01222013

SPRING 2013 REGISTRATION ISSUE

CHARLES GODFREY, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

OPED@BADGERHERALD.COM

THE BADGER HERALD

OPINION

Jen Small The Badger Herald

Gus McNair The Badger Herald

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR

WELCOME BACK TO ALWAYS-CHANGING HERALD Ryan Rainey Editor-in-chief My suspicions tell me that if polled, most undergraduates would list the cold period between New Year’s Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as the year’s most boring. Those lucky enough to remain in Madison stay in an unusually sleepy town — downtown merchants curtail their hours and few students are actually around. Even those who get to enjoy a pitcher at a bar with a few friends are mostly stuck doing the same thing idle undergraduates in their hometowns do during winter break: waking up at noon and watching full seasons of acclaimed television series on Netflix.

Or maybe that’s just me.

Regardless, Madison’s emptiness at this time of the year proves just how vital students are to this community. Legislators and their aides returned to town earlier this month to begin a new session of lawmaking at the Capitol, but their influence on our community is mostly financial, not cultural.

Madison is a big enough city to sustain itself without the University of Wisconsin. But we’d be as exciting as Des Moines or Harrisburg if that were the case.

The newspaper or website hosting this column has the unique mission of covering and contextualizing the news that affects this unique, life-giving community. The Badger Herald’s staff has been in town during this sleepy period to cover the news most important to students and compile them into our largest issue of the semester — one that both helps train our employees and acts a guide for

what our readers can expect for the next several months.

On the news front, the most important stories from the outset are obvious and interconnected. Gov. Scott Walker will enter the second half of his first term as a self-declared bipartisan interested in constructive reform with Democrats. UW and the Associated Students of Madison will inevitably continue to handle the budget crunch that has plagued the state and the university for the last several years. A local election will test if the political movement that began almost two years ago with the reaction to Walker’s budget repair bill can maintain its relevance in Madison.

But in the office, we’re sure to see a semester of change as well.

We’ll continue to adjust our website regularly to give readers the best experience possible. We also will soon introduce an exciting new platform for our most popular

feature, making shout-outs a more interactive form of social media mostly exclusive to students. Don’t worry, the anonymity will stay.

Personnel-wise, we’re also looking at some changes to our Editorial Board. Herald tradition has held that the three top editorial positions are required to sit on the board. Last semester’s chair, Addie Blanchard, has moved to Milwaukee to begin a communications career.

Former News Content Editor Leah Linscheid will join the board and replace Blanchard as chair, and I’ll stay on as well.

Managing Editor Katherine Krueger and Editor-atLarge Pam Selman will stay off the board to focus on other pursuits related to their positions. Krueger will continue writing investigative pieces for our news section, while Selman will guide new and experienced writers in a large effort to improve the Herald’s long-form journalism.

After making some changes to our publication model last semester, a third-party commission of current and former Herald employees will present us with recommendations for how we should proceed into a publishing and advertising climate that grows more friendly to digital content every day. It’ll be up to our current leadership to decide what to do, but I’m positive our employees and alumni will give us smart and insightful advice that will prove helpful to future generations of Heralders.

It feels wonderful to be back in Madison for one last semester, no matter how sleepy the town seems before UW students return.

Stick with us this semester; I promise it will be an exciting one.

Ryan Rainey (rrainey@ badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and Latin American studies.

WARD’S SUCCESSOR MUST NOT COMMODIFY EDUCATION

Reginald Young Columnist For those students prefer to tune into Netflix more than campus current events, right now there’s a search and screen going on for the University of Wisconsin’s next chancellor.

While there have been concerns raised over the process, such as the fact the university is throwing money at a private consulting firm instead of using its own resources (professors, researchers, etc.), these concerns pale in comparison to how many factors the Search and Screen Committee must consider. Given the current political climate that seems to be hostile toward “wasting” state money on education, whoever is chosen to replace our tepid Chancellor David Ward must be one hell of a capable leader for the UW System’s flagship school.

That being said, “a businessminded applicant” absolutely should not be a predominant factor.

Our next chancellor should, of course, understand the finances that come with the territory, and be able to factor in the fiscal tenability of the university. We don’t want a financial illiterate at the helm, but at the same time, we should not have a chancellor who makes the university’s earnings priority number one.

Liberal arts education doesn’t exist for profit. It exists for scholarship: knowledge for knowledge’s sake. UW is not a business operation, and thus should not be viewed as such.

The push coming from the business community for a business-minded chancellor is based on the premise UW isn’t doing enough to create jobs, and taking a business minded approach to an educational institute would fix this. But last time I checked, the whole “Wisconsin is open for business” approach coming from our Capitol isn’t resulting in all that much growth for Wisconsinites.

While the reasons the businessminded approach doesn’t work

for overall growth are too complex to go into here, they’re based in the reality that supply side, pro-business, whatevernomenclature-you-wish-to-usefor-it, economics only causes growth for the upper slice of the economy — with virtually none of the benefits “trickling down” to the middle and lower classes.

The Capital Times notes UW seems to lag behind other universities in terms of startups, though that lag is slightly less compared to other Big Ten schools. Naturally, this is something the business community is quick to point to in order to use UW as a scapegoat for why Wisconsin’s economy is doing bad, despite the fact we’ve already carried a disproportionate amount of the blame via funding cuts for a recession caused by — who, again? — oh yeah, an unregulated business and finance sector.

But perhaps the discrepancy is symptomatic of something desirable. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because we don’t blindly follow the herd. “Let’s do things the way Purdue does them,” said no Badger ever.

