Raising the Standard
Kneeling Through Our Nation’s Anthem Kaepernick’s Cause By Nick Geeslin
Saving HOPE By Sydney North
Cultural Appropriation By Jonathan Kuzy
Athens’ Roads By Michael Duckett
FALL 2016
THE EDITORS
FEATURES
3 Challenging Complacency
10 One Year Later
CAMPUS
12 Cultural Appropriation and Costumes
By The Editors
By Sydney North
By Jonathan Kuzy
4 The Campus Informant By The Editors
14 Kneeling Through
Our Nation’s Anthem
5 SGA Watch
By Nick Geeslin
By The Editors
16 Athens’ Roads and Development
COLUMNS
By Michael Duckett
6 Where Are We Going? By Samantha Nagy
CULTURE
7 Shifting the Bell-Curve
18 Review: Eye in the Sky
By Desmond Sandoval
By Connor Kitchings
8 The Consent of the Governed By Connor Kitchings
19 Saving HOPE
By Sydney North
9 The Importance of Liberty By James Bartow
The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2016-2017 Editor-in-Chief Connor Kitchings
Contributors Samantha Nagy
Managing Editor Nick Geeslin
Desmond Sandoval
Publishing Editor Sydney North
Jonathan Kuzy
Creative Director Mallory Traylor
TJ Collins
Business Manager Marian Young Associate Editor Michael Duckett 2 / The Arch Conservative
James Bartow
Jake Shumard
Cecelia Walker
Website archconuga.com Email archconuga@gmail.com Twitter @ArchConUGA Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603
Blake Johnson Bill Davison Ben Grayson FALL 2016
THE EDITORS
Challenging Complacency Continuing to "Raise the Standard"
F
all 2016 is a time of big changes. Here at the University of Georgia, we have a new football program complete with a new coaching staff, a new quarterback, a new ticketing system for students, and a new season that brings with it new hopes and high expectations.
PHOTO COURTESY OF KMEZON, COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
In the United States, we are in the midst of a pivotal election, choosing between two presidential candidates who are unlike any we have ever seen before. One, a self-proclaimed businessman, loudly shouts his often offensive and nonconformist views with an unprecedented fervor and blatant disregard for decorum. The other, a former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, brings with her the same controversial and muddied past that many have come to expect of our politicians, but also brings a new card to the table as the first woman to win one of the major party's nomination for president. No matter which of these unorthodox candidates we elect to take office in 2017, he or she will certainly bring a change to the White House - one much larger than any typical inauguration day changing of the guard. In a similar manner to both UGA and the USA, The Arch Conservative is undergoing its own set of changes. With the graduation of Elizabeth Ridgeway, The Arch Conservative did not only lose our most recent Editor-in-Chief, but also the last member of our founding board. Now in our fourth year, we are striving to carry on the traditions and ideals set forth by our founders, while also bringing in an updated vision and archetype with our new editorial board. Though in sync with the conservative belief that established practices are inherently good, our magazine also recognizes that challenging complacency and improving upon the status quo is an important, if not necessary, part of growth and survival. In a mainstream culture saturated by the misportrayal of conservatism as nothing more than barbaric regressivism, it is important to clarify what conservatism is and what it is not. Conservatism is reverence for the traditions and values that have helped society thrive for centuries; it is not the fear of a new future that improves upon
FALL 2016
old customs. Conservatism is the belief that gradual change is more productive than an abrupt upheaval of all pillars of society; it is not the belief that nothing should ever change. Conservatism is the belief that challenges create individual character; it is not the belief that individuals who face challenges are of lower character than those who have good fortune. Conservatism is a complex set of ideals that have come together through centuries of scholastic thought; it is not a few thoughtless phrases uttered by a politically incorrect populist as he rants behind the safety of a podium. Keeping these things in mind and remembering our magazine’s commitment to conservative ideology, our staff has reimagined and revamped parts of our magazine to take it forward into the future while also maintaining the roots that ground us. With the help of our Creative Director, Mallory Traylor, we have created a new and modernized layout for our print magazine. We believe that our new design holds true to our origins, but also helps signal a new era in our magazine’s production. Though things are changing, The Arch Conservative remains committed to its coverage of policy, conservative philosophy, and campus news, and stays dedicated to expanding our horizons through more coverage and increased frequency of postings on our online blog. The motto of our magazine since its founding has been “Raising the Standard.” In the past, we have interpreted this as a challenge to our readers and fellow students to raise the philosophical and logical standards by which they reason, reflect, and opine on policy and culture. Now, we are challenged to raise the standards that we have created for ourselves. We are raising our standards in the quantity and quality of content we publish. We are raising our standards in the aesthetic of our design. We are raising the standards of how we convey and represent our political beliefs. And, hopefully, we are once again raising the standards of conservatism, which, in the past year, has too often given way to the rising tides of the populism and nationalism that is sweeping up portions of right-wing politics.
— The Editors
The Arch Conservative / 3
CAMPUS
GOP on Campus College Republicans Host State Rep.
O
n Wednesday, September 21, the University of Georgia College Republicans hosted Georgia State Representative Chuck Efstration. A UGA graduate himself, Efstration encouraged students to become active with their local Republican Party and local campaigns. He credits College Republicans with starting his political career and providing an opportunity to discuss important issues on campus. Efstration discussed subjects such as campus carry, the federal elections, and Atlanta transportation. Efstration represents part of Gwinnett County and is willing to help anyone interested in politics who does not know where to start. His primary office is at the Georgia State Capitol and the legislative session begins in January 2017. Efstration could be the next rising star in state politics under Georgia’s Gold Dome. — Michael Duckett
UGA Is Going Green University Has Reached Energy Reduction Goal Early
I
n 2008, the Conserve Georgia Initiative committed multiple state agencies, including the Georgia Department of Transportation, the University System of Georgia, and the Department of Natural Resources to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent by the year 2020. The University of Georgia has reached a commendable mark of 20 percent energy reduction in only half the time, as reported by the UGA website. “By 2020,” hopes Director of Energy services in the Facilities Management Division David Spradley, UGA will be “closing in on the UGA Strategic Plan’s goal of 25 percent [energy reduction].” The University claims that this accomplishment has saved about $5 million per year since 2007 in energy costs and has been achieved by way of “infrastructure repairs and investments, replacement of the old coal-fired boiler, and individual efforts to conserve.” — Nick Geeslin
Jonathan Gruber Visits UGA MIT Professor Opines on Health Care Debate
O
n September 30, Jonathan Gruber visited the University of Georgia to speak on issues of health care reform in the United States. Professor Gruber teaches economics at MIT, is the director of the Health Care Program at the Bureau of Economic Research, and served as a key architect of the Massachusetts health care reform law in 2006 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. During his lecture at UGA, he made several controversial statements, which is to be expected from a figure so prominently associated with a controversial law. He argued that Obamacare will continue to be implemented regardless of whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton win in November. He later contended that through Obamacare, “nobody has to lose; they just have to stop winning so fast” – easier said than done, no doubt. He also defended Obamacare’s “Cadillac Tax,” as a method of encouraging employers to shift employee benefits from health insurance to wages. He concluded by stating that in the fight for healthcare reform we must be “humble and patient;" undoubtedly, a difficult task in the realm of politics. — Ben Grayson
4 / The Arch Conservative
FALL 2016
CAMPUS
S G A WAT C H
2
