LAREMONT

IVOLUME XVIII, NUMBER 2

APRIL 2010

NDEPENDENTCUpholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges

Pomona

Workers’

UnionizationProfessor Supports Hezbollah

Adam Kokesh

for Congress

9

6

4

EditorJohn-Clark Levin

Managing EditorHelen Highberger

Campus News EditorHannah Burak

Opinion EditorJason Soll

Arts & Entertainment Editor

Bryce Gerard

Layout EditorHeidi CarlsonAnna Eames

PublisherLinnea Powell

Deputy PublisherChristopher Ranger

Copy EditorAlice Lyons

Editors EmeritiCharles Johnson

Ilan Wurman

Managing Editor EmeritaLaura Sucheski

Publisher EmeritusAditya Bindal

Staff WritersEliot Adams, Janet Alexander, Karynna

Asao, David Daleiden, Justine Desmond, Breanna Deutsch, Alex Heiney, Patricia Ingrassia, Paul Jeffrey, Aanchal Kapoor,

Abie Katz, Michael Koenig, Daniel Lipson, Maxwell Morris, Vishnu Narasimhan, Christina Noriega, Alexander Rhodes,

Linden Schult, Ross Sevy, Brittany Taylor Christopher Wolfe, Eric Yingling

3 ASCMC No Evil John-Clark Levin

4 Head of Middle East Studies Supports Terrorist Group Charles Johnson

5 News in Brief Hannah Burak 6 Adam Kokesh for Congress John-Clark Levin

9 The Rocky Road to Pomona Workers’ Unionization Michael Koenig

10 The Claremont Question

11 Los Angeles for Life Christopher Wolfe 12 CMC’s New Climate Action Plan Alex Heiney

13 Hill Rat Poison Helen Highberger

13 Marriage in Our Generation Patricia Ingrassia

14 Conservatism is... Karynna Asao

15 “Relief” in Haiti Justine Desmond

16 ASCMC Vision: Neglection to Election Jason Soll

17 Bookshelf: The Judge John-Clark Levin

19 Last Words: the Mail Box

© Friends of the Claremont Independent. All rights reserved.

CNDEPENDENTLAREMONT

I TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

The Claremont Independent is an independent journal of campus affairs and political thought serving the colleges of the Claremont Consortium. The magazine receives no funding from any of the colleges and is distributed free of charge on campus. All costs of production are covered by the generous support of private foundations and individuals. The Claremont Independent is dedicated to using journalism and reasoned discourse to advance its ongoing

mission of Upholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges.

ASCMC No Evil

Editor

3

FROM THE EDITOR

Throughout the recent student government elections at CMC, a constant refrain among most of the candidates was that they aimed to make life at the College better, happier and “awesomer” than ever before. To many, this conjures images of great parties and and exciting events put on by ASCMC. In fact, to most students, our primary interaction with ASCMC is through the social functions in organizes. Even searching for a more political role, we typically look at our student government as our advocates to the administra-tion — as our elected representatives in the Dean of Students office. But even more importantly, ASCMC is charged with providing peer leadership within the student body itself. But this is a poorly-understood concept. So what does peer lead-ership really entail? Unlike, say, the municipal government in the city of Cla-remont, or the federal government in Washington, ASCMC doesn’t govern. Aside from a few spaces on campus that it maintains, it can’t really be seen as having territory. Unlike student body organizations at the University of Virginia, Princeton or West Point, ASCMC does not have the power to discipline members of the student body at large. Even the services that it does provide could, when we really look at it, all be provided some other way. At many schools, in fact, everything from study centers to social activities are directly run by the administration. But what ASCMC does offer is a mechanism for facilitating student democracy — for building student consensus at the community level, and functioning to uphold and preserve the unique character of that community. For a young school, CMC has many rich traditions, and it is through student leadership that those traditions are passed down — that new Stags and Athenas can come to understand what makes the College what it is. When we as a student body only look to ASCMC as party planners or advocates to the Dean, this more important role falls by the wayside. As Athenaeum director Bonnie Snortum lamented to this publication in December, her decision to cancel the annual Madrigal Feast was largely the result of a “lapse in student standards of behavior.” Snor-tum and others have connected the perceived shift in campus culture towards less responsible behavior, especially with re-gard to alcohol consumption, to insufficient communication of community standards from one generation of students to the next. Our drinking culture — it would be foolish to try to call it anything else — is the product of student attitudes, and managing that culture responsibly can only be effectively done at the level of student leadership. In fact, the culture and climate prevailing on college cam-puses has more to do with the students who make up the school community than any other factor. It is the students who make us feel at home or uncomfortable, welcome or alienated, enthusiastic or apathetic. Make no mistake — the reputations of colleges are not built simply on the combined credentials of their faculties, but on the type of students they attract. At the Claremont Colleges, and CMC specifically, we

are fortunate to attract a very high caliber of student: intel-ligent, motivated and curious, with passions that extend far beyond the classroom. ASCMC has a powerful opportunity to take the lead in shaping a campus culture that allows us as students to take the greatest degree of responsibility for our own activities. But this hasn’t happened. A discussion of the reasons why not or an attempt to assign blame would be not only far beyond the scope of this space, but would be funda-mentally unproductive. The simple fact is that our drinking culture has gone so far that the administration was prompted to take direct action. TNC, long the fixture of our campus party culture, was been suspended, and despite a recent trial reinstatement as this goes to press, it’s clear that things are going to be approached differently for some time to come. Back in December, the Claremont Independent called for an urgent reconsideration of campus priorities with regard to alcohol. This was not an issue of moralism, we said. It was an issue of prudence. The problem had progressed to the point where the administration couldn’t ignore it, and AS-CMC did not show the leadership necessary to bring about a true change in student awareness. In fairness, it’s probably because we didn’t expect it of them. Instead, we looked to our student government to simply plead the case for liberal alcohol policy to higher authority, totally ignoring its poten-tial to solve the problem without necessitating the interven-tion of that authority in the first place. By taking a pass on bringing about a lasting solution to our alcohol problems, or even fully realizing the extent of them, we and our stu-dent government have forced others to solve by force what we should have solved ourselves by passing down and main-taining strong standards of what is and isn’t acceptable in our community. Such student-led solutions are always more effective in the long run than suppression by the administra-tion, and it’s in the interest of every one of us to work toward them. But as long as we, as students, look to ASCMC as little more than a glorified party planning committee, it will never be able to be the force for peer leadership that it ought to be. And as long as we treat ASCMC as our alcohol lobby in Heg-gblade, rather than the solution in and of itself, Heggblade will always have to get involved. The fate of TNC should be a wakeup call to the broader challenge of solving our own problems and the dangers of failing to do so. This is the best, and in the end the only way to prevent the students from losing control over the campus culture that makes Claremont McKenna what it is. This re-sponsibility is not only that of our student leaders, but that of each one of us — to demand solutions to student problems that are by and for us, the students.

4

Claremont McKenna’s Middle East Studies de-partment graduated its first major this December and its Arabic Department is planning its summer long immersion program in Arabic language and culture. Yet the extremist views of Bassam Frangieh, its director, and President Gann’s moral equivoca-tion about those views raise serious concerns about the fledgling program’s focus and fairness as it plans its expansion. While teaching at Yale during the 2006 war in Lebanon, CMC Professor of Arabic Bassam Frangieh signed a virulently anti-Israeli, pro-Hez-bollah letter which condemns Israel as a “Zionist state” “motivated by historical ambitions vis-à-vis Lebanese ter-ritory and waters and by a racist supremacist ideology that deni-grates the indigenous population [of Leba-non], their culture, and their very existence.” The letter calls upon Lebanon to adopt Hezbollah — which it terms the “Lebanese Resistance” — as its legitimate army. Its sig-natories pledge “conscious support” for that resis-tance, and deny that Israeli retaliation was due to the “heroic operation carried out by HizbAllah.” That “heroic operation” is the thousands of rock-ets fired on Israeli population centers beginning on July 12, 2006 and the simultaneous kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers near the border. All told, forty-four Israeli civilians were killed by an estimated 4000-rocket barrage, with some 1400 wounded. According to the letter, these actions by Hezbollah were “to safeguard the dignity of the Lebanese and Arab people.” The letter encourages signatories “not to be swayed by the (il)logic that accused HizbAllah of having destroyed the econ-omy,” and to “hold Israel fully responsible for its age-old policy of destruction and war crimes. The principle of the Lebanese Resistance [HizbAllah] is to be a detterent[sic] force against Israel’s ability to pursue that policy with impunity.” These statements aren’t mere endorsements of a political organization, even a radical one. America classifies all of Hezbollah as one of the world’s lead-

ing Muslim terrorist groups. The Lebanon-based terror organization has been linked to at least 659 killings between 1982-1985, including an April 1983 attack on the U.S. embassy that killed over sixty people; a 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and a 1994 bombing of a Jew-ish Argentinean culture centre; and a January 15, 2008 assault on a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut, to name just a few. Federal authorities believe that Hezbollah is stepping up U.S. operations and its deputy-secretary general promises rearmament, boasting that it has more rockets now than ever before.