Perhaps it has more to do with

Madison students, researchers and professors appreciating academic excellence, or, put differently, the importance of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Maybe we like critical thinking for the sake of better understanding ourselves and the world around us, and getting intangible value from our lives instead of maximizing how many cars we own.

The generation of current students is in a precarious place.

We grew up being taught college is a must from a generation for which it was affordable.

Thirty years ago you could get undergraduate and law degrees and graduate with zero debt, having paid it all off by interning at a law firm during law school.

Now, you would likely graduate with the amount of debt you would generate by buying a house.

What changed? The “businessification” of education.

For example, schools now construct new buildings to increase their net worth, in order to raise their price tag and increase their ranking. Who cares about the quality of education when you can make money from

it?

Instead of making education affordable and virtually free like, you know, all other civilized countries, it’s become prohibitively expensive here. And thanks to a culture that says we must go to college in order to be successful, we’re stuck in a place prior generations haven’t been.

But yes, please, let’s continue that business-minded trend and let profit run our educations. Let’s simultaneously complain China will outpace our economy and forget to mention they’ve been increasing the proportion of government budget for education while we’ve been decreasing it .

A university needs to remain financially afloat, and I have no doubt Madison will do just that. How much a liberal arts, research-strong university contributes to the economy should never be question number one.

Sorry, but my UW degree is not “open for business.” And I hope our next chancellor feels the same way.

Reginald Young (ryoung@wisc. edu) is a senior majoring in legal studies and Scandinavian studies.

B2

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

MEET THE

EDITORIAL BOARD SPRING 2012

Every semester, The Badger Herald’s Editor-in-chief selects a group of columnists and editors to serve on the editorial board, a body that meets daily to discuss the major issues of the day and decide the newspaper’s official stance on the issue.

The board’s decisions are well-thought-out, researched and often debated to a pulp. But they are crafted completely independently of news coverage and in no way represent the opinions of individual reporters on the Herald’s staff.

Early in the newspaper’s history, the Herald took a conservative stance on many issues and was lauded as a conservative minority newspaper on a liberal campus. Since the 1980s, however, we have moved to the center and adopted the moderate libertarian beliefs that define the ideals of so many student journalists.

This semester, we look forward to tackling the campus’ most important issues. Here are this semester’s members:

LEAH LINSCHEID

Ugh. This guy again.

This will be my fourth semester on The Badger Herald’s Editorial Board, which makes me now the most seasoned member of a board of unseasoned journalism veterans.

My friends and readers know me for my love of infrastructure investment, the way I mention I grew up between Beloit and Rockford, Ill., in all of my columns and for my undying love of Brazil.

Politically, I follow the ‘of no party or clique’ maxim that defines one of my favorite magazines, The Atlantic. You could say I’m liberal, but since I want a job in reporting after graduation it’s just easier for me to say that I’m an independent. I bring an expertise on local and state issues that comes from my stint as a city and state reporter during the four semesters I reported for the Herald’s news section.

RYAN RAINEY

JOE TIMMERMAN

CHARLES GODFREY

I hope to bring my unique experiences as a white, male, middle-class suburbanite to The Badger Herald Editorial Board.

I also plan to use the wealth of knowledge I’ve accumulated during my extensive fourclass economics career to form opinions on complex issues of fiscal and monetary policy.

Further, as a mathematics major, I am particularly wellequipped to stay grounded in real-world issues rather than getting lost in abstract concepts.

Hopefully all of this, combined with my left-leaning tendencies (confession: I supported Obama in 2012) and a year spent tirelessly producing columns of only the highest quality, will make for an individual the Herald Editorial Board has never before seen.

JOHN WATERS

I am a senior at the University of Wisconsin majoring in political science and journalism, hailing from Highland, Wis., a town of 800 in the southwestern region of the state. I currently intern as a reporter at Madison’s top-rated news station, WISC-TV News 3.

At UW, I have worked for three years at The Badger Herald. I have held a number of positions within the news department, including state reporter, deputy state editor, city editor and news content editor. I also sit on a commission of three current Herald employees and seven alumni who are tasked with directing the future of the publication’s operating model.

During my time at the Herald, I have covered political news ranging from presidential visits to campus to 2011’s recall protests at the State Capitol. I have also regularly reported on hyperlocal issues like city meetings and community events.

Hey readers, Charles here. I’ll be editing opinions, Editorial Board-ing it up and writing a column or two this semester. It’s exciting to get back to the office, dust off the old laptop and start making newspapers this spring.

When I’m not checking for AP Style, ranting about the latest and greatest outrage at the Capitol and digging through the news for a column, I’m likely to be found in the Physics Club room brewing coffee and drawing on the chalkboard, playing blues guitar on my front stoop or jogging by the lake.

In my spare time I go canoeing and backpacking, play pond hockey and watch BBC’s Sherlock.

A lot goes on in this city; there’s never a shortage of news and rarely a lack of news that strikes close to home on contentious issues. For me, the Editorial Board is a venue to scrutinize, criticize, commend, rant and rave about the latest and greatest in Madison’s goings on.

Hello, dear readers. My name is John Waters and writing opinion columns here at The Badger Herald has been my game for the last three years. It’s been an awesome and at times ridiculous part of my college experience I wouldn’t trade for anything. I am genuinely excited about the prospect of being on the Editorial Board for my final semester at the greatest university in the world and, of course, the greatest student newspaper in the world.

I came to this university expecting to pursue a business degree, so it is with a pleasant amount of surprise that I find myself writing this introduction as I wind down my collegiate career. I will do my best to bring something interesting and impressive to the Editorial Board this semester, so come along on an unexpected journey (that Peter Jackson didn’t make two hours too long).