016 has been a busy year for the Student Government Association (SGA) at the University of Georgia. With a new Executive Board now in action, the SGA has made some major changes to campus since we departed for summer vacation last May. In July, the SGA implemented a new medical amnesty policy at the request of many concerned student body members. The policy, known as Responsible Action Protocol 1, now grants medical amnesty to both the party that reports a drug or alcohol related overdose, as well as medical amnesty to the party that overdoses. Previously, UGA’s medical amnesty policy only protected the reporting party, and not the party in need of medical attention. The updated policy mirrors that of Georgia 9-1-1 Medical Amnesty Law, which provides legal protection for both parties involved in reporting such a situation. On the official SGA website, SGA President Houston Gaines says part of the reasoning behind the updated policy is because “losing a life over someone’s unwillingness to call for help because of a concern for Code of Conduct ramifications is never something we will need to worry about again at the University of Georgia.” Another issue dealt with this summer revolved around student football ticketing. Responding to the controversy during the 2015 football season in which many students in good standing with the Athletic Association’s ticketing requirements were not granted a ticket to either the South Carolina or Alabama games, the SGA updated the ticketing policy in an attempt to be more transparent and inclusive in their dispersal of football tickets. Under the new policy, students may not transfer tickets to specific individuals and may only donate to the general pool. The maximum number of penalty strikes before becoming disqualified for the upcoming season’s tickets has been reduced from three to two. The SGA also looked for other ways to improve the
FALL 2016
ticketing system, such as moving the deadline for ticket donations from Wednesday to Thursday and reordering the priority system. However, according to their website, moving the donation deadline was “not a possibility based on the needs of the UGA Athletic Association to dole out the tickets from the pool.” The SGA also states that they ultimately did not decide to reorder the priority system for ticketing based on student feedback, but “do suggest a review of the priority system every few years by the student body and the Athletic Association.” Furthermore, with the presidential election right around the corner, the SGA has spent much of this semester looking for ways to increase student participation in November’s voting. In conjunction with Athens Mayor Nancy Denson and the Athens-Clarke County board of Elections, the SGA’s proposal to allow early in-person voting on UGA’s campus has been approved. On November 1st and 2nd, UGA students and faculty will be able to cast their ballots for our next President in the Tate Student Center from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The SGA worked with fellow student organization ‘Roosevelt at UGA’ on the project to help get the proposal passed. In 2012, as the SGA notes on their website, only 45 percent of UGA students voted in the Presidential Election. With the availability of voting booths on campus, SGA hopes that more students will be encouraged to participate in the election. In an effort to increase educational diversity on campus, in January of 2017, SGA will launch a new initiative entitled “Destination Dawgs: Inclusive Education at UGA.” According to SGA, the Destination Dawgs initiative seeks to “serve students with intellectual disabilities to enrich their education, increase their ability to live independently and have a self-directed life, to achieve competitive and integrated employment, and to have opportunities to make lifelong friends.” UGA’s SGA received national attention for this initiative and was covered by USA Today for their efforts. On an enjoyable last note, Senator-at-Large Ammishaddai Grand-Jean worked with UGA Food Services to extend the hours of ice-cream service in Snelling Dining Commons from 10pm to 12am – a move that is sure to make the traditional midnight “snellebrations” all the more exciting.
The Arch Conservative / 5
COLUMNS
Immigration: Where Are We Going?
S
ince June 16, 2015, the issue of illegal immigration has taken the Republican Party by storm, all thanks to Donald Trump. In his candidacy announcement, Trump called to build a wall along the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. He called for the mass deportation of the 11 million immigrants here illegally and continued the controversy by making other extreme remarks. Among them he claimed that illegal aliens are rapists that bring drugs and crime to the country. While these statements have significantly shaped Trump’s campaign, they have also illustrated the confusion and frustration felt by the Republican Party toward immigration policy. This bold shift by Trump to move away from guest-worker programs and amnesty leaves one wondering: just where does the GOP currently stand on illegal immigration? Not all too long ago, Presidents Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to a couple million illegal immigrants. Even more recently, President George W. Bush implemented a temporary work program for those living in the country illegally. The latest action taken by Republicans regarding illegal immigration is the controversial Gang of Eight bill, written by a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, including 2008 GOP nominee John McCain, and 2016 GOP candidates Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Considered as an amnesty bill, it proposed a pathway to citizenship for nearly all illegal aliens currently living in the United States. These bills and proposals of past prominent leaders in the GOP diverge with the
Samantha Nagy is a senior studying English. She is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.
6 / The Arch Conservative
“non-traditional,” to say the least, ideology of Trump regarding illegal immigration. Long gone are the days of the Bushs' “compassionate conservatism;” the party has now been pressured into endorsing a hard-right stance on illegal immigration by enforcing border security with a wall, and opposing amnesty altogether. These are complicated subjects, how Trump became the party’s nominee and why the party has veered off to the hard-right on this issue. Several 2016 GOP presidential nominees, including Jeb Bush and Rubio, favored a pathway to citizenship in their
platform. Both of these men stood a fighting chance in the primaries, but as we know, however, Trump bested all of his competitors to win the nomination. Trump has certainly played to the fears of everyday Americans concerned for the future of their country to great effect. According to the Gallup Poll, more U.S. citizens are worried about being the victim of a terror attack than at any point since 9/11– and the latest data was compiled before the July 14th Nice, France attacks and the recent bombings and stabbings here in the United States. With the rise of ISIS attacks in Europe and the growing fear of attacks on our own soil, Americans are demanding to know just who resides in the United States and where their loyalties lie. So many Republicans have gravitated towards Trump because they believe a wall along the southern border will protect them. They also believe deporting the 11 million illegal immigrants that reside here, will lessen
the risk of potential terrorists and felons. Trump’s supporters are not interested in implementing policies from the past. In fact, some do not even consider a few of those former policies, such as free trade, to be conservative anymore. Since Trump’s candidacy, Politico has surveyed Republicans only to find that 85 percent of them now believe free trade harms us more than helps us. As the daughter of a former Border Patrol Agent, I have heard stories firsthand of the criminal activity taking place on our southern border. I’ve heard about the drug cartels and the sex offenders of which Trump speaks of. However, I realize that of those 11 million immigrants, the vast majority immigrated because they wanted to better their lives for themselves and their families. While I strongly disagree with their decision to come here illegally, I also do not see Trump’s promise of mass deportation as a feasible solution to this problem. Instead, I would like to see Republicans take a different approach to putting an end to illegal immigration. America needs to strip away any benefits given to these undocumented immigrants as they cross the border. Eliminating welfare and free health care may very well prevent millions of illegals from pouring into our country. It may also encourage them to work hard, get a green card, and apply for citizenship. And after all, is that not the essence of the American Dream? We can sit here all day and rehash the pros and cons of amnesty, and how it did or did not work in the Reagan administration. Or we can look at illegal immigration in the current day and create an effective and moral policy of dealing with it. Like the world, issues and policies evolve, so there is no reason why this one cannot. If we move beyond proposals for absolute amnesty, as well as the nonsensical idea of mass deportations, we may actually reach a compromising solution. b
FALL 2016
PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE
Presidential politics have forever changed the GOP.
COLUMNS
Shifting the Bell-Curve How C’s became A’s and A’s lost their value.
