the importance of voting to make our voices heard. I agree with her there, even though I disagree that voting for Romney-Ryan will silence women. Maybe I’m not qualified, but I’m going to follow Ms. Fluke’s advice to observe what I’ve seen around me and vote accordingly; and it’s impossible not to see the truth that President Obama hasn’t kept his promises. I applaud Ms. Fluke for her services to needy women, and I think that if more Americans had the mentality of asking not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country, there would be fewer people disappointed by President Obama’s unsuccessful attempts to make our government all things to all people. The problem is that the government doesn’t have to be all things to all people, even though some may think it does.

Everyone griped about Mitt Romney only giving a certain percentage in taxes, and ignored the fact that he gave over $2 million voluntarily. Talk about media inaccuracy! Don’t wait to be forced—ask what you can do for your country, get informed, and keep it classy, Cornell.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

Unemployment Uncertainty

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

Jobs: it seems to be the deciding factor in the upcoming election. On both sides, we hear about economic growth and stability as the basis upon which we should vote, with Obama claiming that maintaining our current course will lead to additional job growth and Romney pointing out that the still-sluggish state of the economy necessitates a change in policy. It seems to be the only thing that directly affects voters, and the candidate who can better assure the American voters that he can spur new job growth is sure to be the winner in the upcoming election.

On some level, this is a dubious basis on which to cast a vote; despite the prevailing sentiment pushed on the American public since FDR’s New Deal, it isn’t the job of the president or the federal government to create jobs, nor should it be. It is, however, his responsibility to foster an environment which is conducive to economic growth and activity, which in turn leads to job creation. So, while a president is not always to blame for a bad economy (although, much unlike our current president, he should take a leadership role and accept responsibility for it), the long-term responses of businesses and workers to the economic climate serve as a gauge of the success or failure of the president’s policies.

The unemployment statistics released for September by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics seem to paint an optimistic, though still rather dismal, picture: Officially, unemployment is at 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since 2009. Despite a recent revision of estimated GDP growth downward to below 2%, many of President Obama’s supporters flaunt this as a vindication of his economic policies, saying that he can continue a flurry of job creation if given another four years.

Yet, anyone who delves into the way the unemployment statistics are calculated knows that many variables underlie this rosy picture of the job market. Over the past four years, the labor force participation rate (the percentage of the total working age population with or searching for a job) has been in consistent decline, dropping by nearly three percentage points since President Obama took office to a 30-year low of 63.6%. Meanwhile, the average duration of unemployment has more than doubled since 2008 to 40 weeks and has actually risen over the past three months. All this goes to show that employment prospects are still very bleak, especially for those who were laid off during the recession and have been unable to find steady work.

The biggest problem found in recent employment statistics, however, is not one of quantity of jobs but quality. While new jobs have been created in the past year, the bulk of these are low-skill service or part-time jobs, resulting in a massive mis¬allocation of human capital. In fact, when factoring in such underemployed workers, along with discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force, the rate of employment remains nearly unchanged from August to September, with just under 15% of people out of work or at a job beneath their skills.

While many of the jobs shed during the recession were moderate to high-skill jobs, the ones replacing them tend to require less skill and be lower paying. This leaves many older laid-off workers, who have developed years of experience and could be a great asset in adding value to the economy, with little choice but to compete with teenagers for jobs behind a fryer or waiting tables.

This has taken its toll on youth employment, and is reflected in a persistently high youth unemployment rate of over 17%. When you include the spike in college enrollment over the past five years turning a significant number of young people—people who would have otherwise gone into the workforce were entry-level job prospects not so weak—into students, we see that this has become and will continue to be a serious problem for the future labor force.

President Obama has claimed time and time again that his policies of relentless stimulus spending and bureaucratic red tape have helped promote job growth and brought the US back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Yet, if the employment statistics over the course of his administration are any indication, his policies have cost far more in the form of massive distortions in the labor market than the short-term benefits they brought in the form of low-paying “McJobs.”

The employment statistics for October are set to be released four days before the election. One must wonder if there will yet again be a miraculous “drop” in unemployment before people head to the voting booths.

Christopher Slijk is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cps95@cornell.edu.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Staff of the Cornell Review

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an individual and to assume the powers of the presidency, the limited yet important station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all Americans requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Administration becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to elect new Government, laying its foundation on Constitutional principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to lessen their Public Debt and Regulation. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Incumbents one-term established rarely are deposed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to remove their former Commander in Chief. The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused to govern within the confines of the powers granted to him under the Constitution of the United States.

He has misused the Executive Privilege to withhold information from the American people regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

He has forgone the War Powers Act to commit United States troops without the consent of the Senate.

He has been weak against outspoken adversaries of America.

He has piled mountains of debt upon the people; borrowing against the productivity of future generations to pay for today’s frivolous policies.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For the largest tax increase in history via Obamacare.

For the appointment of federal judges who abuse the Judiciary’s powers.

For facetious efforts to promote bipartisan cooperation.

For concealing aspects of his personal identity from the American people.

For playing the various American races and faiths against one another.

He has forbidden our Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Justice Department should bring litigation; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has ignored our Representative House repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has endeavoured to illegally increase the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to discourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of Protection of our Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by giving his Blessing to A Corrupt and Racist chief of the Department of Justice.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military impotent and inferior to Foreign powers.

For putting a tax cheat in charge of our Treasury.

For intentionally and without end devaluing our currency.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring we Americans who disagree with him out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has refused to allow us to drill our seas, mine our Lands, burn our coal, and destroyed the livelihoods of our people.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Hippie Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is the undistinguished fornication with all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Liberal brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the principles of our philosophy and lifestyle here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow their usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and Country. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of common sense. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Cornell Review, in Goldwin Smith Hall, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Conservatives of this University, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Subordination to Barack Obama, and that all political connection between them and the Obama Administration, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to elect Romney, keep the House, win the Senate, repeal Obamacare, and to do all other Acts and Things which Republican Administrations may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Signed: Lucas Policastro, Misha Checkovich, Noah Kantro, Andre Gardiner, Kushagra Aniket, Alfonse Muglia, Michael Navarro, Lucia Rafanelli

Straw Poll of Cornell Students Shows Some Surprises

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

With the presidential election just around the corner, the Cornell Review took to Ho Plaza to gauge the opinions of our fellow students about which candidate has earned their votes on November 6th. As many of you may know, Cornell University has the deserved reputation of being an exceedingly liberal campus, so it came as no surprise to see that Barack Obama received the majority of support (60%) in our confidential survey.

What is surprising is that Obama enjoyed much higher support from college students in 2008, and that support appears to be sliding. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, it does not appear that he is the beneficiary to these voters that Obama may be losing. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and myriad of other candidates seem to be enjoying a lift.

The big, ugly numbers that no one wanted to see was the great amount of native-born students that have not taken an active role in their representation. The survey showed that 20% of students are not registered and another 12% are not voting. The survey was limited to Cornell undergraduates that are United State citizens.

The Review acknowledges two potential biases. One is an overrepresentation of Arts students in relative terms, because they are the most likely to pass through Ho Plaza. Next is an underrepresentation of apolitical, uninterested, and disinterested students who declined to take the 15 second survey in the midst of their busy schedules. In reality, the percentage of students not voting in the election may be exceptionally higher.

Are you a registered voter in the United States?

Yes: 80%

No: 20%

If so, where are you registered?

Home: 63%

Ithaca: 17%

N/A: 20%

What party do you consider yourself affiliated with?

Democrat: 49%

Republican: 11%

Independent: 39%

Other: 1%

If registered, which candidate are you most likely to vote for in the Presidential election?

Obama: 60%

Romney: 14%

Other: 5%

Undecided: 8%

Not Voting: 12%

Which candidate do you believe most Cornell students will vote for?

Obama: 92%

Romney: 6%

poll sample n=315, margin of error=4%

According to a study by the Pew Research Center however, this downward trend in registration extends past our diverse campus. The study found that in 2012 only 50% of adults under the age of 30 are registered to vote, compared to 61% in 2008. When considering the overwhelming support Barack Obama enjoyed among young voters in his first election, it stands to reason that these numbers should be especially troubling to his reelection campaign.

One of the more fascinating things about the Cornell poll is the presence of a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. In essence, this theory states that an individual will believe that the opinions of other people are much more affected by an outside influence than their own. A textbook example of this effect was exhibited in our poll. While only 60% of Cornell students polled said that they were more likely to vote for Barack Obama, a staggering 92% believed that other Cornell students would vote for him.

Perhaps the belief that Cornell University is an exceedingly liberal campus is slowly becoming a myth.

While it is a small victory for the conservative student base at Cornell, it is one that we should put great hope in. If this University is actually 32% less liberal than people believe it is, then perhaps new students and young people who are just beginning to discover their political identities will begin to see that there are other options available besides the liberal ideologies that they are inundated with from the moment they first step foot on campus.

Diversity should not be limited to race, creed, or gender, but should include support for diversity of thought and ideology as well. So to all those closet Republicans out there on campus, the numbers do not lie: you are not alone.

Santorum v. Dean at Cornell

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

In the weeks preceding the election, it was an exciting opportunity for Cornell students to be able to attend a debate with two prominent figures of the Democratic and Republican parties. Howard Dean and Rick Santorum went head-to-head in Bailey Hall on October 18. The topic of the debate, moderated by director of the Cornell Forensics Society and ILR School senior lecturer, Sam Nelson, was the government’s role in a free society.

Although Dean’s position seemed to resonate with the largely liberal audience, Santorum’s presence energized the conservatives who, at times, feel overlooked or underrepresented on campus. In his opening statement, Santorum spoke of the values of the founding fathers.

“I stand by what are the traditional American principles that made this country successful about what the role of government is,” Santorum explained. “The role of government is the understanding that rights come to us, not from the government, but from God.”

Dean, on the other hand, took the position that the Constitution is meant to evolve over time. “I don’t believe that the Constitution was a document written meant never to be changed,” he said. “There is no basis for originalism at all.”

Throughout the debate, Santorum expressed disapproval of President Obama’s policies. He lamented, “this administration has gone hog-wild on regulating everything.” He specifically mentioned the regulation of domestic drilling, to which the audience responded with a loud applause. When Santorum pointed out that the audience was applauding $6-10 gas prices, the clapping and cheering became even louder.

Despite an obvious liberal-leaning slant, the audience was united in its support for Santorum when he shared a personal experience. In order to illustrate why the disabled should have guaranteed rights, he recounted how his four-year-old daughter is affected by a disability that essentially constitutes “a death-sentence.” His statement that, “as a parent of a special needs child, I don’t want the state determining what the best interest is of my child” was met with clapping and approval by the audience.

In preparation for the debate, The Cornell Review asked Cornell Republicans chair, Jessica Reif, what she thought Santorum and Dean’s perspective would add to the debate.

“Santorum is a leader in the conservative movement, and I expect his thoughts on issues pertinent to the upcoming election will be of interest to Cornell students,” she responded. “While Howard Dean has not run for office in several years, his stances certainly resonate with the political left. He is well-suited to debate Santorum.”

Reif recommended that students become engaged with politics on campus through the debate, stating that “debate is a great way to expose students to opposing political ideologies, as well as common ground between party lines.”

Professor Rosemary Avery, chair of the Policy Analysis and Management Department, introduced the debaters.

“Although they are not the nominees, this does not mean that they are not an important part of their respective party,” remarked Avery in an interview with the Cornell Review. “Candidates run on party platforms, and both these individuals contributed toward the creation of those platforms, so they can speak to the core values of their parties.”

Professor Avery further believes that engaging with the Dean and Santorum debate is significant and important.

“There can be nothing more important at this critical time in America’s history than making an informed vote - Cornell students might be voting for the very first time in their lives and it is our duty as citizens of this country to be informed in terms of voting,” she added.”

The Santorum / Dean debate was indeed a valuable opportunity for the Cornell community because it gave the audience a chance to hear different perspectives directly from the politicians themselves without bias. No winner was announced, so it is left to Cornell students to determine which politician made the most convincing arguments for his position on the role of government in society.

Laurel Conrad is the junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu. Caitlin Deming is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cad275@cornell.edu.

The Last Stroke

2012-11-01T00:00:00Z

Lost opportunities, misplaced priorities and incoherent policies—these are the words that will soon be used to describe President Obama’s record in foreign relations. Four years ago, when the President began his tenure, many enthusiastic commentators welcomed the inauguration of a new style of foreign policy. But while the “Obama doctrine” was supposed to be based on the principles of negotiation and cooperation, it soon changed into a strategy of appeasing our enemies and surrendering our national interests. In fact, contrary to his stated goal of establishing “a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries,” the President’s reign has seen an unprecedented rise in anti-Americanism, subversion of democratic reform, and perpetuation of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden, we now live in a more dangerous and volatile world than we did four years ago.

There is no need to recount the list of formidable challenges that the US faces in Libya. But far more outrageous than the intelligence and security blunder during the Benghazi attack was the Obama Administration’s rhetoric of denial. Obama does not see the attack on the American consulate as a pre-mediated terrorist operation. On the contrary, he regards it as a spontaneous protest against “a crude and disgusting video.” Had this not been his position, he would have found no need to apologize to those who were offended or even to clarify that the US government had nothing to do with the obscure video. Numerous videos have been made about all sorts of religious beliefs that people hold dear, but that itself does not spark violence of this magnitude. Rather, it is Obama’s policy of hesitant intervention followed by disengagement, his lack of focus and attention, and his attitude of leaving foreign relations at the mercy of world events that has helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists can execute attacks with impunity.

What is even more astonishing is that the President fails to grasp the suicidal psychology of Islamic extremism and the enormous threat that it poses to the civilized world. Instead, he claims to sympathize with the fictitious sense of “humiliation” that Islamists claim to have suffered at the hands of “Western imperialism.” No one would have blamed Obama for succumbing to the illusion that people across the globe desire peace or share similar aspirations, but now his attempts to mislead Americans and his sheer in- competence in combating the rising tide of fundamentalism have lead us to doubt his intentions.

It is quite evident that President Obama views American power as malicious in nature and believes that its confident exercise amounts to provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition. This explains his arbitrary cuts to the defense budget that are set to devastate our long- term national security. And finally, this also explains why he regularly manages to amuse the Taliban by offering a timeline for the withdrawal of troops and raising the rhetoric of flight and abandonment.

In all of this, Obama ignores the fact that American troops have shown a great degree of restraint in their use of force. Even in the direst of circumstances, the American offensive has adhered to the laws of war and the standards of professionalism. We have been more sensitive to the security of noncombatant civilians and more willing to take risks for peace. But regardless of this fact, here is a President with a clear agenda to curtail American influence in the world. Indeed, Obama can take pride in his strategy of appeasement towards our avowed enemies that puts that great “Umbrella Man” Neville Chamberlain to shame.

In a 2008 Washington address, the President pledged to prevent terrorist states from acquiring nuclear weapons. But apart from the rhetoric, his administration failed to mount sufficient diplomatic pressure on Iran. Even at the peak of the Arab Spring, Obama did not intervene to help the protestors against a repressive and reckless regime in Tehran. He took no steps to indict Ahmadinejad under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In fact, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has emboldened our adversaries and sounded the bugle of American re- treat from the region. But above all, the President failed to deter Iran’s nuclear weapons program—a strategic blunder that has not only sabotaged the hope for peace in the Middle East but also left the world in peril.

No Islamic nation with nuclear weapons can be trusted, least of all Iran, a state that sponsors international terrorism, threatens its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and perpetuates brutal atrocities on its citizens. It is thus imperative that we deter Iran from the path of nuclear armament through a se ries of diplomatic and mil itary measures. We must sever all commercial relations with Iran, includ ing the export of refined petroleum products, and tighten other economic sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we must be prepared for a swift and coordinated offensive against Iran’s nuclear program. But when the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alarmed the world about the ''red line'' in Iran’s development of the bomb, it was Joe Biden who laughingly dismissed his concerns and applauded his critics.

Born in India, the first time I was introduced to American politics was when I heard the President deliver his celebrated “Yes, We Can” speech. Millions across the world seemed to be enchanted by his powerful message of hope and change. But four years down the line, we have come a long way from the romanticism of that night. While Obama dared us to believe in “The Audacity Of Hope,” he never for a moment believed in America. He condemned the idea of American leadership as hegemonic dominance and American Exceptionalism as vain arrogance while fanatics continued to raise the black banner of extremism over our consulates. He offered unwarranted excuses for a video when the conscience of the nation demanded a massive retaliation.

Given the turbulent place that the world is in, I do not pretend to know what is going to happen in the coming years. I don’t know whether Assad will manage to survive or whether Iran will build the bomb. But one fact seems abundantly clear—the worst that we can do in this situation, the absolute worst, is to do nothing. And that is precisely what this President has been doing. Consequently, I have no doubt that if this President were re-elected, it would mean a lost decade for America.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.

14 Days Left

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

Education: President Obama repeatedly referenced the widely popular $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top program during the October 3rd debate. The program, due in large part to the way teachers’ unions and other Democratic institutions have responded, even has some support from Republicans. However, there are a couple of issues that should be analyzed before we all pat the President on the back.

While it is still too early to see the program’s total impact, progress for implementing reforms has slowed due to a lack of accountability and local opposition. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has specifically cited issues with implementation in New York and Hawaii, and has gone so far as to threaten to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars. In many cases, local teachers’ unions have spoken out against these programs and have little financial incentive to back down. In total, only three of the twelve first-round winners are meeting the timetable requirements set out in their original proposals.

When talking about education, it is also important to realize that the Federal government only accounts for about 8.3% of total K-12 education spending. Similarly, greater spending does not necessarily result in better education results. While this does not mean that we should cut education spending, it does point to larger systemic problems that are holding students back. Race to the Top is generally a step in the right direction, but it does not even come close to dealing with the larger issues that negatively impact returns to education.

Why Vote? As one of the laziest Republicans in this election cycle, I must admit that I will probably not vote in this election. There are a couple of reasons for this.

For one, my federal Representatives are Carolyn Maloney, Charles Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Another option is that I could register in Ithaca and vote in a very close congressional election be¬tween Tom Reed and Nate Shinagawa. While it would be incredibly easy to register (thanks Cornell Democrats), I don’t feel comfortable voting in a district to which I have no permanent connection. My home is New York City, not wherever the closest campaign race is.

While I am not going to pretend that my failure to vote is part of some larger scheme to reform our broken electoral system, let’s be honest; if you live in a heavy blue or red state, your vote usually doesn’t matter.

Lessons from South Park: With the first debate in the bag, I think we should all take some time to watch the South Park episode on the 2008 election. No matter who wins this election, at the end of the day the priorities and difficulties faced by most Americans will remain unchanged. If Romney wins by a landslide Democrats should not join the 47% and run for the border. I, on the other hand, pledge not to run for Mark Levin's concrete-and-steel bunker.

Lunch with the Ambassador to Syria

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

The people you encounter make the Cornell in Washington experience exceptional. I am not talking about your new LinkedIn connections or the people you meet at networking events. Rather, I am referring to the “celebrities” you read about in dense articles in your government classes and the political figures you hear about in the news. The DC life adds a whole new layer to your understanding of politics.

From listening to Paul Ryan give a campaign speech in a crowded ballroom to hearing Justice Gins¬berg address a small group of students in the halls of the Supreme Court, I have seen politics come to life.

The uniqueness of the Cornell in Washington experience particularly resonated with me when the Syria question came up in the Vice Presidential debate. Just the day before the VP debate, I listened to Ambassador Robert Ford, United States Ambassador to Syria, engage a small conference room of students on the complications of the Syrian conflict.

One of the perks of being a State Department intern is brown bag lunches with State Department officials. The brown bag lunch with Ambassador Ford seemed incredibly relevant given the prominence of the Syrian conflict in current events, and recent reports of Russian and Iranian support to the Assad regime.

After the close of the American Embassy in Damascus, Ambassador Ford has been tirelessly working to encourage a peaceful transition from the Assad regime, and to support peace between Alawis and Sunnis. He spoke about his meetings with Bashar al-Assad, and the complications of asking op¬position groups to negotiate with Assad. As many people observed in the Barbara Walter’s interview with Bashar al-Assad and the Vogue article about his wife Asma Assad– which has now been removed from the internet–Bashar and Asma display a cosmopolitan and highly Western façade.

In the meantime, Syria deteriorates into a state of anarchy. You only have to check the daily news to access graphic images of tortured and massacred Syrian citizens. The Syrian government continues to commit appalling violence against men, women, and children, while demonstrating a barbaric disregard for the dignity of its citizens.

It would be an understatement to say that the opposition groups are fiercely divided. Unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Syria lacks a clear transitional government or consolidated opposition. U.S. and international demands for peace overlook the layers of historical and current cultural wounds that divide the Syrian people. After Kofi Annan’s unsuccessful ceasefire proposal, diplomats and politicians have realized that peace is not an option at the present.

The Ambassador suggested that the U.S. must deal with more immediate concerns, such as the two million internally displaced people, and negotiations with Assad. Ambassador Ford’s priority is to advance the importance of communication among Syrian opposition, which he will encourage in the next meeting with the Syrian National Council in Doha.

Ambassador Ford advised the group of interns to consider the multitude of impediments to a peace agreement in Syria. The more devastating this conflict becomes and the more revenge accumulates, the less incentive opposition will have to negotiate or even engage in a dialog with Assad. I took away from this conversation with the Ambassador that blanketed statements about peace to the Syrian people disregard the intricacies of this conflict.

When moderator Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan how the Libya conflict compares to Syria, both candidates agreed that U.S. ground troops should not be sent to Syria. However, each candidate gave answers that reflected their varying awareness of Russia’s and Iran’s threat to the America’s interests. Biden’s answer hardly touched upon the role of Russia and Iran in this conflict.

Ryan’s answer prioritized it. I gleaned from the conversation with Ambassador Ford that Iran’s motivations stem from the deeply rooted Sunni and Shiite struggles, and hyper-aggression against the U.S. Meanwhile, Russia intends to remain loyal to Syria, one of its few allies in the Middle East, and establish that it is an international force.

Power politics surround the Syrian struggle, and the Romney-Ryan campaign will not underestimate the potentially devastating consequences of power politics.

My lunch with Ambassador Ford was a quintessential DC intern experience. When I was watching the debate, I could not help but think of how Ambassador Ford’s influence had shaped U.S. policy in Syria, and how that translated into the talking points for both candidates in the debates.

Caroline Emberton is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences, spending the semester in the Cornell in Washington program. She can be reached at cme67@cornell.edu.

Punishing Innovation, Encouraging Regulation

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

The FTC is investigating Google because Google is popular. It’s that simple. The sheer fact that the FTC feels as if it needs to investigate (and potentially punish) Google for being too popular shows how utterly misguided antitrust investigations can be in the United States.

Allow me to say something that will surprise absolutely no-one: Google is both useful and popular. Almost every service Google operates – from its search engine to its e-mail systems (on which Cornell’s e-mail operates) to its advertising network – are popular and ostensibly profitable. As Google is run extensively by engineers focused on innovation, the company continually provides high quality and remark¬ably simple products and services. While there are valid reasons why some people do not like Google (including how it tracks user searches and the like), the gestalt of Google is overwhelmingly positive on almost any measure.

Of course, any large, private, well-run organization that makes users happy highlights the ineptitude of big governments. Thus, Google is routinely “investigated” by governments around the world for various allegedly anti-competitive practices.

The latest in a long series of anti-Google investigations comes from the FTC, which apparently believes that Google’s search and advertising algorithms are unfair in that they disproportionately promote Google services over non-Google services. The FTC is also apparently investigating whether or not Google “copies” data from other websites and whether or not it uses contract terms and other methods to prevent its clients and customers from using other services. Substantially similar European antitrust investigations are also currently underway: the EU is currently investigating whether or not Google has “abuse[d] [its] dominance” in some form or fashion.

Long story short, the FTC is looking for something – anything – to justify telling Google what to do.

The absurdity of the FTC’s investigation cannot be understated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Google promoting its own services – to imply otherwise would be to essentially transform Google’s own algorithms into some sort of quasi-public system whereby Google had to give “fair access” to their business competitors. It’s also not entirely clear why the FTC is investigating “copying” when such allegations are best handled by copyright lawsuits (which, incidentally, have overwhelmingly held that Google’s behavior is fair use). Finally, it seems unlikely that Google is forcing anyone – be they advertising clients, software developers, or the like – to do business only with them, given the fluidity of the Internet.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with holding Google accountable for any actions it may have taken that are illegal under applicable anti¬trust laws. Because antitrust law is somewhat malleable and subject to judicial interpretation, there is also nothing wrong with the FTC investigating potentially legitimate violations that are not per se violations of antitrust law. However, the FTC’s implication that the popularity of a website alone can justify regulatory intervention is ridiculous.

If regulators were truly concerned about competition, they wouldn’t persecute Google: Google is the result of competition, not the antithesis of it. Google became popular by beating once-powerful companies like Yahoo and Hotmail through innovation and simplicity. Naturally, if Google ever becomes antiquated like Yahoo and Hotmail did in the early ‘00s, numerous competitors will spring up ready to take Google’s throne.

There is absolutely nothing preventing other web services and companies from competing with Google other than the fact that companies have yet to provide a viable alternative to Google’s services. Where massive companies like Apple and Microsoft can’t hold a candle to Google (especially in light of IOS6’s horrible maps and Microsoft’s terrible Bing search engine), it seems ridiculous to consider Google’s dominance evidence of an antitrust violation when it is more readily explained by innovation and product quality.

Investigations like those against Google are commonplace, and they will continue to be so until the Executive decides otherwise. Unless the Executive branch realizes that over-reaching antitrust enforcement can seriously hurt potentially innocent companies like Google, it will continue to wield the battle axe of antitrust in a misplaced and anti-competitive manner.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu

Gender Benders

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

Earlier in the month, the big news on campus was the new mixed gender housing policy adopted by the Student Assembly. While much has been made of the policy by the forces-that-be on campus, notwithstanding criticism of the underhanded, under-the-table, and shamefully non-transparent method by which the SA passed the bill (especially by this paper), nowhere has there been published criticism of the policy itself. This policy allows students to live with roommates of any sex in all campus housing. The implications for traditionally-minded students are immense.

However, this is not the first time this policy has been attempted. Waaaaay back in autumn 2007, before any current undergrads were on campus, SA Resolution 3 made West Campus suites available as “no-gender”. This pilot program was cancelled last March due to low demand.

When the pilot program was cancelled, SA representative Ulysses Smith ’13 theorized in a Sun report that low demand for the program, “…could be attributable to the fact that the [opportunities are] just not well-known.” It is almost unthinkable that the LGBT organizations on campus would not make every effort to promote this policy—a great victory for their movement—to their constituents. However, they blame the program’s failure on a simple lack of awareness. Was it not their role to raise that awareness? Is it possible they are admitting their own failure as leaders of their community? It is a tried and true liberal tactic to fault the people rather than the policy. A most striking example of this was the 2004 presidential election, when Kerry’s loss was spun as being a result of, “not getting the message out”, despite having overwhelming media support and promotion. In reality his defeat was a rejection of the candidate, his platform, and liberal policies. Claiming “we didn’t get the message out” is a clever way of shifting responsibility for failure from the content of the policies to the capabilities of their prophets. Let mere mortals take the fall, so that dogma can live on. So it is with mixed gender housing.

In that same Sun report, housing director Carlos Gonzalez stated the truth: “The findings of the pilot were that...the few multi-gender suites that were reserved ended up yielding far more roommate issues and complaints than single-gender suites.” To counter Smith’s obfuscation, just as easily the program’s failure was the result of the average student seeing the potential hazards and conflicts of living with the opposite gender, conflicts which according to Gonzalez are all too real.

This issue was also brought up back in 2007 when the pilot program was first passed. The student courageous enough to discuss its implications was Mike Wacker, who wrote in the Sun, “By enabling boyfriends and girlfriends to room together, the University is really asking for trouble.” The line of reasoning is simple and self-evident: romantic couple rooms together, breaks up, and is stuck sharing a room or suite. Alternatively, a set of “just friends” rooms together gets intoxicated (as students are wont to do), resulting in unwanted sexual contact, or worse, assault. This comes at a time when the university is concerned with limiting the opportunities for this to occur. As Wacker eloquently stated, if a cohabitation situation were to go sour, “At best, the lady will not feel safe or comfortable in her own room. At worst, the housing contract will essentially lock her into a situation where sexual crimes can take place behind closed doors.” Wacker also cited the statistic that cohabitation before marriage doubles the rate of divorce. Is this something the university really wants to promote?

Let’s be honest; this policy is not meant for Joe Frat, who thinks he can increase his chances by living with a girl freshman year. It is being pushed solely for the benefit of the men, women, and especially those-not-quite-sure members of the LGBT community. The resolution draft says as much, stating, “The aim of gender inclusive housing is to provide a safe living option for gender non-conforming, gender-queer, and transgender students…” As if it is unsafe (actively harmful, mind you, not just occasionally uncomfortable) for them to live with peers unlike themselves. Does anyone recall systematic dorm room violence against gay students? It would have been headline news.