In addition to sup-porting Hezbollah, the letter demands discrimination against Israelis and Israeli aca-demics: [We the under-signed call upon] Free-thinking intellectuals the world over, and advocates of justice and peace, to publicize the history of Israeli aggres-sion and to pressure the American and Europe-an governments to halt

their military and material maintenance of the Zion-ist killing machine. Similarly, we call upon our peers in the world to announce a boycott of Israeli products, and of Israeli academic and scientific institutions that do not condemn the Israeli aggression against Leba-non [Emphasis mine]. As if to remove any doubt, the letter clarifies that this boycott extends even beyon d Israelis them-selves, but to “pro-Israeli companies, whatever their nationality.” How can our Middle East Studies de-partment hope to encourage thoughtful and cor-dial scholarship when the head of the department endorses such views? At risk is cordiality of CMC professors, some of whom are graduates or assistant professors from Israeli institutions — and the spirit of respectful scholarship to which the College aspires. But our administration seems entirely untroubled. Sources close to President Gann reveal that she has been engaging in a bit of moral equivocation over the question of Frangieh’s support of Hezbollah. At a meeting in February, Gann claimed that she

strongly supports academic freedom — and that “while she had received strong letters from alumni concerned with Claremont professor Ken Miller’s testimony on behalf of Proposition 8’s defense team, she defends his right to academic freedom — just as she does Frangieh’s,” says one source. Gann declined my request for a statement or to speak with the Claremont Independent, but Dean Hess re-leased a statement, deeming Frangieh’s support for Hezbollah “an appropriate exercise of his rights to free speech and academic freedom,” although Hess made clear that Frangieh was speaking on “his own behalf.” Hess continued: “Although CMC does not support or take a position on individual state-ments generally, we do strongly support the rights of our faculty and students with respect to the ap-propriate exercise of their rights to free speech and academic freedom.” Left unsaid is what an “inappropriate” exercise of academic freedom is. Surely “conscious support” for a terrorist organization and its “heroic opera-tions” would rise to that level? Does President Gann really equate the federal testimony of one professor on technical issues having to do with ballot initia-tives and minority representation with another pro-fessor’s support for Hezbollah terrorists? The issue here is not about the right to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel — that is a right we wholeheartedly sup-port. Indeed, even though it raises questions about political balance, Professor Frangieh ought to be free to condemn the Israeli government’s foreign policy or human rights record. But what CMC’s administration fails to understand is that endorsing a known terrorist organization and characterizing its actions as “heroic” is entirely different. Would they consider it acceptable for a professor to declare support for the Ku Klux Klan or al-Qaeda? Of course not. Then why is the College blinding itself to the crimes of Hezbollah? Indeed, Professor Miller’s expert testimony in court was very far removed from his classroom teaching. He has been scrupulous to encourage all perspectives in his classes. By contrast, it seems that the views of Professor Frangieh suggested by his signing of the letter are also borne out on cam-pus, as he has invited a bevy of speakers to cam-pus hostile to Israel, America or both. Frangieh is undoubtedly a popular professor of Arabic, but his politics — and their occasional influence on class discussion — have some students troubled, they tell the CI, although none were willing to speak on

Head of Middle East Studies Supports Terrorist GroupGann Equates Frangieh Signing Pro-Hezbollah Letter to Miller’s Court Testimony

FEATURE

By Charles Johnson, CMC ’11Editor Emeritus

“Why did Professor Bassam Frangieh, the head of the Cla-remont Colleges’ Arabic program, sign a letter in [Hez-bollah’s] support?”

5

East Studies department. Frangieh was quoted in an article related to the controversy over the airport detention of his student Nick George POM ’10 that people, “study Arabic not to work for ter-rorist organizations,” but to “build bridges with people, to understand their culture, to understand their language, in order to have a more harmoni-ous world.” If that’s the case, the CI is troubled by Frangieh’s repeated refusals to meet with us or even return our emails. We would all be well served if Professor Frangieh would openly address the im-plications of the letter he signed, or to publicly re-tract the statements implied by his signature and issue an apology. The CI believes in academic free-dom, but it also believes in academic responsibil-ity. Asking Frangieh for a comment hardly seems unreasonable. And the administration must explain itself in equating Professor Miller’s testimony on gay mar-riage with Professor Frangieh’s endorsement of Hezbollah. The letter’s proposed boycott of Israeli academic institutions affronts and threatens the very principle of academic freedom that President Gann and Dean Hess profess to champion. Were an Israeli academic or student to suggest a boycott of Arab or Muslim products or universities, would President Gann really be so silent? In the Fall 2010 issue of CMC Magazine, Claremont McKenna celebrated its global ties — ties Gann renewed on a recent two-week junket to the Middle East last month where she met with foreign royalty and dip-lomats. As President Gann and Professor Frangieh hope to build an Arabic study abroad program in the Middle East by 2011, it’s worth asking just what effect Frangieh’s views will have on the pro-gram’s balance. President Gann must be unequivo-cally clear that we accept Israel and Israelis as part of our global community, and that endorsement of terrorists has no place here or in Claremont’s Middle East program abroad. In 2006, the Claremont Independent called for and supported the Arabic language program, but it now looks as if Claremont is becoming yet an-other haven for anti-American, anti-Israeli radical-ism. This is disappointing, as the College is excited about the new Arabic studies department, accord-ing to sources on the Board of Trustees, who hope that Claremont can create a new class of foreign officers. If we are to reclaim that promise, Professor Frangieh and President Gann must do the coura-geous thing: either openly justify their positions or back down from them. As always, the Claremont Independent will gladly publish responses. Let us, to paraphrase Professor Frangieh, build a bridge to a more harmonious campus.

To read the full text of the letter signed by Professor Frangieh, visit: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=601. Charles Johnson is editor emeritus of the Claremont Independent. He writes at Biggov-ernment.com and Claremontconservative.com.

the record for fear of retribution. This past year, Frangieh invited the ambassadors of Bahrain and Syria to campus. Both countries refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. That may soon change with Bahrain, but Syria still funds attacks on Israeli civilians throughout the region — some-thing the Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, outright denied during his visit. Frangieh instructed his students to warmly greet the Syrian ambassador with singing from the Koran. Imagine the outcry from pro-Palestine students were they instructed to greet an Israeli official with paeans from the Torah. Students of Professor Frangieh say that he did nothing to try to balance the perspectives of the Syrian ambassador, who seems to have run rough-shod over the truth in his lecture. Jesse Blumenthal CMC ’11 called him to task when he claimed that Israel’s bombing of a plutonium-enrichment plant in Syria was an American invention. Blumenthal whipped out his smartphone and pulled up an article from The Times of London showing that it was, in fact, a plutonium-enrichment plant. At that point, the Syrian ambassador claimed he didn’t want to get into “petty” back-and-forth. Along with the Muslim Students Association, Frangieh (although he himself is not a Muslim) also invited Imam Zaid Shakir, who in a very in-cendiary speech blamed the massacre at Ft. Hood on a genocidal America’s problems with guns, not on the stated jihadi motives of the perpetrator, Ma-jor Nidal Hasan. Yet another major guest was PLO member Sari Nusseinbeh, who during the first intifada helped terrorists avoid arrest and secure funding. Well-placed sources say that the Board of Trustees hopes to create a new generation of Claremont-educated foreign officers with Middle East exper-tise. But even that is questionable: the Middle East Studies major does not allow Hebrew or Persian/Farsi to be the language of instruction — making it rather Arab-centric. Hebrew is currently taught by a CGU graduate student, and Persian/Farsi has been offered by the Zoroastrian Council at CGU. To date, no speaker brought by the Middle East Studies Department or by Frangieh has espoused a favorable view of Israel — raising legitimate ques-tions over whether the department is presenting students with a fair range of viewpoints or has be-come biased and radicalized. The timing could not be more pressing. At the time this article goes to print, Professor Frangieh is searching for a tenure-track assistant professor in time for the summer school. Administrators would do well to do back-ground checks on all prospective professors. Through his silence, Professor Frangieh, who ig-nored repeated requests for comment, forces us to question what he hopes to build with the Middle

TNC:Let’s start with the old news. TNC has been “cancelled indefinitely”—a serious curve ball to CMC’s famed social scene. Since cutting entitlement programs has never led to re-election, ASCMC has vowed to “try and save our Thursday nights”. Fortunately for those of you going through TNC withdrawal, this week’s “trial run” likely means your fix is back to stay.Gender-Neutral Housing:Following the lead of Pitzer and Harvey Mudd, Pomona College’s Student Affairs Council has approved a gender-neutral hous-ing policy that goes into effect this coming semester. Still no news on how this fits into “Our Tribute to Christian Civilization.”College Park:While Pomona trips over its motto in a race to housing justice, CMC has made a move on improved housing. The administration has decided to lease apartments at College Park for student residences. This raises a few questions. How will College Park enforce its 10 pm curfew on its new residents? Is this the first step in expanding the student body size to 1400, the limit set by CMC’s Con-stitution? Will this divide the senior class and ruin the atmosphere of the senior apart-ments? More importantly, given the option of stain-free, carpeted rooms without paper-thin walls, who in the world is going to live at the senior apartments now?Leadership Sequence Addition:Future Leadership Sequence students, pre-pare yourselves: you may actually have to take a class in leadership. A proposal replac-ing the “core” government and psychology classes with a Foundations of Leadership class is being considered by the Academic Affairs Committee. So the requirements are no longer a bunch of classes you would have taken anyway? Bummer, we know you really wanted those two words on your diploma.Cesar Chavez Day:In a fit of politically correct nostalgia, the Claremont Colleges closed its buildings, in-stitutes, and offices, including the Honnold/Mudd Library, on March 26 in honor of Ce-sar Chavez Day. Thank God they weren’t so extravagant in their homage on Presidents Day.