A
PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID JON NIOLA KING
fter anxiously refreshing your eLC page all day, your hopes are confirmed: you got an A on that big test you took last week. Maybe you jump up and down before punching the air in excitement or call your parents and share your happiness with them. But what you probably do not consider is what that A really means. The truth might come as a surprise to many. In American universities, both public and private, an A is currently the most commonly received course grade. It wasn’t always this way though. Over time attitudes toward grades have produced two fundamentally different ways of thinking about the grading scale. The traditional model holds that an A is reserved for truly outstanding work, a B represents above average performance, and a C is awarded for average work. During the 1960s, a quarter of assignments received a C making it a very respectable course grade. Conversely, the modern model reflects a substantially different outlook on grading. In many ways, an A is viewed as the default grade, making any deviations from it a critique of the student’s ability or work ethic. Unlike the traditional model, the majority of students no longer perceive a C to be a desirable outcome. In an article for Duke Today, Former Duke University professor Stuart Rojstaczer remarked that “The last time I gave a C was more than two years ago. The C, once commonly accepted, is now the equivalent of the mark of Cain on a college transcript. I have forsworn C’s ever since.” The gradual shift from the traditional to the modern grading model throughout the 20th century has had a dramatic impact on Desmond Sandoval is a senior studying accounting. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2016
GPAs and course grades. At the University of Georgia, the average GPA awarded in 1913 was a 2.33. Over the next one hundred years, GPAs rose by nearly one whole point to a 3.32 in 2013, representing a 42 percent increase. This trend of grade inflation has a multitude of interwoven causes and, regrettably, none of them relate to increasing academic performance. Some have proposed that professors assign high grades because it ensures positive evaluations which bodes well for their job security and class sizes. Alternatively, this theory suggests that professors and schools give out good grades to avoid
intimidating students from enrolling in their classes and schools, respectively. For example, in 2004, Princeton University instituted a policy that limited the number of A-range scores given to 35 percent of all grades. Before the implementation of this policy, the number had fluctuated around 50 percent. This policy succeeded in bringing the percentage of A-range scores below 40 percent for the first time in years. However, in 2014, just 10 years later, the faculty at Princeton voted to put an end to this practice, citing concerns over student stress and fewer applications to the school. Following the decision by Princeton to abandon its grading policy, Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron offered this analysis to The Harvard Crimson: “I thought [the policy] put Princeton in a tough position
because some students concerned about their grades would tend to choose other schools over Princeton. Unless other schools followed suit, it was a competitive mistake.” Others have suggested that the upward trend in grades is partly due to another factor entirely: subject matter. Certain subject areas are correlated with higher grades and exhibit a greater prevalence of grade inflation. Subjects such as English and music, for example, have been more widely affected than engineering or chemistry, meaning that increased enrollments in the former relative to the latter can have consequences on overall reported GPAs. The differences between fields highlight the consequences for poor work and the precise answers required in the more technical fields and the natural sciences, relative to humanities and social sciences. Whatever the causes of grade inflation, the impact has been indisputable. For employers, grade inflation has made it difficult to effectively evaluate and distinguish between applicants. For graduate and professional programs, standardized tests carry more weight than ever before in admissions calculations, much to the chagrin of the average applicant. Another impact of grade inflation revolves around the inability of professors to adequately reward exceptional scholarship and academic performance. If an A is the new normal, what tools do professors have to honor a student for exemplary work? And conversely, what motivation do students have to strive for excellence if they’ll receive an A or a B for a passing performance regardless? In our “everyone gets an A” culture, the measures available to adequately recognize and motivate excellent students are losing their importance. Unless we can find a way to stall the upward trend of grade inflation, problems such as these will only be exacerbated in the future. b
The Arch Conservative / 7
COLUMNS
The Consent of the Governed
A
s November 8 approaches and the presidential election enters its final month, the terrible choice facing the American people is becoming more clear, the flaws of the candidates have become more and more glaring. With Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the two major-party nominees, the electorate has been presented with arguably the worst choice of candidates for president in American history. Nonetheless, the American public must lend their consent to one of them to lead our nation over the next four years. Because of the intense polarization in the country and the unpopularity of the major candidates, it is easy to forget why voting is an affirmative act, not a negative one. While it is sometimes easy to say, “I really don’t like candidate one, but I hate candidate two more, so I’m going to vote against two by voting for candidate one,” more so in this election than any election in recent memory, this is not the way that democratic consent is designed to work in a republic such as ours. There is simply no way the government can function when a majority of the country is voting for a candidate despite their heightened dislike for her because they dislike the other candidate even more. This election cycle, negative attitudes seem to be driving voter preferences, as a Pew Research Center poll finds that 55 percent of voters are “disgusted” with the 2016 campaign and about one third of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will only Connor Kitchings is a senior studying political science and economics. He is the Editorin-Chief at The Arch Conservative.
8 / The Arch Conservative
be voting for their candidate as a way to vote against the other. The legitimacy of the presidency – and the government in general for that matter – is built on the consent of the people. If the presidency is decided based on which candidate is more disliked than the other, whoever is elected in November will thereby lack a wholly legitimate mandate to govern. The American people must find a reason to vote for one of these candidates.
Despite the candidates’ flaws, no matter how serious they are, the potential benefits that each of them could bring to the White House is an important part of the election to consider. For many Americans, Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air from politics as usual in Washington D.C. He does not speak like a politician. He does not act like a politician. He cares about the problems facing the most economically downtrodden workers and is not afraid to tackle the issues head-on. He operates a multi-billion dollar real estate and entertainment empire and could utilize his experience in the private sector to improve the economy and create many new jobs. Hillary Clinton may be the one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for
president. Having served as First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, she has first-hand knowledge of the intimate workings of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Having served under President Obama, she could represent a steady, consistent transition of power and leadership while the world is in such uncertain times. Of course, trying to analyze the potential positives that each candidate brings to the table without also looking at the negatives in this election is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, “I can’t hear you, la, la, la.” Nonetheless, when both candidates’ lists of problems are so long and the potential downsides are so many, it is more beneficial for voters – and the legitimacy of the system – to focus on the favorable effect of voting for a candidate. Voting for Donald Trump to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president and vice versa are two equally futile actions for voters. If Clinton wins because of these types of voting patterns, then the Washington elite will resume their work with the same degree of separation from the will of the people and continue to simply put up the “next-in-line” from their cabal of insiders. If Trump wins because of these patterns, then the next presidential campaign will only take his strategy of vitriolic attack to the next level. Voters must make it clear to prospective elected officials that going forward, they will be required to earn and deserve every vote they receive. They cannot simply orchestrate a campaign to put the spotlight of their opponents problems and hope that people are disgusted enough to turn away. The preeminence of negativity in political campaigns, originating from both candidates and voters, must come to an end. b
FALL 2016
PHOTOS COURTESY OF LORIE SHAULL AND GAGE SKIDMORE
Voting against a candidate accomplishes nothing.
COLUMNS
The Importance of Liberty As parties advance, liberty declines.
PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID RAKKHI KING SAMARASEKERA
A
t its inception, the United States promoted liberty for all citizens. Liberty in this sense can be defined as the right to make our own decisions rather than have a government attempt to force values upon us. The people of our nation have, unfortunately, lost sight of many principles on which our nation was founded, chiefest among them being our individuality. In countless attempts to improve our nation, we have ceded freedom after freedom away to the government until much of the ability to make individual decisions has been stripped from us. Each of the two major parties that have ruled this country for over a century claim to provide citizens with more freedom than their opponent, and many constituents buy into this message. In truth, neither party provides much more freedom than the other, they just provide freedom in different areas. Republicans claim to provide liberty that makes America great, with their pro-business and pro-innovation economic platforms, their championship of religious freedom (though it seems geared primarily towards Judeo-Christian religions), and their fervent advocation for retention of Second Amendment rights. To many, these liberties are the only liberties that are essential to make this country one of which they can be proud. The Republican Party does not, however, provide liberty to everyone, and in fact alienates many with its right-wing social platform on issues such as discrimination against gay marriage and attempts to outlaw a woman’s right to choose concerning abortion. In this way, the Republican Party is restricting the rights of some in this country by taking away their ability to choose for themselves. Though current policy allows both for gay marriage and for abortions, many James Bartow is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2016
Republicans are still pushing for repeals of both policies. Is it truly right in a country like ours to take away such basic freedoms from people? Democrats reading this may be jeering at this admonishment of Republicans, but rest assured, the Democratic Party deserves a worse condemnation, as its violations of our Founding Fathers’ basic principles are far more heinous. Make no mistake, Democrats have some aspects of their platform that protect more
freedom than Republicans care to provide. Some prime examples include the inverses of the two policies on which Republicans fail: a stance that is in favor of gay marriage and that is adamantly pro-choice. Another interesting area in which Democrats have succeeded is secularizing all or most of their party’s functions and values in an attempt to avoid alienating those of varied religious backgrounds (although many Christians would disagree with this assessment with good reason). Despite these examples, it would be farcical to say that the Democratic Party is the pro-liberty party. The Democrats have failed miserably on many fronts in terms of liberty and freedom. They wish to enforce strict gun control on the American population, which obstructs,
and in extreme cases outright blocks, the 2nd Amendment. Americans are constitutionally entitled to the right to protect themselves, and the Democrat’s platform wishes to take away this right. While all arguments in favor of gun control are not inherently invalid, the fact is that our nation’s founding principles provide Americans with the right to make their own choices over how to defend themselves and whether or not to bear arms. The greatest affront to American freedom from the Democratic Party, however, is their restriction of the market and adherence to Keynesian economic theory. For those not familiar with Keynesian economics, it entails a heavy-handed government that interferes with the flow of money and capital in the market under the assumption that a wellregulated market will redistribute wealth more evenly and be beneficial for all. Notwithstanding my personal disagreements with this economic system as a whole, it undeniably restricts the freedom of citizens to make economic decisions for themselves. The Democrats’ restriction and regulation of businesses makes entrepreneurship difficult and discourages innovation. Though the list of Democrats’ failures to adhere to principles of liberty and freedom seem endless, I lack the time to list them all. Donald Trump claims that he can “Make America Great Again”, but his personal policies combined with other baggage from the Republicans’ standard social platform will never succeed. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, with her “progressive” platform could cause a regression in America’s “greatness.” The true way to make America great again is by saving our freedoms from both parties. America is the land of the free in name, but we are not truly free, as the government passes regulation after regulation, with more freedom here to be sacrificed for more freedom there. America will be great again when we can choose for ourselves how to live in it once more. b
The Arch Conservative / 9
FEATURES
One Year Later
Discussing the Iran Deal with the Israeli Consul General
P
resident George W. Bush, described the relationship between Israel and the United States, stating: "Our two nations have a lot in common, when you think about it. We were both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution in other lands. We both have built vibrant democracies. Both our countries are founded on certain basic beliefs, that there is an Almighty God that watches over the affairs of men and values every life. These ties have made us natural allies, and these ties will never be broken.” –President George W. Bush on the relationship between Israel and the United States. Since its formal creation as a state in 1948, Israel has been America’s clearest and most loyal ally in the Middle East. As President Bush pointed out in a 2005 speech commemorating Jewish American heritage, the reverence and relationship between these two nations is due largely to our common bonds. Like the United States, Israel is a thriving democracy whose religious majority falls into the monotheistic Judeo-Christian category. Beyond positive commonalities, the U.S. and Israel have also historically shared similar adversaries. In recent decades, our two nations have stood side by side against radical theocratic regimes throughout the Middle East, the most noteworthy of which is Iran. The relationship between Israel and Iran extends millennia, dating back to biblical times. Though these nations have not always Sydney North is the Publishing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
10 / The Arch Conservative
been hostile to each other, recent decades have been filled with bitter and oftentimes violent conflict between the two. United States involvement in the IsraeliIranian conflict escalated during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis when 52 Americans were held hostage by students in Tehran for more than a year following the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi. Since then, a consistent and increasing number of disputes between the U.S. and Iran has eroded trust and cooperation between our two rival states. In the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini declared Israel “The Little Satan” while dubbing the U.S. “The Great Satan” – titles illustrating the vitriolic divide that was pitting Iran against westernized democracies, while simultaneously growing the partnership between the U.S. and Israel, who shared a common critic. In a recent attempt to renew confidence and diplomacy in the U.S.-Iranian relationship, the Obama administration, in conjunction with the United Nations, drafted and passed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)– a resolution better known as the Iran Deal. The controversial deal, endorsed by Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei and opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, raised concerns that the U.S. was, to some degree, severing ties with our long standing partner of Israel in return for an ill-fated relationship with Iran. In a discussion with The Arch Conservative, Israeli Consul General Lior Haiat expressed the concerns held by Israel regarding courses of action taken by the U.S. over the past year, and elaborated on the future of the Israeli-U.S. alliance.
“There are issues in which we don’t see eye to eye,” says Haiat, referencing the current relationship between the U.S. and Israel. “One of them is the Iran Nuclear agreement.” Promoted by proponents as an efficient, diplomatic way to monitor Iran’s weapons program and to “ensure Iran’s nuclear program is and remains peaceful,” according to the White House, the Iran Deal has been criticized by many for being too weak on the nuclear program of the vocally anti-Israel Iranian theocracy. Under the framework of the nuclear deal, Iran’s uranium stockpile is limited and the International Atomic Energy Agency must be allowed full access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite this, opponents argue the stipulations of the deal are dangerously misleading. Amongst other issues, critics of the deal are weary that the deal allows Iran to be responsible for inspecting its own facilities under IAEA guidelines. Furthermore, the agreement does not address the possibility that Iran may have a clandestine nuclear program that operates separate of its publicly affirmed one. “From the Israeli point of view, this agreement does not assure that the fundamentalist extremist regime in Iran will not get their hands on the technology needed to create a bomb,” says Haiat. “Iran’s regime is known for it’s deceiving tactics, which have allowed it to advance over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, we believe it will try to do so once again, even under the new agreement.” Haiat points out that even after the implementation of the Iran Deal last September, “Iranians have tested missile launches, which
FALL 2016
PHOTO COURTESY OF ADAM JONES
By Sydney North
FEATURES
Panel’s work also identified illicit networks and pathways, which further underscored the international community’s role in enforcing resolution 1929,” stated Elleman. As Elleman pointed out, the Panel no longer exists under the framework of JCPOA. Elleman suggested that the U.S. “work with the security council to reinstate the Panel, with a focus on enforcing the trade restrictions contained in [JCPOA].” Furthermore, Israel and the U.S. are not the only countries concerned by these acts of aggression by Iran. “Iran represents a threat not only to Israel but to other Middle Eastern countries who are as concerned [as we are] if the Ayatollah regime gets nuclear technology to create a bomb,” states Haiat. One of those countries is the United Arab Emirates, which initially hoped that the Iran Deal would damper Iran’s aggression in the region. The UAE has recently voiced its frustrations with the hostility Iran has shown through the seizure of islands that the UAE claims as its own. Addressing the UN in September, the UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation urged the UN to allow further action against Iran after “the past few years have shown that solutions based on crisis management are ineffective.” Confirming his shared doubts with other Middle Eastern states about the trustworthiness of Iran, Haiat says, “unfortunately we don’t have time to wait and see if Iran will ‘play by the rules’ or not because, once Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons, the national security of the state of Israel will be compromised.” Despite reservations surrounding the Iran Deal, Haiat stresses the importance and