Essentially, this policy is the evolution of the program house. It is an LGBT program house distributed across every hall and dorm on campus. This particular movement gets to have their cake and eat it too—insular self-segregation and the power to impose their presence and ideas on the rest of the school in the most intimate of settings. And quite disturbing ideas they are. One goal specified in the resolution draft is, “…to begin to break down the traditional binary in the man-woman gender divide...while exploring the cultural constructions of gender identity.” Mixed gender housing is not only to provide an opportunity to a group of students, but incorporates the stated goal of being a tool to change the rest of the student body, whether they want to be involved in the program or not. The destruction and social engineering of something as basic and biologically necessary as gender roles, which traditionally-minded students know have been of utmost importance for properly functioning societies and families, is now official university policy, brought about by your SA representatives.

Although it will not be available for a few years, the program will eventually expand to freshman housing. Due to mandatory and mostly randomized first-year on-campus housing, this is the most troubling part of the experiment. The much-praised experience of living with roommates in a dorm freshman year is that you will meet new and diverse people, perhaps very unlike yourself. This program is designed for a select subset (LGBTs) of those too uncomfortable with this concept to escape it completely—one of the same problems we see with the program houses—by choosing to live with people of similar viewpoints. How exactly does this prepare students for real life, where they just maybe might be forced to interact with people of different stripes than their own?

At the same time, those not comfortable around the behavior promoted by the mixed gender policy will not be afforded the same opportunity to feel secure in their surroundings. Traditionally-minded students in rooms and suites around mixed gender rooms may feel uncomfortable around such a lifestyle, and all students will suffer collateral damage from any problems arising in these rooms (keeping in mind that they have a higher rate of problems). Potentially, these rooms and suites could develop a damaging social stigma. Yet there is no recourse for those affected negatively by this policy. In fact, those who speak up about any negative results of the LGBT social experiment will likely be accused of discrimination or intolerance.

Instead of paying attention to the results of their own pilot program, the SA, with a supportive administration behind them, has passed a new expansion program without resolving any of the concerns brought up when the pilot started, or have become apparent due to its failure. In years past there has been a simple option for those uncomfortable living with others (for any reason): singles. Now, the forces of political correctness insist not only that this option is no longer sufficient, but that in the interests of fairness all students must have the new option designed to “help” only a few. It is policy blind to reality. Yes, the few students who are in genuine need should be accommodated, but this would be much better accomplished on a case-by-case basis instead of by opening a potentially harmful program to any student for any reason.

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell. edu.

Time to Win Over Latino Voters

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

Governor Romney’s campaign agenda from the start has focused on one thing: the economy. The idea is that the economy is the first and most important thing on people’s minds, and if the Romney camp can win the jobs argument, they can win the election. For Latino voters, this argument doesn’t seem like enough.

Latinos have been among those most hurt by the recession; Hispanic unemployment in the country is about two percent higher than the national average. It would seem likely then that Latino voters would be willing to turn to the Republican Party for change, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In recent polls, Obama has received 70% of likely Latino voters, leaving Romney only 26% support. So, what is happening?

Though Latino voters rank the economy as their primary concern, they are reluctant to vote Republican because of the party’s stance on immigration. With Latinos comprising a vital part of the voting block, there is no better time than now to analyze and answer the question of illegal immigration.

Romney, throughout the primary, has labeled work like the DREAM Act as only a temporary solution to a problem that needs a permanent one, but we have yet to see him produce such reform. Fortunately for Romney, Obama also has not done or proposed enough to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem. So, who will do more for Latino voters? The argument is wide open for both candidates, but without clearly detailed plans, voters look to the stances of both parties for answers. With the implementation of immigration reform policies by Republican members, especially in Arizona, the message to voters has been that Republicans are anti-Latino.

It was President Ronald Reagan who bestowed amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Romney should follow Reagan’s lead in immigration reform as he does on Reagan’s other programs. We, the Republicans, should not and cannot afford to be the party that neglects the interests of millions who came to this country seeking the same opportunities and promises that brought millions of people before them. Condoleezza Rice, during the 2012 Republican National Convention, said it best: “We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.” We need to find an effective way to stop illegal immigration, but we need to be compassionate to those who have built their lives and families in this country.

Romney knows that "if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the (Democratic Party) as the African America voting bloc, then we are in trouble as a party…” Latinos have responded positively to Romney’s economic plans, but without proper immigration reform, Romney will lose the Hispanic voting block to the Democrats.

The economy is an important issue, as are healthcare and education. But, dealing with the 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in this country, along with rising illegal immigration rates, is central to ensuring that the economy, healthcare, and education are sustainable. We are a group of compassionate people and will not deport millions of families for coming to a land of opportunity for opportunity; the longer we take to tackle the problem, the harder it will become to solve for future generations. By putting this issue along side the economy at the forefront of the campaign, Mitt Romney can win over a large Latino population that is still looking for a candidate to support and which has tremendous impact in swing states like Nevada.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration and can be reached at kml248@ cornell.edu

Is It Time to Attack Iran?

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

There is no greater danger to the survival of human civilization than Islamic nations with nuclear weapons. While other states can be seen as rational and responsible actors, who would not dare to risk their security by the reckless exercise of nuclear power, religious extremists in Islamic countries will not be deterred by the prospect of the total annihilation of mankind. It is a matter of little satisfaction that the only Islamic country that admits to the possession of nuclear weapons is Pakistan, a state whose arsenal faces the constant risk of a takeover by Taliban.

But last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found clinching evidence to show that despite international sanctions, Iran would soon be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has enough uranium reserves to build nuclear weapons and put them to use in its neighborhood.

Needless to say, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons will be a formidable threat to international peace and security. It will sabotage five decades of efforts at nuclear non-proliferation and trigger an arms race in the Middle East. It will strengthen the despotic regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and the terrorist activities of Hamas in the Gaza strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In the words of President Bush, this is the “Axis of Evil” that has come to threaten the United States by the development of long-range missiles and sponsorship of terrorism. Most importantly, it will endanger the existence of Israel, our greatest ally in the region. This is clear given the fact that Iranian leaders believe that they have a divine mandate to erase Israel off the map.

No amount of international negotiation will deter Iran's ambitious plan to build a nuclear arsenal, as it can always claim that it is using nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes.” To be fair, at this stage even Iran can do little to inspire our confidence without surrendering its basic strategic interests. Indeed, both Israel and the U.S. agree that a nuclear standoff with Iran will be an intolerable danger.

In the elections held in March 2012, religious extremists and conservatives won a landslide victory in Iran, capturing 62.7% of seats in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Ahmadinejad, who is constitutionally barred from running for a third-term, is likely to be replaced by someone who would be closer to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It is also possible that Khamenei would attempt to abolish the presidency and institute a cabinet controlled by a coterie of his supporters.

Khamenei has already indicated that the country would be better governed under a cabinet. The fallout of this change of guard will pose a new security challenge to the U.S. For it is quite imminent that Ahmadinejad’s provocative address to the 67th session of the United Nations will soon be seen as one of the more moderate speeches ever delivered by an Iranian leader in an international forum.

As tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated, economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies have proved effective in damaging Iran’s economy and crippling its currency. In the past weeks, the Iranian Rial hit a record low of 35,000 to the dollar. But the economic crisis is also threatening Ahmadinejad’s survival in office.

Besides, Ahmadinejad has been accused of undermining clerical power and showing disloyalty to the Supreme Leader. It would not be surprising if he resigns under pressure from the opposition or is dismissed before the elections scheduled for 2013. With Ahmadinejad gone, diplomatic pressure over the Iranian government will be in vain and, sooner or later, the U.S. will be drawn into a direct military confrontation with Iran. It would be much better if we choose our own time of attack.

We are not expected to get the support of the people of Iran—people who have been raising the slogan of “Death to America” at Friday prayers. But thanks to the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is now surrounded by countries that pledge to be on our side. Moreover, there are others who would be keen to provide assistance and perhaps it would be better for us if Israel were encouraged to take the trouble. But while the President has imposed some of the most severe economic sanctions on Iran, he has not shown enough support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s delineation of an explicit “red line” in Israel’s relations with Iran.

However, an Israel-sponsored war is not expected to receive the support of the UN, let alone that of other countries in the Middle East. In fact, Israeli aggression is sure to antagonize the states that are predicted to remain neutral in a U.S.- Iran confrontation. Even Israel, despite its current threats to Iran, would prefer to act in concert with the U.S. In such a delicate situation, it appears that a swift and careful military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program will be the only way to save us the repercussions of a full-fledged war. If the U.S. assault is successful in crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then Iran will be left with little power to retaliate.

In order to impede Tehran’s progress over its nuclear program, we need to overcome a number of obstacles that stand in the way. First, Iran’s nuclear facilities might be hidden or concealed underground and a cruise missile attack might not be sufficient to impair the project. Second, the concomitant collateral damage, even if minimized in terms of loss of lives, would have the potential of intensifying a dangerous regional conflict. Thus, reliable intelligence and careful preparation will be critical to any military operation against Iran.

The right time to confront Iran will come soon after the U.S. elections. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, our foreign policy should be conducted on the basis of a broad consensus, and we must do our utmost to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. But a Republican President in Washington would be much better placed to risk an intervention in the Middle East—which would of course entail planning, international cooperation, and financial preparation.

Exclusive Interview with Congressman Tom Reed

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

This November there will a number of significant battles taking place all across the country for the ever-important Congressional seats, and one of them will be taking place right in our own backyard.

Only now, the backyard has gotten bigger.

Congressman Tom Reed (R-N.Y. 29) will be taking on the Democrat challenger Nate Shinagawa, ’05, for the right to represent New York’s newly reapportioned 23rd Congressional district, which will now include all of Tomkins County after merging with parts of Reed’s old 29th district following the 2010 National Census.

The candidates are scheduled to have three debates across the newly expanded district, with the first set to take place on October 26th at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY.

There are many Cornellians who are registered to vote in the 23rd District, but have not been exposed to many of the issues that will define the district as we move into 113th session of the United States Congress. In any democratic election process it is necessary to have equal exposure to the viewpoints of both candidates in order to be an informed voter, and to make an informed decision.

We feel that much of the coverage in other Ithaca-area publications has focused solely on Mr. Shinagawa, particularly because of his connection to our University.

With that in mind, we introduce you to your incumbent Representative in Washington, Mr. Tom Reed.

Review: What was your initial reaction when you learned about the reapportionment of District 29? Do you feel that this will help or hurt the people in this district?

Reed: “Redistricting altered the Congressional District substantially but communities within the new 23rd district share some very important similarities with the current 29th district. We had an agriculture-heavy district in 2010 and I’m happy to see that after redistricting, we’re still looking at a district that is heavily involved in our state’s number o n e industry. Between family farms and large production agribusinesses, the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes are very active in the industry. During my first 22 months in Congress, I’ve strengthened relationships with friends in the 29th district and have made countless new ones in the 23rd. The bottom line though, is that this area is my home and it always has been. We knew we were going to continue working for the people of New York well before the lines were redrawn.”

After your first two year term, what do you believe are the most important issues facing District 29?

“My focus remains on our struggling upstate economy. We’ve seen (after several rounds of government spending) our area’s unemployment rate remain above nine percent. We need to focus on supporting small businesses, which create the majority of jobs, especially in rural areas. Our national debt, taxes, over-regulation and utility costs are our biggest barriers to growth – we need to decrease government spending, reform and simplify our 70,000-page tax code, combat duplicative federal regulations and decrease utility costs by utilizing domestic energy.

Our national debt, which is currently over $16 trillion and growing at a rate of $1.3 trillion annually, needs our immediate attention. We’ve taken small steps in the last two years but we need to reduce government spending and waste if we ever hope to rein in our debt. The uncertainty of dealing with the national debt is hurting all of us. If the market doesn’t have confidence that we can come together as a country to deal with this national crisis, it will invest elsewhere.”

Why are you excited about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan?

"We are given two clear paths in this upcoming election: one that continues down the path of out-of-control government spending and one that steers us toward fiscal responsibility. Governor Romney and Rep. Ryan have elevated the debate above petty personal attacks and have illustrated the stark contrast between the two very different visions for the future of our country. Theirs is a vision of smaller government and more job opportunities.

Governor Romney is a strong businessman who knows how to fix troubled operations. He has a proven record of making tough decisions in economic crises and a reputation of fiscal responsibility. Obviously our country is in trouble today and his experiences will best place us in position to turn it around.

Having served alongside Paul Ryan on the Committee on Ways and Means, I have had a chance to really get to know him and work with him on policy issues. He is a man of courage and one that I am confident will stand with Governor Romney to make the tough fiscal decisions that absolutely have to be made. The team should energize all advocates of fiscal responsibility as they are best suited to identify solutions to the dire financial crisis that our nation faces.”

You have experience on the House Ways and Means Committee. What has this experience taught you about the potential impact of President Obama’s healthcare act?

“What I have seen thus far of Obamacare implementations is very unsettling. Years before full implementation, we are seeing Obamacare cost much more than expected. My role on the Ways and Means Committee gives me a more in-depth look at these negative impacts across not only our state, but our whole nation and reinforces the need to repeal Obamacare.

The law does little to protect patients and hasn’t succeeded in making health care more affordable. The law will have a devastating impact on Medicare – including cutting hundreds of billions of dollars that otherwise would have been devoted to Medicare in order to pay for Obamacare.

I worry not only about the impact the president’s health care law is having on access and cost of health care, but the effect it is having on job growth. The medical device tax under Obamacare – a 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices like defibrillators and pacemakers – will place an additional strain on small businesses.

Another tax, the Health Insurance Tax (HIT) will increase insurance premiums, forcing employers to pay more for each employee and making it more difficult for employers to take on new employees. I was part of a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors to try and repeal these taxes to protect an estimated two million small businesses. Small businesses are refraining from exceeding 50 employees because they will be subject to harsher requirements. As a country facing a $16 trillion national debt, we simply can’t afford the president’s health care law.”

Many of the jobs in District 29 are agricultural in nature. What measures will you take to help farmers in this region, as well as those affected most by this summer’s drought?

“My Agricultural Advisory Council has been extremely instrumental in providing real-time updates on the effects of this summer’s drought and I am a member of a number of agricultural organizations, including the Dairy Caucus, Northeast Agricultural Caucus and the Congressional Wine Caucus – all of which are valuable resources.

Our farmers need a long-term, five-year Farm Bill so they can plan for the futures of their farms. Many of the farmers I’ve spoken to worry about their inability to plan for the next several years of crops without a comprehensive Farm Bill. We rely on family farms as the backbone of our economy.

Provisions we included in the GRAPE Act recently became law as part of the MAP-21 Highway Bill to help ease the burden of grape growers during the harvest season. We also recently introduced the Family Farm Relief Act, aimed at moving administration of the current H-2A seasonal agriculture worker program from the Department of Labor to the Department of Agriculture, where the needs of the farmers are better understood. These kinds of common sense pieces of legislation that cut down on government regulations are what our farmers need.”

College students are facing an unprecedented amount of student loan debt. What actions would you propose to help make this debt more manageable?

“As someone whose family could not afford to send me to college and one who still makes his monthly student loan payment today and for many months to come, this issue is very important to me. In July, this country faced a student loan interest rate hike. Thankfully, Congress was able to come together in a bipartisan vote to ensure that student loans did not see a hike in their interest rate payments this year. Had the bill not been passed, interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans would have doubled to 6.8 percent for 7.4 million students and their families who are expected to apply for loans in the coming year. The interest rate hike would have added an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.

While this is good news, the provision will run out in a year and I plan to again work to ensure student loan interest rates are not increased. Students and families need the long-term viability of low interest rate student loans, including options for those holding the loans to refinance at lower rates when possible. ”

Conservatism in Daily Practice

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

It should go without saying that a conservative is not merely one who promotes the three signature causes of the Conservative movement: (1) A small-business friendly tax code, (2) less burdensome regulations on private enterprise and (3) limiting excessive government expenditure (less spending).

Undoubtedly, it is impossible and petty to limit the truly sweeping scope of the conservative ethos to the realm of policy objectives and political principals. An authentic conservative realizes that his “ideological” belief system is organically personal and palpable. It must, necessarily and unavoidably, inform and shape the intimate contours of his lifestyle, his work ethic, his world-view and the character of his deeply felt values as reflected in his personal choices and daily activity.

So it is not sufficient to merely accept conservative “talking points” on the superficial level of intellectual understanding. It is, instead, vital to gain a deeper appreciation of its spirit through practical application of its methods. Through persistently creative and industrious endeavor, on a daily basis, conservative principals become living reality instead of a mere collection of dry talking points.

Conservatism’s bearing on the pursuit of individual achievement in daily experience can be seen through study of its cultural ethic. In this way, the conservative ethos distinguishes itself from the rather nebulous and poorly-explained dogma of assorted ideologies, while securing for itself a reputation of concrete relevance for ambitious individuals.

Of course, for our purposes here, it is important to disabuse the term cultural conservatism of the rhetorical contamination to which it has been subject within the context of American discourse and the politics of fanaticism. The slimy and now fruitless debates over abortion and same-sex marriage might very well be cultural in form, but in substance they mean precious little to those who seek to apply workable methodology towards more lofty ends.

So what does real culturally conservative thought have to offer to the Cornell student? How are we to translate principals into concrete methods? What is the nature of the unique struggle we face in doing so?

Now for the screed: Our campus is a haven for the culture of behavioral decadence. Godless hedonism, constant distractions; the most embarrassing forms of excess and indulgence; wide-spread inebriation; playful consumption of cannabis; glorification of debauchery; the wanton sexual assault which is a predict¬able product of this culture; obscenely shameful displays of sexuality disguised as “liberation”; rebellion against social conventions just for the sake of rebellion; and aimless activity disguised by the cloak of countless (excessively numerous) and supposedly venerable student organizations (most of which could hardly justify their existence if scrutinized). All the while the veneer of pseudo-intellectualism abounds, with intellectual conformity (tyranny) predominating.

How does the conservative, indeed any individual wishing to stay on the straight and narrow path of personal growth, navigate through such an environment?

First—a spirit of resistance and restraint. By embracing a lifestyle of postponement of gratification, ascetic self-regulation of needless desires, and by willfully and passionately rejecting the trappings of both obvious distractors (severely limiting extensive exposure to alcohol and sensual indulgence) and more subtle distractors (needless social interaction), one might yet have a chance.

Surely, in fiscal conservatism we see the model to which each college student ought to aspire: strict adherence to control of consumption of pleasure in pecuniary, social, and especially sensual forms.

One must find alternatives for venting and vice, like the most vigorous forms of aerobic and muscle-building exercise. Instead of spending a night out carousing or gambling, one can find pleasure in a game of chess or a quiet game of monopoly. A game of pool rains supreme over a game of beer-pong. Now, while these cathartic remedies for the overly pleasure-seeking among the student body probably seem woefully unsatisfactory, and may appear to be half-baked remedies for the overly adventurous, they are well in keeping with avoidance of excess.

Postponing gratification enables one to gain appreciation for one’s own resilience in the face of the most severe temptations, and it builds faith in one’s own power of endurance. By setting a budget of anticipated expenses, strictly overseeing time commitments and controlling the number of those commitments, and socializing out of a desire for intellectual illumination instead of mere entertainment, conservative habits can be acquired. This must be done religiously, not casually.

What about freedom!? True freedom is not freedom to act foolishly and to take extreme license. True freedom is emancipation from the shackles and chains of one’s own vices! True freedom is resistance to the social pressures which glorify the culture of hooliganism, needless diversion and distraction as the utmost forms of desirable activity. Freedom is the opposite of addiction to intrigue; freedom is the power to submit vice to the stricture of discipline at any time, any place.

The conservative learns to ac¬quire a taste which yearns for this very discipline.

Hence, the conservative is content in the knowledge that he is completely independent of the vices which govern the behavior of his counterparts on campus and can control impulses as easily as they arise. He is entirely comfortable with his enterprising capacities as a student, and needs no fawning approval from social butterflies or any other posers. He alone is the author of his own spontaneous activity and champion of his own agency, not the mindless agency of the masses of shouting students at Homecoming. He relishes the opportunity to distinguish himself as a unique individual. He regards his own attitude of self-trust as the well-spring of his very own inspiration. This is the very essence of self-reliance.

Second – the spirit of the marshal ethic. Indeed, substitutes for vice must serve as instruments for channeling passion to constructive activity. Thus, the conservative strives to embody the marshal ethic and spirit, which is the attitude which converts aimless desire to constructive purpose, namely intellectual enrichment. When a student derives genuine exhilaration from the rigor of intellectual investment and the surmounting of challenging scholastic obstacles, he has achieved the height of fulfillment—fulfillment much more deep and indelible than a weekend of hooliganism could ever hope to surpass.

The marshal ethic is only cultivated through a program of habit and repetition. For example, the use of flashcards in the course of study, and, again, the use of to-do lists and strict adherence to hourly schedules will breed a spirit of rigorous repetition and without sacrificing the need for lively variation in daily experience.

The conservative appreciates the value of work for both its instrumental value and expressive value. Expressive how? By making work a chief source of his personal gratification. So class work is not merely a means to gain a few job credentials or earn credits, but a means through which he can access emotional satisfaction through work for its own sake.

But he also approaches his school work passionately and without procrastination—like his life depends on it—because he knows that it will cultivate a habit of rugged consistency in performance excellence and because it will ensure that he practices the science of harnessing that motivational fuel, at will and whim, which he desperately needs to overcome challenges that will confront him later in his career. But college work is less of an instrumental tool for career skills development than it is a means to learning about whatever weaknesses he may have for future improvement.

The marshal ethic also necessitates that every activity be approached as if it were singularly consequential and transcendentally important for the agent in question. It requires that spirit, will, energy, and passion be the sources which underlie every project and endeavor, not mechanically detached intellectualism. This is easily preached, but rarely done.

The ethic is also innovative, and makes due with insufficient resources—whatever they may be. So the conservative student does not merely aspire to be the next Ford, the next Jobs, the next Carnegie, and sees nearly every singular activity in which he partakes as not a mere training ground, but as an opportunity to actualize the height of his creative potential for its own sake! He may then indulge in success for the mere fun of it, instead of excess!

All the while, he maintains his vision: his present feats necessarily foreordain his future conquests.

Through adherence to these guidelines, the Conservative shines as a beaming example in the midst of his peers on the Hill.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

The Issue with Issue Voting

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

President Obama is a very inspiring speaker, and in 2008, a lot of people believed that hope and change were approaching. However, most of his promises didn’t come to fruition once he was elected. It’s not just that politicians are liars who will say anything to get elected – though that is definitely the case more often than not – but the system of checks and balances keeps even the executive branch, even though it has been immensely strengthened since the FDR days, from doing much of anything.

Maybe people forget this, or they try to ignore it and hope that their President, who did such a great job at persuading them, will woo Congress with similar ease. Constituents are too busy to be fully educated about the political process and political campaigns, and who can blame them? People with careers in politics spend their lives learning about current events and issues, while most voters have other things to worry about. Campaigns are getting so full of flip-flopping, smear tactics, and excuses that sometimes even the candidates don’t seem to know what they are talking about anymore.

Voters instead use heuristics, like one issue on which to base their choice. But if you vote for someone because you agree with him on one thing, keep in mind that this one thing might move down his list of priorities once the president-elect realizes everything else that comes with the job (I don’t envy him).

Of course, no candidate’s views will align with yours on every point, but it’s best to take a holistic view.

Women shouldn’t re-elect President Obama simply because they want someone else to pay for their birth control; we have interests much broader than that. As I have said before, we also want jobs, religious freedom, and freedom of expression.

It takes time to be informed about candidates’ stances on these and other issues, and it’s difficult to find truth amid media bias by both sides, but it’s worth the effort. A lot of economists would say that for the amount of time it takes to be informed, the effort that goes into actually voting (registering, taking time off of work to go to a poll booth, etc.) and the basically impossible odds that your vote will have any impact on the election, it isn’t worth it to vote. However, when fifty percent of the population feels that way, a difference could actually be made if all of them changed their minds.

I think if you are among the majority of people (meaning you are educated about the voting process, you are a legal tax-paying citizen who isn’t in jail, and you have opinions), you should vote. In some countries, it is an obligation, and you’re fined if you don’t vote. Here, it is a privilege, one for which many men and women have given their lives.

If you think your vote could never count, do a little research on Texan history and how single votes have had an impact. While you’re Googling that, take five minutes to research where the candidates really stand on issues… or just flip through the rest of this issue of the Review. A few weeks ago, the Network of Enlightened Women here at Cornell had a short session where we talked objectively about the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and it wouldn’t hurt for you to do the same. Keep learning, and keep it classy, Cornell.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

Defending Obama, Forgetting Bush

2012-10-23T00:00:00Z

William Thomas, a writer for the Canadian Senior Living Magazine is making waves with his recent article “America—He’s Your President for Goodness Sake!” in which he laments Americans’ lack of respect for the office of the President. The article was reposted on Yahoo, The Daily Kos, and a plethora of other blogs and websites. In it, Thomas reminisces about a time when “Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president.”

He continues:

“Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a republican or democrat, but the President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country’s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.”

He then asserts that President Obama “has become the glaring exception to that unwritten, patriotic rule.”

For the record, I completely agree with Thomas’ sentiments that the President deserves respect regardless of his party membership or even his substantive policy positions. Short of a literal Nazi occupying the Oval Office, there are few things that could justify wanton disrespect for the President. Whoever he may be, he was elected to lead the country, and, in a democracy, that should count for a great deal.

However, in light of his assertion that Barack Obama is the glaring exception to a general rule of re-strained and respectful discourse, I would like to pose one question to Mr. Thomas: Excuse me, but did you sleep through the second Bush’s presidency?

The grievous offences against President Obama that Thomas sites include protest signs depicting him as a satanic clown and as Hitler, the “birther” scandal, Republican criticisms of his expenditures on personal security, and the fact that a woman he met last month at a wings joint complimented his physique rather than remarking that it was an honor to meet the President.

But President Bush, too, was compared to Hitler—in one instance by a Congressman! I also seem to remember an abundance of “Not My President” memorabilia available during Bush’s terms. And, if the birthers are an outrage against Obama, what are we to think of the “truthers” who insist that the Bush Administration was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks?

President Bush was called stupid in more ways than I can count. He was accused of risking American lives in Iraq for mere monetary prof¬it, and of being nothing but a puppet of others in his administration and his father’s old agenda.

The instance Thomas cites of a Congressman interrupting President Obama’s State of the Union address to call him a liar—which Thomas seems to view as simply unthinkable—could be considered a replay of a similar incident at President Bush’s second inauguration. During Bush’s address, a man yelled out from the crowd, “Where are the poor? Did you ship them out of town?” In fact, at the same inauguration, a parade entrance had to be closed because people were throwing rocks into a secured area.

So please, let us answer the call for increased respect for our President, but let’s not pretend that Republicans are the only ones who need to change their ways. Let’s not pretend that the Dems were nothing but civil to the Bush White House. To so blatantly ignore such a glaring—and recent—episode in American history as the years of Bush-bashing that took place in the 2000’s is not only to be an unskilled commentator on U.S. politics, but it is also to engage in the very same petty party chauvinism William Thomas claims to condemn.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Debate Season: It's Crunch Time

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

Let’s face it: the past month has been an infuriating time to be a Republican. There was the secretly taped fundraiser where Mitt Romney made the truthful but now infamous “47%” comment. There was the satirical piece about Paul Ryan referring to Mr. Romney as “Stench” that got picked up and reported as fact by MSNBC, Gawker, The New York Times, and more. To top it all off, September was a month of being inundated with poll after poll, most of which did not bother to include the necessary data that a person should know when attempting to interpret a poll. This important data included things as obvious as the number of people surveyed and the margin of error.

Wake me up, for September now has ended. With the turning of the calendar comes a brand new CNN poll. This “National Poll of Polls” of 783 likely voters that was released on October 1st showed Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 50%-47% with a margin of error of +/-3.5% points for either candidate. This more data-inclusive poll showed that as the candidates began the debate schedule they were essentially neck and neck. Even after a month of seemingly endless negative press, Mitt Romney is still very much in the hunt. So now the question remains: can the national media take its attention off of “gotcha” journalism long enough to do its job and inform the public on the candidates’ stances on the important issues? Or will we spend the next month reading more stories about crazy Mitt looking at clouds? For the sake of our country, I certainly hope not.

Mike Navarro is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Science. He can be reached at mln62@ cornell.edu

Beyond the Presidency

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

With only a month left in this election season, it seems like neither candidate can effectively develop a message that does not include the name of his opponent in the same sentence. The Obama campaign and media have been very effective at keeping Mitt Romney off balance, but various inelegant comments have not helped.

For the last few election cycles, debates have proved to be rather boring, but we could see sparks fly if Mitt Romney is still stalled in the polls. While all predictions are somewhat worthless this far out, I have put together some information on the always-important Congressional races, as well as some predictions for the general election.