Latest Changes around CampusNews in Brief

By Hannah Burak CMC ’13Campus News Editor

“HEAd of MiddlE EASt StudiES,” continued from previous page

6

Adam Kokesh, a 2005 graduate of Claremont McKenna College and for-mer staff writer for the Claremont In-dependent, is running for Congress. He hopes to unseat Ben R. Luján, the Democratic incumbent, as United States Representative for New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District. A deco-rated veteran, Kokesh served as a Ma-rine in Iraq, where he won the Com-bat Action Ribbon and Navy Commendation Medal. Upon returning from Iraq, he be-came a highly vocal and sharply controversial critic of the war, joining the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. Kokesh is run-ning on a platform of limited government and constitutional conservatism, which garnered him Congressman Ron Paul’s “wholehearted” endorsement.  I recently spoke to him about his service, his politics, and CMC. John-Clark Levin: One fact that is often overlooked in discussions of your stance on the war is that you joined the military before 9/11. How did the terrorist at-tacks change the way you looked at military service?    Adam Kokesh: Well, to be hon-est, 9/11 itself really didn’t re-ally have that much effect on my service.  To step back, I en-listed when I was 17 years old. I was going to high school at the Native American Prep School in New Mexico and I enlisted because I wanted to put my life on the line for something I believed in. I signed up for the artillery originally and I joined the unit out of Pico Rive-ra in November Battery, 5th Battalion, 14th Marines, an M198 Howitzer unit, in order to be close to CMC. When 9/11 happened, like everybody else in the military, we were put on alert — told to write our will and our power of attorney and be ready to go.  But we were pretty sure soon afterwards that

there was not going to be a major need for field artillery and that our unit wasn’t going to get called up.    So my service was much more af-fected by [my experience in] the war in Iraq. I ended up serving in Fallujah in 2004 because I volunteered to go — even though I was already against the war, and I didn’t think that it was in America’s best interest.  I knew that the

way it was being handled was not con-stitutional and I believe in the Chris-tian just war theory and it didn’t meet a single one of the six criteria of that theory.  But I volunteered to go and I went with the Civil Affairs team and ended up serving with them in Fallujah in 2004. So you could say that 9/11 and the “post-9/11 world,” as it’s referred to, definitely affected me in the sense that they convinced us as a country to sup-

port the war in Iraq. But I don’t think there is really a direct connection there except in terms of the American people having been frightened into supporting a more aggressive foreign policy that’s really not in our best interest. JCL: You said that you had joined to put your life on the line for something you believed in.  What does that phrase mean to you? 

AK: The national defense. As simple as that.  I wanted to have my life on the line to defend this country.  I thought if our government was going to say “hey, we need to send people to go put their lives on the line to protect the American people,” I wanted mine to be one of them. That really meant something to me back then. I have a lot less trust and faith in our gov-ernment now, but back then I really believed that the United States Marine Corps had a net effect of peace on the world, even more just by our presence than by our actions.  It really meant something to me to be a part of that. Also, when I vol-unteered to go to Iraq I really believed that what we were do-ing was cleaning up our mess and really being responsible in trying to do good by the Iraqi people. I had to go for myself to find out that that wasn’t the case.JCL: Opposition to the war is

usually seen as a serious liability for Re-publicans running for office.  How do you justify your opposition to the war to people on the right?   AK: Well, I feel like I don’t have to. Most of them are pretty receptive to this. Now there is a small minority within the Republican Party and the broader conservative movement, the neoconservatives. They aren’t new and they aren’t conservative, but really have an authoritarian mindset that dictates

Adam Kokesh for CongressControversial Iraq Veteran and CI Alumnus on War, Peace, and the Constitution

FEATURE

By John-Clark Levin, CMC ’12Staff Writer

Adam Kokesh served in Iraq in the United States Marine Corps before completing his bachelor’s degree at CMC.

7

that we need a strong authority and that we shouldn’t question that au-thority. And when they see a veteran who realizes that these wars aren’t in America’s best interest, it challenges their worldview and there’s that vocal minority that kind of freaks out.  But the vast major-ity of conserva-tives hold a re-ally wide range of views on for-eign policy. The real conserva-tive believes as I do in a consti-tutional foreign policy where you declare a war against your real enemy, then let the best military in the world do their job and come home and you don’t get caught up in this ridic-ulous liberal nation-building that we’re engaged in now. And so when Alan Greenspan came out and said the war was largely about oil, it was like a kick in the stomach to me.  It was like a kick in the stomach to a lot of other veter-ans who joined the military for very, very noble reasons.    To find out that these wars aren’t re-ally driven by a necessity for American security is very disillusioning.  Now just to be absolutely clear, I did and do support us going into Afghanistan, but we should have done so with the [formal declaration of war] or letters of marque and reprisal as per the Consti-tution.  We should have taken out our real enemies and let the best military in the world do their job and come home.  And yet we’re still there trying to enact what constitutes the greatest welfare program in American history. It’s ri-diculous, and it’s not conservative.  So when people, including conservatives, hear a veteran speaking from a conser-vative non-interventionist perspective they all respect it, and I think the ma-jority support that. JCL: You’ve repeatedly described yourself as a constitutional conservative.  Where did you gain your own understanding of the United States Constitution and what

it really means to the American people?   AK: I read it.   JCL: But many people read it and it come to all sorts of conclusions...AK: But it’s actually pretty straight-forward.  The sad thing is that most Americans haven’t even read the most

important document in our country.  So I read [the Constitution], and I combine that with my reading of the Declaration of Independence. To me, that’s what the Founders fought for in the first American Revolution — the values set forth in the Declaration, the idea of God-given inalienable rights, and then they sim-ply did their best to embody that in a practical form of government with the Constitution.  Of course that’s a gross oversimplifi-cation, and we have to be frank about the first version of the Constitution al-lowing for slavery, but it was a docu-ment that was the best practical form of government that we could create at the time based on the practical realities of society.  But it also gave us the room to improve upon it. In some ways we have made the Constitution worse and in some ways we have made it better.    JCL: Many people will have noticed that

you made reference briefly to the “first” American Revolution.  What’s the context for the qualification of “first”?   AK: Well, the Founders understood the first American Revolution to not be the war but the paradigm shift that occurred before the war. John Adams

said very specifically, “the first American Revolution was not the war but rather a change in the hearts and minds and religious sentiment into the Colonists be-fore the war began.” That was the true American Revolution, and I believe in that.  I also believe in the influence of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.  There were a few million colonists at the time and it was estimated that a full third of them read that pam-phlet. Even had there been no [Revolutionary War], we still would have had the true revo-lution because of that. I believe every true revolution in human history relies on the philosophi-cal revolution first.  Thomas Jefferson expected us to have a

revolution of that nature.  He explic-itly said that we should have one every generation, and in case you’re keeping track, we’re a little bit behind.  But what we are experiencing today is the sense that that first American

Revolution was a revolution against the di-vine right of kings.  The American peo-ple are waking up and getting engaged in pol-itics again like I’ve never seen in my lifetime. It’s a revolution against what Pelosi, Reid, Obama would probably like to consider the

divine right of government itself. We have a government that actually owns us rather than serves us, and people are waking up to this. To me, that consti-tutes revolution in the truest sense of the word.   

Kokesh with other Iraq war veterans at a protest against the war in 2007.

“Neoconservatives have an authoritar-ian mindset that dic-tates that we need a strong authority, and that we shouldn’t question that author-ity.”

continued on next page

8

body’s rights.  Many [illegal drugs] are less harmful than the three legal drugs in society: nicotine, caffeine and alco-hol, which combined cause more harm to people than all the illegal drugs put together.  Nicotine is clearly far more harmful than marijuana, just for ex-ample. So in a practical sense, I think there is a role for government to regu-late drugs — that is, all drugs, includ-ing nicotine, caffeine and alcohol — for public safety.  More importantly, the Constitution tells us that the fed-eral government has no authority to tell you what you can or can’t put in your own body, so this issue must be returned to the state level.  So if there’s a single theme in my campaign and in this message, it’s lo-

calism. You can talk to conservatives and talk about the Constitution and states’ rights and individual rights, and the proper function [of govern-ment], and they really appreciate that. But then you can talk to liberals and say “look, whatever you think the le-gitimate function of government is, shouldn’t it happen at the most demo-cratic, local level possible?” And they say “yeah, you’re right.” The same principles work in many of the areas where the federal government is try-ing to keep things only on the national level, which includes healthcare. Look — I don’t want to pull the rug out from underneath anybody. Let’s just local-ize.  Let’s return the authority and re-sponsibility for those programs to the state and local levels of accountability.  And it’s really refreshing for so many people to hear a Republican, instead of being Democrat-light, actually pro-

“Let’s just localize. Let’s return the au-thority and responsi-bility for those pro-grams to the state and local levels of accountability.”

JCL: You’ve said that your understand-ing of constitutional government came through your reading of the Constitu-tion.  Tell us more about your education at CMC. Which government professors did you study with, and how did they impact your conception of constitutional government? AK:  There were two professors who were particularly influential in that sense.  Of course Professor Pitney is a legend, as he deserves to be, and was incredibly influential.  He almost stopped me from ever running for of-fice with his great quote he gives when asked if he’s going to run for office. He says, “I would rather boil alive in a vat of Harry Reid’s hair grease than ever see my name on a ballot.”  Which is a good point, but his perspective and the values that he brought to the debate at CMC for me was very in-fluential.  The other one is Professor Elliot. I took constitutional law with him, at least the first part of his two-part class.  I really appreciated that, in terms of learning the national thought process of how we’ve moved away from the Constitution. Constitutional law as it’s taught in schools today is not about learning the Constitution so much as learning Supreme Court case law.  So that was influential for me and I think greatly contributed to my understand-ing of how little the Constitution is ac-tually respected. JCL:      Two of the most prominent ways that the debate over the scope of the Con-stitution is played out nationally — and two ways which have greater impact on us as students than on almost any other segment of society — are drug policy and healthcare. What do you think is the best approach to these issues?   AK:    Well, true conservatives realize that the war on drugs is a failure. It’s a big government program that is a violation of natural rights and should simply be ended. It’s only the authori-tarian neoconservatives who believe that the government has the authority to tell you what you can put in your own body. I think honest conserva-tives should be offended that we are being taxed to keep people in jail who haven’t hurt anybody or violated any-