continuity of constructive Israeli-American relations. “Israel has a very pluralistic society which is a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy,” he says. “I do think Israel and the United States share similar points of view towards international and geopolitical policies. The alliance between Israel and the United States goes beyond that between its leaders, and its cooperation is stable, deep, and strong.” From Israel’s founding to the presidency of George W. Bush, it has always been unequivocally clear on which side the U.S. has stood – the side of democracy, the side of human rights, the side of religious freedom, the side of peace, and, naturally by extension, the side of Israel. But, under some contentious decisions made by the Obama administration in the past year, the dividing lines have begun to blur. While the U.S. and Israel remain great allies in the hotbed of unrest that is the Middle East, political moves such as the Iran Deal and recent payments by the Obama administration of more than $1.7 billion to Iran to resolve a failed arms deal, raise this question for the first time in the history of U.S. and Israel: whose side are we on in the Middle East? Though the U.S. and Israel are still close allies due to attachments formed well past the realms of politics, as Haiat emphasizes, it is concerning that recent actions taken by the U.S. have put this pivotal relationship into question. It is vital for both U.S. geopolitical stability as well as the survival of democracy in the Middle East that the U.S. makes clear its alignment with Israel and against the repressiveness of the Iranian theocracy. Israel has been and will continue to be the greatest friend that both the west and democracy have in the Middle East. Their alliance is not one that we can afford, nor risk, to lose. b
PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVID KING
represents a direct violation of the deal.” In 2015, arguably in defiance of the UN resolution, Iran had already engaged in three missile test launches, according to the The Times of Israel. By May of 2016, the The Times of Israel again reported that Iran was testing missiles, increasing the total number of test launches to eight. Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for strategic studies, testified before congress in May regarding the increase in ballistic missile testing by Iran. “Ballistic missiles are central to Iran’s deterrence posture and will remain so for the foreseeable future,” stated Elleman. “The priority assigned to ballistic missiles is reflected by the size and scope of Iran’s arsenal, the largest and most diverse in the region.” Elleman also stressed his belief that “Iran will not surrender its current systems.” “Even if Iran acquires advanced military aircraft in the near future, ballistic missiles will continue to play a prominent role in its force structure,” he said. Elleman, who has two decades of experience as a missile lab scientist, testified that some UN resolutions in the past have, in fact, slowed down the development of the nuclear program of Iran. Specifically, Elleman alluded to UN resolution 1929, which was adopted in 2010 and imposed a large set of sanctions on the Iranian government for not cooperating with IAEA guidelines. Elleman attributed much of the success of this resolution to the work of the UN Panel of Experts on Iran, which the resolution employed. “The investigations, and reporting to the Panel by governments interdicting prescribed shipments to Iran, raised international awareness of the sanctions. The
FALL 2016
The Arch Conservative / 11
FEATURES
Cultural Appropriation and Costumes The Truly Scary Part of Halloween
I
t is the most wonderful time of the year! The leaves are starting to turn, the temperature is (thankfully) cooling down, everything is starting to taste like pumpkin spice, and stores are starting to line their shelves with merchandise for the best holiday of the year: Halloween. Yes, ‘tis the season to be spooky once again, and with it comes the haunted houses, jack-o-lanterns, “scary” lawn decorations, and astronomical dental bills. Personal holiday preference aside, however, there is one part of Halloween that comes every year that fills me with dread, and not the good kind. As costumes for children start appearing in stores and adults start putting together their own outfits for parties, the social justice warriors pop up again to tell everyone which costumes are racist. Every year, they appear, fangs bared and ready for battle, to “protect” minorities from cultural appropriation and racism by creating ads and writing articles calling for the censorship and removal of costumes that are deemed offensive. Though not always without reason, the social justice warrior outrage over “appropriated” costumes is often an overreaction to what is intended as innocent fun. Take an example from Yale University last year. Eager social justice warriors took up arms against a professor after she negatively opined on Yale’s Halloween costume ban. Right before the holiday, Erika Christakis Jonathan Kuzy is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.
12 / The Arch Conservative
sent out a college wide email questioning the appropriateness and necessity of banning certain costumes at campus Halloween parties. In the email, Christakis argued that Yale’s banning of potentially offensive costumes was both a hindrance to intellectual growth and was also insulting to the intelligence of young adults. “I think there might be something missing in our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus and it is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment?” Christakis said in the email. In the message, Christakis also cited her husband’s opinions, who was also a professor at Yale, regarding Halloween costumes. “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.” Both Erika and Nicholas were forced to step down from their positions as faculty-in-residence following the episode. Social justice warriors’ cries of misappropriation are not simply limited to Halloween costumes, however. Throughout the entirety of the year, we see and hear stories of student SJWs on college campuses who are outraged at one appropriation after the next. Take, for example, the “mini-sombrero” controversy at Bowdoin College this past March. After attending a tequila themed birthday party for a friend in which a few party-goers donned miniature sombreros, two members of the school’s student government association faced impeachment
following an official investigation conducted by the university on the grounds that the party goers engaged in an “act of ethnic stereotyping.” The only issue of importance in this instance, according to the school administration, was the fact that students attended a party that may or may not have been offensive to hispanic students on campus. The student government association (aside from the two members facing impeachment for their lack of “basic empathy,” as criticized by the school paper’s editorial board) went so far as to recommend that the school administration “create a space for those who have been or feel specifically targeted.” Never mind the fact that the party itself was planned and thrown by a student of hispanic heritage. Presumably, the administration in this instance cared more about appearing to be a part of the politically correct culture by snap judging the character of the attendees of the party than finding out about the actual details of the party. Somewhat ironically, as is often the case with false accusations of racism or appropriation, the social justice warriors at Bowdoin who claimed to care about the feelings of hispanic minorities on campus did not actually take the time to look into the feelings of hispanic minorities on campus before stirring up outrage. If they had, as the Washington Post proved by seeking out and interviewing Latino students and organizations on the school’s campus, they would have found that Latino students themselves found the administration’s reaction “mind-boggling,” and did not agree with the punishments doled out to the hosts of the party, who were permanently kicked out
FALL 2016
PHOTO COURTESY OF LIZ WEST
By Jonathan Kuzy
FEATURES
of their dorm. Now, I understand why critics would target party-goers; by making sure there is a social stigma on wearing these costumes, people won’t wear them. In some ways, I even relate to those who think their culture is misrepresented, and can understand why social justice warriors would concern themselves with preventing the stereotyping of certain cultures. Using my family’s Romani heritage as an example, I live in a world where the only common knowledge of my heritage comes in the form of “gypsies.” I live in a world where I have to describe the culture that (partially) shaped who I am today with a stereotype for people to understand. And I see the gypsy costumes every year and sigh, because, in truth, their depiction of this culture is anything but accurate or flattering. But I also understand that calling everyone who wears costumes that have no true relation to Romani culture a racist is both useless, impractical, and misleading. Wearing a costume that stereotypes a culture does not equivocate to
one being a racist, but rather equivocates to a general misunderstanding of a culture. Still, if fixing perceived racism is the goal, trying to create a social stigma around costume parties thrown all in good fun is not the way to achieve this goal. And though I am personally in agreement that some costumes are absolutely inappropriate (for example, blackface costumes come to mind immediately as those that are outwardly offensive on numerous levels as they depict race in ways that are blatantly demeaning and tasteless), attacking others with labels like “racist” or “bigot” isn’t the right way to fix the problem. If one is truly concerned about solving what they consider to be an appropriation problem, they should consider a different means to reach the end, such as education, rather than bullying people into politically correct complacency. Besides, if the goal is to create a culture of respect, using fear mongering tactics like public shaming to intimidate people into not wearing certain costumes does not grow cultural respect. Instead, it divides cultures further by pitting
them against each other As aforementioned, I am not condoning these types of costumes, or celebrating their existence. However, trying to eliminate ignorance through brute force will work about as well as trying to kill a spider with a nuke. Bullying someone into a belief often has an opposite effect from what from what was intended. People detest beliefs being forced upon them, and will usually revolt against any ideal that they feel like has been unfairly thrust upon them, even if it is a generally accepted belief. Just remember, Halloween is the time for spooks, scares, ghouls, and freaks. Costume parties are meant to be fun, not offensive. It’s a celebration of the abnormal and supernatural. And no celebration should be damped by those who think they have to end the evils of the world alone by attempting to create politically correct costume party environments that don’t offend the senses of minority cultures. b
ISI: EXPERIENCE YOU
CAN’T AFFORD TO MISS T zz
zz zz
ake charge of your education today by joining ISI. Membership is free; what you gain is invaluable. Attend leadership conferences on liberty and limited government
Intern at leading publications like the Weekly Standard and USA Today and top conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation Earn grants to fund your campus activities
zz
Get involved in ISI campus chapters and student newspapers
zz
—Christopher Lacaria, Harvard alumnus
Win scholarships and fellowships—prizes up to $30,000
zz
zz
“ISI gave me an education that even Harvard couldn’t.”