Herald Editorial Walker moves left of ... somebody Even by objective standards, Gov. Scott Walker proved himself to be anything but bipartisan during his first two years in office. In 2010 he ran a semi-populist conservative campaign that immediately alienated liberals because of its ridiculous insistence to stymie President Barack Obama’s national agenda. And then, of course, came the reforms two years ago whose controversy brought hundreds of thousands to the Capitol.

So here we are, a year since the recall petitions were submitted and just two months after a decisive victory for Democrats in Wisconsin.

Walker is a new person. Around the holidays he took a vow of bipartisanship that most liberals immediately labeled as cynical and politically calculated.

But who cares as long as something

good finally gets done for the state?

One of Walker’s most oft-mentioned political friends is New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie, a firebrand who began his term with a more dilute variation on Walker’s union antagonism.

Christie approaches this year’s gubernatorial election not just as a shoo-in for a second term but also as a front-runner to be Obama’s successor in four years. Additionally, Christie’s move to the center hasn’t just helped his political ambitions, but it’s united his state during a difficult time in its history.

Walker has already started copying Christie’s method. Earlier this month, he chastised his fellow Republican, Sen. Glen Grothman from West Bend, for an attention-grabbing press release that ridiculed Kwanzaa. In the State of the State address, Walker

used rhetoric favorable to unions and infrastructure development to appease Democrats. Lo and behold, some of the Democrats in the chamber clapped for Walker’s proposals.

We do not have any doubt that Walker’s sudden bipartisanship is an act of political posturing in preparation for next year’s gubernatorial election. This should not matter, though. If both Walker, legislative Democrats and the new Assembly Speaker, Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, play their cards right, Wisconsin might feel a little less polarized than it has for the last two years. Even if that is the only result of Walker’s move to the center, it will still be better than two more years of the same lockstep radical conservatism we have witnessed in the governor and his allies to date.

Ryan Rainey

Leah Linscheid Editorial Board Chairman

Charles Godfrey

Editor-in-Chief

Editorial Page Editor

Joe Timmerman

John Waters

Editorial Page Content Editor

Editorial Board Member

Editorial Board opinions are crafted independently of news coverage.

Jen Small The Badger Herald

At his State of the State address, Gov. Scott Walker confirmed to Wisconsinites his intention to move in a moderate direction with rhetoric favorable to unions and infrastructure development.

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

Herald Editorial Choose UW Chancellor for education, not commerce With the incessant talk of Wisconsin being “open for business” because of Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms, the University of Wisconsin appears to be the target in business’s attempt to completely overhaul the state.

UW’s Chancellor Search and Screen process has drawn scrutiny from the Wisconsin business community — there have been numerous calls for the UW to hire a business person to lead the university.

John Torinus, CEO of Serigraph, Inc., a Wisconsinbased graphics parts manufacturer, said in a blog post that the university is “not only involved in the supply side of the economy — providing talented graduates to companies and organizations — but it also needs to be engaged in the demand side — providing the intellectual property for the creation and growth of companies and jobs.”

Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce President Zach Brandon, a Democrat who ran for Dane County Executive two years ago, asked the committee to make the relationship between the university and the business community a priority.

Calls for a business-minded chancellor strike to the core of an ongoing debate that pits the university against Wisconsin industry, in which there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of business people in Wisconsin as to the purpose of the university.

Time and again we hear complaints that UW is not creating enough tech startups as spin-offs from research and development and the university does not produce enough qualified graduates to satisfy the growing needs of Wisconsin’s high-tech industry.

These complaints mistakenly hold UW responsible for launching tech firms and training students for the express purpose of becoming industry professionals. As UW neuroscientist Ron Kalil puts it, “The UW is not a business incubator nor is it a job training school.” The university is a driving force in the Wisconsin economy, but this is not its reason for being.

These voices in Wisconsin’s business community appear to have forgotten the university has taken steps to encourage collaboration between industry and university research. UW remains the most powerful

economic engine in the entire state. Initiatives such as the Morgridge Institute for Research, the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation foster research spin-off businesses that stay in Wisconsin. They attract clients and funding from around the world because of the astounding market potential of the innovations UW scientists produce as part of their research. In light of this, it seems ridiculous members of the business community are calling for a greater emphasis on industry at UW — the university has a history working closely with industry, and chancellors of the past have developed a close relationship with business in Wisconsin.

The tendency of Wisconsin business to look to UW as a government-funded industry research and development lab is concerning. If the university acquiesces to demands from the business community and seeks to fill this role, it risks infringing on academic freedom by making profit a priority — taken to the logical extreme, a commitment to launching start-ups and

providing the tech industry with employees would turn UW into a factory with the express purpose of generating patents and engineers.

It is not the responsibility of the UW to build tech firms and graduate industry professionals, and by prioritizing these two efforts, the UW would be stifling the very innovation the business community wants it to produce. Even in science and technology, innovation cannot be demanded and manufactured — like fine art, true innovation grows best in an environment of creative freedom. The University of Wisconsin’s commitment to academic freedom in scientific research provides exactly the right atmosphere for innovation. It is ironic that businesspeople, who so often advocate for small government and a free, unregulated market, want to push the university to cater to industry and in doing so restrict creative freedom in research.

In fact, launching businesses from university research and development is the responsibility of the business community. Profit incentive alone is enough to ensure

research projects with the potential to become business ventures will be turned into start-up firms, without intervention on the behalf of the university.

Business people are asking for a businessminded chancellor because they want UW to serve the needs of the business community exclusively. This is an absolutist approach to the relationship between business and public education that should be rejected.

If the Search and Screen Committee decides to hire a businessperson as chancellor, it should do so in the interest of the university. A business perspective could benefit UW — a chancellor with a wealth of experience in effective management and efficient administration would be a valuable asset. UW doesn’t need a chancellor who will serve Wisconsin industry — it needs a chancellor who will make education and academic freedom in research a priority.