pose a constitutional solution to these issues. JCL:  Your comments about drug policy touch on a subject that you wrote on for the CI while you were at Claremont McKenna — alcohol policy. There have been a number of incidents over the past few years with alcohol poisonings, which have really frightened the administration and sparked intense dialogue among the students. It was recently announced by our Dean of Students, Mary Spellman, that TNC parties have been suspended indefinitely. In the tension between per-sonal liberty and safety-minded regula-tion, how do you see our alcohol issues playing out?   AK: Well, you have the exact same dy-namic as you have with government policy. “Oh, there’s a problem with al-cohol? Well, let’s make it illegal.” I’ll give the disclaimer that I don’t drink anymore — after Iraq and [Post-Trau-matic Stress Disorder], I quit entirely — but I was an enthusiastic drinker in college.  I was president of the Benja-min Franklin Society for a time.  And I think my experience going up against the issue of alcohol policy myself was very frustrating. When you have a com-munity like CMC, you have a really incredible opportunity to have drink-ing in a way that is safe and properly overseen, mainly by the peer support network and RAs, as well as regulated through campus security and the ad-ministration. But obviously, draconian policies of suppressing alcohol con-sumption always have unintended con-sequences. So I think in a lot of ways that issue formed my political views and my passion for freedom. Because you really have to have faith that free-dom works — and it does. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If you really believe in freedom, then you have to believe in the freedom to fail, as well.”  And he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending  too much liberty  than to those attending too small a degree of it.”  And so, anytime you restrict that when it’s really not justified in terms of protecting rights, then you have some unintended con-sequences. I think in terms of alcohol policies, it’s really sad to see that, just like the federal government, [CMC’s] administration hasn’t learned.

“AdAM KoKESH,” continued from previous page

9

The Claremont Colleges’ Aramark din-ing hall workers petitioned in 1999 to carry out a card-check unionization vote. Aramark managers had been accused of intimidating pro-union petitioners. The allegations against Aramark and student protests resulted in the termination of all Aramark contracts with the Claremont Colleges. Pomona ended up hiring all the former Aramark employees directly to the College, giving them the same benefits and representation Pomona’s other staff receive. After ten years, however, the dining hall workers have become dissatisfied with their representation and benefits at the college. As a result, the workers are again petitioning for a card-check unioniza-tion vote. On March 6th, 2010, I observed a support and solidarity rally at Pomo-na College. Students and dining hall employ-ees were joining to voice their support for a card-check union election. Pomona College’s dining hall employees are petitioning the college to allow for a card-check union elec-tion and for a “Fair Process” that asks the school not to practice any “intimidation” tactics. Un-derstanding this petition and the push for a card-check process at Pomona requires a review of the unionization process in general. There are two ways a group of workers can enter collective bargaining in the United States. The first is through the National Labor Relations Board secret bal-lot, a system that admittedly has a few flaws but is fundamentally democratic. The second method is through a card-check vote, in which signed union cards are collected until 50% plus one of the

workers has voted for a union. Before considering the situation at Pomona, let’s consider these two voting methods. The secret ballot has existed as a method of forming unions for over 70 years. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) initially created the secret ballot process during the Great Depression. The NLRA has gone through several iterations until today. The philosophy and spirit of the

secret ballot are democratic and free in nature. A vote that takes place secretly al-lows people to voice their opinions with-

out fear of retribution or punishment. The employer never knows who voted yea or nay, and can never retaliate against em-ployees. The secret ballot also prevents both unions and employers from track-

ing down and pressuring individual hold-outs. It is undeniable, however, that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees the enforcement of the NLRA, has several inadequacies. There are a few problems with the NLRB election process. The secret ballot vote takes place at the workplace, which can be a potential site for intimidation. In addi-tion to this, while the employer’s right to

canvass employees cannot be limited, the employer may restrict pro-union advocates from speaking at the workplace. A more fair system would allow both sides to speak at an agreed-upon location. While it would be wrong for the pro-union advo-cates to interfere with actual work, they should nonetheless be allowed to communicate with work-ers during breaks. The secret-ballot process is also more bureaucratic, and meeting all the quali-fying criteria for a vote

can take years to accomplish. Nevertheless, these problems do not compromise the integrity of the secret bal-

lot. In fact, many of these prob-lems could easily be remedied if an altered version of the Employ-ee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was passed that preserved the secret ballot. Democrats refused to pre-serve a requirement for the secret ballot, however, and because of that, the bill was shelved last year. Card-check, on the other hand, is a system that is open to ma-nipulation. A card-check vote is not secret. Employees sign union

cards and turn them in. Inevitably, it be-comes obvious who has not signed and turned in a card. Union organizers and

The Rocky Road to Pomona Workers’ UnionizationPitfalls Abound for College and Workers on the Way to Possible Union Formation

FEATURE

By Michael Koenig, PO ’12Staff Writer

continued on next page

“Is it right to increase ben-efits to dining hall workers at a time when millions of dollars are already being shaved off the budget?

10

“Give faculty more incentives to inter-act with students. If there is one thing we learned from Freakonomics, it is that incentives matter. Allow faculty an un-limited number of meals (instead of the current one free meal) at Collins as long as they come accompanied by a student and break bread with the student (sit with students).”

-Professor Manfred Keil

“Every CMC professor should arrange for off-campus activities with their stu-dents at least two or three times a year. The professors should use these oppor-tunities to teach their students (or chil-dren, as I like to call mine) about their unique backgrounds and cultures and to build stronger, lasting friendships that extend beyond the classroom. The small size of CMC allows for such intimate, rewarding opportunities for student-professor interaction, and we must do everything we can to make the best of it!”

-Professor Marc Massoud

Our campus culture sometimes encour-ages students to think in black and white terms: liberal versus conservative, Republican versus Democrat. We could do a better job of teaching students that the truth is almost always complex and that the other side usually has important insights. I also wish we did a better job of informing students that within any political tradition, such as conservatism or liberalism, there is a great variety of opinion, and that conservatives or liber-als don’t have to imitate today’s stereo-types of what a “conservative” or “lib-eral” believes.

-Professor Alex Rajczi

A greater focus on the Liberal Arts as-pect of our college. Creating more op-portunities for electives outside ones major, through readjusting our G.Es to maintain their breadth but go from Gov 20 to any government course.

-Erica Libby

The ClaremontQuestion

employers are then able to narrow their campaigning to holdouts, pressuring them to vote. Card-check votes also open the door to retaliation after the votes are tal-lied and published. The employer actually gets to read the signed cards after they are collected. Many workers can be easily scared from the threat of reprisal. While the card-check system is meant to prevent intimidation, it results in just that. At Pomona, the work-ers have called both for a card-check ballot and a promise from the College that no further anti-union action will be taken. The col-lege has the right to choose card-check or to remain with the secret ballot. Pomona, being the intellectual bastion of liberty that it is, should stick with a secret bal-lot. Card-checking represents a breach of standards. Let’s next consider the petitioning work-er’s request to stop intimidation. The sec-tion of the petition asking the school not to intimidate a union election is rather unimportant. It is already illegal for the school to interfere in the unionization process by intimidation. Whether the col-lege allows for card-check or insists on the secret-ballot, the law is the same with re-gards to the actions the college is allowed to take in lobbying workers. Those supporting a card-check process often state that the secret ballot process is lengthy and that there is potential for foul play. While there may be potential for foul play on the College’s part, the last few weeks of impassioned protest have clearly shown that people will notice such a breach of trust and take action. The Workers For Justice, an organization of pro-union workers and students, has al-ready accused the college of taking steps to intimidate pro-union advocates by giv-ing workers increased benefits. If Pomona were taking these steps in response to the threat of unionization, they would be vio-lating the NLRA. If the College should continue such action, then the workers should not take a card-check vote in which there is possibility of reprisals. Even if it takes longer, a secret-ballot is safer for the

“PoMoNA WorKErS’ uNioNizAtioN,” continued from previous page

employees. From a management point of view, it is in Pomona’s best interest to prevent a union from forming. Union workers typically cost a lot more to employ, and it takes mountains of legal fees and time to get through the unionization process. Pomona is already taking steps to in-crease benefits to the workers to prevent

a union push. While the legality of this is ques-tionable, the motivation is not. Not only will this save money, but it will also appease concerns that our workers are not treated well enough. President Oxtoby has made clear that he plans to communicate more with workers, most like-

ly to find out what concessions he should make to satisfy them. When the trust-ees visited before Spring Break, many of them were interested and concerned about the plight of dining hall employ-ees. When Anthony Chavez spoke at the Workers for Justice Rally on March 6th, he said, “If workers cannot unionize on one of the wealthiest and most lib-eral campuses in America, where can it happen?” If Pomona truly is one of the wealthiest and most liberal campuses in America, should it really need unions to represent its workers? Shouldn’t there be some sense of responsibility among the trustees and the administration, at least enough to compensate work fairly? Ap-parently, this is not the case, and Pomona can no longer legally increase benefits it has not promised workers before the push for unionization. Complicating this issue is the fact that the endowment at Pomona is experienc-ing a severe contraction. Until the mar-ket rights itself, many of the investments in Pomona’s portfolio cannot be let go of without significant loss. Pomona is al-ready undergoing a massive hiring- and pay-freeze. Is it right to increase benefits to dining hall workers at a time when mil-lions of dollars are already being shaved off the budget? At a time of belt tighten-ing for all of us (even for students and families who must now deal with tuition increases), we should be judicious about what we choose to spend money on.

“Even if it takes longer, a secret ballot is safer for the employees.”

11

bone-marrow transplant if it meant spending nine months in agonizing pain to do so. Boonin likened this sacrifice to the nine months a mother would have to spend to keep an unborn child

alive. Boonin argued that just as most of the audience could justly decline their consent to the bone-marrow transplant, mothers can justly decline their consent

to keep an unwanted baby alive. During the question and answer period, I asked Boonin what he believed human rights derived from. Lee said the right to life was grounded in the human essence, noting that our Declaration of Independence states that the right to life

is endowed by our creator, but Boonin argued that all rights are grounded in consent. He replied to my question by stating that he did not specialize in the

Los Angeles for LifeThree Pro-Life Events Take Place in the Claremont Area

FEATURE

By Christopher Wolfe, CGU ’12Staff Writer

Pro-life protesters demonstrate in Encino during the Los Angeles March for Life.