Receive a subscription to the Intercollegiate Review and “The Campus Caller” Network with like-minded students, top professors, and leaders in politics, business, and journalism
“ISI is a necessity for all college students.” —Kate Brickner, Ashland University
JOIN.ISI.ORG 800-526-7022 programs@isi.org
FALL 2016
The Arch Conservative / 13
FEATURES
Kneeling Through our Nation’s Anthem Kaepernick’s Cause
S
an Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s carefully articulated reasoning for taking a knee for the national anthem during a preseason professional football game against the Green Bay Packers was an echo of a frustrated community. Needless to say, his decision has garnered plenty of attention, reaching far beyond sports media outlets. Was the gesture inspiring, appropriate, ill-timed, or simply disrespectful? According to an online Yahoo Sports survey in mid-September, 32 percent support Kaepernick’s protest while 47 percent oppose it. Three out of five of the near 1200 people polled stated that “Kaepernick should’ve chosen a better method for his protest.” Clearly, lack of patriotism is a trait few people overlook in the United States: so let’s start the discussion off with a question. Was this an unpatriotic act? Yes, refusing to stand during the national anthem is certainly an unpatriotic act in and of itself. The flag is not a merely a reminder of how many states we have gained since the colonies united, it is a symbol. A symbol of the steadfast ideology that our forefathers tattooed in ink on the conscience of the country, a symbol of those brave enough to fight to defend the meaning behind that ink, and a symbol of the pride that permeates to some degree nearly every one of America’s inhabitants. To make the conscious and knowing decision to show a lesser degree of respect toward the flag (i.e. sitting or kneeling) that represents Nick Geeslin is the Managing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
14 / The Arch Conservative
these things, especially during the national anthem, is an unpatriotic act. That being said, there is of course no requirement for every citizen of the United States to be patriotic, nor to remain standing for its song. In fact, the right to not be patriotic is inherently central to the First Amendment’s guarantee to free speech. No one with any constitutional awareness disputes Kaepernick’s right to sit. If the United States were a country more like Stalin’s Russia, the 49ers would be down a quarterback. In fact, going along with the likely assumption that he is not protesting simply for attention, Kaepernick’s motivations are about as disrespectful as certain fans in the stands who, as we here in Athens might even experience on game days, prefer to glance at their phone during the anthem rather than think about the significance that the flag holds. Few view apathy in the form of scrolling through Facebook during the national anthem as such an insult. Among the adjectives one can ascribe to Kaepernick, apathy is certainly not one of them and that, at least, is commendable. Whether or not apathy is considered less patriotic than the 28-year-old quarterback’s dissenting action is quite another debate. Over the past century, athletes have often used sports as a stage for political or social change, many times rightfully so and with more passion and effectiveness than any politician could dream. The most piercing and controversial stand came from the nowbeloved Muhammad Ali when he decided against joining his fellow Americans by “dodging” the 1966 draft for the Vietnam
War. Ali questioned why he should go to a “Christian war” overseas “to drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam” when his enemy was “not Viet Cong or Chinese or Japanese” but “you,” as he put it in a speech to a mass of college students, “the white people.” Ali was, against the general desire of the public, in the end acquitted of any claims of draft-dodging because his protest was primarily based on religious motives. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite how one might view the act then or now, it was a genuinely rousing and effective effort. There’s no doubting that Kaepernick’s gesture is less risky and therefore less effective than Ali’s protest, but it is also not technically against the law like Ali’s. For that reason – and the fact that Ali endured a period of time where he was possibly the most hated celebrity in America – there is really no use likening the San Francisco quarterback’s protest to his. While Kaepernick may be the most disliked player in the NFL now, “disliked a lot” by 29 percent of people according to a recent E-Poll Marketing Research survey, he does not even come close to Ali’s notoriety. Furthermore, Kaepernick is not the star he once was and his protest, at first, was less poignant because of it. He lacks the stagnant media spotlight that stalks the likes of Peyton Manning, Michael Phelps, and LeBron James. His career has been much less productive in the past two years, and he is fighting for playing time this season after an injury last year. Kaepernick seems to be past his prime – kids are replacing his posters and fans are drafting him later and later in fantasy
FALL 2016
PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
By Nick Geeslin
FEATURES
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. – Colin Kaepernick football, while the media quietly notes his gradual decline. This gesture would have carried significantly more meaning three years ago following the uproar over the death of Trayvon Martin, while Kaepernick was carrying San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in nearly 20 years. Even protesting the handling of last year’s Freddie Gray case would have made more of a mark. At the same time one can argue that the gesture is more practical for him at this point in his career. He gets to stay on the bench, get paid, and go on without being criticized for his protest and the quality of his play. Thankfully, the National Football League has maintained the exact position it should on the matter: “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the National Anthem,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy expressed in a statement to Sporting News. The league’s statement has been broadly praised, mostly because it is rejecting an opportunity to punish certain speech (a right that private entities reserve) in the name of freedom of speech, a stance that any traditional proponent of liberal democracy would admire. Of course, the idea of an “open dialogue” is naturally attractive, but when employees for the same organization that fired Curt Schilling specifically for expressing his political beliefs about North Carolina’s bathroom law criticizes some of the opposition that
FALL 2016
Kaepernick’s action has received, an entirely separate issue arises. Scott Van Pelt, a wellknown personality on ESPN, did just that in early September. Regarding some of Kaepernick’s detractors, he says, “People aren’t comfortable with that dialogue . . . If we’re truly trying to solve a problem though, isn’t it very, very necessary?” While I could not agree more with these sentiments, when the same company that pays a person to say such a thing fires someone else for participating in a dialogue on another social issue, there is a problem. It is not uncommon to see these types of private organizations, most of them liberal, punish speech that does not coincide with the organization’s beliefs. As a private organization, of course, they reserve this right. But the frequency with which the punishment occurs gives way to the larger realization that these organizations serve a dual purpose as entertainment or media as well as a warrior for social justice seen through the eyes of the contemporary liberal. What if someone utilized Kaepernick’s method of protest in order to voice his or her hesitation with the legalization of gay marriage a year ago? Maybe they believed that the government allows for the murder of unborn fetuses and naturally deemed the issue important enough to take a seat for our nation’s anthem. It is not too far of stretch to say that there would certainly be little to no sympathy from the “open discourse”
proponents in the media over issues such as these. Of course, this is but a menial argument often concerned more with lazy journalists looking for the easiest available confirmation to their ideological biases and less with the merit of Kaepernick’s protest or the NFL’s manner of action. Thankfully, we can only speculate on whether the NFL would have acted differently in the case that a player chose to kneel through the anthem for another, perhaps more socially conservative cause. But as David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist, laments in his article “Kaepernick Has a Right to Free Expression, and So Does Everyone Else:” professional sports networks and leagues tend to “inject themselves into political and social debates” such as these. In saying this, Harsanyi is assuredly correct. The NFL has done a commendable job promoting free speech by allowing Colin Kaepernick to go along with his silent protest while still “encouraging” players to stand for the national anthem. However, it is distinctly probable that, for future occurrences of this nature, speech will be protected at the cost of making its way through the filter of the organization from whence it came. And it is all too often that the organization leans left. b
The Arch Conservative / 15
FEATURES
Athens’ Roads and Development From a Pragmatic Perspective
F
or how small the city of Athens is, there seems to be an abundance of traffic. While many of the roads around Athens are well-designed and do not present any obvious problems to drivers, there are still a good number of roads that need to be repaved, renovated, or simply redesigned to improve commuting in Athens. Right now, College Station Road is proving to be the newest headache for drivers trying to get to, from, and around campus. It has never been an easy route, but now the city has decided to add a bike lane on one side that stretches from East Campus all the way to Research Drive. But don’t worry! According to the county’s website, the project will only take one year! The entire project is being funded by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and costs approximately $2.75 million. For clarification, there are actually two distinct projects on College Station Road. The bridge near Research Drive is being replaced by GDOT as well; however, when this article refers to a road project, it is the College Station Road Bicycle Lane Project. No other infrastructure improvements in this area are expected in the near future. The government awarded the contract in December of last year to Vertical Earth, Inc. of Cumming, GA, and the project began a couple months later in February of 2016. Since the onset of construction, commute times have taken up to 30 minutes to Michael Duckett is the Associate Editor at The Arch Conservative.