House of Representatives:

The House is not really worth mentioning, because if Republicans lose the majority, something beyond strange will have occurred on the national level. With that said, the RNC needs to maintain 218 seats to hold the majority, and it looks like they have 206 in the bag already. Plus, redistricting should help them pick up a few seats in key states (Redistricting/Election Reform anyone?).

Senate:

This looks like the more interesting of the two sets of non-Presidential races. Short of highly depressed voter turnout in non-swing states, I can’t image the RNC taking back the Senate, although in the era of the filibuster, it doesn’t matter as much as it should. (Hopefully the following isn’t out of date by the time it is published.

Blue States

Connecticut: Linda McMahon has a steep cliff to climb if she is going to win this one. Despite close polling, McMahon has a difficult task in a state where Democrats have a 17% point registration margin over Republicans. In the 2010 race, McMahon spent $50 million of her own money but still lost by double digits.

Massachusetts: This has been the best (and most heated) election to watch so far. With such a large voter registration margin for Democrats, it’s a real testament to Scott Brown as a candidate that he is even close, let alone winning. There is a lot of money in this race but I think it is going to come almost solely down to likeability, which Elizabeth Warren is somewhat lacking.

Red States

Indiana: The polls are quite tight, but Richard Mourdock should be able to pull this off. Republicans make up 46% of registered voters in Indiana, with Democrats 14 points behind. Plus, with the Obama campaign shifting its attention towards more winnable states, Joe Donnelly shouldn’t have as much national support.

Montana/North Dakota: Voter registration advantages plus no national attention. Republicans should win, but that doesn’t mean they will.

Swing States

Nevada/Virginia/Wisconsin: The Congressional races in these states are likely to follow the Presidential campaign, so it’s worthless to try to guess who is going to win.

Closing Thoughts: Its hard to imagine that anybody is really undecided when it comes to the national election, but polls tell us otherwise. Hopefully the debates will shake up the race, but I have doubts. If Mitt Romney has not picked up any momentum, he may be forced to step outside his comfort zone and make a move to get the support and energy he needs.

The War Is Not Over

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

On September 11, 2012, a date that indicates planning and coordination, a series of anti-US protests began in the Middle East. The ostensible reason was the online trailer of a movie considered offensive to Muslims. But those who claim that these were spontaneous attacks in response to the video that offended the sentiments of Muslims ignore a century-long history of movements that thrive on genocide and slaughter. These are not ordinary demonstrations of citizens passionate about a cause. Here are a people indoctrinated in ignorance and motivated by a desire for supernatural reward. Here is a doctrine, spread over a large part of the world, that propagates the idea that Western power is at its roots malevolent. Here is a crisis, unprecedented in its magnitude since the calamities of the Second World War.

However, the dimension of the crisis has changed since the world witnessed the catastrophe of September 11, 2001. The Arab Spring brought democracy to people who were not prepared for it. As expected, it served as a gangplank to theocratic unreason and tyranny. It is not surprising that after the Arab Spring, murderous mobs have taken to the streets across the southern shores of the Mediterranean—spewing extremist venom, terrorizing the people, and butchering each other.

Indeed, there is a reason behind the incessant threats that the civilized world is facing from Muslim mobs.

We paid a heavy price for assisting the Libyans on their path to democracy. On the fateful night of September 11, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated along with several others after Islamists attacked the American consulate in Tripoli.

Regardless of the fact that Stevens had risked his life to ensure the downfall of Gadhafi’s dictatorship, the enfranchised citizens of Libya did not spare him. Indeed, there is no doubt that people who sympathize with Stevens’ assassin are present in the Libyan government. Even the Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, while condemning the attack, denounced the offending video and called for “peaceful anti-U.S. demonstrations”. Similar was the reaction of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

What should we make of this extraordinary sequence of events? First and foremost, the appeals for non-violent protests turned out to be a ruse as reports have shown that the demonstrations across the Muslim world involved arson, murder, and terrorist attacks.

Moreover, it is now clear that a majority of people in the Middle East are in support of terror. People that were provided moral and material support in their struggle against dictatorship have now turned against us, posing a serious danger to our diplomatic interests. What is even more dangerous is that these people are inspired to kill and be killed for grievances that cannot be appeased.

A decade back, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted a global survey that reported that a large segment of people in the Muslim world supported suicide bombing in defense of faith. Even if only half of one percent of the Muslim world supported jihad, we would still have to deal with 8 million sworn supporters of terrorism.

And it is not due to poverty or economic deprivation that millions of Muslims have turned radical. In fact, religious fundamentalism is compatible with wealth, education and technical proficiency. Most terrorists do not hail from the ranks of the uneducated and poor. On the contrary, these are men with college degrees and comfortable salaries. Consequently, economic and political improvements in the Muslim world are no guarantees against radicalization.

To be sure, the transition from dictatorship to democratic rule in some countries in the Middle East has not altered the character of mass mobilization. The same mob that gathered in Tahrir Square to protest against Mubarak now shouts slogans against “American imperialism.” Even the icons invoked by the people have remained the same. For instance, Salafist protesters in Egypt put up a massive poster of Omar Abdel Rahman who is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison for involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

We must realize that the protests in the Middle East do not just pose a temporary law and order problem. The new regimes in Libya and Egypt have limited influence over their armed forces and their people, and, while feigning to be pro-U.S. moderates, maintain links with Al Qaeda.

Muslim leaders have encouraged the protests to continue and security personnel responsible for protecting foreign diplomats appear to be complicit in the attack. In such a situation, there is little doubt that these societies will continue to be marred by factionalism, civil war and sectarian violence for years to come. At the very least our foreign policy must be geared towards protecting our geopolitical interests and ensuring the security of our consulates in the region. At this stage, any form of American retreat from the Middle East would lead to an outcome far worse than Neville Chamberlain’s surrender to Hitler in 1939.

What we should understand is that we are at war—a war that did not begin in 2001 and did not end with the death of Osama Bin Laden in 2011. The unprecedented victory of the US-led coalition forces over Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates that terror-sponsoring states lack formal military might. However, the psychology of terror has perpetuated through social communities in the Middle East. Terror receives its mandate not only from the religious orthodoxy that preaches the conquest of the world for Islam but also from ordinary civilians whose aspirations have risen with the advent of globalization.

The international arena is now set exactly as envisaged in the mind of the terrorist. From the terrorist’s perspective, the world is divided into the “House of Faith” and “House of War.” In our parlance, terrorist offensive in the “Focus of Jihad” nations such as the US, Israel, India, and the European states is now sustained due to the clandestine sponsorship of the “Axis of Jihad”: nations such as Iran, Pakistan, and the Palestinian territories. Since the turbulence of the Arab Spring, the “Axis of Jihad” has spread over the Middle East as nation after nation has succumbed to radicalism. None of these countries deserve our goodwill and friendship beyond our efforts to protect our strategic interests.

To deter the “Axis of Jihad”, we first need to counter the liberal dogma. Since 9/11, liberals have attempted to make excuses for Islamic extremism because they do not know what it is like to “love death more than the infidel loves life.” Due to their perennial attitude of self-denial, they are in no position to protect civilization from its genuine enemies. The Obama administration’s appeal for peace and tolerance at a time of war is just another attempt by the bleeding-heart liberals to infect the mindset of the individual with capitulationism and render him passive. No nation can survive with such an attitude towards its avowed enemies.

If today the US fails to stop the massacre of innocent civilians in Syria, exterminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, and promote democratic reform elsewhere in the Middle East, it will be damaging its credibility in the world. Besides, if any of these countries acquire nuclear weapons, then the destruction of our civilization shall be inevitable, for nuclear deterrence with Muslim extremists will be impossible. In such a case, we have a choice between war and suicidal surrender, between retaliation and death. If we cannot win a rational argument with a people frenzied with apocalyptic mania, we must win the war.

How to Solve a Problem Like Collegetown?

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

It is a tradition amongst students to simultaneously fight like gladiators for prime Collegetown apartments and absolutely disparage the third world conditions of most of its buildings, both commercial and residential. Even after the rest of Cornell tried to enter the 21st century— exemplified by the totally revamped West Campus—Collegetown seems determined to hold onto relics of the ancient past.

A large portion of the resistance to modernization comes from the City itself. For example, there exists an obscure regulation that fire inspectors are not required to inspect rental houses for fire safety until the house changes actual owners, not annually during the tenant turnover between leases. Some landlords hold onto these houses for decades, meaning that a house would have to burn down—like some have within the past few years—before a fire safety professional even notices it.

Then there is the all-powerful Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, which holds up much of the renovation opportunities in Collegetown. They don't actually live in the houses, so it's totally OK for them to dictate their exact appearance, as is par for most bureaucratic operations.

Safely removed from any hazards or unpleasantries, they hand down their dictates from Olympus, impervious to the mortal suffering here on earth. There are houses that are ancient, crumbling and utterly unsafe, and yet the ILPC myopically continues onward into the past.

But what about the businesses, the other draw of residence in Collegetown? Few will say that they are satisfied with the choices that we have in the heart of Collegetown.

Some of the blame lies directly with the landlords. Take for example Green Café, the property at the corner of College Ave and Dryden Road. This property, considered by the landlord as “one of the best four corners entering campus”, has remained empty for over two years. The Green Café’s owners were forced to file for bankruptcy after allegations of illegal labor disputes resulted in one million dollars in fines.

The landlord is currently asking for an $18,000 triple net lease per month. In other terms, the tenant will have been responsible for $18,000 in rent on top of building maintenance, insurance, and real estate tax. If Green Café managed to have $200,000 of revenue in a month and had about 35% in cost of goods sold and 25% in labor costs, it would have left them $40,000 to pay $18,000 in rent, in addition to maintenance, insurance and real estate tax. It is unlikely, under these conditions, that a business like Green Café could have been profitable.

After two years, no new business has moved into this property. It has become obvious to entrepreneurs, as it is to us, that Collegetown businesses cannot succeed with such excessive rent and liabilities foisted on them by the landlords.

Entrepreneurs also share a level of blame for the current Collegetown atmosphere. Business owners enter the C-town market hopeful that students will be willing to spend money and time at their establishment, and most of the time, we do.

Unfortunately, business concepts in Collegetown, especially bars, are designed to fail. With the exception of Rulloffs, most bars in Collegetown are open from 8:00pm until 1:00am. In just five hours a night, these businesses compete by offering the lowest priced drink deals they can. Most students will even pregame or show up to these bars simply to socialize or dance and will not spend much money there, as highlighted in a recent New York Times article.

As a result, bars are put in a challenging position; they are forced to give lower and lower prices but are expected to pay for increasing costs. This business model forces bars out of business when renewing their leases become too costly.

On the other hand, Rulloff’s business model allows them to obtain a steady stream of revenue throughout the day (through food and drinks), giving them more leeway with cheaper drink specials at night. Aspiring entrepreneurs attempting to enter the Collegetown market should understand that in order to compete, they must find a steady stream of revenue outside of late night drinks.

Collegetown is an eminently profitable and livable area, and yet we find ourselves in this quagmire of competing for outrageously outdated spaces at outrageous costs. There is a multi-pronged solution readily available, if people will let go of the need to be ridiculous about development and acquire some business sense.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell.edu. Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu.

More Red Tape For Financial Aid

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

Students who have successfully navigated the college application process (which, speaking from experience, is no simple task), who have waded through the even more complicated financial aid application paperwork, and who have actually been accepted to a college — surely must be able to read.

They must know the difference between a grant and a loan. They must understand that loans need to be paid back. And they should be able to do the simple math needed to figure out their minimum monthly payment on a loan of a given amount. At the very least, they should be able to make a phone call or write an email to a college’s financial aid office to ask about a payment schedule.

All this, though, is not enough for advocates of “financial aid transparency” law. A recently proposed bill, discussed in Gail Collins’ New York Times column “The Lows of Higher Ed,” would require all colleges and universities to send all student loan awardees the same form explaining the terms of their loans, including an explicit statement of their future monthly payments.

This coincides with the Department of Education’s release of its financial aid “Shopping Sheet,” a form it recommends all colleges use to present aid offers to admitted students. A version of the Sheet showcased in an Inside Higher Ed article from last month even includes statistics about the hypothetical school’s graduation rate, and the student loan default rate. While use of the Shopping Sheet is not (yet) required, Collins notes that the Obama Administration has already begun using its clout to attempt to convince colleges to make use of the form part of their standard operating procedure.

Perhaps this seems like a relatively harmless initiative (and, compared to some of the other initiatives coming out of Washington lately, perhaps it is), but ultimately, the adoption of the bill presently being considered in Congress would constitute yet another unnecessary regulation that would consume scarce government resources and undermine the personal responsibility of students and their families in being conscious of their own financial decisions.

It is not the job of the government—or anyone—to insure that people have every bit of information that might be relevant to one of their personal decisions set out in front of them in good-looking tables and charts. Students and their families should make informed decisions about their education and its cost, and they should have access to the requisite information to do so. But, if this information matters as much to them as it should, then they should also make the effort to seek it out for themselves if it is not obvious from whatever financial aid information is given to them by their chosen college.

Seriously, we’re not talking about rocket science here. We’re talking about actually reading the awards letters, paying attention to what is a grant and what is a loan, and calling up a school’s registrar if that isn’t clear. We’re talking about reading financial documents before signing them. We’re talking about a minimal amount of effort—certainly much less than any student will need to put in to do well at a university, let alone to make it in the job market later on in life.

Colleges should not deceive students about financial aid, nor should they withhold information about the conditions attached to loans or other aid: That would be fraud, and would show a lack of good faith. Laws against those things, however, already exist and there is no need for a new law standardizing the way in which universities present financial aid information. If students really do hope to be successful enough to make enough money to be able to pay off their loans, they had best be capable of doing the little bit of work it might require to find out how much their education will cost them in the first place.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Representing vs. Appeasing

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

“It was an issue that should have taken a lot longer to discuss.”

The words voiced by Student Assembly Representative Peter Scelfo are a very telling summation of the Cornell Review’s stance against Resolution 12—Adoption of a Gender Inclusive Housing Policy. The Student Assembly rushed through the debate of this measure that may have long-term effects in the lives of Cornell students.

Our displeasure with the Resolution is two-fold. Firstly, we question the legitimacy of the argument that mixed-gender housing will improve the lives of students. Secondly, we find issue with the Resolution’s sponsors’ use of a looming deadline in the Cornell housing process as a tool to convince fellow Assembly members that this Resolution had to be voted on immediately, limiting the time for debate.

It is true that Cornell is currently the only Ivy League Institution that does not offer mixed-gender housing. However, there is no available data that suggests that the policy actually improves the mental health of the involved students. There is also no study regarding how it affects the students who are not involved with the program yet are exposed to an unconventional policy for the sake of a proportionately miniscule number of students (195 at Penn, 29 at Yale).

Nevertheless, without any supporting data, the Student Assembly and their counterparts across the nation are rushing to appease the LBGT representatives by experimenting with mixed-gender neutral, ignoring the longtime success of a Cornell housing office that recognized the natural differences between males and females.

In a 2010 study by the National Student Gender Blind Campaign, it was reported that a mere 54 colleges and universities had mixed-gender rooming options. Of these, only two schools had adopted the policy prior to 2000 (Hampshire College and Wesleyan College). It is therefore too early to tell how effective the policy has been for overall student health and well-being. Nevertheless, those in attendance at Thursday’s Student Assembly meeting would have thought Cornell was still stuck in the dark ages of University housing.

In the fall of 2007, Cornell actually adopted a recommendation for mixed-gender housing. It was passed in the Student Assembly by a vote of 9-2, with a month between the time of its introduction and the eventual call to vote. During this time, amendments were made to the Resolution in order to clarify the Student Assembly’s legislative ability to govern housing. All of this information is available to students on the SA’s website, although it received little press coverage at the time.

A pilot program was then launched in the fall of 2008, but was cancelled last March, reportedly due to low demand and mixed reviews. The sponsors of Resolution 12 last week cited that this failure was due to a lack of student awareness.

The Cornell Review finds fault with the logic that a program’s failure over a four year period can solely be attributed to lack of awareness, especially at a time when mixed-gender housing was receiving growing attention along with the LBGT trend. Instead, the lack of participation is an indication that there is simply an insignificant need for mixed-gender housing on the Cornell campus.

Therefore, the issue would not warrant much attention (like in 2007), if we did not believe that the manner in which it was adopted sets an improper precedent in the Student Assembly.

Even for those Cornell Patriots indifferent about the policy itself, it is important to discuss the actions by which it came to be—to ensure that future resolutions yield the conversation and debate they deserve.

As opposed to the 2007 resolution, which featured a debate that covered a four week period and required several amendments, Resolution 12 was quickly moved ahead on the Assembly’s agenda under the veil of “time sensitivity.” The sponsors claimed that the housing process for next year was set to launch the following week, and that this policy would need to be in place for email and other informational purposes. This was a clever tactic that limited the Assembly’s ability to fully weigh the pros and cons of the policy change, offer amendments, or seek expert opinion.

While this deadline may very well be real, it is no reason to shorten the debate for any Resolution. Fellow Assembly members raised the issue that the proposal should have been brought to the table sooner. Another shed light on the common Assembly practice of members talking about the benefits and costs of a program in the week between meetings, while seeking input from members of their respective communities. Such time for consideration is the best way to ensure that the interests of all students are not neglected.

Further questions need to be raised about the ability of a sponsor of a resolution to motion for it to be moved ahead on the agenda, as was done last week. Although such a move still requires the Chair’s approval, this represents a clear conflict of interest on the part of the sponsor. What is stopping any sponsor from pushing his or her resolution forward unchecked?

In fact, the rushed nature of this Resolution brings back memories of another policy change that was hastily passed along in a legislative Assembly as a looming arbitrary deadline limited fact-based discussion. Obamacare claimed to improve health and wellbeing, like this Resolution is doing, although little was known at the time of the vote (even by the Congressmen) about how this would be done and how its effectiveness would be evaluated.

The Student Assembly has the rightful purpose of representing the interests of the student body, which often include mental health and wellbeing. And in recent years, the group has made strides in speaking for a greater and greater number of students. The members are more active in the community than ever before, highlighted by a new requirement this fall stating that all Assembly members must attend eight outreach events per semester.

Through these efforts, however, it is our belief that the Assembly must represent the interests of the specific students they are elected to represent, not merely appease the various organizations that come to the table with proposals ideologically claiming to improve student health without any factual support. This starts with giving sufficient time and attention to every resolution.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu.

Super-sized Government and Risky Behavior

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

On September 13th, the New York City Board of Health voted to institute a new policy: a ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16oz in establishments inspected by the Health Department. The war on individual choice is now influencing the soda you drink, and it’s all because the government is now in the business of regulating individually risky behavior.

Only the most deluded would disagree that sugary sodas and drinks play a part—albeit a minor part— in American obesity. Unlike many other countries, sodas and various other sweet drinks are readily avail¬able in most American restaurants, and their sugary sweetness makes them attractive choices for children and adults alike. Because a 20 fl oz. bottle of Coca-Cola contains 240 calories, and because most Americans drink much more than that in a single sitting, sodas can create a huge caloric surplus in the average 2,000 to 3,000 calorie diet—which can in turn cause the average American to pack on some serious pounds.

Nonetheless, if sodas are, in fact, a bad thing, does this mean that the New York City Board of Health should be outright banning them? Of course not.

The government is not (or, at least, should not be) in the business of regulating individually risky behavior. Granted, state governments have a strong interest in regulating risky behavior that can potentially harm others—few would argue that laws against firing a gun in the air are indicative of “big government.” But there is virtually no principled justification for government involving itself in individually risky (and even stupid) behavior. My desire to willingly and intelligently hurt myself does not dictate government intervention. In other words, so long as you don’t plan to land on anyone in the process, there is really no justification for the government to prevent you from skydiving.

The problem is, the more government involves itself in health insurance and entitlement programs, the more government needs to regulate risky behavior.

The rise of government entitlement programs and attempts by the government at manipulating the insurance markets puts the government in the unique position of having a financial incentive to fight against what is known as moral hazard.

Moral hazard, in short, is the idea that individuals act differently when they do not bear the full cost of their actions. The classical example of moral hazard emerges in car insurance, where drivers may take riskier actions with their automobiles when their insurance companies will pay for their accidents. Because of this substantial risk, insurance companies adopt a number of systems—co-payments, deductibles, limits on eligibility, etc.—to disincentivize risky behavior.

Just like any good insurance company, the government is now in the business of disincentivizing moral hazard because it has to pay for it. With the rise of public dependency on entitlements and with the new involved role the government takes in the insurance system, the government now must concern itself with “expensive” risky behavior: obesity, skydiving, reckless car driving, and the like. While much of this worry is borne by the federal government, and while most of these regulations are emerging out of local governments, the unity of mindset is here: because all levels of government now assume a lot of financial responsibility for your actions, it collectively now wants to regulate how you behave to lessen its financial burden.

One can thus see the underlying logic behind the NYC soda ban: fat people are expensive.

Unfortunately, the sad irony to all of this paternalistic nonsense is that the government doesn’t actually know how to encourage people to be healthy.

True health comes from the old tried-and-true adage: eat less, eat better, move more. It’s always been as simple as that. But that adage — and the financial harm it would bring to the food lobby, comprised in part of companies that make their money from carb-loaded sweets and snacks—doesn’t pass for wisdom on Capitol Hill. What does pass for wisdom is the asinine USDA “Food Plate,” Michelle Obama’s toothless “Let’s Move!” campaign, school lunches sponsored by fast food companies, and, of course, soda bans.

The answer to all of this stupidity is quite simple: Americans and their government need to slim down, and there are no shortcuts.

Americans need to eat better and eat less than they do now, and they particularly need to hit the gym and exercise until they crawl home. Quick, lazy, too-good-to-be-true methods—including diet pills, arcane diet plans, and stupid exercise tapes and fads—will not work. Real diet and exercise will.

In a very similar fashion, the American government needs to stop growing and attempting to involve itself in the affairs of its citizens. It’s time for the government to go on a diet and exercise plan, cutting down its expensive entitlement obligations and shutting down its needless programs and focusing on optimizing its true, constitutionally-mandated functions.

On this diet, there is no room for draconian soda bans.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Mountains and Molehills

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

The results are in, and they probably won’t surprise you. What results? Those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the “Nation’s Report Card.” Donna Kache has expounded upon them in a recent article for CNN—and not much is revealed that we did not already know: eighth and twelfth grade girls are scoring better than their male counterparts.

But not in a way that is either substantial or encouraging to me: eighth-grade girls averaged 160 while the eighth-grade boys averaged 150. Meanwhile, twelfth-grade girls averaged 157 and twelfth-grade boys averaged 143. The difference is small, but what is more difficult to overlook is the fact that these scores, all around 150, are out of 300.

What is the best way of encouraging equality of education? Is it through equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity? It is difficult to force anyone to learn, and some comments on Kache’s article suggest that the reason why boys are worse writers than girls is because the books read in class are largely centered on females—too much of the feathery femininity of Austen and Awakening, not enough of the violence and vulgarity of Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes.

The truth of this statement has not been tested, but it does seem sensible that willing readers might be better writers because they have been exposed to a larger vocabulary range and have become familiarized with more grammatical structures. But if schools do have a broad and balanced selection of literature, what accounts for the difference?

To me, the difference between scores does not seem large enough to cause worry—but I’m not a statistician. Another reason why I am not overly concerned is that the writing ability of an eighth-grader, or even a tenth-grader, might not be indicative of their ability to succeed in life.

“Success” is a broad and often misinterpreted term. It is often implied to mean vocational security. Writing skills come in rather handily for college admissions essays, but for a mechanical engineer for whom papers are few and far between, scoring three points better than his female classmate on a writing exam is not too worrisome. As an English major, I will be the first to proclaim the importance of writing well (that’s probably because I am easily annoyed by the confusion of “you’re” and “your”.) But since there have been many articles about how English majors are nowhere near as likely to get jobs as engineers, people are focused more on getting rich than being enriched.

I think the most important thing is that people passionately pursue their interests and talents. Compulsory education which encourages graduates to be well-rounded is truly a noble endeavor. As to its success, I am not entirely certain. I am less convinced that the school system is steering children in a certain direction than I am concerned that they are doing best at subjects they already inherently love. As we are in a time of unprecedented innovation in multiple fields of study, I am pretty well assured that something is going right.

So keep learning, keep innovating, and keep it classy, Cornell.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

September 11th: A Personal Reflection

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

On September Eleventh each year the weather has a strange ability to place me in a surreal world. If it’s rainy or cold when I pause to reflect on the past, I feel distant from the past. If, however, it is warm and the sun is bright without a cloud in the sky, I am transported. This year, as I sit in the morning on the Arts Quad near the campus memorial, it feels like the day itself, eleven years ago.

I close my eyes and I’m nine years old again. I live in officers’ housing on a military base in Washington, D.C. School hasn’t started yet, and I relish the last week of summer. My mom reads a story to my sister, two brothers, and me. My youngest brother, Ian, is six months old. I’m the oldest, and therefore feel very responsible for everyone.

The phone starts ringing, interrupting the story. I follow my mom to where she answers it in the kitchen. My mom and dad have a short conversation and after hanging up, my mom turns on the television in her room. I follow and sit on her floor and watch. My siblings are downstairs, still waiting to finish the story. I barely comprehend the news we’re watching. Planes hitting large buildings in New York City. Fire. People jumping out of windows. I naively believe that they will be caught by the firemen. My mom explains that they won’t—and I am horrified. For the first time in my short nine years on Earth, I question: how secure is the world?

Then the next image flashes on the television screen. There is no sound, no commentary. Only a live image of a building on fire. I recognize the building, even without commentary. I recognize it because I’ve been there before: for office family parties, to visit my dad. I’ve been in its conference rooms, sitting at the large table coloring, while I’ve waited for important-looking adults to finish working in offices behind complicated security systems. The building on fire, engulfed in smoke, is “Daddy’s Pentagon”, the place he has gone to work every morning for the past three years. My mom opens the blinds of her bedroom window. From our military base in DC, she and I watch as smoke rises into the sky.

In a rush, my mom leaves us in the house and goes outside. I watch from the front door and she and the other military wives silently gather. I push past the door and join them —they are terrified and suspect that everyone, their husbands and co¬workers, are dead. We are warned by a news report that our air force base in DC is one of the next targets. Everyone is praying for a loved one. I silently pray for my dad.

The cell phone network is down. Even if people want to call to say they are safe, it is impossible. Finally, my dad calls. His office had been hit, and if he had been in it, he would have had no chance of survival. But construction had started the day before to renovate the office and he and everyone else in it had been relocated. This part of the Pentagon did not receive direct impact, though it was very, very close to it. For the first time in hours, my family is able to breathe. Other neighbors are not as lucky.

During the next months, armed men with large guns strapped to their backs patrol the base. Everywhere you go, you are asked to show identification. Sand bags are placed on the playgrounds for defense in case of an attack, but no one goes on the playgrounds anymore. Neighborhoods once alive with children outside are eerily quiet. The atmosphere is somber—we mourn for the loss of life our base has sustained.

When people ask me why I’m a government major, I give a number of reasons. Strong national defense policy, a set of courageous moral values, and liberty are principles I greatly value. Perhaps it is because I have witnessed firsthand how these values are essential to survival for our nation’s troops and civilians. What I observed that day, eleven years ago, is why I am a conservative, and why we must never forget the lessons learned on 9/11.

Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu.

Bureaucratic Malaise

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

If there were ever a worst time for a federal agency to flaunt its contempt for the public’s (rapidly dwindling) trust in government, it would obviously be now. Lawmakers have long since become exceptionally skilled at beating the drums of denunciation and outrage in the wake of tales of bureaucratic incompetence, inefficiency, profligacy, and waste. In a political climate rife with furious resentment against overbearing, bloated government, it would seemingly behoove unelected officials to conduct themselves dutifully in administration, and with full commitment to responsible management of taxpayer dollars.

But this would only seem to be the case. Not only did the General Service Administration utterly squander taxpayer dollars, but its members gloated gleefully in doing so.

An independent agency charged with supplying federal offices and managing buildings and office space, the GSA is, ironically, responsible for overseeing cost-minimizing policies. Plagued by a confusing administrative structure and subpar oversight of budget and contracting, its Pacific Rim region was allowed to spend more than $800,000 on a 2010 employee “training” conference in Las Vegas.

In late spring, Congressional outrage surfaced in the wake of reports that the conference included a mind reader, clowns and comedians. The Washington Post reported that employees were led through a so-called “team-building exercise,” during which they assembled bicycles, costing the taxpayers $75,000. The spectacle featured a “networking reception,” and included 400 pieces of “petit beef Wellington,” at $4.75 each, 400 “mini Monte Cristo sandwiches” at $5 each, and a “pasta reception station” at $16 a person.