The business end will take care of itself.

Otherwise, what’s the difference between a public university and a for-profit college?

Tragic shooting shows need for increased oversight The shooting death of East Side musician Paul Heenan by a Madison police officer was a tragic event. But in wake of the controversy surrounding ast year’s incident, an internal investigation conducted by the Madison Police Department determined that the officer acted within the bounds of his training.

After reviewing the accounts of that night, we agree with the conclusion of the internal investigation.

The officer was dealing with a drunken man in the middle of the night and thought that the man was reaching for his weapon. In

hindsight and with all the facts that we know now, the officer may have been able to react differently — but we cannot second guess split-

“We won’t second guess split-second decisions made in an unknown and threatening situation.” second decisions made in an unknown and possibly threatening situation.

The public action taken

MPD in the aftermath of the situation does leave something to be desired.

MPD’s original response was somewhat tone-deaf and understandably led to a large and emotional movement to reprimand the officer, Steven Heimsness, who shot Heenan. Those people, who include Heenan’s family and the neighbors who called the police on him, are rightly protesting MPD’s stance and procedure.

Several independent organizations, including the Department of Justice, have investigated the events leading up to the shooting.

However, regardless of their findings, these investigators can only recommend a course of action to the police department — they have no real authority. This situation demonstrates a lack of oversight and external review by MPD. Trusting in the actions of the police department is a crucial component of a good relationship between citizens and law enforcement. The Department has repeatedly shown it deserves that trust, and we don’t believe they have damaged it in this situation. But they have run the risk of doing that damage.

No matter how trustworthy, allowing the police department to police itself does raise some concern.

If there were an external body with authority not just to review, but also to judge actions such as this, many of the concerns that Madison has shown in the aftermath of this shooting would be assuaged.

Despite MPD’s stalwart reputation, people deserve to know that deadly force is being used only as a last resort, and a more transparent review process may help to answer pertinent questions.

Verify the Resnick At their cores, elections should be about policy issues — voters choose the candidate who will best represent their interests. When they try to campaign on anything besides those issues, it can be a sign that the candidate does not feel they can win any other way.

This is a disservice to voters who are trying to make an informed decision. For this reason, we find it alarming that Christian Hansen, a candidate for District 8 alder, has begun his campaign by attacking the nominating petitions of his opponent, incumbent Ald. Scott Resnick, rather than conducting a substantive campaign from the start.

In order to get on the ballot for city alder, a candidate must submit nominating petitions with 20 valid signatures. In his complaint, Hansen noted some of Resnick’s Courtesy of the City of Madison signatures did not include a year in A page of Ald. Scott Resnick’s nominating petitions, pictured here, fail to specify a year in the date column. the date column, which is required.

After his opponent, Christian Hansen, challenged the petitions, Resnick and his campaign fixed the errors. Further, he claimed one person

had signed twice and at least one signature was from someone who lives outside the district.

In response to the complaint, the city clerk gave Resnick three days to have his circulators file an affidavit of correction, adding in the year for the signatures that were missing it. Resnick did so, and

“Hopefully both candidates for the 8th district will put these events behind them and go on to have a substantive campaign.” the clerk confirmed that he is on the ballot.

Ironically, Hansen’s petitions were flawed, too. Candidates are allowed to turn in a maximum of

40 total signatures — Hansen had 47. Resnick, however, chose not to challenge the petitions.

To be clear, Hansen was well within his rights to file his complaint. After all, it is important for candidates to be able to challenge their opponents’ petitions as a check on real fraud.

In Resnick’s case, however, it is clear someone merely forgot to write the year on the petitions — there was no foul play.

Hopefully both candidates for District 8 will put these events behind them and go on to have a substantive campaign. This is better for everyone involved, especially District 8 residents.

However, it will take both candidates acting in good faith for that to happen. Otherwise, Hansen is just as bad as the folks who tried to pillory signers of petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker to distract from the election’s most important issues.

Leah Linscheid

Ryan Rainey

Charles Godfrey

Joe Timmerman

John Waters

Editorial Board Chairman

Editor-in-Chief

Editorial Page Editor

Editorial Page Content Editor

Editorial Board Member

Editorial Board opinions are crafted independently of news coverage.

friday, january 25th 3:00pm monday, january 28th 7:00pm Join the Herald staff for a meet and greet!

All majors welcome and no experience is needed.

Our office is located at 326 W. Gorham, above Silvermine Subs

B3

B4

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

From the Mail Bag Ward fails to recognize WISPIRG’s value to students This semester, I had the pleasure of working with the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group in the Madison Student Vote Coalition’s voter registration drive. WISPIRG’s involvement was pivotal in helping the coalition to register over 6,000 students to vote.

WISPIRG’s successes on campus since 1989, such as voter registration drives and preventing student loan interest rates from doubling, is possible because of their professional staff.

As a former leader of the Associated Students of Madison and as current vice president of United Council of UW Students, I have benefited immensely from my collaboration with WISPIRG — although I personally have not been directly involved in WISPIRG. They have provided trainings on recruitment, have helped me develop upcoming leaders and have provided advice in strategic planning of campaigns. WISPIRG’s

professional staff are essential to the health of the campus community.

In response to the Dec. 5 editorial about WISPIRG’s funding, I firmly believe students must control the means by which our segregated fees are allocated.

Through ASM, we students entrust this power to the Student Services Finance Committee, composed of both elected and appointed members. Furthermore, that power is granted by state law. I expect SSFC to guard this trust by defending and expanding its right to allocate student fees.