16 / The Arch Conservative
overcome the 2 mile-stretch of road. In my experience, an increased probability of accidents and road rage accompanies the annoyingly lengthy travel time as well. Frustrated with traffic, I reached out and spoke with Construction Management Coordinator David Ayers representing the city of Athens, who manages construction on the College Station Road Bicycle Lane Project. At any given time, around ten workers, not including any county oversight staff, are at the job site and more may be called to assist if delays occur. Ayers said so far the project has progressed according to the initial plans. Meanwhile, Athens commuters are left to pray that any rain in the coming months will not slow the work. As is the case with many construction projects, bad weather is the number one obstacle Ayers’ team faces. Thankfully, it has not been an issue so far. Although, given the state in which we reside, snow, ice, rain, and other sudden and unexpected forces of nature are sure to make their fair share of appearances. Ayers asks the community to do three things that would benefit the project. First: Be careful and attentive when you drive past the construction. Ayers notes that some drivers have already endangered workers on multiple occasions this year. Each of the workers is at risk of being hit every time they are on duty. It is in the common interest of all patrons of the road for drivers to refrain from texting, snapchatting, instagramming, tweeting, or taking part in other distractions when driving, especially when nearing any worksite. Second: Slow down! It is not uncommon
for drivers in Athens to exceed the speed limit every once in awhile, but speeding is extremely dangerous around construction sites because of the equipment, the workers in the road, and the atypical traffic. On College Station Road, the bends in the road limit vision, and the hills naturally increase speed going towards the bridge. Ayers warns drivers to make a concerted effort to slow down for the safety of other drivers and the workers. Third: Be patient. This is never what a frustrated driver wants to hear when sitting in traffic, but anger and impatience help noone. There is rarely a time when trading rashness for patience has resulted in anything other than a safer journey. The workers will have to close lanes at some point, but remember that they are simply doing their job. For complaints regarding the project itself or when or how it is being completed, your local commissioner would be the most logical place to respectfully voice your concerns. Patience on the road will expedite the construction and potentially save lives. The completion of the project will ideally allow bikers to safely travel from Barnett Shoals Road to campus without dodging traffic. Students and Athenians have biked on the road for decades, but always risked being hit by cars or causing a wreck themselves. The extra bicycle lane will ensure that cars no longer have to worry about slowing down and weaving into the opposite lane for bicycles. And if all goes according to plan, the lane will reduce traffic and pollution overall by encouraging more people to commute to campus by bike. Traffic is a problem not only
FALL 2016
PHOTOS COURTESY OF NICOLAS HENDERSON
By Michael Duckett
FEATURES
on College Station Road, but throughout Athens, and the College Station Road Bicycle Lane Project is one of the ways that GDOT hopes to improve the current situation. Another problem of Athens roads is State Route 10, less formally known as Paul Broun SR Parkway and locally referred to as ‘The Loop.’ A simple Google Maps search of the loop will uncover the failure that encircles Athens. Most major cities such as Atlanta, Nashville, or Indianapolis boast some form of expressway that completely encircles the metropolitan area to provide quick travel with minimal lights and turns. We must assume Athens made an attempt at such a project, but instead decided to quit before finishing the last intersection. At the northeast end of the city, the loop crosses over itself and continues into the Athens outskirts as two different roads. Common sense leads me to believe I am not the only one to have accumulated an impressive log of wasted hours forgetting the need to take an exit off of the loop in order to continue on it. As relaxing as a nice drive towards Greenville is, SR 10’s design fails the test of common sense and desperately needs to be redesigned as a singular and complete circle. Aside from road construction, Athens has itself a plethora of parking problems, most noticeable on the University of Georgia's campus. They even ask residents to move their cars on game days to lots that are already packed, forcing students to park far off campus. The university needs to expand parking options for the students that spend so much to attend the University of Georgia. The university’s website lists three main improvements that have been implemented this year. The first being the SuperPass which is a “hands free” option to enter into
FALL 2016
a parking area and is intended to reduce “vehicle idle time and the amount of carbon produced.” The second improvement is the addition of state-of-the-art lighting to increase security, save $157 thousand to $175 thousand annually in energy costs, and reduce light pollution. The last improvement by the university is adding more security cameras in the parking decks. Although these three improvements may be helpful to some extent for the community, students, or local wildlife, none of these ideas actually increase parking spots or reduce the number of cars on campus. With an expanding campus and growing number of students, the university will need to find a solution soon. On a larger scale, city planners know that infrastructure and transportation are perhaps the two of the greatest variables affecting a city’s growth. Problems and annoyances listed in this article may seem minor, but combined they discourage businesses from relocating to different spots around Athens. If Athens wants to grow as an independent city and not rely solely on UGA, then roads, parking, bus routes, and other alternative forms of transportation need to be significantly improved to compete with other 21st century cities. In conclusion, it is important to emphasize the impact that changing infrastructure will have on east Athens. Economic development is probably the most boring part of our government but has the greatest impact on where we work, eat, live, and play. For those of us that live on the east side of Athens, the shops near the intersection of College Station Road and Barnett Shoals Road provide most of what we need. From Kroger to a shoe store to the multitude of diverse restaurants, shops in the area of the intersection provide jobs to
many Athens residents and UGA students While there is no concrete measure for it, the well-designed road system put in place undoubtedly contributed to the foundation of the thriving part of the city it is today. Representative of Winterville and the area of Athens close to the shops, Commissioner Sharyn Dickerson kindly responded to my questions regarding the future of this area. Dickerson said Kroger could be the main focus of development in the area. Kroger plans to improve the shopping center by making changes to better manage stormwater runoff, planting a large number of trees in the parking lot, and adding a fuel center. Kroger would like to plant more trees than local ordinances require in order to beautify the shopping center and create natural buffers between sections of the parking lot. The fuel center will be another major addition, though the location is not set, and it may end up being located across the street. Dickerson’s constituents have generally responded positively to any form of improvement on Barnett Shoals and are excited for the future of the shopping center. Infrastructure and transportation improvements result in economic development, and Athens is in desperate need of economic growth with 37.6 percent of Athens-Clarke County residents in poverty. Good people like Commissioner Dickerson and David Ayers want the city to grow, but ultimately it is up to the public. Providing feedback on transportation issues in Athens is the best way to not only improve our day-to-day lives, but also to propel the city forward and make it represent ideas of a ‘modern’ American city. b
The Arch Conservative / 17
CULTURE
Review: Eye in the Sky
I
n Hollywood today, movies produced intending to concentrate on hot-button political issues lean almost exclusively to the left. Conservatives have come to expect movies like The Day After Tomorrow, Green Zone, and Elysium to take complicated issues like climate change, the war in Iraq, and income inequality and distort the debate to the point where no rational, freethinking person would oppose the liberal position. Movies championing conservative ideals have become so rare that when one is actually released to widespread critical and commercial success – like American Sniper – the liberal intelligentsia lose their collective minds. Scarcer still are movies that are able to deftly balance both conservative and liberal ideals on an important political issue by correctly portraying the complicated motivations involved. This rare attribute is what sets Eye in the Sky apart from other contemporary war movies. Centered on a mission using a predator drone’s surveillance to capture an organizer of a terrorist attack, this film perfectly demonstrates all of the moral and legal complexities forced upon the United States and its allies by the advent of drones in the War on Terror. The star-studded cast of Eye in the Sky produce a collectively great performance, each presenting an important motivation in the military's chain-of-command. Helen Mirren stars as Colonel Katherine Powell, a British officer in command of an operation to capture an English woman turned radicalized Islamic terrorist in Nairobi, Kenya. Mirren provides an intense performance throughout, directing the operation with meticulous efficiency and intense zeal. Supporting her are Alan Rickman and Connor Kitchings is a senior studying political science and economics. He is the Editorin-Chief at The Arch Conservative.