Over the course of this semester, three pro-life events are bringing the abortion issue to the forefront of debate at the Claremont Colleges. The first was a formal debate sponsored by the Pomona Student Union on February 25th, the second was the Los Angeles March for Life on March 13th, and the third, the California Students of Life Conference, will be held at Claremont McKenna on April 17th. The debate at Pomona, titled “The Ethics of Abortion,” included pro-choice advocate David Boonin, chair of the philosophy department at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and pro-life proponent Patrick Lee, professor of bioethics in the philosophy department at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. The debate focused primarily on the oft-discussed topic of whether or not abortion is just. Patrick Lee argued that abortion is unjust, since, scientifically, conception occurs at the moment in which a new organism with a genetic code and animating growth can be detected. Rights are logically tied to man’s essence as an individual human organism, so unborn children accordingly have a right to life. Surprisingly, David Boonin agreed with Lee’s assessment of when life begins, but rejected the notion that rights are logically tied to man’s essence. Boonin asked the audience if they would be willing to help a stranger through a

political aspect of the issue. This debate begged the question, if all rights come from consent, is any group of individuals safe from the will of the majority? On March 13th, the Los Angeles March

for Life took place in Encino. The one mile circuit along Ventura Boulevard, beginning and ending at St. Cyril’s Church, had about 600 participants and not a single counter-protester. Preceding the march, several pro-life speakers rallied the supporters, and following the march a handful of women gave testimonials about the regret and emotional pain they felt after

deciding to go through with abortions. The event was attended by students from several southern California colleges and universities, including representatives from UCLA, Thomas Aquinas College, Pepperdine, and the Claremont Colleges. For those who are interested in supporting the pro-life cause but who have been unable to attend previous events, the California Students for Life Conference on April 17th will be a great opportunity to get involved. For the first time ever, this statewide conference will be hosted by CMC. Leading speaker from around the country have been chosen for this one-day event, an opportunity for pro-life college students to network and learn more about this important issue. It may prove to be a landmark event for the pro-life movement at the Claremont Colleges.

“If all rights come from consent, is any group of indi-viduals safe from the will of the ma-jority?”

gas. He recommends taking short show-ers, unplugging electronics not in use, and not putting trash in recycling bins. One of the more controversial aspects of the CAP is the planned purchase of carbon credits to “neutralize” CMC’s carbon emissions. It’s hard to imagine how effectively essentially buying into a campaign to raise awareness about cli-mate change translates into a positive change for the environment. It seems a bit like throwing money at the issue in order to relieve the guilty conscience of higher education. Another concerning aspect of CMC’s Climate Action Plan is cost. Green tech-nology is certainly more energy efficient than normal forms of energy production, but installation costs can be very high. In the case of solar power, for instance, the initial cost of the technology and its installation can take between three to five decades of use to actually save mon-ey in comparison with using traditional forms of power. CMC has been careful to buy cost effective green technology. Though the Kravis Centers chillers cost a total of $800,000 dollars, Mr. Worley estimates they will take about 15 years to pay for themselves. This is not only because the chillers have a reduced oper-ating and maintenance cost, but because the rising price of energy will not affect the cost of air conditioning as much for energy efficient chillers. Lighting retro-fits use power so effectively that within a year they will save the school money as well. As more and more scientists enter the green technology market and going green becomes more popular, the price of becoming a carbon neutral campus will fall considerably. So whether or not you’re skeptical about peak oil, carbon credits, or global warming, the Climate Action Plan as presented stands to save the school a good chunk of money, some-thing for which CMC can always find a use. something for which CMC can al-ways find a use. something for which CMC can always find a use. something for which CMC can always find a use.

12

CMC’s New Climate Action PlanThe Kyoto Protocol of American Colleges

CAMPUS NEWS

By Alex Heiney, CMC ’12Staff Writer

Recently Claremont McKenna Col-lege has decided to move towards being a “green” campus. In 2007 CMC decided to participate in the American College and University Presidents Climate Com-mitment (ACUPCC), a pledge which most notably requires CMC to estab-lish a plan to become carbon neutral. In 2008, CMC emitted an estimated 19,839 met-ric tons of CO2.Reduc-ing these emissions will certainly be a time-con-suming and expensive venture. In order to address its commitment to the ACUPCC, CMC has developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that monitors and sets goals for emission reduction. The current CAP consists of two phases: by 2035 CMC should reduce its green house gas emis-sions by 25%, and by 2050 CMC should eliminate its carbon emissions footprint. To do this CMC must retrofit older buildings and install environmentally friendly technology in new buildings, which will eliminate a large chunk of the school’s footprint, and then either buy carbon credits or purchase man made or natural carbon sinks (like trees) to make up the difference. This challenge is enor-mous considering that CMC’s Master Plan, which details the school’s plans for expansion, states the school will double in physical size by 2035. CMC’s CAP has outlined a plan that tries to tackle this difficult task. All older buildings will be retrofitted with energy efficient and, in the long term, money saving heating, cooling, and lighting technology. This will be done by install-ing energy efficient fluorescent lighting and sensors to automatically turn off lights in unoccupied rooms, and utiliz-ing natural ventilation for heating and cooling. The Master Plan aims at a 40% reduction in energy use in the older buildings through the establishment of campus energy precincts. Already plans

are underway to install two new 400 ton chillers in the new Kravis Center that will provide air conditioning to all the buildings in the west end of cam-pus, saving the cost of retrofitting each building completely and making energy usage more fluid. Energy precincts will save money using economies of scale to

provide water recla-mation, solar heating, and air conditioning to building clusters on campus. All new buildings, including the Kravis Center, will be built with the goal of attaining a LEED Silver green build-ing rating or higher in order to meet CAP goals. New buildings

will also use green designs to better uti-lize natural light to light and control the temperature of classrooms. Other plans to make CMC environmentally friendly include using solar power to heat wa-ter, recycling gray water from dormi-tory showers, and promoting carpooling through carpool parking spaces and con-tinuing the ban on freshman vehicles. Brian Worley, the Director of Facili-ties and Campus Services, has recently overseen a 30% reduction in water use through the installation of a centrally controlled irrigation system. He is con-fident that CMC can achieve its CAP plans; the means of becoming a green campus are included in the construction of the buildings dictated by the Master Plan, as demonstrated by the construc-tion of the Kravis Center as well as the plans for the new athletic center, CMC’s next building priority. As long as fund-ing for the ambitious Master Plan’s many projects is attained, by 2035 CMC may accomplish its goal of reducing green house gas emission by 25% while dou-bling the size of its campus. Worley sug-gests that students can help the campus achieve this goal and save the school a substantial chunk of money by reducing its consumption of electric and natural

“It’s hard to imagine how a plan to raise awareness about cli-mate change translates into a positive change for the environment.”

as well. From the 1960s up to the 1990s there has been a steady increase in the divorce rate, but now that rate has reached a plateau and society has applauded. A majority of people have made the assumption that couples are learning to work through their marriag-es instead of resorting to divorce, but in reality couples just aren’t getting mar-ried at the same rate that they used to. The decrease in divorce rates is attrib-

uted to the increase of couples that choose to live together but not get married. In a Time magazine article en-titled “The Ties that Bind” Walter Kerns reckons “it’s quite possible that cohabi-tation is, in a sense, pruning off divorces that would otherwise have occurred. You have what a colleague of mine calls premari-tal divorces.

So on the one hand Generation Y in the United States will be known for extraor-dinary technological advances and pros-perity, but on the other hand it will be noted that the sanctity of an established institution—marriage—will be ignored or taken for granted. If the crux of soci-ety is based on a stable family structure, how will the lack of marriages in the fu-ture factor into that role? Have we as a middle class become so narcissistic that marriage became an alternative inside of the main choice when deciding the way in which we maintain romantic re-lationships, because commitment is dif-ficult? Kerns doesn’t claim that our own self-indulgence is the only reason that people seek divorce, but he does con-clude that when “someone decides to be selfish, frivolous, and pleasure-seeking” divorce becomes the easy way out.

13

Hill Rat PoisonWhat They’re up to on Capitol Hill

By Helen Highberger CMC ’11Managing Editor

H.R.3400 - Empowering Patients First ActWarning: once you read about this act you will no longer be able to whine that Republicans have no pro-posals for healthcare! Tom Price’s Official Summary contains more good ideas than we have room for, but here are a few: allowing individuals to form associa-tions to get group health insurance without depending on employers, reforming limits on healthcare liability lawsuits, allowing insurers to offer people lower pre-miums if they participate in wellness programs, and allowing people to buy out-of-state insurance. Notice how it’s all about allowing people to make their own choices? That’s the most vital Republican idea of all.H.R.875-Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009Think Republicans are the ones screwing over the public to benefit big corporations? Truth is, this typi-cal Democrat initiative by Rosa DeLauro and 41 co-sponsors is a huge boost to big agribusiness and a kick in the face to anyone who wants to run a hot-dog stand or a farmer’s market. Along with regulations re-quiring your kitchen garden to follow the same proto-cols as agribusiness, it establishes a new federal agency with the power to search any food-producing location without a warrant and impose fines up to $1,000,000 – and even imprisonment. H.R.3126 - Consumer Financial Protection Agen-cy Act of 2009This Barney Frank creation establishes a new federal agency (what a surprise) with broad powers to ban and regulate every type of “loan” a person is likely to en-counter in their life, from gift cards to financial advis-ers. The agency can take action against a business for anything it considers “unfair.” Aren’t you glad there are such clear, specific limits for what is and isn’t legal? Really makes life more fun not to know whether col-lecting a debt in compliance with a written contract will get you sued or not.H.R.4321 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009Now that Obama’s healthcare project has been shoved down our throats, we hear he’s set his sights on immi-gration next. This bill is what is popularly called “am-nesty” – a procedure for granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Its supposed provisions to increase en-forcement are more bark than bite, since it practically encourages Homeland Security to designate illegal im-migrants as part of a “vulnerable population” and thus un-detainable. Plus there’s a giveaway to agribusiness in the form of special benefits for illegal agricultural workers – an indicator that employer enforcement provisions will not be taken seriously.