Because SSFC holds an immense amount of power in the allocation of more than $40 million from students, it must abide by University of Wisconsin System guidelines and also create additional policy as it sees fit. Specifically, SSFC must follow the guidelines for allocated student fees outlined in University of Wisconsin System Policy F50, and I respectfully disagree with the position

that the rules have been bent to fund WISPIRG. Last year, ASM Student Council and SSFC collaborated with UW Legal and the Office of the Chancellor to draft a contracting process, but the UW administrators ultimately did not respect the process, and thus the decision, to fund WISPIRG. If Chancellor David Ward genuinely seeks to be the governance-friendly chancellor he claims to be, he should respect the contract process ASM has already approved.

Furthermore, to truly be the stewards of segregated fees, SSFC also must champion student power. After years of frustrating dialogue, students finally have a process by which student organizations can contract professional staff. It is time we use it to defend and advance our right to allocate segregated fees.

Beth Huang (bhuang12@ gmail.com) is a senior majoring in biochemistry and history. She is the Vice President of United Council of UW Students.

Reference to ‘holiday tree’ shows ‘infinite liberal bias’ Well, Badger Herald, you have done it again.

I thought you may have learned after your mistake last year, but apparently you haven’t. As explained last year in my letter, I no longer take the energy to pick up the ridiculous, biased drivel you call a newspaper, but walking into one of my classes, one just happened to be open at my seat.

On the front page of your Dec. 6 issue, you have a picture of the Christmas tree at the State Capitol, with a caption referring to it as a “holiday tree.”

I raised the same issue last year when you again decided to take a side in belittling Christians and our celebration of Christmas,

even as Governor Walker publicly called it a “Christmas tree,” explaining that he didn’t do anything special — he just called it what it was!

To guide you down the right path this year, I would cite Ben Stein: lawyer, actor, economist and, not least of all, follower of the Jewish faith. When asked about Christmas and the recent attempt by many to dilute its meaning, he explained, “It does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn’t bother me a bit

when people say ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu.”

Now in your infinite liberal bias, you wouldn’t want to offend Mr. Stein by referring to a Menorah as a “holiday candle holder,” so why do you think it is all right to do the equivalent to Christians?

Austin Kautzer (akautzer@ wisc.edu) is a student at the University of Wisconsin.

Chewing gum belongs in trash, not on sidewalks I am a senior citizen enjoying the wonderful privilege of attending classes at the university, and I never miss picking up your paper on the days I am on campus for my class. I enjoy your articles and the fun page (especially the sudoku!).

I am concerned by the awful habit of throwing

chewing gum on the pavement. Already the new areas are beginning to show the ugly black spots. The entrance to the Memorial Library is disgraceful. Is that how the new pavements are going to look in a few years? Why can’t your readers use waste baskets for their gum?

There are really plenty of them in the area.

I wish you all a very joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year.

And in the meantime, success with your exams.

Sophie Z. is a student at the University of Wisconsin.

Out-of-state caps highlight need for more state support This past week, the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents voted to raise the enrollment cap on out-of-state students who desire to enroll in the University of Wisconsin System.

While these changes are systemwide, they will almost entirely affect one university: the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Now as a Wisconsinite and student here, I was originally upset upon witnessing the vote, which not a single regent opposed. Why should we admit more students who are much more likely to leave Wisconsin after they graduate? I understand the desire to broaden our horizons, and I recognize students from across the country can augment our university’s wealth of knowledge, experiences and perspectives. This is a worthy goal, and I think all Badgers will agree with it in principle.

However, this line of thought misses the reason behind the vote entirely. The true reason comes down to one word: funding. As out-of-state students will quickly tell you,

they pay a significant amount more to attend this university, more than double what the average Wisconsin (or Minnesota) resident pays. Thus, we have finally come to the crux of the issue. By increasing the number of out-of-state students, the university increases

“By increasing the number of out-ofstate students, the university increases its revenue through chargin these students higher tuition.” its revenue through charging these students higher tuition.

Our state government has given our university the incentive to seek funding through other sources outside of our state. A continued decrease in university funding on a state level over the years, legislated by both parties, has forced our university to seek out alternative methods of funding. Frankly, our state government has

given our university the incentive to find funding outside of our state. Worse yet, the burden has been placed disproportionately on students as compared to any other group.

As a result of a different regent decision, this year marked the first year our tuition was more than $10,000. Student debt, on a national level, has reached over one trillion! One trillion!

Seven out of every 10 badgers graduate with some form of debt.

This debt has a serious impact on career decisions students make after graduation.

We must call upon our state government to prioritize university funding and to stop the relentless funding cuts to our universities.

Let us not forget about the unique educational opportunities we are given each day and all the people who are behind that education.

Oh, and thank Bucky for Barry Alvarez.

Chris Hoffman (cmhoffman3@wisc. edu) is a junior majoring in political science. He is the Chair of College Democrats of Madison.

Editorial Board misinterprets Ward’s decision on WISPIRG In regard to the recent editorial on Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, The Badger Herald Editorial Board is completely missing the point.

When Chancellor David Ward refuses to honor Associated Students of Madison’s decision to fund WISPIRG — or any service or organization for that matter — he is attempting to take power from students.

And when the Herald Editorial Board — which calls itself the voice of the University of Wisconsin’s “premier student newspaper” — refuses

to call this an issue of student power or shared governance, it is letting him take that power away from the very students it claims to represent.

When I was chair of ASM, I saw time and again the decisions of students treated as recommendations rather than an exercise of decision-making power or shared governance.

Whether these decisions are related to WISPIRG or the budgets of other campus entities such as Recreational Sports or the Wisconsin Union, the bottom line is state statute grants students the

responsibility and right to allocate a portion of their segregated fees. But the university continues to ignore the wishes of students.