18 / The Arch Conservative
Aaron Paul, of Harry Potter and Breaking Bad fame respectively. Rickman, in his last performance before his death, plays General Frank Benson, who is acting as a military liaison to a meeting of political officers watching and overseeing the operation. Paul is Captain Steve Watts, a pilot in Las Vegas controlling the drone’s surveillance and missile-launching capabilities. From the outset, Colonel Powell’s capture operation is predicted to be politically significant, as there are expected to be two British citizens and one American at the terrorist gathering. With an American drone in the
sky running surveillance and a warehouse full of Kenyan soldiers ready to pounce, Powell must simply wait for all of the targets to be in the same building before giving the order to launch the operation. Her plan is muddled, however, when the meeting ends up being moved from a suburban house to a neighborhood outside of Nairobi that is fully controlled and guarded by radical Islamists. The Kenyan military can no longer move in to capture the targets, lest they risk a bloody battle with the local Islamic militants. With the capture scenario removed from the table, Powell turns to the kill scenario – possible thanks to the hellfire missiles loaded on the surveillance drone. This scenario has legal ramifications, however, because of the American and British citizenships held by three of the terrorists. One of the political officers overseeing the operation also deftly asks, “Has there ever been a British-led drone
attack on a city in a friendly country that is not at war?” This question is left by the wayside, however, when it is revealed that two of the terrorists at the gathering have bomb vests and are creating suicide videos to precede an attack. This situational change causes the political officers overseeing the operation to “refer up,” asking the opinions of even higher officials, including the British Foreign Minister and the American Secretary of State. With the understanding that these terrorists have exited the shadows for the first time in six years and that the bomb vests could kill hundreds of people, the Foreign Minister sanctions the drone strike with the permission of the Secretary of State, who decides, “Their citizenship does not protect them. By joining [the terrorists], they have declared themselves enemies of the United States.” However, one more obstacle presents itself right before the drone is preparing to fire: a young girl moves into the kill-radius and begins to sell bread. This development opens up an entirely new legal and moral debate on the merits of the drone strike. Knowing that the terrorists have suicide vests and plan to use them, is it worth holding off the drone strike because of a single collateral damage issue? Does assuming the deaths of dozens of people because of the bomb vests justify guaranteeing the death a civilian child? The brilliance of Eye in the Sky is that it can ask these questions in a balanced way and despite the actions of the characters, leave the audience to realize that there is no correct answer. Indeed, anyone can find major flaws in a decision to use the drone strike but could also find saddening consequences from the opposite decision after the fact. This is the new normal with the War on Terror. It is not conducted on a spectrum with a clear line delineating right and wrong. Almost every major decision is just a different shade of gray. Sadly though, civilians are the ones left to pay the price one way or another. b
FALL 2016
PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO/LT COL LESLIE PRATT
Considering the moral conflicts of drone warfare.
CULTURE
Saving HOPE Revamping the scholarship that funds a majority of Georgia students.
C
PHOTO COURTESY OF JOSH HALLETT
reated in 1993, the HOPE Scholarship has provided more than 1.7 million Georgia high school graduates with in-state higher education funding since its inception. HOPE, which stands for “Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally” has granted more than $8 billion in tuition aid in the past 23 years, according to The Committee to Preserve HOPE. UGA student Blake Hankwitz says, “My parents moved to Georgia because of the HOPE and Miller scholarships. They were trying to decide on a place to raise a family, and the potential for the HOPE scholarship swayed them to Georgia over other places.” Despite two decades of success as an entity funded by the Georgia Lottery, the future of the HOPE scholarship is looking less and less hopeful with each passing day. A model created by The Committee to Preserve HOPE suggests that by the year 2018, HOPE assistance, which currently covers 15 hours of tuition per semester for qualifying recipients’ tuition (or 100 percent of tuition per semester for recipients of the Zell Miller Scholarship, a higher tier of HOPE), will begin decreasing dramatically. The same model predicts that by the year 2028, HOPE will have completely run out of money. “Students are keeping the scholarships in much greater numbers than they were when I was in school, particularly Miller scholars,” says Jared Thomas, a spokesman for the Committee to Preserve HOPE. Thomas visited the University of Georgia College Republicans in September to explain the current condition of HOPE. Thomas himself, a conservative and former member of UGA’s College Republicans, was one of the first recipients of HOPE in the 1990s. Sydney North is a junior studying political science and journalism. She is the Publishing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2016
Between lottery funds being split between both the HOPE scholarship program and Georgia public school Pre-K programs, as well as an increasing number of Georgia students qualifying for the scholarship, Thomas believes that the only way to keep HOPE alive is to find new methods of funding the program.
He says that for the scholarship to survive in its current form “we’ve got to increase revenue. Period.” Many Georgia legislators agree with Thomas’ sentiments. In the 2016 spring legislative session, legislators attempted to pass casino gambling and horse racing bills. Proponents of the bills, which eventually failed in the Republican-led state legislature, argued that the voluntary tax revenue acquired from gambling and race betting could be funneled into the HOPE program. Both bills failed, largely due to opposition to legalized gambling from religious leaders and evangelicals, as well as uncertainty about the financial viability of funding HOPE through
new forms of gambling. The use of tax money to fund higher education has also faced opposition from political grassroots groups, including the non-profit, conservative-leaning group Americans for Prosperity. Candace Carroll, the Georgia Field Director for Americans for Prosperity, says that although they support school choice and increasing educational opportunities for young Americans, her organization “would be against an increase in taxes in regards to HOPE. “We believe strongly in both economic and academic freedom,” says Carroll. “We would advocate for free market ways to make higher education more affordable, and express advocacy for those ideas instead of raising taxes.” Other concerned Georgians have suggested raising the prerequisites for students seeking out the HOPE scholarship, but Thomas disagrees with this course of action, stating, “I hope that more people have access to the scholarship, not less.” Students studying under the HOPE scholarship in the university system of Georgia care less about how the scholarship is saved and more about whether or not the scholarship can, in fact, be saved. “I don’t know if I would have been able to go to school here without the scholarship,” says Hankwitz. “Especially with the cost of school now. I’d like to think I would have been able to find a way, but I don’t know.” Thomas urges students that “the most important thing to do is contact legislators and let them know how badly HOPE needs to be prioritized.” “Educate. Speak out. Let your peers and everyone know that there is a real problem,” says Thomas. “All we can do is raise awareness for the program, and hold our legislators responsible for the rest. We’ll start to see more concrete ideas for saving HOPE soon, but for now being vocal about the issue is the most important thing.” b
The Arch Conservative / 19
COLLEGE IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH That’s why college students are invited to sign up for free digital access to The Weekly Standard magazine at weeklystandard.com/free — no credit card needed!
America’s Foremost Political Magazine