Marriage in Our GenerationWhy Generation Y Thinks Differently About Tying the Knot

OPINION

By Patricia Ingrassia, CMC ’13Staff Writer

“When ‘someone decides to be self-ish, frivolous, and pleasure-seeking,’ divorce becomes the easy way out.”

The terms “Generation Y” and “Millennial Generation” describe our time. As young adults born from the mid 1980s into the ’90s, we face chal-lenges that other generations did not even come close to dealing with when our parents or grandparents were our age. While technological advances ex-isted throughout the 1900s, the rate at which they have advanced in the past decade are unparalleled compared to previous generations. The rates are so extreme that we see “generation-al” gaps amongst age groups within Genera-tion Y. Most college-age students today did not receive their first cell phones until they were teens, but teenagers now are popular BlackBerry and Apple iPhone con-sumers. Pre-teens prob-ably don’t recall ever listening to music with-out an iPod, but most of us remember the transitions from tape players to CD players and finally to MP3 players. In a capitalist society, these changes may appear remarkable at the surface level, but just like everything else in life, most great achievements are fol-lowed by unintended consequences. It is no longer breaking news that divorce rates are high. In fact, they’ve been in-creasing since the post-1950s housewife era that portrayed the ideal American family as a father, his housewife and two children. In that decade, married couples did not sleep in the same bed on television, only in the same room. Getting a divorce in the suburbs meant stirring up a scandal that would be talk-ed about until the following year. Some may argue that conservatism on that end was extreme, but the loss of traditional values today is extreme

Conservatism is...The Right to “Not be Judged by the Color of Their Skin but by the Content of Their Character” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

OPINION

By Karynna Asao, CMC ’10Staff Writer

“Judging people by the color of their skin violates the principle of providing people equal opportunities for education and jobs.”

cans. While these statistics are not updated, and admission decisions have probably changed from four years ago, it does show that the disproportionate acceptance of Hispanics and African Americans and a lowest acceptance rate for Asian students. In this way, affirmative action rein-forces racial stereotypes and delays real racial equality. Disadvantaging students of Asian background while offering mas-sive bonuses to Hispanic and African

American students falsely suggests dif-ferences in intelligence which do not get at the real problems. Affirmative action distracts us from addressing the under-lying issues — poverty, for example — in favor of arbitrarily-drawn differences in physical appearance. The 2009-2010 Common Application categorizes race as Hispanic or Latino, American Indian and Alaska Natives, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, and White. However, the category of Hispanic and Latino also includes Spaniards who are Europeans. Asian includes the India subcontinent and the Philippines. White includes Middle Easterners. Many people would argue that South and Southeast Asians are culturally and racially different than Northeast Asians. The Middle East is

In the majority opinion for Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Seven years since, affirmative action is still as prevalent a force as ever in college ad-missions and government employment. As we are students in small liberal arts colleges, the issue of affirmative action is particularly relevant to our lives and education, for it determines the makeup of our student body. Diverse experiences and varying opin-ions in the classrooms are certainly valu-able to us as college students. But when that diversity is framed in terms of race, rather than character, ideas and talents, it undermines our worth as people and contributors to our colleges. Converse-ly, affirmative action often harms those who “benefit” from it by thrusting stu-dents who are unprepared for rigorous coursework into elite universities and leaving them with an uphill climb for academic success. What’s worse is that mere admission to selective schools is seen by public schools as a sign that minority students are succeeding even when they’re really not. This is why we should focus on reforming our second-ary schools and decreasing the true edu-cational gap between whites and minor-ity students. Without true progress at that level, affirmative action can never solve the problems it is intended to, and with that progress, there would be no need for it in the first place. Also, it is widely accepted that affir-mative action does not benefit all mi-norities. Affirmative action instead harms minority groups that are consid-ered “over-represented” in undergradu-ate education, especially Asians. Admis-sions statistics from 2006 revealed that only 17% of Asians were admitted into Claremont McKenna College, as com-pared to 22% of whites, and roughly 45% of Hispanics and African Ameri-

a completely separate culture from Eu-rope. To classify Arabs as White would be a vast misrepresentation. Even the category of “Black or African American” lumps Caribbean and continental Afri-cans with African Americans. How can we promote diversity of character, ideas and talents in colleges when our focus is spent on arbitrary distinctions based on skin color? And what about people of mixed race? Nicholas Jones, chief of the Census Bureau racial statistics branch, acknowledged that multi-racial Ameri-cans are “one of the fastest-growing de-mographic groups in the country.” Even President Barack Obama is of mixed race descent; his father was East African, and his mother was white. How do multi-racial individuals fit into the poorly laid guidelines of affirmative action? Deem-ing a person who is one eighth African American to be African American only reinforces the racial divide of the “One Drop Rule” that we’ve been fighting since the time of Lincoln. The US Census bureau has projected that whites will no longer be the major-ity by 2050, and the Hispanic popula-tion will increase to 30%. Whites will be still a plurality but no longer a ma-jority. The term “minority” itself will transform as the racial makeup of Amer-ica changes. For this reason, it is un-clear how we would even measure prog-ress toward the conditions that Justice O’Connor predicted, when racial pref-erences would no longer be “necessary.” The two main justifications offered for affirmative action, compensation for racism, and compensation for economic disadvantage, are simply not effective-ly addressed by race-focused policies. Questions of economic inequality can only effectively be seen and remedied in economic terms, and the last way to end racial discrimination is to divide Ameri-cans along arbitrary and politically-in-fluenced racial lines. Affirmative action

continued on next page14

is in effect reverse discrimination, judg-ing people by the color of their skin and is in violation of the principle of equal opportunity. Colleges should be giving students equal opportunity in admis-sions decisions, not making any issue of race whatsoever. Yet there are valid issues with inequality of opportunity that face students before their applications even cross admission counselors’ desks, and there is nothing wrong with remedying them, if done properly. It is understand-able that a student from a disadvantaged background may not have the resources in order to attain competitive academics and extra-curricular activities compared to students from wealthier families. In fact, a student from a disadvantaged background who achieves equivalent ob-jective qualifications to a student from a very privileged background is probably a more promising candidate. But to ac-count for this, and to achieve a greater diversity in the areas that really matter, we must focus on authentic socioeco-nomic factors instead of arbitrarily-de-fined racial lines. Too long has affirmative action been a feature of American life. It cannot be justified by the Constitution, the principles of our Founders, or the ide-als of equality championed from Abra-ham Lincoln to Martin Luther King. As the racial makeup of the United States changes, we must look beyond the di-visions of the past and towards a truer appreciation for the most meaningful ways in which we are both similar and different. Only when we truly move be-yond race can American men and wom-en achieve King’s dream, and “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Three days before the earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, I was working with a U.S. medical team at Hopital Sacre Coeur, one of the country’s top hospitals located in Milot, a sleepy outpost on the northern part of the country. Our medical mission team from the U.S., composed of an an-esthesiologist, plastic surgeon, physician’s assistant, operation room nurse, and two college students--an engineering major from the University of Virginia and myself--spent a week treating patients. Visiting medical teams like ours are a familiar sight at Hopital Sacre Coeur, a 74-bed facility established by a Canadian Catholic religious order in 1986 and now directed by Haitian admin-istrators and medical personnel. The hospital is funded through Crudem, a Boston-based NGO backed by the Order of Malta, a Catholic order that not only provides a big part of the hospi-tal budget but also helps to orga-nize volunteers that train Haitian physicians and nurses to perform advanced procedures. Though Hopital Sacre Coeur can’t pay top dollar for Haitian medical personnel, the excellent training provided by the U.S. teams is a big benefit and helps the hospital retain its staff. Friends who know about my time in Haiti have asked me for advice on funding specific organization and proj-ects in the country. Of course, I encourage them to donate to Hopital Sacre Coeur. But my commit-ment to the hospital is not only based on the fact that I know and care about the people working there. Hospital Sacre Coeur represents something very important in Haiti: it’s a place where Haitians have been encouraged to take leadership roles. Visi-tors are there to help make that transition happen smoothly. This concept of sustainability should be what guides our choices to fund specific organiza-tions in Haiti. Peter Kelly, president of Crudem, in a recent state-ment after the earthquake, made this very clear: “Our main philosophy at Hopital Sacre Coeur is to teach Haitian medical personnel and to work side by side with the Haitian staff so when a volunteer leaves, quality medical care continues. That is why our hospital is considered the prototype for improv-ing medical care in Haiti.” But how does Hopital Sacre Coeur relate to the larger field of aid to Haiti in general? Currently, as

reflected on campus, the majority of Americans seem to be donating to organizations like the Red Cross, or Doctors Without Borders that are react-ing to immediate needs of the Haitian people. The Motley, an on-campus café, has been donating to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. Challah for Hunger, a Scripps club, has sent money to Habitat for Humanity. These organizations provide funds to a broad ar-ray of activities such as building homes and provid-ing water purification tablets and other basic needs to survivors of the earthquake. But what happens when the initial effect of the earthquake wears off

and people shift focus and funds to the next global disaster? What happens when a country that had an unemployment rate of 70% in 2008 now has even fewer jobs and a weaker infrastructure? What happens when survivors of the earthquake need secondary medical care and volunteers are not there to provide it? We might just be missing the real issue at hand. Relief is not just about handing out high-energy biscuits and providing clean wa-ter for a few days to come. Relief should be about supporting sus-tainable operations like Hopital Sacre Coeur, working to improve a 50% literacy rate in a country

where 80% of classrooms are run by private orga-nizations because of lack of presence of the Ministry of Education, and creating jobs and incentives for professionals to stay in Haiti. When I was initially in Milot, Dr. Fleury, the team’s plastic surgeon, said it was not about how many cas-es he could handle in a week, but the knowledge he could impart to Dr. Bernard, the hospital’s general surgeon. For example, one patient who had severe keloids and two moderate sized tumors needed a Z-plasty, a procedure Dr. Bernard had not previously tried. Dr. Fleury slowly performed the surgery with Dr. Bernard in order to leave him with some skill that would be useful in the future. Dr. Fleury’s approach to medicine should also be the approach we take to aiding Haiti. It may take longer than a few weeks, or even years, but if we work with the Haitians, as Dr. Fleury patiently worked with Doctor Bernard, and invest in a sus-tainable Haiti, we may have a real, long term solu-tion.