Now, more embarrassing details are surfacing. The extravaganza's organizers promised the hotel $41,480 in further catering charges “in exchange for honoring the government’s lodging cost limits for conference participants.” In an unapologetic tribute to his agency’s squandering profligacy, a GSA employee produced a spoof rap video recorded to parody his department’s lavish spending. Its lyrical content sheds a glaring light on the GSA’s raw insolence and open contempt for the public’s trust. The GSA inspector reports $6,325 spent on commemorative coins, and $8,130 for souvenir books. Most indicting, a photograph has been circulating of agency head Jeffery Neely posing shirtless while soaking in a tub, wine glasses looming prodigiously in the backdrop. This deliberate abuse of funds is so flagrantly egregious that the Inspector General has referred the case to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.

Recently, Neely, hauled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was pointedly questioned in only the first of an entire series of Congressional hearings, in which he was relentlessly grilled and decried. The witness robotically replied “Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege,” to nearly every inquiry. Every committee member, of each committee session in which he was grilled, wanted a chance to take a swipe. Unconscionable! Condemnable! Intolerable! - were hurled about. As Republicans called for indictments, and hoped to brand the debacle as representative of a spirit of wastefulness on the part of the entire Obama administration, Democrats hoped to paint the scandal as the work of a few bad apples: “It makes me cringe that the good people at GSA who work hard every day have been humiliated by a few bad actors,” stated Rep. Barbara Boxer.

Frankly, though, it shouldn’t take a mind reader to determine exactly why Neely enthusiastically embraced a culture of corruption. Despite appearances, and despite the crusading denunciations of animated lawmakers, a spirit of open defiance toward and contempt for taxpayer concern pervades and festers throughout the government.

Are we really that surprised? Surely not.

The structure of bureaucracy breeds a culture of non-accountability. Its removal from the public scene breeds complacency and an ignorance of the extent to which taxpayers are already burdened. What follows is a sense of elitism, failure to sympathize with citizens’ concerns, and a feeling of entitlement to indulge. Because bureaucracy is not directly accountable to the voters, this malaise is renewed, administration after administration, and remains relatively unchecked. It becomes ingrained into the fabric of government. One can only fear that the GSA-attitude is more contagious, if less glamorous and overt, in other agencies, than administration officials would have you believe.

Mr. Neely's indiscretion is anything but representative of a few “bad apples,” but rather the sorry symptom of a sorry sickness of excess which plagues our government. While it may be refreshing to see our lawmakers screaming indignantly over this breach of integrity, they too have earned our contempt for their profligacy. So we would be remiss if we failed to turn the accusatory finger of outrage toward them as well. Bloated and constantly overspending, our government brazenly burns more taxpayer resources than the GSA could ever dream to. It is the height of stupefying hypocrisy, then, to see our lawmakers wave the bloody shirt of self-righteousness.

They never change. The money fountain never stops. Citizen cynicism is constantly nurtured. The epidemic continues.

At one of the Congressional hearings, Representative Elijah Cummings declared that the GSA had “violated one of the most basic tenets of government service. It's not your money."

It would be helpful if the good Congressman announced (read: screamed) this information at the next session of Congress, and then took a stroll to his own party’s caucus to spread the good news.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell. edu.

The 4th Ward Platform You Won't Hear in The Cornell Daily Sun

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

There comes a crucial point in the life of all true journalists when they must decide which side of the fence they are going to stand on. The decision is simple to understand, but complex to resolve: either to report on news independently with your readers well-aware of any biases you may have, or to report on news with hidden biases and treat your opinions as facts under the veil of independence.

This decision affects the stories writers pursue, the stances they take on those stories, and even the quotes they include in order to support the overall message in the article. The staff writers at the Cornell Review are not shy about where they stand on the issues, and as you read our publication, you do so with that in mind. This makes for more honest journalism, allowing the reader to get a true sense of both sides of the issue and hear all arguments, so that you can form opinions for yourself.

Our challenge is to help our comrades at the Daily Sun to do the same, and stand on the right side of the fence of journalistic integrity. Through some investigation, we have located a recent interview between the Sun and Ithaca Common Council candidate Misha Checkovich. The interview was used in an article announcing her candidacy. In the interview, we learn about Misha’s platform as well as some of her background and future plans in Ithaca. The article, however, limited her characterization to a “Cornell student” and “Republican,” as the writer proceeded to comment at length on the Democratic challenger, Stephen Smith.

The fact that little has been made known at a mass market level about this election for the 4th Ward in Ithaca is not an accident.

Below are more details of Misha and her platform as a candidate, as we work on investigating the same for her opponent.

The highlighted [italicized] sections are the lines quoted in the Daily Sun article.

SUN: When did you decide to run for Common Council?

I decided to run when I heard that Eddie Rooker was resigning his Ward 4 seat. It seemed likely, as in fact happened, that the Democratic Party would propose to replace him with yet another Ward 4 resident who has never been a Cornell student and has little in common with the majority of people who live in Ward 4. In view of the enormous impact City policies have, I believe it is important that Common Council not be without a student voice for the first time in years. As an independent-minded and pragmatic fiscal conservative, I will also provide a broader, more reality-based perspective in a City government now dominated by a one-party machine and devoid of political diversity.

SUN: What inspired you to run for Ithaca government in your senior year?

My multi-generational connection to Ithaca. My dad got his bachelors and masters at Cornell. I will finish my history degree at the end of December. I would like for Ithaca to be in my family's future as well. The City needs to do a better job of financial management and of encouraging the growth, jobs, and opportunity that inspire young people to stay here, to see Ithaca as their future, not just the place they went to school.

SUN: What platform are you running on?

I want to address the quality of life in Ward 4, which includes Cascadilla Park, West Campus, and most of Collegetown. Ward 4 property owners and businesses pay huge amounts in taxes and fees to the City. Those of us who are students and renters understand that those costs get passed through to us, which is one reason rents are so high. In view of what Ward 4 contributes to the City's revenues, I don't think that we are getting anything close to the level of City services we should have.

Safety and infrastructure are huge issues in Ward 4. We’ve seen several house fires in the past couple of years, including fatalities, but little has been done to address the fire department's concerns about fire risks in houses that have been converted into rental apartments. This is unacceptable. Some of our streets look like those in less developed nations, including the part of Stewart Avenue where I live. Residents and businesses are being crushed between economic imperatives and the burdensome and often ridiculous demands of City regulatory and review boards. Businesses are failing all over Ward 4, and that puts severe strain on student life, neighborhood life, and City finances. And I won’t even mention the parking crisis. I don’t think it is healthy for a student population such as ours to have so few spaces that are easily accessible during our downtime.

One of my goals is to improve the business and housing situation. Another is to help bring the City budget back from the brink of bankruptcy. We are spending $3 million more per year than we take in. For much of the previous administration that hole was papered over by taking $ 1 million per year from the City's reserve fund. Now, that fund is nearly exhausted and cannot be raided to pay for the profligate spending without endangering the City's bond rating. Some hard decisions need to be made, and they will require cuts in both personnel and services. To his credit, Mayor Svante Myrick clearly wants to move the City toward a balanced budget and is on record as saying that he would rather make cuts than raise taxes. While I have many differences with the Mayor, I look forward to working with him on Common Council in making these difficult but necessary changes.

SUN: Do you think its common for Republicans to run for office in the 4th Ward?

It is becoming more common. Last year Jessica Reif, who is now president of the Cornell Republicans, ran as a write-in candidate. This year I'll be on the ballot on the Republican Party line as well as on the Collegetown Party independent line. Although voter registration in the City tilts heavily toward the Democrats, Ithaca is in fact “10 square miles surrounded by Republicans.” Not only do we have the City surrounded, but I expect to see more Republicans (and independents) in the City running for seats on Common Council as Ithacans become aware of what has happened here over the past decade. The City has been run completely by Democrats, and clearly that has not worked out too well. I think some fresh political blood and diversity in political views would be a great benefit.

SUN: Do you plan on continuing in Ithaca politics if you win the one year interim term?

Yes. I love it here and plan to stay here after I graduate. I am already looking at graduate school and employment opportunities in the area, and of course I plan to continue in Ithaca politics after the one-year term. Ithaca has the potential to be a true powerhouse city in upstate New York, but getting there will take more than one year.

SUN: Could you explain a little about yourself? What is your major? Where are you from?

I am majoring in History in the College of Arts and Sciences because it’s my most comfortable subject and also because history is so important in understanding our society and what drives people. I am originally from a suburb of Boston, so I am very comfortable here in the Northeast. My father is from a Long Island family originally from the Ukraine. Others of my ancestors came to America before the Civil War. My mother is from Taiwan, and I still have family there, in China, and Thailand. My biggest hobby outside of school is politics, and I also love different languages and cultures. I speak Mandarin fluently and am currently learning Arabic. I think it is important for us as individuals to be willing to reach out and communicate with each other across our differences and beyond our comfort zones, otherwise we will never be able to negotiate effectively or develop productive alliances. That is another reason I love this community. For a place with such a small-town feel, Ithaca has incredible diversity and many, many residents who want what is best for the City and its people.

2016 in Review

2012-10-05T00:00:00Z

One point that cannot be stressed enough is that if Barack Obama were to seek a job in the federal government, particularly one with an agency concerning the security of the nation such as the FBI or CIA, he would be promptly rejected, possibly even placed under surveillance. The government, rightly so, is concerned with people who have associated with terrorists and radicals (cue the ACLU cries of first-amendment violation, but that's not where this article is headed).

Now, some people reading this might be thinking, “Barack Obama is nothing if not an exemplary, patriotic American. All of this is just right-wing-conspiratorial-racist-reactionary-bigotry. Republicans just want to hate and 'otherize' the first black president”. And I probably would not (completely) blame them, given the total media blackout/revisionism on all things having to do with Barack Obama past and present, as well as the looks of sheer horror when bringing up these pesky details in polite company. But, how much money would you bet that supporters of Barack Obama know more about the excruciating details of Mitt Romney's high school antics than anything about Obama's years abroad, at college, and as a community organizer?

Certainly your money would be safer in that bet than in the current housing market or under Jon Corzine's management.

Enter the documentary 2016: Obama's America, with the tagline “Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him”. Based on conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza's earlier writings on the psychology of Barack Obama, the movie takes a look at what primary motivators drive Obama's decisions in the White House and on the world stage.

D'Souza opens the film with his “angle”: that he himself is an immigrant from India, formerly a British colony, and that he came to view America through that lens. D'Souza left India to attend college at Dartmouth, and soon after settling in to his new surroundings, joined a group of “renegade conservatives” in establishing the Dartmouth Review, a controversial newspaper aspiring to counter the liberalism of academia. He went on to work in the Reagan White House, and has since established a career as an academic and important conservative pundit and author.

As the first Obama administration unfolded, there was a lot of mystery shrouding his key decisions and actions. Many attributed to him quaint descriptors such as “radical”, “communist”, “Muslim infiltrator”, “left-wing agitator”, and sundry conservative buzzwords. The racial dog-whistles would come later.

But one of the more nuanced criticisms that emerged was that Obama subscribed to an “anti-colonial” view. It did not help that Newt Gingrich added “mau-mau” to the description (referring to the Kenyan uprising to British colonial rule in the 1950's) in a rather derogatory tone of voice, but it did bring light to the thesis. In fact, this thesis was put forward by Dinesh D'Souza himself in an article for Forbes Magazine titled “The Roots of Obama's Rage”, and it plays the central role in 2016.

The source for this article is none other than Barack Obama's very own autobiography “Dreams From My Father”. D'Souza goes through the autobiography with meticulous attention to detail (which I will not reprise here, but will say that the article is well worth the time to read through) and comes to the conclusion that Obama had drawn from his father the struggle against the Anglo-sphere capitalist societies and their perceived exploitation of the colonized states. In essence, Obama's time in office has been dedicated towards knocking America (the ultimate Anglo-sphere capitalist society) down a few pegs in the world order, as evidenced by his reference to American exceptionalism being on par with British exceptionalism or Greek exceptionalism, among other such statements and actions.

It is why he would be willing to encourage and finance South American energy-development rather than what is available on our own shores and federal lands (note: the ongoing energy development during this administration, which the president has publicly bragged about, has happened mainly, if not completely, at the hands of private enterprise on private lands). Whether or not you agree with him, we should all be on the same page as to what the facts are, as to what has come from Obama's very own pen and personal history.

2016 goes through Obama's life in sequence, from his influences to the major milestones of his life that he himself describes in his autobiography. If you are looking for a real undertaking in the vetting of this president, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, D'Souza's movie offers a very compelling look into the often obfuscated personal story of the leader of the free world.

Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu.

Government: The Only Thing We All Belong To

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

The authors of “You didn’t build that” are at it again, and they’ve come up with another slogan that’s sure to be just as much of a PR gem. A video screened at the opening of last week’s Democratic National Convention claimed that, as Americans, our government is “the only thing we all belong to.”

Funny. I was under the impression that we might be part of something larger and nobler, or at least less in debt. The planet Earth comes to mind, as does the human race and—perhaps most politically significant—a community of free, equal, and rational beings with individual rights.

Indeed, the recognition of such a community was one of the major political-philosophical developments of the American Revolution. After all, the line, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...” is deservedly one of the most famous in US history. And it is significant not just because it played a part in what would come to be the American founding. It is not because it posits the existence of some “Creator.” Rather, it is because it establishes the existence of humans as beings with rights prior to and external from the state.

The theory that people’s rights are given by the state is a dangerous one. It suggests that the state may also take them away. This is why belief in the human community—the community of free and equal rights bearers—is so important. It is a powerful guard against supposed justifications of tyranny, and it is a much-needed refuge for people whose rights have been infringed upon and whose governments refuse to do anything about it.

In fact, without the notion of the human community, the concept of a person whose rights have been violated by his government is not even comprehensible. If government is really the only thing to which we all belong, if we do not possess rights regardless of the whims of government, then the very existence of our rights is subject to those whims.

As a rhetorical tool, perhaps, it seems prudent for the American left to paint the government as the only commonality connecting citizens; but to diminish the bond among citizens to an entanglement in the red tape of government bureaucracy is to derogate the meaning of citizenship, and the meaning of being human.

People are capable of unity even if it is not motivated by common membership in one state. There are, I would venture to say, many things that connect us all to one another. But the human community of rights bearers is one we should certainly not forget, and one whose health we should certainly not neglect.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Stakes Raised in Council Race

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Before last November’s special election, the residents of Collegetown—a district populated 97% by Cornell students—had been represented in the Ithaca Common Council by two Cornell students in every year since 2004. The Democratic Party is now looking to elect its second consecutive candidate with no ties whatsoever to the Cornell students that he would potentially represent.

The battleground is Ithaca’s 4th Ward, which encompasses most of Collegetown and parts of West Campus. Until this week, Council¬man Eddie Rooker ‘09 held the seat. Rooker, who had served the area since he was elected in 2009, recently announced his resignation to pursue a law degree at the New York University School of Law.

The outgoing councilman was a former president of the Inter-Fraternity Council and member of Sig¬ma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), and could often be seen around Collegetown, interacting with the students he represented even after his graduation. His presence as a link between the Cornell and Ithaca communities continued a long line of Cornell students becoming active in Ithaca politics—highlighted by fellow SAE brother Svante Myrick, who first joined the council in 2008.

It was recently announced that Stephen Smith would be the Democratic nominee, and on Monday the Cornell Review’s own Misha Checkovich ’13 announced that she would represent the Republicans.

The Democrat Stephen Smith is an alumnus of the State University of New York at Geneseo who has occupied his time since graduation by managing the campaigns of Democrats around the country, among other tasks.

This creates a match-up between a clear Collegetown outsider and a Collegetown insider that will have long-term implications on the character of Cornell’s center of student life.

“I want to run in order to affect common sense solutions to the problems facing the Collegetown community,” explained Checkovich, a History major who currently re¬sides on Stewart Ave. “I need your help to keep the seat in the hands of a Cornell student who understands the area.”

“I consider C-Town an integral part of the Cornell experience, and have been saddened by the deterioration of the housing and business environment,” she added. “I want to make this a more livable area, not just a place people come to because they were pushed out by trends in campus policies in housing and Greek life. Unfortunately, there are a lot of entrenched interests that have created byzantine regulations that do not make sense in the 21st century.”

Checkovich’s candidacy continues the trend of student engagement that has ensured Collegetown’s exceptional and responsive representation in Ithaca politics.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu.

The Shifting Political Landscape

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Deep below the election rhetoric, a subtle tectonic shift in the alignment of America’s two major political parties is becoming more apparent. The recent geopolitical alteration of party allegiances may be temporary, but there is a distinct possibility that 2012 marks this generation’s critical election.

President Obama’s victory in 2008 broke many of the barriers the Democratic Party had faced since the mid-20th century. The President was able to capture the southern seaboard states of North Carolina and Virginia without any home-state leverage, and gathered 66 percent support from an unprecedented 23 million voters aged 18-29 by building off of Howard Dean’s 2004 social media outreach strategy. Higher proportions of Latino and African American voters were also attracted to the Democratic tent. These historic gains, coupled with control of the House and Senate, reflected a geographic and demographic realignment with increased Democratic clout.

Fast-forward to 2012. Congress is divided. The President has little to show for his tenure except the highly controversial Affordable Care Act and a slow economic recovery. A Romney victory in November could be perceived as a swinging of the political pendulum away from Obama’s 2008 high-water mark. Recent polling, however, indicates this may not entirely be the case. The Republicans’ largest gains have not come in the southern and western states Senator McCain failed to secure in 2008, but rather in the Midwest. Likewise, President Obama has maintained substantial support in some traditionally conservative regions, but his advantage has waned significantly in Michigan, Wisconsin, and even his home state of Illinois.

All of these trends point to a critical election. Theorized by political scientist V.O. Key, past critical elections include the presidential elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1964. These elections, relatively generational in occurrence, mark significant changes in partisan voting behavior and usher in eras of one-party control. Although recent political gridlock has cast doubt upon the predictive powers of the critical election theory, one could point to 2008 as part of a major shift in the country’s political landscape. Regardless, 2012 also has the potential to be a realigning election — though in favor of whom is a much more challenging question to answer.

If elected, Romney would be the first Republican president with a northern business background since Warren G. Harding. Mitt’s growing support in the Midwest may stem from his campaign’s emphasis on creating new jobs—an issue especially relevant in the recovering rustbelt. Perhaps more significant is Mitt’s father, George Romney, who served as Michigan’s governor from 1963-1969. On the other end of the ticket, Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin heritage, alongside Governor Scott Walker’s recent electoral victories, has helped to energize the local conservative base.

Romney’s support among traditional Republican constituencies, however, is becoming tenuous. Lack of enthusiasm among southern social conservatives and Senate candidate Todd Akin’s recent comments on rape have given Obama traction in Missouri. An emphasis on several rising GOP stars at the RNC convention, campaign ads targeting newly unemployed graduates, and a harder line on Medicare reform marks a Republican pivot toward the youth vote—it’s no accident that Romney and Ryan are the first pair of Republican nominees with a lower cumulative age then their Democratic opponents since Bush and Quayle in 1988. Furthermore, Romney-Ryan is arguably the first major party ticket not to include a Protestant, although the ramifications of this are still unknown.

Policy aside, the 2012 election will determine who will take credit, or receive blame, for America’s immediate future. A contested Senate, with historically competitive elections in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and an aging Supreme Court mean the victor of this presidential election will likely set the stage for at least a brief period of one-party control. Both candidates understand this, with Romney preemptively forging congressional alliances in order to advance his first 100 days agenda.

The predicted era of post-2008 Democratic dominance has not been realized. 2012 remains an opportunity for either party to take control of the American government. If early indications of geopolitical change come to fruition, 2012 could mark the beginning of a long-term political realignment—a Republican re-commitment to fiscal concerns and gains in the industrialized Midwest, simultaneous with Democratic in¬roads along the liberalizing Atlantic seaboard.

Christopher Mills is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cjm363@cornell.edu.

Stereotypes of the Legal World

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Most students who intern at a law firm get stuck in the corner of an office and do work that even young lawyers just out of law school would hate to touch. They never see a deposition, never go to trial, never interact with other lawyers, and because of that, they gain no real experience. To them, law becomes dry, and is now something they have lost the passion to pursue. Though we must all pay our dues, some of us are fortunate enough to land internships filled with action and leave with a respectable collection of “war stories”.

Fortunately for me, I was able to intern for the J. Guerra Law Firm working directly under plaintiff’s attorney Jesse Guerra. I was fortunate that he took me under his wing, considering Mr. Guerra’s winning reputation in the aquatic litigation arena. He is highly regarded as “THE” go to swimming pool attorney in the USA.

We would meet with potential clients and, even if a case seemed close to impossible to win, he would take it on. Immediately in these meetings, I was able to experience what went on in his head as he discussed strategy for winning each particular case. These strategies were always outside of the box and in the past have proved to be very effective.

He would take me to meet with clients, take depositions, and attend hearings and trials. It was a great feeling walking out of a conference room after a deposition knowing we had just left the defense white-faced and fuming. As Mr. Guerra would love to say, “Us plaintiff’s lawyers are like Spartans. One of us is 10 of them. We go straight for the jugular.”

This internship was great because it exposed me to the reality of today’s legal world, while clearing my mind of stereotypes of what lawyers and the legal world would be:

1. All lawyers are scumbags.

I remember Mr. Guerra telling me of his experience working with a successful lawyer, who we will call Mr. Jones, in Texas. Mr. Guerra had brought Mr. Jones two cases that he generously profited from. When Mr. Guerra went to collect his cut for referring the cases to Mr. Jones, Jones claimed that he didn’t know what cases he was talking about and Mr. Guerra was dismissed. Though Mr. Guerra and Mr. Jones didn’t have a legal contract laying out payment, most lawyers would recognize the referral and would be more than willing to give a percentage of the settlement.

There are many lawyers in the legal world that genuinely care about helping their clients more than simply the money. These are the lawyers that don’t just take the “slam dunk” cases, who will, and who are personally willing to work on the low margin cases not because they have to but because they want to. They fight until the end for the sake of justice being served. Remember, lawyers are people too.

2. Lawyers are limited to incessant paperwork, and endless reading and referencing legal books.

In fact, the opposite can be true. While being a lawyer does require a lot of reading and writing, the job is as action-packed as you make it. Some lawyers prefer to instead work behind the scenes and do all the paperwork and legal writing for somebody else. But if you want to be hashing it out against an opponent, then you can definitely find a way to do that as well. During my time with Mr. Guerra, it seemed like every week we were going somewhere new to fight against the defense on their home turf. The satisfaction you get from showing up your opponent on their home court is priceless.

3. All lawyers are wealthy.

I think people have the misconception that all lawyers make a lot of money and only got into the business for that reason. The truth is that most lawyers work for somebody else’s firm and are paid a salary, both on the plaintiff and defense side. There is potential to make very good money in the legal world, but with that comes risk. The lawyers that make the most money are predominately plaintiff’s attorneys, for they are paid on commission from settlements of the cases they settle.

Interning for a law firm was truly a valuable experience. Even if you don’t want to go into the legal field, it’s important to know how it works and how it affects you as a citizen of the United States.

For those families who were grieving and struggling with a loss and large medical debt, we were able to give them the monetary assistance they needed to live and have a brighter future. Most clients are truly grateful for your service and you leave feeling satisfied with the work you’ve done.

Jacob Zapata is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jaz54@ cornell.edu.

A Southern Gentleman In New York

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

“Please. Thank you. Yes ma’am. No sir.”

These are words I’ve uttered millions of times a day for years, so much so that they have become instinctual and second nature. Yet I hardly hear them at all now. I hold the door for ladies, and I fully expect to pay for my date’s evening. Yes, I am also fully aware and respectful of a woman’s ability to do these things on her own, but she won’t have to when I am around. This is simply how I was raised. It is called being a gentleman. When did this become so strange?

I have spent my whole life in the warm, loving embrace of the American South. Though each state I have called home has had its own idiosyncrasies, regardless the side of the Mississippi on which they lay, prevailing themes have always held true: we love sweet tea, we worship air conditioning, we love football a little too much, and we foster a wary view of our neighbors to the north. No, not the Canadian; the “Yankee.”

From the time I was old enough to shell a crawfish, I had been hearing about the peculiar nature of northerners. The majority of my opinions had been formed by the stereotypical Hollywood New Yorker. In my mind’s eye, I pictured most men to be like Dan Aykroyd’s character in Trading Places; concerned only with themselves, fast-talking, and cut-throat. Most women I thought to be some sort of amalgamation of the characters from Sex and The City. These types of personalities are basically the antithesis of the traditional Southern Belle and Gentleman. To make matters even worse, my dad had lived in New York City for awhile back in the 80’s, and he assured me that most Yankees had poor opinions of Southerners as well; that we are all dumb rednecks who are too slow to make it in the real world.

So it was with this lifetime’s worth of naïve understandings that I set out to Cornell University this fall, having only once travelled north of the Mason-Dixon Line before. I will say I was more curious than nervous to finally be amongst these people of which I had heard so much about, yet knew so very little. One of the first things I discovered at Cornell is that folks here seem to live in their own private bubbles. If you make eye contact and smile or, God forbid, say “good morning,” you are more likely to be rewarded with an odd look than reciprocation. Furthermore, it appears that common manners have fled for warmer climates as well.

Though these were the first things I noticed, they were certainly not the last. For instance, I am surprised by how on a college campus very few people smoke. Granted, when cigarettes are approaching $10 for a pack, I’m sure it makes picking up the habit a bit more difficult. But there definitely seems to be a higher proportion of smokers in the South than up here (I guess this explains why the Marlboro Man isn’t wearing a Mets cap). Another, more obvious, difference is the topography and weather. In short, they actually exist here. I have also rapidly fallen in love with the commitment to maintaining historical structures, rather than just razing them and building anew. The ability to actually walk everywhere is taking some adjustment, but in time I will learn to not miss traffic and horrible morning radio shows.

I know that I still have a lot to learn about life up here. I know that I have yet to see a real winter, and that I will need to bring my passion for football to Schoellkopf, and that until they develop a Southerner character for “Tapestry” I may have to keep explaining myself to people. However, in my heart, I will always remain a Southern Gentleman, and I’ll see y’all at the tailgate party for Homecoming.

Mike Navarro is a junior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at mln62@cornell.edu.

Chicago Teachers' Union Strike

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

On September 10th, four hundred thousand public school students in Chicago could not go to school. The nation’s third largest school system was shut down after negotiations between Chicago’s School Board and Chicago’s Teachers Union (CTU) fell apart. Those four hundred thousand students, sidelined from an opportunity for a brighter future, deserve to know who failed them.

The reasons for the breakdown in negotiations were not clear, but Mayor Rahm Emanuel—President Obama’s former Chief of Staff— points towards two main remaining issues: unions are not accepting of principals’ increased independence over hiring, and they are not accepting of using student performance as a part of teachers’ evaluations.

When a business is failing, owners keep managers liable for the company’s performance. It is the responsibility of that manager to hire and train the right employees and get rid of those that are not getting the job done. A public school system is like a business, and the taxpayers—specifically the tax-paying parents of students—are the owners. They allow principals to function as managers, but those principals cannot do their job if they do not have the power to hire and train the right teachers and get rid of those that are not getting the job done. How can we expect to have the best teachers for our students if principals can’t make essential hiring decisions?

Also, in January 2010, the Illinois State Legislature passed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act, which—along with many other things—would require 25% of teachers’ evaluations to be based on student performance. Some teachers argue that focusing on scores takes away from conceptual learning, but the contract asks for only 25% of the evaluations to come from students’ improvement in scores. I understand teaching is a complex process, but these achievement-gain measures allow us to see that our children are actually learning and provide a more standardized method of judging teachers. Regardless of these reasons, the request in the contract is in accordance with Illinois-state law.

Even after the school board provided a 16% raise over four years in the contract, these two issues (one of which is the school board following the law) led 26,000 Chicago Teachers Union members to strike. According to a Chicago Public Schools spokesperson, the average pay for teachers (not including benefits) is currently $76,000—the highest for any city in the entire nation.

I love and appreciate my teachers. They taught me about life and gave me the opportunity to be where I am now. That being said, it is not fair to these 400,000 students to have their futures hijacked by a teachers union who have already received a generous raise (at the expense of already troubled taxpayers) and are receiving the highest pay for teachers in the entire nation. It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who said the following: “Since their own services have to do with the functioning of Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Since their own services have to do with the functioning of Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

President Roosevelt would not tolerate the actions of the CTU, and neither should we. On Monday, September 10th, four hundred thousand students were abandoned by their teachers, with their parents left struggling to find places for them to stay as they went to work. We, as Chicagoans, have failed these students and their parents because we have not kept teachers liable for their actions, school boards liable for their negotiations, and politicians liable for their special interests.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration and hails from the Chicago area. He can be reached at kml248@cornell.edu.

The Chamber of Revelations

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Who are small businesspeople? What motivates them to create and innovate? What exactly are the sources of their ingenuity? What makes this role so crucial for American communities? Can such dauntingly broad questions be answered cogently?

Perhaps not, but my summer internship position at the (NJ) Hunterdon County Chamber of Commerce presented me with an ideal and unique opportunity to confront these questions. As an Economic Development and Destination Marketing researcher, I approached my position as if I were conducting a case study, of sorts. After all, there seemed to be no better way to learn about average businesspeople and their concerns than to interact with an entire tapestry of them in this central setting, this hub of energetic activity (Flemington, being the county seat of Hunterdon, is one of the principal and few areas where official county business, public and private, takes place).