As students we retain primary control over just 7 percent of segregated fees that are paid by students to fund campus activities for student groups, and we can’t let that power go.

If students want to fund staff to advocate on behalf of students and help run effective campaigns on issues like fighting global warming, increasing youth voter turnout and engagement and protecting Wisconsin’s

[word missing??], then we should be able to fund them.

The Editorial Board’s claim that paying professional staff is bending the rules of F50 is patently false. F50 specifically states students may fund non-university professional services if the service being provided meets a set of criteria, and ASM has looked at the criteria and decided WISPIRG is eligible. The Herald and UW should applaud students’ decision to carry out the Wisconsin Idea in this way.

The chancellor’s refusal to honor the decision of

Student Service Finance Committee despite multiple requests doesn’t just hurt groups like WISPIRG, but shows a lack of respect for the right of students to make decisions about the allocation of our segregated fees. In this instance the chancellor, with little consultation to SSFC or ASM, refused to grant the contract and thus provide the approved funding to WISPIRG despite numerous requests from ASM. This is not the first time ASM has recommended a contract for WISPIRG; in fact, many past sessions of ASM

have done so, and until this year the chancellor has approved the contract every time.

I hope the chancellor respects our decision and honors the students’ rights to determine how we spend our money. It is our role as students to make these decisions, and for the sake of students on this campus we need to continue to advocate for that right.

Allie Gardner (alliengard@gmail.com) is a former ASM chair.

Justin Bloesch ( jbloesch@ wisc.edu) is a former SSFC member.

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

B5

Firearm policy needs balance Spencer Lindsay Columnist “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

These 26 words have sparked a great deal of debate throughout our nation’s history as to their meaning and how they relate to our society.

Perhaps the Second Amendment means, within reason, any citizen may possess a fire arm. Perhaps it means anyone who is a member of a militia may own a fire arm. Perhaps it means that so long as the use of military force is necessary to protect a “free State” the people have the right to arm themselves.

One thing that the Second Amendment certainly does not mean that anyone anywhere has the right to possess any weapon they chose.

Today we are engaged in a great debate by which we are deciding how to balance our civil liberties and our safety. Following the horrific massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., which left 27 people, mostly young children, dead, there have been calls from all sides to change our gun policy. The president has proposed a ban on assault rifles and magazines carrying over ten bullets as well as other common sense measures.

I favor these measures because they will likely prevent great tragedies from becoming even greater and will make us all a little more safe. The National Rifle Association has called for an armed security official at every school. I am open to trying this measure out because it too may help prevent

tragedy.

While these policy initiatives are a good start we, as a nation, have a much larger problem with guns. Every year gun related homicides account for more deaths in America than in any other industrialized nation in the world. Guns killed more than 30,000 people in 2009, and more than 11,000 of those were homicides. We have many cities that are notoriously ravaged with violent crime, including Milwaukee. The violent crime rate has been on the decline for nearly two decades, but, compared to other developed nations, America continues to be in a league of its own when it comes to gun violence.

Unfortunately, we will likely continue to have a gun problem even if we ban assault rifles and highvolume magazines. We should continue to come up with creative solutions to protect our nation against gun violence.

Some people I have spoken with about the issue favor the complete ban of all firearms. This option should not be on the table.

For one this would be a blatant violation of the bill of rights, and could set precedent for other rights being taken away. If, God forbid, there were ever a government that needed to be overthrown, banning guns would leave us no means to protect ourselves from tyranny. Allowing citizens to develop marksmanship skills may also be beneficial for military purposes. Some see guns as a good tool for selfdefense in one’s own home.

We also have a rich history of hunting and shooting for sport. Banning guns is an idealistic proposition that would not work in reality and would infringe on rights that have been a part of this nation since its conception.

On the other side there are some who see any regulation of weapons as an infringement on their second amendment rights.

Associated Press

A recent wave of mass shootings has renewed political pressure to push through federal legislation on gun control, while pro-gun lobbyists have decried such legislation as an attack on Second Amendment rights.

This is simply not the case.

The words “well-regulated” are in the amendment.

Private citizens cannot possess tanks, nuclear weapons or U-2 bombers.

Why is an AK-47 any different? In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller the state could restrict possession of weapons such as sawed-off shotguns because they were not used by “well-regulated” militia. In 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago decision, the Supreme Court held while state and local governments had to abide by the Second Amendment, “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” were constitutional.

Furthermore there is a matter of public safety that needs to be addressed.

Real crimes are being committed and real people are dying because these weapons can legally be on our streets. Bans on assault rifles are constitutional and are in the interest of public safety.

The State of Wisconsin recently decided to allow concealed carry. This is a phenomenally stupid idea that should be seriously reconsidered. As I argued in a column shortly after the law took effect, there is absolutely no evidence concealed carry prevents crime, and, on the contrary, the legalization of concealed carry generally correlates with an increase in the violent crime rate in major cities, and perhaps statewide. We should seriously consider dropping concealed carry laws.

The state should also

consider implementing measures similar to those enacted by New York, which include provisions that ban assault rifles, limit the amount of ammunition that can be in one magazine, allow a psychiatrist to prevent troubled patients from possessing firearms and other common sense measures to prevent tragic events from taking place.

We must find the proper balance between our Second Amendment rights and our safety. We must find a way to detect serious mental health issues among gun owners before tragedy ensues. I support the assault weapons ban because there is no reason a weapon designed to rip human beings apart should be on our streets. We should ban high-capacity

magazines so if tragedy does strike at least the culprit will have to reload.