“Relief” in HaitiA First-Hand Account of the Relief Effort in Haiti

OPINION

By Justine Desmond, SC ’13Staff Writer

U.S. and Haitian doctors operate on a patient at Hopi-tal Sacre Coeur in Haiti.

15

“CoNSErvAtiSM iS...” continued from previous page

You can find all of our content online at www.clare-

montindependent.com!

Head on over there to read, discuss and share ar-

ticles. You’ll also find PDFs of the print issues.

candidates are seeking. By the time the student body votes, two major benefits will be provided: first, students can look at hard evidence of the candidates’ leader-ship, creative, and communication skills. Second, the student body will benefit from the changes made by the candidates during this campaigning period. Candi-

dates too often use hypothetical rhetoric to acquire votes. With this new system, we will be provided a greater under-standing of how the candidates lead and whether or not they actually can. We de-serve a competition of actions, not words.Permit Online Content I have yet to hear a compelling argu-ment for the rule that prohibits the us-age of social media when campaigning. The most common response has been “because the Constitution says so.” Status quo bias at its finest. According to my knowledge, the rule was implemented in order to prevent people from sending mass emails to the student body about voting. Fair enough. However, this rule spread to all forms of web-based communication, except for the brief content excerpt permitted on TheC-MCForum.com. Thankfully, Charles Johnson recently pushed ASCMC to pro-vide some leeway in web-based campaign by reading the constitution with a keen eye. Private websites like ClaremontCon-servative.com and ClaremontCurrents.

ASCMC Vision: Neglection to ElectionProposal for a More Robust, Deliberative ASCMC Election Process

By Jason Soll, CMC ’12Opinion Editor

Two years ago, Newsweek named Cla-remont McKenna College the “Top Col-lege for Election Year.” I appreciate that Newsweek did not take in to account our student government’s election process. Frankly, the ASCMC election process is an embarrassment to our school. As someone who has campaigned twice for ASCMC positions, I have experienced the elections process from the inside and out. It is time for us to realize that we all deserve better. In this article, I will out-line my vision for the ASCMC election process. If changes are not made, we will continue let this illogical popularity con-test deprive the student body of the best skills, ideas, and resourcefulness. With the proper reformation, we can have an election process that encourages conver-sation, action, and provides us the best candidates for leadership positions. Increased Campaigning Period While the campaigning process for po-litical candidates around the nation is in-creasing at an unprecedented pace, ASC-MC allows its candidates to campaign for only six days. Six days, especially when around midterm season, is not close to enough time to get a campaign platform in to the consciousness of the student body. We do not have enough time to discuss the candidates’ proposed policies at length and are left guessing when fill-ing out our ballots. The ASCMC election process is a dead-sprint that benefits no one. The candidates and student body de-serve better. The moment that we return from winter break, candidates should be permitted to announce their candidacy and get peti-tions signed. During the first few weeks of campaigning, candidates will have two main goals: display their leadership skills and interact with their electorate. Give the candidates a chance to meet with the entire student body, face to face, without sacrificing time spent on schoolwork. Give the candidates a chance to actually start implementing the changes they wish to bring, most of which do not require actually being elected to the positions

com were allowed to post campaign con-tent. Still, social media outlets are pro-hibited. Social media tools like Facebook and Twitter have become our generation’s go-to source for information and con-versation. Why deprive our student body of knowledge and discussion about the candidates’ campaigns? Why prohibit our primary platform for discourse from including campaign information? Before speeches are delivered, the entire student body should have discussed every candi-date’s platform. There is no argument that can be made against permitting the usage of social media that has merit. CMC students are too smart to blindly vote for the candi-date with the greatest website or biggest Facebook group. And, frankly, if you were bombarded with tons of messages from a candidate, you would be less inclined to vote for them out of sheer annoyance. Still, sending school-wide emails should be prohibited because of its one-way con-versational nature.Reform Speeches Speeches are designed to allow a speak-er to communicate a message to a large group of individuals. Our current elec-tion process does not allow for this to happen. The venue is terrible. The format is disastrous. Frankly, everything about it has to be changed. Let’s start with a fresh slate. Speeches should be held in McKenna Auditorium. There would be two ses-sions: ASCMC positions and class po-sitions. Each session would occur at 8:00pm on a different night: the ASCMC session would be on the first night and the class sessions would be on the second night. The entire student body would be encouraged to attend the ASCMC ses-sion. The classes would be informed when their class candidates would be giving their speeches, allowing students to only attend their class presidents’ speeches if they choose.

OPINION

16

continued on next page

17

For those of us born after the Reagan years or at their very end, America’s 40th President has always been a figure set in history. Strick-en with Alzheimer’s, he had begun the famous “journey to the sunset of his life” while we were still very young, so we knew him mainly by the handful of defining moments by which he is remembered in our national conscious-ness. Yet it’s ironic that de-spite all this at-tention, a com-pelling account of what made Reagan tick never seemed to be forthcom-ing. Much to the frustration of his associ-ates, he always related to them at something of a distance, and even his closest advisors never felt like they had achieved any real intimacy with him. As a result, most of the bi-ographies and memoirs of the last three decades have been con-tent to call Reagan “distant,” “imperial,” or “detached,” without seeking to understand his deeper motivations as a statesman. Even though he was known as “The Great Com-municator,” Americans were always left with a sketchy understanding of what actually shaped his values and agenda as president. It’s rare that a major political biography cap-tures two subjects convincingly, and even rar-er that one does so this long after the fact. The Judge, by Paul Kengor and Patricia Clark Do-erner, is such a book. The eponymous judge is William P. Clark, considered by most to have been Ronald Reagan’s single most trusted aide both during his governorship in California and subsequently in Washington. While all

the other Reaganites struggled to relate to the President, Clark was seen to have an almost mystical connection with him. The product of a long line of lawmen, he was a rancher, judge and Californian — much, Kengor and Clark Doerner observe, like the sorts of char-acters Reagan used to play in Hollywood. Even in Reagan’s day, Washington was, to

the President’s sensibilities, a rather slick and insincere sort of place. He feared the capi-tal’s corrupting influence, and turned to Judge Clark as his moral center, the only man in the White House whom he felt he could truly trust as one of his own, based on their l ong s t and ing friendship going back to the his governorship. But even among the longtime aides, Clark re-lated to Reagan in a special way.

The best parts of The Judge are those that try to reveal just why that was. Readers interested in the interplay of faith and politics will be particularly interested in the relationship be-tween Reagan, of Presbyterian leanings, and Clark, a particularly devout Catholic. It was Clark who first alerted Reagan to the dangers of abortion while he was governor of Califor-nia in 1967. At the time, neither Reagan nor more than a relative handful of Americans could foresee the wrenching moral issue that abortion would become. Indeed, said Reagan later, it was simply, “a subject I’d never given much thought to.” Kengor and Clark Doern-er relate the urgency with which Judge Clark tried to sway the Governor against signing the

Every candidate would be provided a few minutes for his or her speech. A countdown timer would be placed at the podium to keep them informed of the time they have left in their speech. Once their time is up, the moderator would cut them off. Once they have finished their speech, other candidates running for the same office would present a question for the speaker. Two minutes would be pro-vided for each response. The moderator would also accept one or two questions from the student body. This questioning system would force candidates to invest time building a constructive platform. If they choose not to, they run the risk of being embarrassed in front of the entire school.Limiting Flyers Nobody likes seeing campaign flyers swamp the CMC dorms. By implement-ing a stronger speech system and permit-ting web-based campaign information, candidates will no longer feel the need to tape their pieces of paper to every wall they can. In the multi-week campaign system I am proposing, flyers should only be permitted during the final week. Therefore, candidates will be forced to engage with the student body about their campaigns instead of relying upon flyers for promotion.Encouraging Reporters During our elections, students should become investigative reporters, finding information about the candidates and reporting on behalf of that information. With the permission of online content, students should post interviews they con-duct with the candidates. All candidates speak about a renewed conversation be-tween ASCMC and the student body. This two-way conversation is critical to the campaigning process. It should be promoted intensely.The Passion I’ve seen too many candidates give up on their ideas because they were not elect-ed. If they were indeed passionate about leading the student body in the first place, holding an office would not even matter. This system that I have proposed will create a self-selection process, giving us the most passionate, hard-working AS-CMC candidates we have seen. Let’s shat-ter the status quo and end the popularity contest. We all deserve better.