Before I began, in my mind, Chambers of Commerce served narrowly and merely as greedy local organizations—self-serving commercial networks of self-centered business leaders whose sole and express purpose was to advocate for the shared financial interests of a select few private enterprises in their community, and little else. I never imagined that they aimed to serve the public interest as explicitly as they actually do.

There is now little difficulty in identifying the origin of what was, at that time, my limited conception and unfair assumptions. After months of being bombarded with the screeds of (1) Occupy Wall Street demonstrators on the CU campus (protesting the excesses of the financial industry and corporations), (2) of observing the passionate campaigns of labor sympathizers (crusading against sweat shops), and (3) of reading about the “heroic” acts of civil disobedience carried out by green activists (objecting to the installation of an oil pipeline through the Great Plains), I had unknowingly been moved to a state of quiet resentment against job creators in the private sector. (But I was not alone, and the programming of my negative attitude toward business was anything but accidental, as we shall see...)

Even I couldn’t help but fall prey to the carefully designed trap of prejudice against those engaged in commercial pursuits (businesspeople). Even on the first day of volunteering at the chamber, I was deceived: “Why should any commercial operations, small or large, escape citizen suspicion?” After all, aren’t all businesses purely money making operations, devoid of respect for civic duty and public interest? The OWS activist might very well ask, “What makes members of a medium-sized chamber of commerce any less greedy, unsympathetic and self-centered than the mega-industries we make a habit out of scrutinizing?” The answer arrived with the furry of a freight train.

Within the first week of my time at the Chamber I had been enlightened. The ideologically framed attitude toward business on the CU campus is so radically different from the attitudes I encountered this summer—a real world of private enterprises intimately embedded in the work of improving the quality of life in their communities. Through numerous conversations of great length, it became obvious to me that these community real estate agents, bank presidents, accountants, and attorneys were indeed facilitators of social progress, collective advancement and economic empowerment for the local citizenry as a whole. The entrepreneurs, freeholders, and CEOs I met fervently believed that they were engaging in service to the community and acted like it. They cared deeply and seriously about the financial struggles of their employees and consumers. This much was evident from the manner in which they identified priorities at board meetings for economic revitalization, community outreach, and coordinated improvements of community services.

For these small business people, their work with the chamber served as a vehicle of job creation and development on behalf of the citizenry. The chamber was not an instrument of self-enrichment for them, but a nerve center for desperately needed access, resources, advocacy and networking. These people were fueled by a motivation to ensure that shared objectives were met formally. And they were exceedingly sensitive to community needs (since they were, after all, just regular people who were aware of local problems), and were mindful of their obligation to contribute to community efforts to secure them. The activities of public service and business were concurrent for chamber participants.

My experience at both a Chamber Mayoral Breakfast and a Chamber Card Club festival brought me in direct contact with an entire assortment of passionate pioneers and visionaries. From legal services to medical services, and from IT to financial planning, they exhibited a sort of sustained dynamism which serves as the defining ingredient of the town’s uniqueness and success. For a few of them, the ingenuity never seemed to end, and the innovative offerings and service initiatives imagined took on so many different forms. I was nearly brought to tears.

Everyone knew that their work was interwoven with the very fabric of the community. This point was repeatedly stressed. Everyone had a project oriented toward creative outreach. What is more, everyone was eager to share it with me. Everyone was genuinely interested in my input. For me, it was staggering and emboldening to behold a spirit of growing optimism among a group, even in this time of economic malaise.

I couldn't have imagined how incredibly versatile chambers actually are. I once thought of them as mere political lobbies, but this characterization fails to capture their multifaceted role as a community-based partnerships. It is clear to me now that they serve as nerve centers for common-sense advocacy, networking and resources for literally hundreds of burgeoning small businesses, nonprofits, and community outreach programs. Strikingly diverse in their community function, they serve as forums for informational exchange, community development, strategy formulation, candid advice, and informed dialogue aimed at grappling with community challenges within the realms of local policy and economics.

But many of them expressed worry to me privately. They feared that they were under-appreciated by the powers that be, that they were being maligned for simply securing the best for their communities, their families, and their own senses of self-worth. They suspected that they were being unfairly scapegoated for the national problems created by lawmakers and bureaucrats in DC. To a person, they stood in horror when the SCOTUS Health Care opinion was announced on a sunny June day, and it appeared as if their future would tumble into darkness. They didn’t know why they were being punished with over-regulation and burdensome taxation even by some local authorities, and they were particularly unnerved when it was proclaimed on national television that they hadn’t really built what they sacrificed so much to create: their very own businesses.

So why had I been so wrong?!

Indeed, on an ideologically skewed campus like Cornell, it is all too easy to be tainted by such a spirit of resentment toward job creators in general. Smearing the reputation of business entities is a hallowed preoccupation on this campus. The ongoing outcry in condemnation of Adidas for alleged mistreatment of workers, the administration’s capitulation to demands that a campus contract with said company be cut, and the subsequent elation over this outcome, comes to mind. Last year’s manufactured outrage over the Technion controversy also rings a bell. And on campuses across the map, many find it decidedly convenient to come to expect the worst of all decision makers in the entirety of the private sector, whether Goldman Sachs mega-broker or locally-operating real estate agency. Those intent on lambasting the tycoons of the financial industry and big corporations (Wall Street) in the fall of 2011 surely couldn’t keep their bitterness from quietly spilling over into general suspicion of all things business (Main Street).

And herein lies the bait of the trap. The act of demonizing hedge fund managers, speculators, and stock brokers seems—if not meaningless—very attractive for the restful and jealous. But the act also presents a dangerous avenue which descends into a spiritually compromising place: a more subtly expressed culture of suspicion of, prejudice against, and resentment toward middle class business folks like local attorneys, accountant managers and community bankers. So the festering spirit of hostility toward the corporate world is unavoidably accompanied by a subtext of contempt for the more humble lot of small entrepreneurs: those agents that spear head the underlying current of economic growth for thousands of communities nationwide. Regrettably, this festering spirit of anti-business hostility is nurtured by our professors, especially in the ILR and A&S colleges, who relentlessly fuel the flames of the dangerous sentiment.

Why so dangerous? Because an anti-business attitude is fundamentally out-of-step with the fundamentally entrepreneurial character which defines the cultural fabric of American life. For professors to send off graduates into the real world of business with skewed assumptions about commercial enterprise is harmful for those graduates and suicidal for the spiritual health of the country. Belief that business necessarily equates to greed and selfishness entirely misunderstands the bedrock of the American ethos: private initiative as an instrument which secures the best interests of the broader community in which that initiative serves.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

Two Islams

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

America is now a land of two constitutions. One Constitution is that of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. It is the one which recognizes the existence of natural rights, the fallibility of man, and the necessity of limiting his governments.

The other is the constitution of the modern liberal. It is the constitution of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. It is the one which recognizes the existence of myriad positive rights, the fallibility of man, and the necessity of regulating his freedom.

Yes, the words of both constitutions are the same, but the meanings are as different as can be. Each person in America knows which one they believe to be a better guide for the country. Some people become activists for their cause, or even go so far as to vote for candidates with similar beliefs. In recent decades, the gap between the originalist and “living and breathing” Constitution has grown wider, and the country more polarized.

A similar schism has occurred in the Islamic world. Not the classic Sunni-Shia split, but a divergence similar to what has occurred in interpreting the American Constitution: originalist versus progressive. On the one hand there is a modern Islam: secularist, peaceful, willing to go along to get along in the globalized world. You undoubtedly know a few of its adherents. On the other is the fundamentalist: violent, totalitarian, and expansionist. Similarly, there are two Korans, two jihads, two sets of beliefs. It is all about interpretation. Just as with the Constitution, each believer falls somewhere along the spectrum, but generally has only the two options to choose from when making personal and political decisions.

The problem for Americans, though, is that both groups claim the name, identity, and true meaning of Islam. Analogizing again to the Constitution, what would a foreigner think reading America’s charter for the first time? Naturally, he would take it at face value – the common meanings of the words on the page – and determine its acceptability based on his own beliefs. Accepted interpretations of the text are not his to devise. He might then seek interpretation or clarification from an American. Asking a liberal or a conservative, he would receive wildly different answers to his questions.

And so it is for an American interpreting Islam. What we have to work with is an original Islam that we know from our perspective and analysis is decidedly antithetical to the American (originalist, of course) Constitution and values. For interpretation, we have an Islam in America that tells us our interpretation is wrong, and an Islam in the Middle East that has proven our interpretation correct.

Two Islams; endless obfuscation. The secularists claim to be Islam, as do the fundamentalists. As with the Constitution, it cannot be both. Yet in the US today, it has all been boiled down to political currency and correctness versus national security.

The liberals in America tell us that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East are of the progressive variety. They tell us that they really want American-style representative secular government, and will realize this if only we are kind enough to them. The Middle Eastern culture is one that above all else seems to respect strength. The goal of winning hearts and minds must take that into account. By equivocating, appeasing, and infighting we invite their contempt. Our government continues to marginalize radicals in the Middle East. Claiming them to be marginal does not in fact make them so. They have real power and growing influence, and as we have seen are more than willing to use violence.

It is becoming overwhelmingly apparent that this attitude is one designed to attack the American originalists rather than (impossibly) bridge the gap between America and fundamentalist Islam. Whenever the radicals are offended by some minor slight, American progressives blame America for not being sensitive enough, for having too broad an understanding of our rights, for a lack of cultural understanding, for patriotism, for patriarchy, or whatever the buzzword of the day happens to be. When we respond with strength and stand up for our values they point to the peaceful secular Muslims in the West as the example of what Islam is, rather than to the fundamentalist version abroad (and at home).

However, this form of Islam, and governments adhering to it in the near east, seems to be shrinking rather than growing, as the secular and stable regimes have fallen and more nations follow the Turkish or even Iranian models of Islamist government. For example, when the Arab Spring began, we were told that we had nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, they assent to the burning of our embassies, as evidenced by their failure in their duty to defend it and statements to supporters. An act of war in all but modern times (National Review columnist and former terrorism prosecutor Andrew McCarthy poses the question, “Would they have dared storm the American embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2002?”)

It all comes back to the liberals though. They are – in typical fashion – not letting a crisis go to waste. Firstly, and most obviously, the media chose to make its priority attacking Republican candidate Mitt Romney for his rather uncontroversial statement regarding the Muslims’ actions. Absurd details about his speech’s “timing” dominated two news cycles.

Secondly, they want us to believe that these attacks were not premeditated – that they were the spontaneous reaction to an insult, and just happened to fall on the anniversary of the fundamentalists’ greatest triumph over the west. Does anyone honestly believe this? They want us to believe that radical Islam holds no malice but for a few Osamas towards the Western world, and is only capable of violence in retaliation to our actions. During the recent attack on the Cairo embassy, the chant was, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!”

What’s worse is that the liberals in power expect us to apologize, cower, and surrender to the threat of future violence. Is it not the responsibility of our government to defend our freedoms no matter what? Is that not the very essence of our foreign relations – to make sure our freedoms are not threatened and that our steadfast belief in them is communicated to the outside world?

Instead, the government tries to suppress the actions of Terry Jones, harasses “Sam Bacile”, and even fires on YouTube. It is the First Amendment that is attacked as harmful and outdated rather than a society that permits and even encourages violence in response to all offense. The American government’s response should have declared the burning of our embassies and murder of an ambassador intolerable, not immediately apologized. A vague notion of radicals was blamed, not the billion mainstream Osamas. But after abandoning our allies and stability in the Middle East for the sake of hope, change, the liberal alliance with progressive Islam, and its fear of shaking that alliance (thereby losing votes) by standing up to fundamentalist Islam, the Obama administration will sleep in the bed it has made, and all will suffer for it.

English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Would we abandon our values for the sake of tolerance? There is no denying that America was founded on a set of convictions – natural rights. Have we no longer any convictions, nor the conviction to hold onto the values that created us? The Arab Spring and now Islamist Summer and Jihadist Fall have proven that the people and states of the Middle East are not about to compromise theirs.

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell.edu.

Conservatives Defending Art

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

You might not have believed it from the rhetoric, but last year conservatism got to do something that it rarely gets the opportunity to do: defend art.

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Supreme Court held that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment. Brown concerned the legality of a California statute prohibiting the sale of “violent video game[s]” to minors. This California statute used the rather vague three prong obscenity test from Miller v. California in order to determine whether or not a video game was a “violent video game” or not.

In effect, this vague test granted a large degree of subjectivity (and thus power) to California in determining what was and was not a “violent video game.”

Because numerous game publishers and members of the games industry feared the effects of this statute, the Entertainment Merchants’ Association (EMA) sued California, claiming that, among other things, the California statute was unconstitutionally broad, that the statute relied on questionable “proof” regarding video games’ effect on children, and on the basis that there were less restrictive means available to protect children from violent video games. The Supreme Court, per Justice Scalia, ultimately agreed with the EMA, finding that video games were protected speech and that there was little evidence linking videogames and the harmful psychological effects that the California legislature alleged to exist.

Needless to say, there’s a lot for conservatives to love about Brown v. EMA. Not only did the Supreme Court protect video games as being essentially the same as other forms of art, but they did so in a way that roundly criticized state paternalism.

But there’s something even better about the Brown holding: it showed how small government ideals can protect art.

The textbook liberal position on the statute in Brown—that it was necessary to “protect” children from harmful and psychologically manipulative violent videogames—is a position that hurts art because it implies that the state should be involved in the evaluation and classification of art. In contrast, the conservative view approving of Brown—which might be characterized as a sort of “let me buy what I want” approach—protects the ability of game developers to express themselves without the threat of state regulation or censorship, even if what they express is morally reprehensible.

Thus, while allegedly pro-art liberals like Hillary Clinton often find themselves advocating for the legislative classification and compartmentalization of art in order to “protect” children, conservatives get to defend the merit of art unconstrained by the whim and emotional sensitivities of legislative bodies.

Of course, beyond consistency, there are very good reasons why conservatives advocate small government ideals in the context of the video game industry: as with many other business sectors, big government has the potential to seriously harm the video game industry.

It is fairly obvious why legislative bodies cannot be trusted to evaluate videogames: few government officials can be trusted to evaluate the psychological effects of violence or sexual content, let alone in a way that would give a principled distinction between different games. For example, who could possibly tell if Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 should be considered to be more violent than Dead Space 2? Does the attempted realism of the former matter? Should a horror motif be considered more psychologically damaging than a military motif? Is sexual content more or less harmful than violent content? Such questions would lead to the creation of informal standards, which would lead to rulemaking, which would lead to more scrutiny—and ultimately more unnecessary and artless bureaucracy.

Germany is a phenomenal example of how this sort of bureaucracy can harm video games and those who make and enjoy them. German law criminalizes the dissemination (including the sale of even one copy) of games that feature “cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters.” Germany also criminalizes the sale of games with symbols of “unconstitutional organizations,” meaning that swastikas displayed in historical games are also prohibited. Those who violate either of these laws can face up to a year in prison.

As of the date of this article, Germany has banned a substantial number of games, including Left 4 Dead 2, Dead Rising, and Silent Hill: Homecoming. While German gamers are largely undeterred by these prohibitions (the Internet is a wonderful thing), these criminal laws have discouraged many game developers from translating their games into German and from marketing in Germany.

This is, of course, not to say that all videogames deserve to be considered art or even deserve to be purchased. Few conservatives want five-year-olds to play Grand Theft Auto, and very few would argue that infamously bad games, like Star Wars: The Old Republic (also known as “T.O.R.tanic”), are art. But this same dynamic applies to all art: no five-year-old should (even if they could) read Naked Lunch, nor should anyone consider the novelization of the Smurfs movie to be “art.” Nevertheless, small government ideals simply cede judgments regarding the quality of art and media to the public, leaving the determination of appropriateness or quality to the purchaser.

Brown thus shows that small government ideals can advance the arts just as much, if not more, as they do business. Small government ideals are not merely a tool to perpetuate financial strength—rather, they also serve the interests of those who often toe the line between what society likes and what society hates, and they prevent legislators and voters from voting away art that may shock, offend, or disgust. As the Supreme Court seems to understand, there are some topics that the government is simply ill-equipped to judge—and video games are one of those topics.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Freedom from Freedom?

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Forgive me while I act like a fan girl for a moment: I am still coming off of the high from a summer of superhero movies. I know that conservatives value economic responsibility, but even exorbitant ticket prices could not stop me from seeing The Avengers multiple times. The movie itself was a caped candy-land for an English major and political philosopher like myself.

Some people go to such movies to see explosions or what their favorite actor or actress looks like in spandex; I go for the discourse—regarding freedom, for instance.

Asking someone to define freedom in simple terms is opening up a can of worms, as there are as many different conceptions of freedom as there are dollars in Marvel’s box office.

Freedom and life cannot be boiled down into simple terms that prescribe a one-size-fits-all course of action for success and happiness. Loki, Bane, and every other verbose villain who delivers a soliloquy before their seemingly imminent victory, claim that true freedom is to be found in security… established conveniently in the form of martial law enforced by themselves. But that “security” is an illusion.

This is also true in the real world: measures of supposed security are often more like an entrapment in which someone else forces you to do what he or she thinks is best for you.

Security in itself is not a bad thing. Adrenaline junkies aside, longing for safety and comfort is an almost universal human desire. In that sense, humans are equal, just as they are in many other respects. But if all humans are equal, how can one human dictate others’ choices by presuming to be better than the rest? Power over me should be given, not taken. I might allow someone to pursue my best interests in an area where they have more expertise than I do, but allowing them control over every aspect of my life without my permission is an alarming prospect. No other person knows me so intimately that they can make informed decisions about my welfare in every case, especially if they have to know everything about multiple other people in their charge as well. It is important to take care of other people, but there seems to be a lot of misconception about the best way to do that. Even an omnipotent God allows more free will than do lesser authorities on Earth.

I am not suggesting that the government is a super-villain. Sure, there is some theft involved, but I would like to think that a few politicians, at least, are well-intentioned. I am also not suggesting that you moonlight as a vigilante (though if you do, skip the cape—trust me on this one). You do not have to be a superhuman to be a super human. You can stand up for what you believe without fighting an alien army. You can give charitably without being forced to do so. The government cannot legislate morality, and I am of the opinion that it does not have to try. Our rights do not have to be taken away to make us do the right thing, because we often do it of our own volition. Exercise your freedom, be kind to one another, and keep it classy, Cornell.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

Freshman SA Campaigns

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

Every year, just weeks after their arrival, the freshly imported denizens of North Campus are set to the task of electing Student Assembly overlords representatives to complain to the University on their behalf. Despite not having any clue as to the breadth or depth of campus issues, each candidate is required to come up with a campaign platform. Below are some of this year’s more brilliant statements.

VOTE FOR ME, I’M FROM ALASKA!

I want to be known as the guy who positively changed the lives of students here and made the overall Cornell experience better as a whole.

Making sure that breaks don’t fall on weekends…and introducing later TCAT hours—especially to and from the airport.

Would you like to see safe roadways in the winter? More effective TAs? A course shopping period? A free net print allowance for freshmen? More air-conditioned buildings? A 24-hour café? We can work to make it happen if you elect me to the Student Assembly.

Finally, I’ve decided to run because ziplines. We need some of those.

Class of ’16! You’re all wonderful people who deserve a wonderful first year at the most wonderful school of all time (with the exception of Hogwarts, where I am waitlisted).

I feel that this is a wonderful opportunity for me to be involved in a decision making process I’ve been watching all my life.

Paperless classes (look for my sustainable posters)

Hey there, you reading through this oh-so-long list of candidate profiles for the Student Assembly, would you like a free puppy?

VOTE [student’s name] AND HAVE IT YOUR WAY

Since an actual political office is unattainable at this point in my life, I feel that holding a student position would be a good start and provide me with vital experience for future positions in my life.

I have always had this theory that lines constrain the cognitive functions of the brain and don’t allow people to truly think outside of the box. Through my efforts to stay true to my idea, I have begun to avoid walking on set paths in order to keep my mind more open.

I like Cornell. A lot.

I watch MSNBC religiously.

Many of these freshmen do not yet realize the great inertia of the administration, or the importance of the almighty dollar. As the Class of 2016 will soon realize, it comes as no surprise that many of these proposals are brought up year after year by new freshmen, yet are never acted upon.

Extending dining hall hours will require hiring and paying more Dining staff. Is the convenience of walking to RPCC instead of Appel for lunch really worth raising the cost of more expensive meal plans for everyone? In this age of budget and program cuts, what influence does the SA really expect to have on issues that could affect the school’s bottom line (like putting air conditioning in the Low Rises)? And as we have recently seen, changing break scheduling requires not only the SA but the general consent of the Faculty Senate, the Administration, and the individual Colleges; and in politics there will always be a dissent.

That being said, congratulations to new SA reps Ian Harris, Matthew Stefanko, Thomas Garrison Lovely, and Juliana Batista. May you realize sooner rather than later not to raid or raise the Student Activity Fee for pet projects, not to bow to special interests, and to stand up for students and freedom on campus.

Noah Kantro is a Junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell.edu

Mooning the Sun

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

On August 24th, the Daily Sun published a series of typical left-leaning editorials to open up the new school year. One of them featured a senior nutritional science major making an argument for the expansion of government in a piece titled “Paul Ryan on Food Politics.” In it, he projected the effects of Paul Ryan’s budget on the US government's food-related expenditures. With the usual liberal gravitas, the author bemoans the lack of federal commitment to the causes of nutrition and obesity prevention. This is a brilliant example of the quintessential, “I know what's better for you than you do,” Cornell intellectual arrogance. Alas, the self-righteous left-wing ideas that stem from this mindset are as specious as they are nauseating.

While I acknowledge the persistently “progressive” editorials in the Sun are always chuckle-worthy, this particular level of unjustified anointment surpassed all the expectations I ever held for the Sun. It began with a barrage of low-level body blows against highly capable Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, even targeting his participation in a certain (very effective) P90X workout routine. Rather than acknowledging Ryan's depth of experience with nutrition and fitness as a potential asset in the field of food politics, in Byzantine liberal fashion the author immediately vilifies Mr. Ryan for his staunch commitment to fiscal solvency.

The author then complains about what he views as a lack of commitment of federal resources on issues of nutrition and well-being. The author cites the current figure of $421 per American citizen spent every year on “preventative policy.” I would agree with the author that this spending is a problem. I view this as a problem because our public debt is out of control. A debt so high every American child (obese or not) will be enslaved to repay $45,000 of it. I view this as a problem because absolutely no measured analysis has been done that substantially correlates federal spending on obesity prevention to declines in the US obesity rate.

I view this as a problem because the $500 million dollar fund specifically dedicated to childhood obesity prevention alone could have fully fed every malnourished child in Haiti. Yes, our government spends enough money to nourish a nation of starving children trying to prevent your kids from becoming too fat. And it doesn't even work.

The $421 per American citizen spent every year adds up quickly. Unfortunately, the author, evidently speaking from a position of immense financial privilege, cites this number as “not enough” as it could not “buy a yearly retail gym membership” (where the hell do you work out?).

Speaking as a student who has struggled to make ends meet, political statements like these out of the mouths of some Cornellians is utterly sickening. I can't even begin to imagine the number of people who desperately needed $400 more dollars this year. For countless families across America, money like that was the difference between making that mortgage payment and foreclosure.

Continuing such leftist ramblings, the article then decries Ryan's opposition to the expansion of the Food Stamps (SNAP) Program as being the equivalent of wanting poor people to starve. Now look, I grew up in an immigrant-dense neighborhood where local mercados would commonly not accept EBTs (the food stamp payment card) at all. Fresh fruit and vegetables were plentiful and cheap, wages were low, and yet people did not go hungry. When I took the bus down to visit my friends in San Francisco's more “ghetto” areas, I was shocked to find no fresh produce. Liquor stores price canned corn in excess of $3, yet cigarettes and alcohol are at the lowest prices I have seen on the market anywhere.

The author defends the growth of SNAP for giving poor people access to fresh food, yet it doesn't address other structural barriers that prevent people from accessing nutritious subsistence. It can be as simple as people needing gas and a vehicle to drive to Whole Foods. Since many of them have neither, and because neither can be bought with food stamps, these recipients spend their food stamp benefits at local stores, at very high premiums. If you are unfortunate enough to have been rejected by SNAP, thrown off, or in the midst of an appeal, you must pay this price premium to account for the subsidy. The ultimate result is that food becomes unnecessarily inaccessible. It is very likely that because of food stamps, more poor children go hungry. Swallow that.

Beyond the simple life in my neighborhood, I have also worked as an advocate at a local private non-profit benefits agency. I was an advocate for the poor and helpless, I helped impoverished individuals navigate the legal system and obtain the benefits they were entitled to. I have seen the racism and unmanageable bureaucracy endemic in the Food Stamps appeals system. I have sat down with countless poor clients to establish welfare budgets, and countless times I have had to explain to desperate families that the only way to receive sufficient government benefits to pay for bills and food was if the family divorced and live in separate homes. Yes, these incentives are real, and they are disgusting. To throw more money at this system would be a moral stain on this country.

A statement so begrudgingly soaked in privilege is fit to summarize the entire “college liberal” philosophy: it matters not whose money is spent or where it is coming from, only that as much of it as possible is spent on “good causes.”

You see, these liberal students have an internalized belief that a bigger and more technocratic government can solve all of society's problems, from people eating too much to eating too little. All we need to do is control and regulate people. All we need to do is spend money on the problem. People are going hungry? Throw money at the problem. Obesity is a dangerous growing trend? Tax, borrow, spend, and repeat.

When will these liberals realize you can't buy good character? How can you write an entire article about obesity and food politics without mentioning corn (high-fructose syrup) subsidies even once? When will they realize that Keynesian interventionist policies are destroying all real economic opportunity for the very people they intend to help? Can they ever understand their “humanitarian” efforts have such dire consequences? When will they admit their social experiments have failed?

Oh Cornell, please wake up. Your country needs you.

Zachary Dellé is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at zed3@cornell.edu.

What to Expect at Cornell

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

The idea of college loomed in my mind all throughout high school, but like most things in life, expectations hardly describe reality. As a new freshman from Chicago, I have the pleasures of both living away from home and being out of state. Fortunately, I am also the youngest of three in my family, which has helped during this transition period. Now at Cornell, I’ve come face to face with the daunting reality of college. And adjusting to both the social and academic environment of college can be both challenging and liberating. There are my impressions of both the social and academic conditions at Cornell.

The social experiences in college are often the most anticipated scenarios imagined as pre-college students. Although Cornell is an Ivy League school, due to its large size, it is comparable in both feeling and social life to many state schools. The wild parties, the vast size and diversity of students and astounding array of clubs and activities can be overwhelming to a freshman, especially when you don’t know anyone. And being social then becomes a top priority as these activities become important in making new friends.

Initially, I thought going to parties was the best way to make new friends. But while parties in Collegetown are fun, they are not the only way to meet new people and certainly not the defining social experience of college. I have spent time with people from classes and my dorm as well as Cornell sponsored activities and clubs. As a conservative, I’ve joined the Cornell Review and Cornell Republicans, where I am able to meet more people like myself and find temporary refuge from the intense liberal establishment on Cornell’s campus. But establishing good friendships is a slow process. Even after orientation week, I’ve noticed many of the friends I’ve met seem to have disappeared into ambiguity. However, people I better connect with replace the ones I lost, and more long-lasting friendships are made. As I’ve come to realize, Cornell’s vast social environment is what you want to make of it, and it can be fulfilling for all types of students.

However, the difficult part of college is balance. Cornell is notorious for being one of the most challenging academic institutions of the Ivy League. Within the first two weeks, I’ve already spent countless hours completing homework and keeping up in my classes. Procrastination is easy to fall into, because unlike the rigid schedule of high school, college allows students to do the work on their own time.

In addition, there is no separation between academic and home life, because Cornell encompasses both. Both social opportunities and school responsibility surround us at every moment of the day. This makes adjusting to the workload even more difficult as it becomes tough to know how much work should be completed each day. But this situation, unlike high school, also allows for a freer way of life. When I’m hungry, I can go get something to eat; when I want to work out, I can go to the gym; and when I want to go out, I don’t have to be back before curfew. While this freedom has responsibilities that can be tremendous, I have the freedom to live my own life and be the person I want to be.

Cornell can be overwhelming at times, but the freedom and opportunities it provides will be substantial experiences for our young adulthoods and a great time to create lifelong friendships.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

Cruz Makes a Splash in Summer League Play

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

The Big Red baseball team stormed on to the scene in the Ivy League in 2012, playing host to their first Ivy League Championship Series victory over Dartmouth and returning to the NCAA Regionals for the first time since 1977.

At the forefront of the team’s success was then-sophomore right fielder Chris Cruz, who broke the Big Red single season record for home runs by crushing 12 big flies over the course of 49 games. The biggest of these home runs came in walk-off fashion against the Dartmouth Big Green in the bottom of the 11th inning of the Ivy League Championship Series, putting Cruz in the Cornell history books forever.