We should increase school security. Having an armed police officer on campus could be the difference between life and death.

All of these are good ideas, but they are only a start. We must get serious about reducing the absurd amount of gun violence that happens in this nation. Too many are dying. We must strive to make our nation safer while protecting the Bill of Rights. While balancing our differences will be difficult, action is needed to keep people out of harm’s way.

Spencer Lindsay (sclindsay@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.

Republicans must reconsider Electoral College scheme Joe Timmerman Editorial Page Content Editor The most difficult part of running a democracy is deciding who should be in charge of setting up elections. Allowing elected officials to govern over elections presents a clear conflict of interest.

After all, once elected, politicians have a strong incentive to rig the game to stay in power (i.e. gerrymandering).

Unfortunately, this is not an easy problem to solve, since somebody has to be in charge.

Our best option is to trust in the electorate to choose candidates with good intentions and to trust in our constitutional system of checks and balances, which our founders established in an attempt to withstand power-grabbing.

However, recent comments that Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, made in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel suggest that the Republican Party may not

be acting with the best of intentions.

In his comments, Priebus argues some state legislatures should change their presidential electoral system so electoral votes are allocated by congressional district. This differs from the current system, which, in most states, is winner-takes-all; the candidate who gets the most votes in a state takes all of its electoral votes. His reasoning for these changes seems thin: The new system “gives more local control” — a classic standin argument when the real motivation is too unpopular to be made public.

If Priebus wanted to be more honest, he would provide his actual motivation — trying to rig the system for his party’s gain.

At first glance, congressional districts don’t seem like a terribly unfair way to allocate electoral votes. After all, why should a candidate who gets 40 percent of the popular vote in a state get no electoral votes from that state?

The first problem is that in the way it’s being proposed, proportional allocation would not be enacted in a consistent manner. In Preibus’ own words, these changes should be pursued in “states

that have been consistently blue that are fullycontrolled red.” Essentially, he seems to want states that traditionally vote Democratic in presidential elections, but whose state governments are currently Republican-controlled to allocate their votes proportionally based on congressional districts. This would be a huge advantage for Republicans because they would get a share of votes from blue states, while Democrats would gain nothing.

If proportional allocation were implemented only in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the 2012 election would have been much closer, despite President Barack Obama winning the popular vote by a margin of four percent. This is nothing but a system specially designed to benefit Republicans. There is no way to rationalize this sort of reform Priebus is suggesting in the states under a fair, democratic system.

But what if all states allocated their electoral votes by congressional district? On the surface, this seems like it would be fair since it treats all states the same, regardless of their voting patterns.

It’s certainly better than what Priebus has suggested. However, successful Republican gerrymandering efforts at the start of the decade have tilted congressional districts firmly toward Republicans.

In fact, according to data from the Cook Political Report, Mitt Romney would have won 52 percent of the electoral votes in 2012 election, despite losing the popular vote by a margin of four percent. This isn’t terribly surprising, since Republicans continue to hold a sizeable majority in the House after receiving fewer total votes in the 2012 election.

Gerrymandering is a huge issue, but a topic for another day. For the time being, though, we can’t put the presidential election in the hands of gerrymandered congressional districts.

For the moment, it’s unclear how likely these reforms are to become law.

On one hand, Republicans have a strong incentive to pass them. The White House is a very valuable prize. After the party’s recent trouncing by the Electoral College, Republicans are looking for ways to help their chances at the White House in future elections.

On the other hand, there is potential for serious backlash from Democrats and non-partisans, perhaps strong enough to deter Republicans. Furthermore, such a reform would bring the latest round of gerrymandering proposals to the forefront of the political discussion, which is something politicians from both parties would rather keep quiet.

As far as Wisconsin goes, the situation is unclear.

In a discussion with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Gov. Scott Walker neither embraced nor rejected the idea, saying, “It’s a plausible concept, but it’s not one where I’m convinced either of its merits or lack thereof.”

While Walker will surely be under pressure from national Republicans to push for reform, he also does not want to give his opponents more material with which to paint him as a divisive partisan when his office comes up for election again in 2014.

All of this begs the question of whether the Electoral College is simply an anachronism. Does it really serve a purpose in the 21st century? After all, any president who wins the Electoral College vote without winning the popular vote will

immediately have his or her administration’s legitimacy questioned. All of these arguments about allocating electoral votes would vanish if we just chose the president via the popular vote. While there are certainly arguments to be made for its abolition, the Electoral College is unlikely to go anywhere in the near future. For now, we’ll have to make do with our current system.

Clearly, until a better method for redistricting is adopted, allocating electoral votes by congressional districts remains an inherently flawed way of running elections, even if this reform is instituted uniformly across all states.

In particular, trying to implement proportional allocation only in select states is, regardless of how Priebus tries to rationalize it, nothing but a thinlyveiled power grab. It would be in the best interest of Wisconsin and the United States as a whole for Wisconsin Republicans to wash their hands of this idea and focus more on governing.

Joe Timmerman ( jtimmerman@ badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in math and economics.

B6

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

NRA lobbying stands in way of public safety Charles Godfrey Editorial Page Editor The wave of mass shootings that rocked the United States in 2012 reignited the gun control debate with explosive force. After so much tragedy, politicians in Washington are under pressure to do something — anything — to slow the epidemic of violence. Last week, President Barack Obama passed executive orders making more data available to federal background checks and allowing the Center for Disease Control to begin scientific investigations of the causes of gun violence.

Obama also asked Congress to pass legislation requiring background checks for all purchases of firearms and banning high-capacity magazines.