“ASCMC: NEglECtioN to ElECtioN,” continued from previous page Bookshelf: The Judge

What this Biography Tells Us about Reagan and his Closest Advisor

By John-Clark Levin, CMC ’12Editor

Arts & Entertainment

18

expense of the United States. Getting the position would require Senate confirmation, though, and The Judge includes a lively ac-count of Clark’s questioning. Most vivid is an exchange with a little-known Democratic sen-ator from Delaware who proceeded to humil-iate Clark with a series of specific questions to which he knew Clark would would not know the answers. “Let me begin with ... Namibia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique, Angola ... Can you tell me who is the Prime Minister of South Africa?” Clark replied forthrightly that he did not. “Can you tell me who the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe is?” Again, Clark couldn’t. “From what countries do we

have the greatest difficulty getting coopera-tion in the placement of long-range nuclear weapons on European soil?” Although even the senator himself admitted that this petty line of questioning was distasteful, it proved no hindrance to his career — Joe Biden is now Vice President of the United States. Yet despite the rough treatment, Clark was confirmed, and went on to distinguish him-self in his position. He became National Security Advisor in 1982, and was credited as one of the most influential people to oc-cupy that post, having had decisive impact in shaping Reagan’s foreign policy agenda. On Clark’s advice, Reagan stood firm against ex-pansion by communist Sandinistas in Central America. The left ridiculed them as paranoid, but Clark’s advice was vindicated nearly two decades later by admissions by a Sandinista leader’s admission to just such an expansionist strategy. Also while National Security Advi-sor, Clark was instrumental in shaping Rea-gan’s broader strategy of attempting to bring about about the Soviet Union’s collapse by aggressively pressuring it on several fronts — economic, political, military, ideological, and moral — the strategy which would ultimately

prove successful. More importantly, Clark convinced Reagan of the rightness of making the attempt in the first place. Clark’s next appointment was Secretary of the Interior, where he remained until 1985. Having done his piece, and wary of power struggles within the cabinet, he declined con-sideration for further posts and submitted his resignation. Clark continued to serve as a trusted emissary around the world, though, making special trips on Reagan’s behalf to China, Europe and the Middle East, includ-ing an encounter with Saddam Hussain. At last, though, William Clark returned to his ranch and the “sunset of life” befitting the rancher and lawman that he was by blood. Yet the question remains: why did Clark have the bond with Reagan that he did? Why was his influence on Reagan’s presidency so pro-found? He was intelligent and circumspect, to be sure, but there were certainly many of similar intellect around the President. He was hardworking and an eminently cool and capable administrator, but even these quali-ties could be found elsewhere in Reagan’s in-ner circle. The answer, as Kengor and Clark Doerner argue, is faith. It was Judge Clark’s moral grounding that made him so indispens-able to Reagan — his firm moral grounding which allowed him to offer something which Reagan didn’t find anywhere else. In this, The Judge also addresses a question of particular relevance to young conserva-tives: “How can I gain a moral grounding in an environment which primarily promotes values opposed to my own?” Clark Doerner is certain that Clark’s experience as Reagan’s moral center in Washington was the direct result of his formative experiences. While attending Villanova Preparatory School, he had discovered a love of some of the great-est authors on morality and theology, a habit which sustained him through an unsatisfying stint at Stanford University, and a period at seminary discerning the priesthood. All the while, Clark read deeply — St. Augustine, Thomas Merton and Cardinal Fulton Sheen; C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. Even when he was uncomfortable with the attitudes of his peers, he always took responsibility for his own formation and education. In so doing, he forged one of the only American political careers that has been singularly “made” by moral orientation. The Judge is a compelling account of the man who served as the con-science and confidant to America’s most im-portant modern conservative president, and offers readers valuable insight into the forma-tion of the moral stands that define Ronald Reagan’s legacy even today.

“While National Secu-rity Advisor, Clark was instrumental in shap-ing Reagan’s broader strategy of attempting to bring about about the Soviet Union’s col-lapse.”

Therapeutic Abortion Act, and his ultimate failure. Reagan signed the bill anyway on the advice of his political staff, who counseled that the act would only apply to relatively rare cases, and that his veto would likely be over-ridden anyway. How wrong they were. The Therapeutic Abortion Act caused the number of legal abortions in the state increase from 518 in 1967 to an astronomical 100,000 per year for the remaining years of Reagan’s time in office. The story of Clark’s prescient advice and Reagan’s soul-searching casts into new per-spective the events that would follow. Six years after the bill passed in California, a bitter national debate over abortion was unleashed when the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abor-tion throughout America. It became clear in hindsight that Reagan had, even if uncompre-hendingly and hesitantly, opened the flood-gates of what he came to see as an unambigu-ous moral wrong. Reagan’s bitter remorse, Kengor and Clark Doerner write, played a crucial role in “crystallizing [his] commitment to protecting the sanctity of human life.” It is difficult to understand the subsequent growth of the pro-life movement in America — and Reagan’s central place in it during his time in Washington — without this story of his early embitterment in Sacramento. But the episode brought Clark ever deeper into Reagan’s moral confidence, and the two shared deep conversations about the moral implications of the latter’s policy decisions. Clark was now Reagan’s chief of staff, hav-ing replaced his disgraced predecessor, Phil Battaglia, at the urging of longtime Reagan supporter and Claremont McKenna College benefactor Henry Salvatori. From this point forward, the bond between Reagan and Clark was particularly profound. The Judge brims with anecdotes about this legendary simpa-tico — said to be closer than any of Reagan’s relationships save that with his wife Nancy. Perhaps inevitably, this intimacy eventually aroused jealousy among other advisors, but it made Clark indispensable. When Reagan was elected President in 1980, Clark followed him to Washington. Against expectations (analysts had predicted a post as Attorney General or to CIA) and in spite of Clark’s lack of foreign policy ex-perience, Reagan nominated him to serve as Deputy Secretary of State. Reagan hoped that Clark would serve as the “America desk” in a State Department that tended to concern it-self with the interests of other nations at the

“tHE JudgE,” continued from previous page

In response to “A Response to Cocktail Conservatism”: Charles Johnson, in the first paragraph of his criticism of a recent article of mine in the pages of the Claremont Independent, indulges in the very activity for which he criticizes me – extremism. He charges that I label his be-liefs as “extreme,” implying that I therefore “fail to capture the depth” of his thought. Yet he charges me with “indulging” in these “crude simplifications” just as he says that I try “to write the economic right out of the Republican Party.”  Of course, I have done noth-ing of the sort. I merely claimed in my piece that government has a legitimate sphere in which it can, and should, operate.  Johnson claims that I build my arguments around straw men; yet he makes his own ar-guments upon them. He writes, “The Hobbesian state of nature occurs in those places where capitalism is the least present, not where it is most present.” The implication is that I argued the opposite – and, of course, I did nothing of the sort. No-where do I claim that capital-ism is a bad thing; all I said (or implied) in my article was that capitalism was most effec-tive in a fair playing field, and that government has legitimate interest in some regulations of one kind or another.   In his attack on each of my specific pro-posals for government policy, Johnson dis-plays exactly the attitude of which he claims I wrongly accuse him. He asks, what’s the point of charter schools if they have become unionized? Just because I argued that char-ter schools are good for education does not imply that I have asserted a position on the effects of unionization. He expresses shock that I would suggest that parents would take advantage of vouchers by sending their kids to racist schools. Of course that’s a possibility, but my point was not that they would do so; it was rather that the possibility of doing so provides one example of a legitimate area of government interference.   He asks why I advocate only a “partial” vouchers system – my answer, of course,

would in part be that it’s politically prudent to do so as it makes it more palatable to vot-ers. Extremism in defense of liberty may be no vice; but it is certainly no virtue if it fails to defend liberty at the end of the day.  Jonson’s article is so full of misrepresenta-tions of my arguments, that I can only beg the reader to go back and read my original article. But there is one final claim that I must pro-test, because it goes to the core of my political views. He asks, where is local government in my vision of conservatism? All my proposals, in fact, would enhance local government. Or,

at least, nothing in my article implied that I am in any way against local control. I am in favor of the states having their own health care systems, and their own control over pub-lic education.   It is obvious that Johnson’s response is not only embarrassingly personal, but also full of its own straw men. He makes arguments as though I had argued the opposite; in some places he invents my arguments entirely. What he claims that I wrote is clearly no more than a product of his feverish imagina-tion. Johnson began his piece by arguing that I failed to grasp the nuance of his perspective on conservatism; but all he has shown is that he has failed to grasp mine. Ilan Wurman

In response to “An Open Mind”: A very needed piece, John-Clark. We deal

with a lot of the same battles at VT, and it’s good to know that students are calling the lib-erals on this. They spend so much time lord-ing it over conservative people from the high horse of intellectualism that they never stop and think what that intellectualism is really about in the first place. I see a lot of people who presume that conservatives are only that way because they are unenlightened, almost as though we have a disease that needs curing. And even though there are more than enough reasons for conservatives to say the same about liberals, I have found that it is much

more common for conserva-tives to demonstrate intel-lectual respect, even if we say “You’re wrong!” Conservatives are always being labeled intol-erant, bigoted or reactionary, and when that’s how the other side tries to open the debate, they are never going to get very far. Jason

Thanks for the comment, Ja-son. We certainly see the intoler-ance label thrown around a lot here, although it seems to have gotten markedly better lately. But just remember what Mar-garet Thatcher said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding be-cause I think, well, if they attack

one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” John-Clark Levin

In response to “An Open Mind”: What’s the point of trying? The stereotypes are too prevalent. Probably because they’re true, anyway. Anonymous.

Well, Anonymous, I’m the first to admit the prevalence of the stereotypes. Liberals are liberal because they’re smart, many say, and conserva-tives are conservative because they’re... not. But those characterizations are thin enough, that I believe even someone who considers themselves to be very liberal will, if they consider the prob-lem honestly and thoughtfully, begin to question those stereotypes, even as prevalent as they are. John-Clark Levin

Last Words: the Mail BoxMAIL

19

PARTY POLITICS