As Cruz put together a spectacular year with 12 home runs, 35 RBI, and a .258 batting average, he provided the offensive firepower that the team needed to make a run in 2012 and became the talk of the Ivy League.

But Cruz is far more than your average cleanup hitter. He was second on the team in stolen bases, first in outfield assists, and made acrobatic defensive plays in right field highlighted by a diving catch that sent him hurtling head first into the wall down the right field line. Furthermore, his quiet and humble mentality and lead by example approach make him a favorite among fans, coaches, and the players themselves.

So just how good is Chris Cruz and what should we expect from him as the calendar turns to 2013?

If his summer ball play with the Mohawk Valley DiamondDawgs of the Perfect Game College Baseball League was any indication, the sky is the limit for the Big Red right fielder. Cruz was named to the league’s top prospects (6th) in a field of players from the strongest programs in the country.

“It means a lot because I worked hard all summer and it paid off,” remarked Cruz in a recent interview with the Cornell Review. “There were a lot of good players in the league and to be named above them means a lot.”

For Cruz, summer league play was a time to work specifically on his approach at the plate. Throughout the regular season, he had trouble when he fell behind in the count and pitchers used their off speed pitches to keep him off balance.

“I was trying to cut down on the strike outs and just work on hitting the ball the other way,” added Cruz. “About the middle of the summer, I started to see all off-speed pitches which worked out. I know that now I’m more confident hitting the ball the other way and more confident with the off speed [pitches].”

With hard work and a good approach, things started to click at the plate. In 41 games for the DiamondDawgs, Cruz hit 8 HR with 40 RBI, while posting a .319 batting average. In 18 less at bats than the regular season Cruz had more walks, stolen bases, hits, RBI’s, runs scored, doubles, and triples while posting fewer, strikeouts than he did in the regular season.

What is possibly even more impressive is that he accomplished all this using wooden bats as opposed to the aluminum bats used through¬out college baseball’s regular season.

Off the field, Cruz is a Long Island native, and a devoted New York Yankees fan. He grew up idolizing Yankee greats like Paul O’Neil, Tino Martinez, and Bernie Williams with whom he shares a common Puerto Rican heritage. He attributes much of his success to the love and support that his family has given him over the years and throughout his time with the Big Red.

The Big Red has found themselves a bona fide five tool caliber player in their humble right fielder Chris Cruz. His towering homeruns, spectacular defense, and great respect for the game make him an all around player and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who can say a bad thing about him. Keep your eye closely fixed on this kid because you may see him going from Big Red to Yankee blue pinstripes if he can continue to build on his success.

Alex Gimenez is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at ajg322@cornell.edu.

Interview with Cornell Student, Miss Maryland Joanna Guy '13

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

One of Cornell University’s own, Joanna Guy, won the title of Miss Maryland 2012 in the Miss America Pageant. Joanna is a senior this year and is currently participating in the Cornell in Washington program in order to serve her Maryland community. Below is the exclusive interview she gave the Cornell Review. In the interview, she reveals what its like to be Miss Maryland, how she got involved in Miss America and her philanthropy, what she misses most about Cornell, and her plans for the future.

Review: What has your experience as Miss Maryland been like so far?

Joanna: Demanding, but very rewarding! Since winning the title in June I’ve spoken or performed at events every week, ranging from meeting with at-risk teens to introducing a War of 1812 performance at the Maryland Chautauqua festival. I’ve also traveled out of state, helping to host the Miss America’s Outstanding Teen competition in Orlando and performing as a finalist in the Alpha Phi’s Got Talent competition at the biennial convention in Phoenix. I’m proud to say that the philanthropy I represented, heart disease, was voted the winner by virtue of amassing the most “votes,” or donations. In all, the event raised over $22,000 for Foundation philanthropies. Foremost among these are cardiac care and scholarship, two causes close to my heart.

Much of the work I do as Miss Maryland relates to my personal platform of heart disease and to the national platform of the Miss America organization, Children’s Miracle Network Hospitals. CMN hospitals span the country, helping over one million sick and injured children each year. I’ve been involved with CMNH since 2008, and during that time have been deeply touched by the strong, resilient kids I’ve met and by their families, who are so grateful for the lifesaving care their children receive. I’ve just kicked off two fundraising projects for this fall. One is a quilt raffle that I am promoting through social media and my website. The other is a series of events called “Bounce Back” designed to involve the whole community of Garrett County, my home in rural western Maryland. I’ve raised more than $2,000 for CMNH to date, and hope to raise a total of $10,000 by the end of the year.

My personal platform, Heart to Heart: Raising Awareness for Healthy Hearts, addresses a critical public health issue. As the number one killer in our nation, heart disease affects men, women and children. It’s also a personal concern for me because all four of my grandparents suffered from some form of heart disease or stroke. My efforts involve speaking, blogging and fundraising. I’ve spoken to people at health fairs, in classrooms and at civic club meetings about the risks of heart disease and the simple steps everyone can take to live a heart-healthier lifestyle. My 84-year-old grandfather, who had a heart attack and bypass surgery, is a great example of how it’s never too late to make these changes.

Finally, Miss Maryland provides a way for me to publicly advocate on both a federal and state level for other causes about which I care. One of these is funding for the humanities. As a government major, a former National History Day participant, and a firm believer in the notion that “democracy demands wisdom,” I am concerned about the well documented decline in civics education and cultural literacy. While I strongly support investment in STEM programs to increase America’s competitiveness in math and science, I think we cannot overlook the value and vital importance of the humanities in shaping our future. This fall I’m working closely with the Maryland Humanities Council on an advocacy plan to raise awareness among legislators about the need for funding of humanities-based programs, particularly those at the state and community levels. I’m hoping to leverage some of the experience I gained working as a U.S. Senate intern in 2011 as well as the contacts I’ve made since becoming Miss Maryland. Being at the Cornell Center in Washington this semester puts me in the right place for these activities.

Review: What is one of the most rewarding aspects of your role as Miss Maryland?

Joanna: The outpouring of support and enthusiasm from people in my hometown and from my friends at Cornell has been overwhelming. The opportunity to act as a role model to children inspires me and the chance to serve, in a small way, as an ambassador for my state and for my university motivates me.

Review: What do you miss most about Cornell so far?

Joanna: It’s so hard to pinpoint just one thing. I miss the university as a whole and the various communities I’m involved in on campus, such as the Cornell Chorus, After Eight a cappella, and my sorority, Alpha Phi. In my three years at Cornell I have met some of the most intelligent, kind and interesting people anywhere, many of whom who have grown to be really close friends. I miss them a lot! Having said that, Cornell in Washington is a tight knit community composed of the same well-rounded and well-grounded kinds of people I’ve met in Ithaca. So I’m looking forward to getting to know the students here better and excited about exploring DC.

Review: Do you have any advice for girls at Cornell interested in the Miss America pageant?

Joanna: People take many different avenues to earn money for school and get more involved in their communities. For me, I happened across a newspaper ad and thought that Miss America sounded like a gratifying road for me to head down. If anybody was interested in the organization, I’d definitely encourage them to look at the Miss America website to read about the mission and achievements of the program, which is the world’s largest provider of scholarships for women, awarding $45 million in academic scholarships each year.

Review: Where do you see yourself in ten years?

Joanna: A decade from now I envision myself practicing law or working in some capacity in the public sector. I plan to take my LSAT’s next year, apply for law school, and pursue my J.D. This summer I worked at a law firm in Baltimore doing legal and medical malpractice research. I probably won’t discover precisely what type of law I’d like to practice until I complete law school, but I was fascinated by the work I did over the past few months.

Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu.

The Value of College

2012-09-18T00:00:00Z

The recent rise in tuition at Cornell, as well as cutbacks in both Federal and State assistance, has increased student emphasis on the cost of a college education. With a majority of the debate taking place at the trillion-dollar level, let’s step back and look at some stats.

First, the average cost of college tuition has risen at a compound annual growth rate of 7.74% since the late 1970s, as opposed to a 3.9% CAGR inflation rate for the US economy as a whole. This price premium for higher education has not been tied with an above average rate of college enrollment, with only a 3.28% growth in undergraduate enrollment over the last decade. Assuming that the supply of higher education isn’t static, which it is to some extent it is, we have to assume that other factors justify the above average growth in costs.

Another factor that should be analyzed is the annualized returns from a college degree. In 1980 the annualized returns for a high school and college education were roughly equal for men at about 8% and 9% respectively. Then over the next 15 years returns of college grew to roughly 13% while high school graduates grew to 9.5%. In 1995, the average earnings for males’ college graduates was $50,000 compared to $34,300 for high school graduates, as of 2010 income was $49,800 and $32,800 respectively. Female earnings have also been flat since 1995.

Of course income isn’t everything. Job security and quality are also important. As seen in the table, unemployment rates drastically decline as education increases. Similarly, college graduates typically have access to white-collar jobs that tend to have less of an adverse impact on one’s physical health. While lower unemployment rates are generally pretty appealing, especially in this job environment, college generally hasn’t justified its cost on an enrollment or earnings basis.

Now there are some holes in this basic presentation of data. I’ve made no attempt to control for bias and for that you’ll have to look into some papers on multiple regression analysis. With that said, the argument that a college education is simply allowing people to tread water isn’t controversial.

While most people look at college in terms of debt, this perspective is simply a product of reduced job opportunities. Ironically, an increased emphasis on debt and the value of degrees has not caused people to shift their chosen major. High-growth fields such as the medical and engineering sectors are still short on undergraduate students.

This current mismatch exhibits one of the major flaws with our current financial aid system. Since allocations are based upon need and not on merit, there are few ways that the market can provide short-term financial incentives for high school students to become engineers. If the US had a functional private student loan market, students going into high demand fields would likely receive better loan conditions than English and Philosophy majors.

As much as we may focus on Pell Grants and the percent-of-need being met by Cornell, what we really need to discuss is how college graduates can get a higher rate of return on their investment. Similarly, we need to look closely about how our financial aid system impacts short term incentives. In the long run freezing student loan rates isn’t going to matter if we don’t get this economy going.

Cornell’s New Sex Inquisition

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

While enjoying yourself at Cornell over the next four years, be warned: you may inadvertently find yourself accused of sexual assault in a kangaroo court with no lawyer, few rights, and no chance.

Cornell has recently changed its sexual assault policy from one with substantial protections for an accused student to one with virtually no protections for an accused student at all.

In the past, when one student accused another student of sexual assault, Cornell would begin an investigatory process where the accused student could retain a lawyer and could have their case heard by a University Hearing Board (that is, by multiple people).

Under this process, the University Hearing Board could only find a student guilty (and thus could only expel a student) if the evidence showed that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the student committed the alleged act. In practice, this system made Cornell’s sexual assault investigation system like a criminal trial, with numerous protections for an accused student.

This all changed in April.

Under a new system allegedly designed to keep Cornell in compliance with Title IX, sexual assault accusations are handled by an investigator, an accused student is not allowed to have an attorney argue on their behalf, and the student accuser needs only prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the alleged sexual assault occurred.

In short, Cornell has stripped away the most important protections available to a person accused of sexual assault and has put them at the mercy of an inquisition run by a single university “investigator.”

It should go without saying that Cornell’s new sexual assault policy is frighteningly draconian and ripe for abuse. While any trial process has errors, fair trials have always been at the heart of the American system, and the idea that Cornell can subvert this process through an inherently biased administrative inquisition is dangerous.

Students untrained in trial procedure and unfamiliar with the stresses of a court are unquestionably ill-equipped to calmly and persuasively defend themselves against a false sexual assault accusation. The idea that an accuser need only provide his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” (that is, more likely than not, or 50.001% likely) will almost certainly condemn innocent accused students, as under this lowered evidentiary standard an otherwise innocent situation that looks like sexual assault could result in the conviction of an innocent student.

Perhaps most worryingly, a single university investigator now holds the power to destroy the life and reputation of a university student. There is absolutely no control for the biases or mistakes made by that investigator.

Thankfully, I’m not the only person from the law school who finds this policy frightening: professors from the Cornell Law School, including respected professors Kevin Clermont and Cynthia Bowman, have called the policy “Orwellian” and “Kafkaesque.”

Sexual assault accusations are sticky and difficult to prove – rape trials are infamously difficult to prove in the criminal justice system – but this does not justify Cornell’s policy change. Cornell has made the disastrous mistake of trying to remedy the stickiness and difficulty of sexual assault cases by sacrificing protections afforded to an accused student in order to make trials easier.

This is nonsensical: no student should be inherently disfavored in an administrative proceeding, regardless of the charges levied against him or her. A student accused of a heinous murder would be afforded more protections in a criminal trial than they ever would under Cornell’s system – and that’s disturbing.

As a freshman, what can you do to protect yourself from being subjected to these biased inquisitions? Honestly, there is very little you can do, but common sense obviously applies: don’t get yourself in a situation that would look questionable in the eyes of a biased, inherently unfair investigator. Avoid sketchy parties, and avoid being alone with unstable people of either gender. And, if all else fails, invest in a chastity belt.

Romney: The Culture Vulture

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

Mitt Romney fumbles quite a bit. Who doesn’t? He expressed skepticism over London’s preparedness for the Olympics, which in hindsight, proved to be a remarkable success. Needless to say, he displeased Cameron. What’s more? While addressing the media along with Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Labour Party in the British Parliament, Romney forgot his host’s name and referred to him as “Mr. Leader” instead. Perhaps “Mr. Skunk” would have been better. And when he referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he actually left some commentators wondering whether this was a statement in diplomacy or a case of loss of memory.

But all this wasn’t too bad. What enraged some people the most were his remarks on Palestine. And that’s where Romney was exactly right. On comparing the per capita GDP of Israel to Palestine, Romney noted that Israel owed its economic growth to its better cultural attributes. Unexpectedly, this provoked a firestorm in Palestine. Romney’s detractors denounced his comments as “racist and out of touch”. But little did they realize that Romney was not making unwarranted observations on a subject he was not acquainted with. On the contrary, he was articulating a long-held and principled position on the causes behind economic development. Indeed, in his 2010 bestseller No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney made a compelling case for American Exceptionalism, arguing that cultural values play a central role in the progress of nations.But Romney is not alone. Samuel Huntington describes the substance of “American creed” as being rooted in the Anglo-Protestant work ethic, free enterprise, reward for merit, rule of law, intellectual freedom and pursuit of happiness. In Romney’s parlance, the idea of American Exceptionalism is premised on a society that cherishes these values and consciously designs institutions on their basis.

Nonetheless, not everyone is expected to agree with these cultural attitudes, let alone share them. To be fair, some cultures promote authoritarianism, coercion and absolute obedience to Iron Age laws. They prohibit women from driving cars and owning property. Likewise, these societies condemn free speech as blasphemy and innovation as heresy. Most importantly, they set up “extractive institutions” that privilege an entrenched class of elites, who often deploy the resources appropriated from the poor to fund fundamentalism and terror. So, who knows which of the two is better?

However, this liberal superstition that cultures cannot be compared or criticized needs to be demolished. Indeed, Romney observes that some cultures are superior in terms of their consequences and the American culture is one of them. It is clear that cultures that are correlated with peace and prosperity are superior to those associated with violence and poverty. But does Romney’s argument that culture is incredibly important to economic success find empirical support? In other words, can the question of economic growth, which depends on numerous parameters such as historical experience, physical and human capital, international trade, political clout and foreign aid, be reduced to differences in culture?

Romney himself cited the work of the Harvard economist David Landes who concludes that culture has a profound influence on the choices that societies make. While some cultural values are more conducive to economic growth, others fail to provide the right incentives to people. More formally, Mankiw’s augmented Solow Model underscores the importance of human capital in explaining a large segment of cross-country variation in per capita income. And at any rate, culture determines the accumulation of human capital because it is not just an extraordinary coincidence that the poorest places in the world are also the most belligerent, corrupt and subversive.

Furthermore, Romney offered the instance of Israel to counter Jared Diamond’s central thesis of his Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond argues that the success of nations is determined by their access to natural resources. But Israel, a country with few natural resources and surrounded by the most hostile neighbors, has not only survived as a homeland for Jewish people but also attained considerable economic growth. On the other hand, the Arab countries, with their enormous petroleum resources, are still not counted among the developed economies of the world.

It is true that economic development is derailed in part by decades of military aggression, which the Palestinians claim to have suffered. But even when we blame Western misadventure in Palestine for its deprivation, there is no doubt that the Palestinians are culpable for the lack of peace and economic development in their region. For no amount of foreign stimulus, education, or institutional assistance can help Palestine overcome their political problems, which have been caused, to a great extent, by an imaginary notion of the Promised Land.

Regardless of the liberal media’s criticism, few scholars will contest the importance of culture in the success of nations. In fact, any sincere observer would see that Romney’s position was not only defensible but also uncontroversial. But when Romney, on his foreign trip, attributed the economic performance of Israel to its culture, he was not just stating the obvious but also reaching out to our trusted ally. Contrast this with the incumbent soon-to-be lame duck, who far from appreciating Israel’s tremendous tenacity in a turbulent neighborhood, has not cared to visit the country even once.

Ten Reasons to Date a Conservative

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

10. Conservatives understand self-reliance too well to be desperate or clingy.

9. You won't have to break the bank when going out to dinner with a conservative. They understand economic responsibility and wouldn't let you blow all your money in one place.

8. You don't need to act like something you're not. True conservatives know that equality means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

7. On a date, it isn't necessary to use small words when it comes to political issues. They believe what they believe because they're informed, not because it's what their favorite celebrity says.

6. Conservatives won't flip-flop on a boyfriend or girlfriend, just like they won't flip-flop on political candidates.

5. You won't be embarrassed to be seen out in public with a conservative. He or she won't be dressed like a hipster. Also, everybody knows to keep their weapons concealed.

4. Constant complements aren't necessary for conservatives. They value actions more than words and have confidence in their own principles.

3. You won't offend a conservative woman if you open the door for her. She knows that you know she can do it herself.

2. If you show this list to conservatives they will actually read it. They read everything— even the hidden details in legislation.

1. A conservative will tell you how they feel about your relationship. Conservatives will always tell you how they feel.

Generation Debt

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

If there is one thing that can be added to the list of the sure things in life, accruing and paying interest on debt tallies nicely up there with death and taxes. As the United States federal government scrambles to pay its titanic bills, it farms out an increasing portion of that payment to debt – money it literally does not have, and probably will never have at this rate.

The bondholders who invest in US treasuries (the people who finance our debt) get paid interest, courtesy of the US taxpayers, who are unfortunately an ever-dwindling segment of our population.

But I don't think too many people know exactly what kind of hard numbers are on the books in terms of the interest the US pays on its federal debt – not just as a percentage of the budget, or the percentage of our GDP, but the actual number of dollars – fifteen trillion dollars ($15,000,000,000,000), to ballpark it, and growing.

As a percentage of the budget it's roughly 700% of what we can afford and 500% of what we spend. As a percentage of GDP, it's nearing 100%. When we talk with great panic about any of the European countries defaulting, that involves billions, maybe tens or even hundreds of billions. To the American government, that number is merely a rounding error or maybe a decrease in the rate of growth of our largest programs, when compared to our $15 trillion debt. America is on a course to fiscal destruction the proportions of which the world has never seen, never mind what it can afford.

There was a revealing exchange between Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) that should be cause for some serious alarm, even among the dyed-in-the-wool comrades running around campus.

Ryan pointed out a graph in Geithner’s budget plan that outlined the percentage of our GDP that government liabilities will consume over the course of the next few decades. The graph dropped off in the year 2027, because the US economy, on its present course in conjunction with US government spending, will cease to exist.

This administration is patently unserious about correcting course, frittering away hard-earned taxpayer dollars in an endless Orwellian campaign promising redemption for the masses whilst shamelessly engaging in the most vulgar conspicuous consumption. No, I recant. They are frittering away yet-to-be-earned dollars from taxpayers yet-to-be-born.

Our generation, our progeny, and the next several after that will have to labor under an ever-growing burden of debt and interest. We will have to divert increasing amounts of resources to fill this hole, while we have less and less with which to build our own lives. If anyone is mad about the transfer of wealth from one class to another, they should really consider redirecting that ire to the transfer of wealth from one generation to the one that came previously.

All of the work that we will do in the future, and the taxes collected on that labor, will go to payments for things already gone by. We will be literally chained – to paraphrase and splice together some of my favorite Joe Biden moments – to the obligations that were made before we came into existence. This is manifestly outrageous. This is immoral, irresponsible, and utterly impossible to sustain.

Misha Checkovich is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu

Forward? What, Over the Gorge?

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

As the incoming editors for The Cornell Review, Noah Kantro and I are excited to continue the traditions of the paper that brought you Wisemen and Fools, Colonel Cornell, and 30 years of exposing the attacks on our liberties that occur every day on this campus and in our nation.

In both arenas, the events of the past few years are an indication that we are needed now more than ever. The page has been turned toward a new chapter in the multi-volume series that is Cornell University’s history, and recent events are screaming with evidence of troubling trends.

Are your ears turned toward the waterfall?

Throughout the years, The Cornell Review has established itself as a legitimate avenue for looking at events around campus through an alternative lens. Our biweekly production cycle gives us the benefit of reflection, while allowing our writers to form their own opinions, ones that are almost never heard elsewhere in Ithaca. This allows readers to think for themselves when it comes to analyzing campus and national events.

While we are proud of our conservative roots, the bounds of higher education’s “manifestations of ideological fetishism and domineering conformity”—as described last spring by writer Roberto Matos— allow us the opportunity to appeal to all students who believe in free speech and free thought, independent of personal political ideology.

We are currently buying our education from a school that wants to be the top research institution in the world, as it has stated throughout ongoing fundraising campaigns. As free-market capitalists and American patriots, rational students cannot help but adore this version of “Cornell Exceptionalism.” We came to Cornell because of its prestige, and making it more prestigious is certainly in our interests - now and in the future.

That being said, when it comes to dissecting this goal of excellence, one cannot help but look at the other side of the coin and ask: do we attend a University that is fundamentally unhappy with itself?

The simple answer to this question, of course, is no. She is happy in the sort of self-satisfied, self-righteous way we have come to expect from all liberals. Rather, Cornell is constantly – and perhaps just as dangerously – looking to improve and evolve.

Nearly 150 years after our school’s founding, the gorges are now not safe enough, and much information will be disseminated this year about the nets being built to catch us. The traditions of fraternity houses are being labeled, thrown out, and replaced. Each year brings a refreshed statement of our diversity initiatives, to be taken as law on top of that of the previous year.

While all of this negativity was keeping us Cornell Patriots busy, the University committed nearly $2 billion to the NYC Tech Campus that will forever change how the world views the name of the institution on your college degree.

As highlighted in the first editorial by the 2010-2011 editorial board, we do not know what Cornell University will look like in ten years. Little did they know how differently the University would look in only two years.

To digress for a moment, the same can be said for our nation. Traditions as old as time itself are being misconstrued and dissolved under the veil of so-called evolution. Meanwhile, national tragedies bring a refreshed dialogue on gun control, and each year similar repetitive conversation occurs in the fields of immigration and affirmative action. While all of these social issues are keeping us American Patriots busy, the American story is being condensed down into the life of one woman—named Julia—whose existence is completely dependent on the state. This deserves considerable attention as well.

For now, we hope to illuminate Cornell’s “save face” policy of political correctness that has been on public display for a national audience the past few years. As we have said and will continue to say throughout our tenure as editors, the decisions made by the administration behind the “Cornell Now” era are all rooted in the ultimate goal of becoming the top research university in the world and silencing all legal liability and public opinion that will get in its way.

From removing provocative issues of The Cornell Daily Sun from Day Hall during Cornell Days for fear of parents getting the wrong perception of our institution to spamming Cornell undergraduates with an email during study week in order to restate the University’s diversity policy, this “save face” policy has infringed upon our liberties as both Cornellians and Americans. The evidence is all around us.

Meanwhile, the time has come for the issues that this paper has repeatedly raised over the years to receive more attention.

This starts with just about the only thing that the administration seems to believe that the University does well: the curriculum. The University has sided with the rest of liberal academia by neglecting calls for intellectual diversity in the classroom, even from esteemed, conservative professors before us. In this sense, our beloved University has gone so far as to value physical diversity over intellectual diversity.

If “Change” was the buzzword of the last four years, Cornell did their part to contribute to the cause. President Obama now has a new catch-phrase, “Forward!,” which eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney jokingly mocked by asking, “Forward? What, over the cliff?” Needless to say, we are likewise wary and already weary of where continuing blindly Forward! will take this University and this nation.

It is with this mindset that our paper welcomes the new school year. The question lies in how we will respond, for in times of great change come opportunities for grassroots efforts to lead that change. We are confident that pride will override apathy, that individualism will overcome groupthink, and that truth will prevail over opinion.

As Cornellians, we move forward toward our goal of becoming the world’s top research institution. As Patriots, we will analyze the moves of our adored University along the way, before it’s too late and we find all that we love caught in the strings of the safety nets.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial & Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@ cornell.edu

Crowded at the Top

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

Perhaps the most publicized story around Cornell since last December has been the announcement that our institution will be constructing a nearly $2 billion school in New York City.

The depiction of the story has the look of an awesome, award-winning drama: A central character with upstate roots is taking on the big city. It has a hint of international flair, by means of our partnership with the Israeli Institute of Technology. And it features a compelling competition with a rival school in Stanford that already has an established presence in urban technological innovation. The climax of this tale comes with Cornell being handed the opportunity to emulate the success that Stanford has had and take it to new heights on the East Coast.

Entering the 2012 fall semester, one can confidently say that Cornell has the potential to lead the New York City Applied Sciences boom.

There are two main reasons. For starters, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given Cornell the green light. He wooed the administration with $100 million in funding and property on Roosevelt Island. Even more importantly, he put their faces in front of cameras and brought good publicity to a school that cares very much about its imagine. These have been indicators that he wants Cornell to succeed.

Secondly, Cornell can lead New York City into the next era of technological innovation because it is willing to put the resources and funding in place to make this a reality. This summer, Cornell tapped a Stanford dean to lead the fundraising efforts of CornellNYC Tech. Twitter Chief Financial Officer Greg Pass, ’97, was announced as the school’s entrepreneur officer. The University has made it evident that they want to build a team that can succeed, as they strive to double the amount of graduate tech students in New York City.

Where there are leaders, however, there will be followers. Much like Cornell will continue trying to outshine Stanford’s presence in Silicon Valley, it has become evident that other schools will try to top it in New York City. Furthermore, while Mayor Bloomberg has shown his support to Cornell’s efforts, he has made it clear that his first priority is understandably the city.

What this means for Cornell is that other schools in the area are also revamping their advanced science programs.

On July 30th, it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that Columbia University will create an Institute for Data Sciences and Engineering. They will be receiving $15 million from New York City. This announcement came after the deal between Cornell and the city, as well as a similar one that will create the NYU Center for Urban Science and Progress in Brooklyn.

While Cornell will be receiving $100 million from the city’s office, that difference should not be used to downplay how excited Columbia is to be the leader in the mayor’s Applied Science initiative. Their dean even went as far as to proclaim the announcement as the “most exciting moment that I can think of in the school’s 150-year history” as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

New York City currently ranks third in job growth in the technological sector, behind Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Mayor Bloomberg wants New York City to be number one, and Cornell has the ability to take it there. That being said, it will have to be ready for the competition from other top New York City schools.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the College of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@ cornell.edu.

Cuts to Financial Aid Hurt Reputation and Competitiveness

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

In 2008, Cornell introduced what administrators called “a sweeping new financial aid initiative” that had the University joining the growing number of elite colleges that allow middle and lower class students the opportunity to graduate debt free. Over the summer, University administrators announced that this initiative would be scaled back significantly. President Skorton called these changes “modest” as they were quietly announced over the summer.

In one sense, he is right. Compared to some of the other priorities Cornell commits financial resources to—new construction projects that seem to be announced every other week, a $2 billion Manhattan campus, bridge nets, and costly student life experiments (remember that $15,000 RPCC party?) that only drive students to less controlled environments like Collegetown—the amount of money the University is saving by scaling back financial aid is modest.

But for the students that would benefit from the generous policies announced in 2008, these changes are anything but modest. Not only will families making between $60,000 and $75,000 annually be expected to take out significant amounts of loans thanks to the changes, students coming from lower income families will be expected to work 25% more at their on campus jobs to keep up with growing savings expectations.

Tuition is going up and financial aid programs are being slashed. Admittedly, this is a trend seen at schools across the country and Cornell isn’t alone in making these types of cuts. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which introduced a similar debt free policy for lower and middle income students in 2008, is also scaling back their initiative.

However Cornell, which is always looking for ways to stay competitive with its elite peers, already sports the lowest yield of the Ivy League schools. Just over 50% of accepted students joined the Cornell class of 2016, a number lower than more than a few of our peer schools, including many that offer debt free financial aid packages.

Cuts to financial aid not only hurt the University’s reputation and competitiveness, they also stifle socioeconomic diversity. Even if their methods of achieving this goal can often have negative unintended consequences (affirmative action is a topic that should be addressed some another time), administrators are correct in their charge that being exposed to people from different places, races, cultures, and religious backgrounds is a critical part of the college experience.

Why they can’t see that actively undermining Cornell’s chances of attracting highly qualified students from less well-off groups by slashing financial aid to levels that put Cornell at a disadvantage relative to other similar schools hurts this goal astounds me.

For example, the median income for a household on Long Island’s Suffolk County, where scores of Cornell students call home, is $103,900 and their cost of living is commensurate. If you come from a family making $60,000 a year in Suffolk County, you’re probably struggling financially and could very well be on your own when it comes to financing your college education. The extra couple of thousand dollars of loans or the extra couple of hours each week working at an on campus job have a significant weight on your college decision. A top student that got into several schools in Cornell’s peer group with this kind of background would have probably elected to accept Cornell’s offer under the generous 2008 policy. In fact, I’m sure there are many students on campus now that fit this description pretty well. But under the new rules, they’ll likely go to one of Cornell’s peers (for instance, Vanderbilt) that offer no-loan financial aid packages for all families.

It is understood that the University has a finite amount of resources, but the investment Cornell makes in providing competitive financial aid packages should be a top priority. Not only can Cornell not afford the blow to its reputation that these changes will cause, it also can’t afford to lose the talents and unique perspective that these students bring to campus.

Michael Alan is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at mja93@ cornell.edu

Survival Tips

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

Welcome Class of 2016! Yes, you’re finally in college. Your years of hard work have brought you here for another at least four years of struggle and despair, but I can promise you that these four years will be the best you will ever have—so long as you don’t screw it all up.

Freshman year is full of mistakes that can haunt you for years to come. Whether it’s that advanced class you shouldn’t have taken or that time Cornell Police found you doing something you shouldn’t have been doing in the fire escape, Cornell never ceases to leave you room to slip-up. So, I’ve created a short list of survival tips that may make your transition to Cornell much smoother.

1. Learn the bus system before you need the bus system. Walking to class looking through the large fences over the beautiful gorges can be really relaxing and scenic. But, that morning will come when you wake up late for class and there is rain (or snow) falling from the sky. That may not be the best time to finally try using a TCAT bus.

2. Stay aware of what is happening outside the bubble. Ithaca functions as a little bubble. Once you enter Ithaca, you completely lose consciousness of what is going on with the rest of the world. Take time to read the news, listen to music, and catch up with family. It will keep you sane and not ignorant when you return home for breaks.

3. Take advantage of events held at Cornell. You never know which great political mind or amazing artist will come to Ithaca next, but having an opportunity to see and hear from so many influential people is one of the greatest assets of going to school at Cornell. Don’t let these opportunities go to waste.

4. Start looking for an internship now! It’s never too early to start researching and testing your contacts for a summer internship. If you wait too long, you’ll be stuck taking summer classes at Cornell or working at your local restaurant.

5. Get involved. For many of you, joining clubs in high school was for the sole purpose of helping you get into college. Joining clubs in college is much different. You’ll find it fun to join different groups of people and talk, debate, and generally be around the things that you love the most. More importantly, you’ll make friends and have an opportunity to be a part of something that is much larger than you are.

I hope these tips give you some guidance about being successful at Cornell. My last piece of advice is to not be intimidated by your classmates who have and will accomplish a significant amount or those who find 100k jobs on Wall Street or with tech companies. We can all find success if we continue to dream big. A Cornell degree will help take you everywhere you have imagined.

Karim Lakhani is a Junior in the Industrial and Labor Relations school. He can be reached at kml248@ cornell.edu.

Mitt Romney Announces VP: Paul Ryan

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

Last Saturday, while campaigning in Virginia, Mitt Romney announced his running mate Paul Ryan. The move came as a shock to many political analysts who had predicted that the Romney Campaign would shy away from the controversial and risky Wisconsin Congressman.

Representative Ryan has emerged as a conservative leader in entitlement program reforms. He has been very outspoken about the need to reduce spending on welfare programs and has not shied away from his proposed plans to increase the Social Security retirement age to 70.

His entitlement spending reduction plans would seem to make him an easy target for the Obama campaign, who has tried to paint the Congressman as a callous budget slashing conservative hacking his way through social welfare programs. This could end up costing Romney the support of a large portion of the over 55 working population.

That being said, Paul Ryan’s controversial welfare reform plan has served as a starting point for the Romney campaign to redefine the issues of the presidential election. The selection is a bold choice and will bring the focus of the election back to the issues facing the country and away from the negative personal ads that the President has been throwing Romney’s way.

Essentially, the choice will enable the Romney campaign to redefine its platform.

Paul Ryan is popular with core conservatives and will help the GOP rally behind Romney. The Congressman’s purposed reform policies will show the public that Romney is serious about balancing the budget and getting Americans back to work.

With Paul Ryan on the ticket, the Romney campaign will be able to go on the offensive. Paul Ryan has shown a willingness to fight for tougher reduction measures called for by Republicans that Romney has shied away from. The country is in a $15 trillion hole which the current administration has made no serious attempts to climb out of.

Paul Ryan has shown a strong commitment to cutting spending and a stricter fiscal policy. If he can bring this support to the Romney platform he will likely rally conservatives who were originally alienated by the Republican nominee. His clear and realistic message of the country’s financial situation is also a sobering reminder to the liberals currently debt-crisis denial.

The choice not only highlights the stark policy differences between the two parties in the race, but it also adds a younger conservative opinion to the debate. Paul Ryan has repeatedly shown support for American youth entering the workforce hunting for jobs. He has also criticized many liberal policies for “passing on the debate” to younger generations.

However, despite being branded the ideological messenger for the Republican party, the voice of a generation, and a “new hope” for the Romney campaign, the real impact of the Paul Ryan nomination has yet to be felt. Romney himself will still have to prove he is behind the young conservative’s fiscal and entitlement reform plans.

Andy Wagner is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at amw286@cornell.edu

Excluding the Libertarian Voice?

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

While Romney’s well-oiled campaign accumulated delegates, endorsements, pledges and donor commitments throughout the GOP 2012 primaries, Congressman Ron Paul’s liberty movement generated widespread grassroots support from across the breadth of the nation. The party establishment, which had hastily rallied around Romney as its most promising option to confront Obama, had little choice but to take seriously the implications of a Ron Paul revolution within its own ranks.

Having won many converts, and having marshalled the resources of a highly dedicated and outspoken legion of political activists, this revolution harnessed the energies of a cross-section of enthusiastic followers. A tapestry of thousands of civil libertarians, anti-war activists, limited-government advocates, blue-collar workers, military veterans and college students invested time and money to sustain Paul’s message and promote his vision.

Surely, accommodations on the part of the establishment would have to be made, no? Realizing the necessity to avoid alienating this libertarian wing of the party, observers assumed that Romney would seek to maintain at least a cordial, if not comfortable, relationship with Paul (as during the primaries). One would think that Romney strategists and RNC directors would intend on summoning the resources and energy of libertarian volunteers and activists during the fall campaign.

But the announcement that Paul has not even been included on the speaker’s docket at the GOP convention has struck libertarian activists and conservative strategists alike as a puzzling and ill-advised gesture. This is especially true in light of the need to conduct overtures toward a movement still skeptical of Romney. Alienating Paul means alienating these voters, crippling an already tenuous alliance.

More pressing is the concern that the deliberate “snubbing” of Paul risks not merely bad blood but a real backlash on the part of his followers. Paul supporters are very well known for their sensitivity to perceived slights toward their leader. Libertarians have been persistent and vocal in calling attention to what they feel are attempts to exclude Paul’s message from the political discourse. They are exceedingly suspicious of not only the media, but of the GOP establishment itself. One might speculate that the snubbing might prompt zealous Paul supporters to create a scene on the convention floor itself. Anticipating this, Paul representatives have urged libertarian attendees to exercise decorum during the convention proceedings, reports Politico. To make matters worse, the political struggle may now descended into the slimy realm of legal quarrelling. The Paul campaign’s formal appeals to the RNC to include a group of Louisiana delegates, Paul supporters, were flat-out rejected in June as reported by CNN.

“Jesse Benton, Paul's national campaign chairman, said by email that Paul would be pressing challenges about his delegates from Oregon and Massachusetts, as well as from Louisiana and Maine,” reports the St. Louis Dispatch.

This ongoing battle, and the fact that Paul has yet to endorse Romney, have overshadowed the fact that about 200 delegates, seeking a higher profile for their message, will represent Paul at the GOP convention in Tampa Bay, and that Ron Paul’s son and apparent heir to the liberty movement, Rand, is on the speaking roster.

Nevertheless, both Politico and the St. Louis Dispatch attest to the deepening of resentments: Tim Blessing, a Ron Paul alternate delegate from St. Louis, said: “You can't be the party that says we have room for everyone in our tent, and as soon as we get active in the party, say 'you're not one of us; you're not a real Republican.’” “I don't feel that he [Ron Paul] has gotten his justice,” said Heather Coil, one of eight Ron Paul delegates and alternates from Missouri. Some Maine Republicans seek to disqualify their state’s Paul delegates from the convention.

True to form, Paul and his supporters will assemble at a Ron Paul “Save America” event on the eve of the Tampa Bay convention in what is being described as a rally to urge that Paul be selected as the GOP’s nominee.

Yet despite the bewildering decision to exclude Paul and the ensuing factionalism which it might spawn, a few facts make fratricidal warfare in the GOP unlikely.

For starters, Obama unifies the GOP far more effectively than Romney could ever hope to. The importance of replacing President Obama, for both Libertarians and Conservatives alike, is so exceedingly pronounced, intense and potent that it will make intra-party jabbing seem hilariously irrelevant. This will prove especially true in the wake of a highly animated and laser focused convention.

Secondly, too much is at stake for convention antics and posturing, and Libertarians know it. The spirited nature of the convention will be too powerful for delegate games to be warranted. The critical importance of selecting an electable nominee will seem too obvious for even Ron Paul revolutionaries to question.

And lastly, not wanting to embarrass Paul and his successor, Rand, with misbehavior, Libertarian delegates will think twice, and consider their movement’s reputation very carefully, before sabotaging the GOP’s efforts to win one of the most critical elections of their lifetimes.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@ cornell.edu

If You Build It…You Didn’t Build It

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

President Obama came out against individualism last July with his now infamous line, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that."

Just to put this quote into context, below is the surrounding (but no less incriminating) text of the speech of which it was a part, given in Roanoke, Virginia. Skip ahead if you have already watched the video:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

Now, firstly, I'm not sure where the President is finding all these people who have deluded themselves into thinking they have succeeded literally without the help of a single other person. I personally don't know anyone who would seriously contend that their success was solely the result of their own genius.

The individualist contention – and the conservative one – is not that people are completely unaffected by the world around them. That would be an utterly ridiculous claim. Rather, the contention is that each person is the primary guardian of his own life. He takes input from his environment – his teachers, friends, enemies, customers, and circumstances – but he is the one who ultimately decides what to do with that input. And it is he who is responsible for the outcomes of his actions – actions which he could have chosen to take differently or not to take at all. So, it appears that Obama has set up a straw man as an opponent.

Secondly, his fire-fighting analogy is of seemingly little relevance. Not only are most of the phenomena of which he speaks—building damns, for instance—far less urgent than putting out fires, but the comparison recognizes only two possibilities: that of selfish individual action, and that of government supervised action.

President Obama ignores the important third option of cooperative action without the supervision of the government. This is perhaps the gravest oversight in his speech—the utter refusal to acknowledge that private action can be anything but isolated and self-serving. Indeed, this is a discredit to the private sector, to American citizens, and to the individualism that has played such an important role in national politics and political culture since the country’s founding.

Individualism and private action need not be opposed to cooperation. After all, even if it was the government which created the modern Internet (It wasn’t), it was the private sector that made it widely affordable and accessible, and that brought us innovations like the smartphone and Facebook that transformed the landscape of social networking and political activism. It may be that government policies played some part in creating the middle class, but it is made up of individuals who spend their lives working and saving in common marketplaces. Without them, the middle class would by definition by nonexistent.

And if a private fire service were established, it would surely be a cooperative effort undertaken by several individuals (as some volunteer fire stations in fact are), not simply a coincidentally-coexisting network of individual people each with his own personal fire department.

Obama claims that we are all “in this together,” but what he really appears to be saying is that we can only be “in this” if we step aside and let the government take charge. This, of course, is far from true. People do not need the government to be able to work together, to share ideas, or to influence each other’s lives. Thousands of years of civilization have shown that we can do that all on our own.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu

Girls of the Gold Rush

2012-08-26T00:00:00Z

If you have been watching the Summer Games of the XXX Olympiad on NBC – or live in London, if you were lucky – then I hope that your excitement has not already waned too much.

I may be opening up a can of worms when writing an article that is mostly about the female athletes in the Olympics. I’m not attempting to be discriminatory—I just have to narrow it down somehow, and half of the athletes seem like a good place to start. More than half, actually. Overall, women earned fifty-six percent of the United States’ one hundred and four medals this year (forty-six of which were gold) – and Belarus, Spain, the Netherlands, China, and Australia had similar or higher percentages of their medals won by women.

This seems natural enough, considering that there were more female Olympians representing the United States than there were male. Perhaps this is why NBC featured competitors in their “Women of the Olympics” videos and 2012 was declared the “Year of the Woman.”

It is important that attention is brought to their excellence because in many countries women do not yet have the same ability to compete as men do in athletic events. This summer’s Olympic Games did just that; it brought attention to its female competitors for reasons both bad and good.

There was plenty of interest and controversy among the women in the Olympics, and not just the competitors from the United States. There was sixteen-year-old Ye Shiwen from China who swam faster than male American champion Ryan Lochte in the last leg of her race, prompting suspicion of doping amid vehement denials.

Nur Suryani Mohammed Taibi, a riflewoman from Malaysia, was eight months pregnant and accused by many of endangering her baby. Fanny Lecluyse was sent home to Belgium early for drunken behavior. A triple jumper from Greece, Voula Papachristou, did not get to compete at all due to a “racist” Tweet prior to the Games’ commencement.

Not every point of interest is potentially viewed as negative, however. Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and Qatar had female athletes compete for the first time in history. Unfortunately, many of the women will face cold shoulders when they return home because of their Olympic involvement.

A protest secured American gymnast Aly Raisman a bronze medal after her routine was judged more difficult than originally thought. The oft-ignored, but highly successful, United States women’s basketball team won their seventh Olympic championship. Seventeen-year-old Missy Franklin won five medals for the United States in various swimming events.

Of course we cannot forget the multiple excellent races run by the track phenom who Cornell should be proud to claim as an alumnus: Morgan Uceny. Uceny was in position to run an excellent time in the first three laps of the 1500-meter race before falling. Asli Cakir of Turkey won the race instead – a considerable comeback for Cakir, who was banned in 2004 for doping. It is the first time that Turkey won a gold medal, and the second time that Uceny tripped in an international meet that she was expected to win.

It is no wonder that she and her fans here at Cornell were heart¬broken, but in a post on Facebook she acknowledged that the journey is not yet finished. A comeback is now doubly in order for Uceny, and I believe that she will deliver.

Gender aside, Cornell has produced many Olympians. This year alone, rower Ken Jurkowski ’03 and triple jumper Muhammad Halim ’08, led by Cornell coaches Dan Fronhofer ’04 and Nathan Taylor respectively, also represented the Big Red.

It only makes sense that some of the finest athletes are also some of the finest students. Hard work can translate from the classroom onto the field. Not all Cornellians are Olympic athletes, of course, but perhaps to some degree, we can all understand the discipline and determination that they command.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

Ethnic Studies and Toleration

2012-05-01T00:00:00Z

From Aficana to Akwe:kon, debates about the legitimacy and proper place of ethnic studies programs are not new to our campus– nor are they limited to Cornell. Arizona, for instance, instituted a ban on classes “that promote the over- throw of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity ‘instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals,’” said the Arizona Daily Star in mid- 2010. The ban applied to all public K-12 schools in the state, and now state officials are reportedly ruminating about extending it to include public universities as well.

Campus Progress reported that the State Superintendent called ethnic studies programs at public colleges “toxic,” and accused them of inciting hatred for whites. The left, predictably, has condemned the ban as a blow against free speech rights and an effort to unnecessarily censor education.

It is important, though, to pay attention to the exact content of the ban when deciding just what kind of burden it would place on public universities. I agree that the idea of government officials dictating class- room content is in general worrisome, and should be limited to a minimal level. Requiring schools not to train the next generation of coup leaders, however, hardly seems like a substantial restriction. Neither does requiring them not to advocate ethnic solidarity.

Perhaps this is a naïve conception of what public education should be, but it seems to me that public schools—whether they be elementary schools, high schools, or colleges, should not be advocating anything (aside from very basic tenets of interpersonal respect and civic participation). They should certainly not be advocating the adoption of philosophies of racial solidarity at the expense of individualism.

And that is not to say that these issues shouldn’t be taught about or discussed. Nor is it to say that a philosophy of individualism should be advocated at the expense of ideas about racial solidarity. It is simply to say that teachers should not use their power as campus authority figures simply to attempt to duplicate their own thinking in their students. Education (especially in the humanities, though I would make a similar case for the sciences and mathematics) should be about intellectual exchange, substantive dialogue, and (most of all) about learning to evaluate issues from multiple perspectives.

These end goals are hard to reach, though, when the classroom becomes merely a pulpit for advocates of a particular worldview. They are also difficult to attain when classes are “designed for students of a particular ethnic group.” After all, if I’m not mistaken, we’ve already tried designing classes based on students’ ethnic identities. We called it segregation, and now it’s unconstitutional.

Further, there is a significant difference between designing classes for the study of a particular geographic region’s or ethnic group’s history, for example, and designing them to serve students of a certain ethnicity. A university hosting a class on Latin American history is one thing (In fact, it makes sense, as professors typically specialize their research to focus on one region, era, or culture in order to avoid tackling unreasonably broad questions.), but designing this class specifically to appeal to ethnically Latin students over other students (perhaps by including only certain authors or perspectives in the class’s curriculum) is something entirely different.

This, after all, is the kind of bias liberals have decried for years as a deplorable feature of literature and classics curricula. They should embrace efforts to stop the same bias, though in a different direction, from developing in other fields.

Of course, whether the Arizona legislature and court system will draw the same distinction I draw here between classes focused on the study of only one ethnic group and classes focused on attracting students of only one ethnic group is a question unto itself, and one that I am certainly not qualified to answer. (Though after the original ban was used to close high-school-level Mexican studies departments and to prohibit the teaching of certain books, the prospects are perhaps not very promising.) This is a question, however, about how well the proposed ban might be enforced, and about the intentions of the state legislators involved—not about the con- tent of the ban itself.

The existence of the current ban and the consideration of its proposed extension is generally questionable in that it represents an at- tempt at additional government control of classroom conduct, and in that it presents opportunity for abuse through poor enforcement. However, on its face, it seems no more intrusive than the countless national and state standards with which elementary, middle, and high schools are forced to comply; and, if interpreted in the right way, the ban could simply be a restatement of what should already be standard policy. Namely, schools—at all levels—should be places that promote intellectual growth and inclusion, not one-sided political advocacy and ethnocentric selectivism.

Lucia Rafanelli is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

A Plethora of Policies: Fidgeting for diversity as a panacea

2012-05-01T00:00:00Z

Since the 1980s, writers of all stripes at the Review have lobbed shells into Camp Diversity, attempting to point out the now-laughable level of hypocrisy surrounding the word. No fad has ever had a lifespan of decades—we are awestruck that an outdated, distasteful, and fundamentally racist mentality could possess so much inertia. Opposition to the use of funds for diversity supplementation has traditionally been ignored, and even now with affirmative action back before the Supreme Court, Cornell has redoubled its diversity efforts with even more vague and vainglorious language.

It is unsettling at a basic level whenever a governing body uses broad, unclear terms to reach some undefined moral end. Here are some of Cornell’s diversity priorities in the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan:

—“attract and educate a diverse body of undergraduate students”

—“increase the racial/ethnic and gender diversity within the faculty”

—“increase the…quality of faculty”

These so-called strategies are for the most part nebulous and open to interpretation. What constitutes a diverse body—are some races more desirable than others? Why should students be all-around “diverse” but faculty only “race/gender diverse”? And what, exactly, is a “quality” faculty member? Perhaps—dare I say—one who adheres to a different worldview than other faculty? For such a broad mandate, these criteria deliberately skirt the question of intellectual diversity in the faculty. As for gender diversity, the one initiative that almost makes sense—can’t you just say ‘women’? Is that offensive now?

Perhaps that list was intentionally cursory. Let’s look at a real policy, the Equal Education and Employment Opportunity Statement. Be sure to read the last sentence carefully.

“Association with Cornell, either as a student, faculty, or staff member, involves participation in a free community where all people are recognized and rewarded on the basis of individual performance rather than personal convictions, appearance, preferences (including sexual or affectional orientation), or happenstance of birth. … No person shall be denied admission to any educational program or activity or be denied employment on the basis of any legally prohibited discrimination involving, but not limited to, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, or veteran status. Cornell University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer.”

Damn—it was going so strong until the end! Way to ruin the party, Cornell. It needn’t be said that “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” are orthogonal ideas. Did Cornell get its definition of “equality” from Animal Farm?

To be clear: equality-enforcing rules and diversity-increasing rules cannot coexist in a coherent manner. Diversity is great, but equality is greater. We do value our diversity, but the quest to manually manipulate an already-racially-diverse environment is quite simply a form of racism. Further, when this is done in the name of “inclusion”, the University conflates a matter of personal integrity with the very different practice of quota-balancing—which involves as much “exclusion” as “inclusion”.

If the University wants to seriously commit to the very American promises outlined in this Statement, it needs to ditch the hypocrisy. Fairness is not a zero-sum game based on giving and taking. Are Cornellians so innately unjust and nasty that we cannot offer one another equal treatment— that the rule of freedom must be forcibly imposed by a system of diversity watchdogs and affirmative action?

Rephrase the question. Would horror befall Cornell if it were to eliminate all policy, protocol, budgets, councils, and offices dedicated to diversity? Or would the real policies, like those demanding impartial admissions and hiring, shine through?

= = =

In his Sun column, student trustee Alex Bores calls for “a plethora of policies” to improve the racial climate on campus. His approach is surprising, given that he establishes that we should take a more open-minded approach to engendering equity. The trustees may not think so, but inclusion is always a choice made between friends, never between a bureaucracy and its subjects. As our anonymous writer Mr. Manchu makes clear on page 9, “concocted compassion” is self-defeating and prone to groupthink. Our hearts and minds are already open, Cornell; and if you intend to open them further, add intellectual diversity to your liberal arts curriculum (see Roberto Matos, at left, and Rafanelli, page 4).

Just as with government, trouble results when Cornell tries to play dollhouse with its denizens. Cornell should be striving to offer its students a path to maturity by treating them as they are: adults seeking wisdom. Instead, it attempts to insulate the campus, transforming it into something which does not remotely resemble an American community. Minorities are encouraged to self-segregate into racial interest groups (and even dorms) as if the rest of the student body isn’t interesting enough. Students are offered counseling for their poor mental health, even though the clearest cause of student unhappiness is the systematic removal of self-paced learning at Cornell. Religion is ignored to the point where Easter and Yom Kippur are likely to be followed by an all-nighter.

If Cornell wants to level the ground for our academic experience, it could start by not inventing false sociological dilemmas and instead take action on the actual flaws which delegitimize the collegiate experience at Cornell. We want to be respected as individuals, not hypotheses of a social experiment.

As Chief Justice Roberts said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. The University will fulfill its moral and existential imperative simply by continuing to improve student-driven education and research, not by trying to forge a rather rainy and windy utopia where everyone is a citizen of the world.

If our community could truly benefit from ethnic adjustment, we’re sure some people would be happy to leave if asked. If not, Cornell, please move the conversation away from race.

The Return of Jim Crow?

2012-04-16T00:00:00Z

There has been a good deal of national controversy lately regarding proposed laws changing voting requirements in some states. These laws range from requiring voters to present ID at their polling places, to allowing students to vote only in their districts of permanent residence (i.e. not always where they go to school), to disenfranchising felons (a practice which is already established in some places in the country—California, for example).

In my book, most of these laws are relatively benign. After all, voting requirements vary from state to state, and they always have. Different states have different residency requirements, and different rules about how far in advance voters must register, whether they must register with a political party to vote in certain elections, and how they must verify their identities at the polls. Most of the laws currently being considered across the country are simply an extension of this long- running state of affairs.

But according to a recent Campus Progress article about these new voting regulations, they are in fact cause for not only concern, but outright panic. And unfortunately, Campus Progress’s writers are not the only ones banging this drum. At the organization’s national conference last summer, none other than Bill Clinton alleged the existence of a “disciplined, passionate, and determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you [students] from voting...." This was in response to efforts to... not reinstate the poll tax, not raise the voting age, not require onerous paperwork completion before registration, but to...end same-day registration in some states. Clinton’s reaction, it seems, was quite extreme.

We should of course defend to the death the right to vote, but I fail to see an indication anywhere in our constitution or national laws that we must defend a right to decide five minutes before an election that you might care enough about politics to press a button or pull a lever and be immediately admitted to the polls without any previous documentation of your identity or residence.

Clinton went on to say that efforts to disenfranchise convicted felons in Florida were simply undertaken, “[b]ecause most of [the felons] in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics that would tend to vote for Democrats.”

Campus Progress, too, resorted to this mudslinging strategy. Rather than simply presenting reasoned arguments against the Republican position, they felt the need to accuse Republicans of mounting a determined attack on voting rights, even going so far as to say, “these laws hinder voting rights in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.”

It is true that some of these proposed laws are a bit onerous, and I would personally oppose some of them—for instance, those that would require not just identification, but a passport or birth certificate, for ad- mission to the polls. (These documents are not terribly easy to obtain and often cost small but not insignificant amounts of money.)

Many of the laws, though, simply amount to states using their constitutionally granted authority to decide how and when their citizens should register to vote. This does not mean mass exclusion from the polls, it does not mean race-based discrimination, and it certainly does not mean setting into motion anything like what happened in the Jim Crow era.

Further, to insinuate this is not only to unduly insult (rather than engage in intellectual exchange) conservatives, but it is also highly offensive to the memories of the hundreds of American blacks who suffered through the racist policies of Jim Crow—to all those who lost friends and loved ones to lynching, to all those who had their newly- granted civil rights almost completely stripped, to those who endured laughable education standards and segregated train rides, and to those who died because there were no black doctors available at the precise moments they were in need of help, this comparison is disrespectful to the nth degree.

Frankly, anyone who thinks that today’s society resembles the Jim Crow era in any real sense could probably use with a good history lesson.

Now, one final note before I leave you: I want students to vote. I wish they were more engaged in politics and more aware of political issues. This is why I write for the Review. But I don’t think that requiring them to register a few months ahead of time, or to vote in their district of permanent residence (rather than where they go to school) is an unreasonable obstacle to them exercising their rights to suffrage.

In my home state, at least, it takes about 30 seconds to register to vote by absentee ballot; and if you, as a student, are not willing to put in that time to make sure you have a voice in your government, I won’t be shedding any tears if you don’t vote in the next election.

Lucia Rafanelli is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

Copy-Right

2012-04-16T00:00:00Z

It’s time for the Right to acknowledge that the copyright system is broken and to do something about it. To do otherwise would be to participate in the wanton destruction of the explicit text of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, known as the “Copyright Clause,” states that Congress has the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Understanding “Science” to mean (at the time) things including literary works and understanding “Authors” to mean content creators, we can clearly see an intent by the Founders to allow the creation of copyright - that is, federally granted monopolies over certain works to incentivize creation and to reward creators for their efforts. This idea isn’t terribly controversial, and only the most radical of anti-copyright mavens would argue that the government shouldn’t provide at least some minimal form of copyright protection.

There’s a bigger debate, though, that has been raging in the law of copyright for some time: the definition of “limited Times.” A normal American citizen would read “limited Times” to mean that Congress must place time limits on the duration of copyright, but this has been anything but the case in the last decade. Through various retroactive extensions of copyright duration (most recently the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, known pejoratively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”), Congress has continued to extend the duration of pre-existing copyrights to the point where copyright protection is virtually unlimited. Thus, Disney has no reason to worry about Mickey Mouse becoming public domain - with a little bit of lobbying muscle and a well-drafted copyright extension statute in Congress, Mickey will always be copyrighted under American law. The Supreme Court recently upheld this behavior in the case Eldred v. Ashcroft, where the Court basically said that any imaginary time limit on copyright suffices as long as copyright does not explicitly last “forever.”

This Congressional practice is a clear affront to the idea of “limited Times” in the Copyright Clause. If we are to assume that the Copyright Clause exists to encourage authors to create works, there is no point in retroactively rewarding authors for works they have already made and profited from. Authors (especially authors still owning copyrights from as early as 1923) did not reasonably rely on future copyright term extensions when creating their works - they relied on existing copyright law and the anticipation that their works would eventually go into the hands of the public. If we assume that copyright extensions help protect the additional investments authors make in their works after they are created (such as the Disney company making Mickey even more of an American icon through aggressive advertising), the extensions of copyright may be justified, but not for the duration they are given, and certainly not in light of the fact that many icons such as Mickey Mouse have become icons because of the public’s love for them and not merely because of the marketing actions of Disney. Finally, even if we accept the nebulous argument that there is some moral right of an author towards there work, this does not justify granting an author an absolute monopoly over that work - and subsequent derivative works - for unlimited amounts of time.

The Right has been pretty quiet about the problems with copyright, and it’s about time we spoke up. Just like how Congress has overextended its interpretation of the Commerce Clause to justify the individual mandate of Obamacare, Congress has overextended its interpretation of the Copyright Clause to justify giving select intellectual property holders preferential treatment over the American public.

Congress’ abuses are only getting worse. This year, in a case called Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ act of taking works from the public domain - that is, works owned by everyone in America that could be freely read, copied, and enjoyed - and re-copyrighting them in order to appease foreign companies and copyright holders. This kind of behavior should scare the pants off of any strong conservative - where Congress begins taking control of private intellectual property and monopolizing it or giving it to favored individuals, big government is truly in control.

Copyright is not a bad thing. Infinite copyright is. The copyright system itself is a complex balancing act between the interests and incentives of authors and the needs and enjoyment of the public. Where this delicate balance is skewed decidedly in the favor of authors with powerful lobbyists, the public suffers, and big government becomes bigger. It is not and has never been the job of the American government to subsidize and protect the profitability of Disney, and to do otherwise is to weaken capitalism. And it’s time that the Right begins to make that argument, no matter how much it hurts our wallets.

Santorum v. Sex

2012-03-11T00:00:00Z

Rick Santorum is concerned about the sex you’re having, and it’s very likely going to lose us an election.

Santorum has recently claimed that the case Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided. Griswold was a case that held unconstitutional a state prohibition on the sale of contraceptives. In essence, the case read into the Fourth Amendment a “right to privacy” -- a right that protects Americans from unnecessary governmental intrusion into their personal affairs such as their sex lives. In simpler terms, Griswold held that the government cannot violate the privacy of citizens without a really good reason for doing so.

Conservatives have struggled with Griswold for quite some time. On one hand, Griswold protects citizens’ privacy from a paternalistic government. On the other hand, it has set the stage for Roe, Casey, and other pro-abortion cases. Santorum has seemingly taken the position that Griswold should be abolished in order to allow religious states to ban contraceptives, which would set the stage for states to eventually ban abortion. From some sort of end-justifies-the-means perspective, this back-end approach is a good thing for even occasional social conservatives, who have very little traction against the Supreme Court’s rather unyielding ruling upholding the right to have an abortion in Casey. I suppose one could even empathize with Santorum’s implicit desire to help bring more children into the world.

The problem with Santorum’s approach is that a candidate that takes on sex is going to lose an election. Sex is popular. Rick Santorum is not so popular. Where Santorum takes on sex by inferring that it should occur only for procreation, sex will win. While a small part of the conservative base with strict socially conservative viewpoints may empathize with Santorum’s absolutist view on contraceptives, Santorum’s arguments will likely not gain traction with Independents and Democrats, who almost unquestionably like sex more than they like social conservatism that kowtows to Catholicism. The idea that a sweater-vest-wearing president would purport to peer into the bedroom window of every home in America in order to promote the traditional nuclear family can and will scare votes away from the Republican ticket.

We are experiencing a radical change in conservatism today. Burkean conservatism is struggling, and libertarian conservatism is beginning to take hold. Social conservatism may command the religious vote, but churches are dying and religious adherents are becoming more liberalized in their social views. The answer to these trends is not to obstinately cling to social conservatism and exclude those who cannot stomach it: it is to adopt big-tent conservative values that will weather the storm of a general election. Taking away one of America’s most popular secret pastimes is not the path to victory.

Why the Obamacare Case Shouldn’t Matter

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Don’t let pundits fool you: the upcoming Supreme Court case on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) won’t mean much, and those who believe otherwise are taking a big risk.

The upcoming Supreme Court case on Obamacare will review whether or not Congress has the power to enact an “individual mandate” – that is, a federal requirement that individuals purchase insurance – under Article I of the Constitution. Opponents to Obamacare argue that Article I does not empower Congress to pass a statute which requires that unwilling private citizens purchase healthcare insurance. Proponents of Obamacare argue that the individual mandate is justified on numerous grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and even the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. If the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, the Supreme Court may also find that the individual mandate is “inseverable” from Obamacare – that is, that the entirety of Obamacare is unconstitutional because the entire statute is unworkable without the individual mandate.

The fact that the entirety of Obamacare could be held unconstitutional sounds like a big deal – and to some degree, it is. The Obamacare case will be the first time since the New Deal that the scope of Congressional power has been seriously questioned. Where the “New Deal Constitution” has been a thorn in the side of conservatives for decades, a repeal of Obamacare could very well mark the beginning of a “Post-Obamacare Constitution” focused on a smaller federal government, more states’ rights, and even a return to laissez-faire capitalism.

Still, there is an unfortunate fact about the Obamacare case conservatives must acknowledge: even if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, Democrats can still find ways to achieve the same result via alternative means. Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf has argued that the Congress could easily effectuate the individual mandate even if the current wording of the individual mandate itself was struck down by re-structuring the mandate as a tax, invoking the spending power, conditioning statewide implementation of an individual mandate on the receipt of Medicaid, or even by carefully re-wording the statute to make it comport with the Commerce Clause. In other words, the determination that the current individual mandate is unconstitutional under Article I would not necessary stop Democrats from finding other ways to manipulate the economic and private affairs of citizens. For conservatives, this could all but nullify the elation of a court ruling striking down Obamacare: a tactical victory possibly made moot by a strategic reversal.

Conservatives should be very careful not to be lured by the siren’s song of a potential victory onto the rocks of political failure. Obamacare is not President Obama’s only failure. If conservatives too readily use Obamacare as the one and only avenue for attacking President Obama, that strategic miscalculation could lead to the ultimate irony – the reelection of President Obama. Placing too much emphasis on Obamacare as a core conservative issue could very well delude conservative foot soldiers into believing that a victory at the Supreme Court would mean that the war against big government is over – and an inducement of such apathy would be just as fatal for conservatism as an outright loss at the Supreme Court would be.

Let’s not get swept away in the inevitable flurry of debate over the Obamacare case. The best way to truly restrict the size of government is to gain control in the Congress and in the Presidency. Supreme Court cases will unquestionably help this effort, but they are not the sole progenitor of political control. To believe otherwise sets one up for delusion – or, worse, failure.

Network of Enlightened Women

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Network of Enlightened Women (NeW) is a club for university women at Cornell that promises a fresh and classy take on feminism. Founded by sophomores Caroline Emberton and Ali Smith, Cornell’s NeW chapter is the first NeW chapter in the Ivy League, and is part of a nationwide movement at over 25 universities to cultivate a community for culturally conservative women. We are not a political club, but a group of students getting together to discuss how our conservative values translate into our everyday lives.

We believe that conservatism provides a better answer than feminism to uphold female dignity and respect, while encouraging women to reach their fullest potential without feeling ashamed to embrace their femininity. When it comes to making the big life choices that all highly ambitious women struggle with, such as the balance between career and family, there is a common misperception that women have to choose between one and the other. The media and more liberal critiques of conservatism often assume that conservative women are stuck in traditional gender roles and cannot put career first. True conservatism offers far more flexibility in reality. Conservatism upholds the idea that women do not have a fixed role in society. Rather have the immense power to choose either or both career and family without regret. Conservatism provides great fluidity for women in making future decisions compared to feminism.

As a club, we seek to tackle these topics and answer questions like: why hasn’t the U.S. had a female president? Why do women think they have to give up their femininity to achieve personal success? How does objectification of women in the media affect how women are treated in society? We believe in creating well informed citizens through discussions and debates about current events, books and articles, and by encouraging conservative female leadership. According to a recent New York Times article, women are among the most educated in the nation, and receive 60% of bachelor’s degrees. However, women are still underrepresented in the workplace. In addition, women are greatly underrepresented in Congress.

We recognize that gender inequality is still a concern for the U.S., and we are inspired by strong conservative leaders both in the U.S. and abroad such as Margaret Thatcher, Clare Booth Luce, and numerous conservative women who serve in Congress. Cornell NeW ladies believe that women do not have to play by man’s rules to achieve success. Rather, a woman’s mission is to create a human world that treats both genders with equality and yet celebrates their differences. We are classy, conservative, Cornell women and proud of it.

For meeting times, visit NeW on Facebook at goo.gl/9YG5T. For more information, email Caroline Emberton at cme67@cornell.edu.

When an Elephant Makes an Ass of Himself

2012-02-08T00:00:00Z

Students are going to vote Republican in the 2012 election for the same reason they voted for Obama in 2008. They want change badly; more now than they did the last time. College is a natural incubator of dissatisfaction—you can’t learn much by agreeing—but the situation we face is more than an academic exercise. Young people been personally offended by Obama’s inaction on the economy, his deliberate shoveling of the national debt onto our generation, and his uncanny blend of lackadaisical radicalism. Brains became unwashed as Obama retracted from the public eye. Former Obama devotees know exactly what sort of change they need, and they know it comes in the form of a Republican who has a genuine interest in our nation’s prosperity.

College students are increasingly open to conservative ideas. This is partly explained by experiencing college during a recession, but it has more to do with the libertarian awakening that we’ve all become so familiar with thanks to the hijinks of Ron Paul. College students have realized—not for the first time—that attending university is less an insulated trial period and more a genuine personal challenge. Students are embittered that some face an immensely difficult time reaching graduation while others seem to coast through both mentally and financially. Although millions of hours and dollars have been spent trying to make universities more equitable, diverse, and straightforward, college is conditioning us to hate the seemingly artificial systems that constrain our pursuit of happiness. The “fairness” ideal which once cranked the political correctness engine has now been remodeled into the “freedom” ideal of libertarianism, and students love it even more. Major ideological divisions aside, the new generation of libertarians should be welcomed into the Republican Party (as we’ve seen from the primary race, the GOP isn’t exactly ideologically cohesive to begin with).

Thus the real reason for this editorial. The current presidential primary candidates have collectively failed to capitalize on their opportunity to capture the youth vote (and the entire vote, for that matter). We’ve seen a bevy of excellent, even revolutionary ideas from certain candidates, but these men have denigrated themselves with a sickening amount of bickering and pointless contention. As a result, there is mass confusion in the Republican Party over who actually represents conservative ideals and who will be seen as Obama’s worthy opponent. Moreover, despite Paul’s success, the other candidates have largely made no attempt to capture his libertarian voter segment. What has gone wrong?

It’s all so clear to me. Everyone seems to know with the clarity of a prophet that Romney is the inevitable nominee. This is an unconventional election season, but not unconventional enough to conduct a junta-style election. Every single instance of candidate momentum in this election has turned out to be wrong except for Paul’s steady rise.

How could you trust that guy? Both Mitt and Newt fans are guilty of this. Neither of them is fundamentally trustworthy. But before accusing Romney of being a closet liberal, consider whether he would actually run for President on a platform of lies. Likewise, before accusing Gingrich of poor character, consider his recent religious conversion and his seemingly genuine confession that he has settled matters with God. Ultimately, no doubts can be settled, but they are not serious enough to rule out either candidate entirely. Americans take big chances when we must.

Insiders and outsiders. Candidates like to pit themselves against the disconnected Washington elite. We hear it so much that it’s impossible to know who’s being genuine. We have a clear definition of ‘elite’: people who lose touch with their constituents because they are too weak to maintain their moral and philosophical fiber after spending time in Washington. That’s a determination for the voters to make, not for candidates to talk about.

We need to talk about wealth. No, we don’t. A rich candidate is hardly different from a poor candidate if both are interested in America’s prosperity. Law-abiding members of the upper, middle, and lower classes are not fundamentally different. Attacking Romney’s activities as an investor or Gingrich’s consulting business only serves to fuel Obama’s class warfare game. It is incomprehensible why a conservative would attack someone for doing services and generating income.

Ron Paul is nuts. But he can’t help it. The man is a patriot with a handicap, and the gist of his ideas must be harnessed to secure a Republican victory in November. Ignoring him only boosts his poll numbers and pits libertarians against the rest of the Republican establishment. Why isn’t Paul speaking at CPAC this week alongside the other candidates?

For some, a satisfying education is barely worth the troubles it can come with. But this year, our nation faces a challenge above and beyond the problems we face at this early stage of our lives. The Review calls on all students who have devoted their time to a campus issue to also consider making a far greater contribution by supporting a Republican primary candidate based on conviction, not politics.

Lucas Policastro is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.

Intellectual Properties

2011-11-03T00:00:00Z

Every two years since 1999, Cornell has issued an undergraduate student survey. The most recent iteration is called the Cornell PULSE—Perceptions of Undergraduate Life and Student Experiences. It asked a potent salvo of questions across seven pages, covering nearly every aspect of the student experience. It did not ask about housing satisfaction.

None of the surveys did.

Two questions about housing did come up. Earlier surveys asked where we live, and most of the surveys asked whether we are satisfied with the “sense of community” where we live.

Apparently, our overall satisfaction with housing is secondary to whether we feel a sense of community.

To their credit, though, at least Cornell no longer needs to ask its students where they live.

= = =

It needn’t be said that housing is an issue. It needn’t be said that housing is a problem. The majority of undergrads reading this have experienced firsthand the inadequacies, frustrations, and horrible failures of Cornell housing. It is a stain on the Cornell experience for thousands of students. Some get lucky—it is a lottery, after all—but those students (myself included) certainly commiserate with unlucky friends.

Freshmen and their parents detect the trouble ahead before they arrive. Cornell is now acting proactively to stem the usual parent indignation over housing woes. During Parents’ Weekend, mums and dads who keeled over during Cornell Days dorm tours are pacified with “Housing Beyond the First Year” info sessions. Freshmen are also being treated to Off-Campus Housing Info Sessions. These point to one glaring predicament: Cornell admits more students than it can house.

That’s one gripe to rule them all. While it’s possible to complain about unhygienic conditions, hot summers, and 10 Watt light bulbs, all of these would seem bearable if only students could live where they wanted. The truly sweat-inducing matters are all space-related: the lack of singles, the impossible lotteries, uncertainty about next year, and the most harrowing outcome—desertion to the lawless landlords of Collegetown and elsewhere. Granted, some students are excited about independent living, which is fun on good days (see recent Sun pieces on C-town). Regardless, it should be the students’ choice to live off-campus, not their only option.

Collegetown is the least luxurious element of the Cornell experience. We can blame the city of Ithaca for poor urban planning in C-town, if there is such a thing. A little more grocery store, a little less pizza, if you know what I mean. The landlords are more to blame for their price-gouging and lack of an eye for rotting wood. (Obviously, they aren’t all bad; we appreciate every landlord who gives a hoot about his or her tenants.) But again, Cornell holds the keys. If you build dorms, they will come, especially those who never even attempted to seek campus housing. What insurmountable roadblock has kept the administration from allocating funds to new dorm construction?

It’s easy to say they don’t care. But we know they do, in a languid, bureaucratic sort of way. Cornell’s tight on funds, yes. But it’s not lacking donors. Cornell has been able to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars to fund construction and renovation, mostly at Weill in Manhattan. Down there, they are very happy to have a $637 million Medical Research Building in the works. That amount of money will never show up for the purpose of measly undergraduate housing, but one wonders if anyone bothered to ask those donors to set aside toward undergrads a bit of their immeasurable generosity. Are we to believe that the Roosevelt Island tech campus and the lavish Goldwin Smith extension are also of greater import than adequate housing?

Ah yes, I forgot—the Goldwin Smith building has already received $46 million in specific donations. “An elegant tribute to Goldwin Smith!” And a crude slap in the face to freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, like those who were counting on the lottery only to be sent back to Collegetown after the rent rush was over. This problem shouldn’t occur at such a wealthy institution. Cornell exists primarily for the benefit of promising young men and women; it’s disingenuous to offer them an incomplete experience while expanding other excellent pursuits like medical research.

Every student knows that the housing problem is the callus on Cornell’s foot—a callus used in particular to kick the ass of any student hoping they might be able to call Cornell’s campus their home away from home. I don’t blame the housing office. They do the best they can with a wholly inadequate housing portfolio. The one solution—build more dorms—is out of their hands.

We need four years of guaranteed housing. There is no better way to reduce stress for students and make Cornell a more desirable college, and the administration should make it a priority to convey this to donors as part of the Reimagining initiative. Undergraduate housing is a costly right, not a paid privilege.

Lucas Policastro is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.

Greeks' Largest Asset: Grassroots Intuition

2011-09-12T00:00:00Z

One month into another stirring semester at Cornell, it is no secret that the administration is on a mission to fundamentally alter Greek life. They seek to bring the activities of perhaps their largest liability under control, while sitting in their offices in Day and Willard Straight Hall.

The question remains: what should our fraternities and sororities do in response to this “Skorton Pledge.” Many houses are stating that their biggest problems lie in the ambiguity of the changes the university is seeking. They fear that even if they do make changes, the implications of these alterations may not be as dramatic as the university desires. Some pro-Greeks have expressed worries that their inability to meet the administration’s expectations may ultimately result in the demise of their beloved houses, regardless of their efforts in the coming weeks.

What exactly is this “Skorton Pledge”?

In his August 29 opinion piece in the Cornell Daily Sun, President Skorton walks a fine line when defining his “pledge.” He states very clearly halfway through the article that he has met with Greek leaders “to discuss the decision to ban pledging.” At another part in the article he is less blunt and instead calls for a redefining of “pledging as we know it.” Many supporters would be quick to highlight the latter of these remarks, claiming that the President is sincere in his repeated claims that he does not wish to end Greek life.

Here at the Cornell Review, we are optimistic that the administration will continue to work in favor of a Greek System. We also understand that, given the evolving culture on campus, changes need to be made to the new member education process. That being said, overgeneralized remarks like, “the decision to ban pledging,” made by those in authority, cannot be ignored.

As one of the most renowned educational institutions in the world, Cornell should be the paradigm for how a structurally strong Greek life could enhance the college experience of students of all social interests. Those students, who so desire to take on the responsibilities associated with joining a fraternal organization, understand both the risks and rewards associated with this opportunity. They do so while recognizing that this journey compliments the already mentally strenuous activities associated with their education and movement toward college degrees as well as their ensuing initiation as new members of society upon graduation.

With every passing year, the IFC loses more ground in the struggle to continue independently governing the Greek system. By its very nature, the idea of an independent organization of students governing themselves – holding each other accountable for each other’s actions – is revolutionary. It is especially revolutionary considering that the organization that is Cornell University already has an Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, also charged with overseeing the Greek community.

Expanding upon an analogy that I found especially effective made by Sun columnist Jon Weinberg on August 31, the IFC operates similar to a union. This union exists within an organizational structure that has a strong, well-established Human Resource department (OFSA). The workers don’t know if they are better off with the benefits package that management gives them or that of the union. Meanwhile, as the two units compete for the approval of both the worker and management, the process of actually considering workers’ rights is slowed and the individual worker becomes isolated and confused. This is very similar to the current state of the Greek system at Cornell.

While this paper is typically not one to side with unions, the administration has indicated that their part in the ongoing reformation process is complete for the time being. President Skorton has passed the baton to the student. This creates a great challenge for us to prove that we can rationally manage ourselves.

Every good entrepreneur knows that with a great challenge comes great opportunity for success and personal gain. Those individuals, who can identify the problems and have the insight to work on a solution, will thrive in a changing culture.

That’s what Nicky Hajal did at RPI in April 2006. Instead of standing by as, then-Associate Dean of Students, Travis Apgar and others in the RPI administration cracked down on Greek life, Nicky launched a website SaveRPIGreeks.com. The site sought to garner support among the student body by highlighting the benefits of going Greek. Five years later, the website’s Facebook page still appears in search engines.

The time has come for a similar grass-roots movement on the part of the Cornell Greek community to prove to the authority that they have the intuition and intelligence to make Greek life thrive in the Ivy League.

The fine print suggests that those fraternity bros and sorority gals that can’t adjust on their own will be forced to do so on Skorton’s terms. If they fail to adjust to Cornell’s transforming culture, they face the threat of being left behind. Time will tell if any of these organizations will fail to rise to the occasion and thus cease to exist, as they watch their beloved homes transform into additional Cornell housing.

The IFC must continue to take immediate action in adjusting the pledging process on their terms, before the administration retakes the baton.

Alfonse Muglia is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu

Advice for the Unafraid

2011-08-28T00:00:00Z

The night I arrived on campus, I noticed the effects of the new frat party regulations: legions of tired freshmen exploring the sidewalks of Collegetown, seeking something intangible. Under the monotone of sodium streetlights, they seemed equivalent, fungible so to speak, a thought which left me depressed. College is not a time to conform, to behave as expected, or to seek the same.

Traditionally, this editorial is where we at the Cornell Review alert incoming freshmen to the liberal excesses of the myopic institution we call Academia. We tell you to expect the worst, as in the curtailment of your freedoms, the allotment of your tuition to destructive or illogical causes, and the incrimination of the guiltless. But while the PC paranoia of the nineties lives on, Cornell is not a prison for conservatives. It’s not even a dungeon, nor a cramped apartment. It’s a splendid, if poorly upholstered, mansion, badly in need of a team of carpenters and furnishers. And as you know, no conservative can claim unemployment when there’s work to be done.

So our message to you is this: you can distinguish yourself, make Cornell better, and even have more fun, as an out-of-the-closet conservative. Let me convince you. Liberalism characteristically misunderstands the pillars of the American university—liberty through principled thought, logic, and an understanding of history. As such, conservatives have always been the gatekeepers of higher education. Many would argue those times are kaput, but while you’re here, you might as well prove them wrong. Your independence is a valuable commodity.

What’s a conservative to do?

Start by joining up with the rest of them. Crash a meeting of the Cornell College Republicans, or the Review if you have a journalistic disposition. (I had no such thing when I got to Cornell, but look where I ended up.) On page 4, Republican Raj Kannapan introduces the CRs and outlines what they hope to accomplish leading up to the 2012 election.

Next, fill your humanities requirements with courses that will challenge the conservative mind and present opportunities for you to tussle with teachers and classmates. I don’t buy into the tale that conservative freshmen are intimidated by liberal professors, or that they must keep quiet lest their grades plummet. You shouldn’t either.

Conservatives are usually more timid than liberals, which is what’s given rise to the notion that conservatives are “overwhelmed” on college campuses. To the contrary, conservative groups are increasingly prominent at Cornell. There’s no need to yelp from the sidelines: you can get into the fray right now.

Finally (for this list, anyway), remember that Reagan’s ghost is watching you during summer, too. Be bold: apply for the best internships; start a business. Entrepreneurism is in the conservative spirit. Know that you’ll never regret pursuing your own agenda, no matter how infeasible or unrealistic it is. After all, fulfillment comes not from preparing, but from doing.

= = =

Truth be told, conservative students come in as many flavors as liberal ones. Nonetheless, perhaps all of us can agree with Russell Kirk on the reason we’re attending Cornell:

"The more people who are humanely educated, the better. But the more people we have who are half-educated or quarter-educated, the worse for them and for the republic. Really educated people, rather than forming presumptuous elites, will permeate society, leavening the lump through their professions, their teaching, their preaching, their participation in commerce and industry, and their public offices at every level of the commonwealth. And being educated, they will know that they do not know everything; that there exist objects in life besides power and money and sensual gratification; they will take long views; they will look forward to posterity and backward toward their ancestors." (Redeeming the Time)

While I’m sure Kirk had a 4.0, it’s helpful to note that his advice focuses not on academic achievement, but rather how one’s education enhances real life. Too many undergrads become mired in a work–socialize–work (or just work) schedule that they have little time left to cultivate the person they wish to become. College is not for your résumé or your future employer, but for you. By definition, it’s your chance to disencumber yourself from the world for a bit while you scheme behind its back. Don’t take college too seriously, but at the same time,

whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in the grave. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

“The grave” being the American workforce, of course.

Lucas Policastro is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.

My Conservative Chi

2011-05-06T00:00:00Z

Hi, everybody. I’m Lucas, next semester’s chief editor for the Cornell Review.

Alright, down to business. For 27 years, this paper has attempted to communicate—sometimes poorly, sometimes valiantly—why a conservative viewpoint brings reason, realism, and perspicacity to any debate. Our writers, though, rarely explore what makes them conservative at heart. On the front page, John Farragut does so with tremendous honesty in his final undergraduate piece for the Review.

John advocates for beliefs “based on evidence, not some set of immutable principles.” Ideally, our opinions always stem from empirical evidence, and I’m glad to report that Review writers generally to stick to a just-the-facts presentation. But our world is an academic one; the real world consists mostly of best-guess decisions and compromises where the “blind faith” component of political dogma dominates. Our brains are hard-wired for it. As a result, all concerned people ought to gaze deeply into the spring from which their principles flow. Cornell boasts seven adamant beliefs per square foot, but I almost never hear about core motivations: what fundamental worldview(s) fuel an Ivy League conservative? Let the search begin.

Our writer Greg Stein detailed his recent conversion to the Republican Party in a blog post on the Cornell Insider, spawning a 3618-word-long comment thread. For Stein, being a Republican “means standing up against a majority that suppresses logic with mudslinging…due in large part to a grandiose sense of superiority.” He’s on to something. Liberalism results from a prideful overassuredness that utopia is possible after enough deficit spending and marginalization of freedoms. Conservatives, then, prefer to let individuals work toward bettering society themselves rather than suffer from the government’s poor attempts at it. For some—libertarians, they call themselves—that is their cornerstone. In fact, Ronald Reagan said that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”. At Cornell, a large number of nonliberal students differentiate themselves through the libertarian label.

In a country founded on personal liberty, libertarians are unsurprisingly ubiquitous. In 2008, Ron Paul easily mobilized an alarmingly vocal militia of little Ayn Rands. They saw themselves as Constitutionalists; I saw them much like Rand did: “a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people” and “a group of publicity seekers.” The libertarians mean well, but they exude the same “grandiose sense of superiority” as liberals. For all intents and purposes, the libertarian protocol of minimal government has been incorporated into mainstream conservatism and the Republican Party; why continue calling it something distinct? Rand’s patron Nathaniel Branden correctly stated that “we are all libertarians now”. Still, libertarians retain their appellative because they find perverse enjoyment in being a persecuted minority.

The point? Libertarian philosophy does not sufficiently describe the conservative soul; it’s only a part of it (sorry, Reagan). Nonetheless, many (many!) young people tout it as their primary affiliation. They are cop-outs. Very often, I see libertarians, Republicans, and even Democrats on campus who describe their politics like this: “fiscal conservative; social liberal”. The trend on college campuses today is conservatism à la carte, which permits students to flaunt their politically incorrect plumage whilst totally abandoning any sense of moral absolutism. These postmodern people are at best naïve, and at worst, groundless.

What are they missing? Conservatives have always shown their worth through an emphasis on character and resolute principle. Restraint, in these not-so-strange days, goes unmentioned, as it excludes the possibility of Thirsty Thursdays and constant sexual indulgence. The heart of conservatism, for these young ones, pumps no more. Libertarianism is their perfect crutch: it creates a façade of cultured patriotism while defending one’s liberty to do whatever he wants.

I’m not calling for a reduction in liberty, or enforced morals, or a theocracy. I’m asking for conservatives to confront hypocrisy in their own lives. A conservative does not exist for his or herself, or for freedom, or for pleasure. We exist because we wish to do absolutely everything we can to help our fellow man, and we know how to do it damn better than liberals. That is the fountainhead of my conservative chi.

There is popular conception that the personal sphere has no linkage with the public sphere. In truth, one’s politics are a direct reflection of his standards. Conservatives take for granted the sight of a foul mob of liberals stomping up Ho Plaza, spewing expletives out of anger over hydrofracking. We don’t do that for a reason. For all their compassion, liberals almost never comprehend the essentials of personal decorum. But peek into the life of a purportedly refined conservative— compromises begin to evolve. Evenings with grass-tasting friends begets indifference over the legality of marijuana. Life in the fast line begets indifference over abortion. Traditionally, conservatives defend these issues because they grow into adults, have children, and realize the world is bent on undermining their children’s character and destroying their pride as parents. Maybe that’ll happen to us, too.

I recently became aware of conservative Cornell alum S. E. Cupp ’00. She wrote for the Sun’s ‘Red Letter Daze’. (Apparently, she wasn’t prudent enough at the time to join the Review.) She’s now written a book called Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity. She’s also a definite atheist known for appearing on Fox News with her legs on the table.

I believe this woman is extremely confused. No more confused, though, than the rest of us.

Lucas Policastro is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He may be reached at ljp74@cornell.edu.