It would be hopelessly optimistic to think that these executive orders and forthcoming legislation represent a viable solution to America’s problem with

gun violence. Nevertheless, these measures represent a deliberate step in the right direction — that’s why it’s maddening the gun lobby and some voices in the Republican Party are determined to shut down any constructive discussion of gun control and to stonewall any attempts to take action to prevent mass shootings. According to USA Today, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus called the legislation “an executive power grab that may please his political base but will not solve the problems at hand.” The National Rifle Association issued a statement claiming “attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation.”

The NRA is right about one — and maybe only one — thing: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The root causes of murder aren’t high capacity magazines and spotty background checks; to ask why people kill people is to delve deep into the human psyche. People who commit mass murders often exhibit dark, disturbed and complicated psychologies, and have led very troubled lives. All this is to say, determining the root causes of gun violence is a messy and

complicated business. It will take time to make progress, and we can’t hope to ever completely understand what drives people to commit murder.

For this reason, a scientific investigation into the causes of gun violence is long overdue. Before Obama’s executive actions were delivered, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were actually prohibited from investigating gun violence. If this seems hard to believe, consider it an example of the disconcerting political power of the gun lobby. It is as if America was locked in a cage with a tiger and then put on a blindfold so as not to look at the tiger.

If gun violence is killing thousands of people a year, we ought to at least examine its causes.

What the NRA doesn’t emphasize is that people kill people with guns. Guns don’t cause murder, but semiautomatic weapons with highcapacity magazines are the weapons of mass shootings.

While it’s doubtful Congress can address the convoluted psychology that drives people to murder, it could at least pass laws that ban the highcapacity assault rifles designed to kill a large number of

people and attempt to restrict the sale of guns to those qualified to own them. These are concrete, quantifiable measures that will have an immediate impact and decrease the rate of homicides by firearms in America.

The executive actions and legislation on the table is remarkably moderate.

Nowhere is there a discussion of handguns, an intention to confiscate firearms from gun owners or an effort to ban guns altogether. What about this legislation could anyone find so abrasive? Could the gun lobby be any more blindly and stubbornly resistant?

Two summers ago, when I was working at a summer camp in northern Minnesota, another counselor and I walked into our cabin and found a few of our campers showing each other their knives — we counted seven knives altogether. Realizing there was no way we were going to bring that many knives on a canoe trip, we walked in and began explaining how knives were tools, not toys, and confiscated them. One camper had a long, thin, double-edged blade I could only describe as an assassin dagger, and when he complained he wanted to bring it but couldn’t think of a

possible use we would find for it, we explained in all honesty, that sort of knife is only meant for killing people, and took it away.

The situation with gun control is exactly the same.

Nobody, aside from radical leftists, is trying to ban guns altogether. Hunters can keep their rifles; homeowners can keep a handgun if it gives them an added sense of security. However, considering murder is not only a crime but also an epidemic in this country, and mass shootings have taken hundreds of lives in the past decade, it is extremely reasonable that we get rid of guns designed specifically to kill many people at a time.

While Congress is poised to enact concrete legislation with the potential to save lives, the gun lobby and its voices in Washington have refused to compromise their unyielding and fundamentalist support of the Second Amendment.

The NRA characterized the legislation in Congress as “an all-out attack on the Constitution and the rule of law” and “the wholesale destruction of gun rights in this country.” It ran an advertisement calling Obama an “elitist hypocrite.”

The gun lobby’s response to

the mass shootings that have rocked this country has been entirely unsympathetic. Its opposition to moderate gun control legislation has been embarrassingly obstructionist; rather than come up with a legitimate argument against background checks and assault rifle bans, it has been hiding behind Second Amendment fundamentalism.

The gun lobby, the NRA as its loudest voice and its supporters in Congress, have made it clear that they simply cannot be reasoned with.

It’s a damn shame. Amid immense political pressure, Congress is ready to take moderate steps towards a more sensible gun control policy — and it has come face to face with the irrational and unbending opposition of a well-funded but extremist lobby that would watch the world burn before surrendering its precious Second Amendment rights.

My question: Congress is finally in a position to put a stop to America’s gun violence epidemic. Why the hell is it giving the NRA the time of day?

Charles Godfrey (cgodfrey@ badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in math and physics.

Legalization could boost state economy Aaron Loudenslager Columnist It should be selfevident that the $1 trillion war on drugs has failed to accomplish its goals.

Although the creators and enforcers of American drug policy may have had good intentions, the consequences of this policy have not been so good. It is past time that the U.S. government reforms its federal drug policies.

Furthermore, considering the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington, Wisconsin should join the movement of individual states legalizing recreational marijuana use.

In its pursuit of marijuana prohibition, it would behoove the federal government to be consistent in its own logic and actions in order to convince the American public that this goal is worthwhile.

Marijuana is prohibited under federal law and is classified as a Schedule I drug because according to the Controlled Substances Act, it has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The federal government has had plenty of chances to reschedule marijuana into a different classification — given that 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana since 1996, it seems there is not much truth to the declaration that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use … in the United States.” Even more illustrative of the contradictions in the logic and actions of the federal government’s marijuana policy is the fact that the U.S. government

allowed cannabinoids—a chemical component in marijuana—to be patented as “antioxidants and neuroprotectants.”

The U.S. government can’t just declare one minute that marijuana has no medical use and then allow chemicals in marijuana to be patented for medicinal purposes at the same time; either it has medical use or it doesn’t.

Not only has the federal government been inconsistent in its own official reasons for prohibiting marijuana, it has been wrong in its general assumption that prohibiting drugs will stop drug use and production.

As the Global Commission on Drug Policy reported in 2011, “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” On the supply side of illicit drugs, federal prohibition doesn’t work because, as conservative economist Milton Friedman once wrote, “Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.”

Friedman is correct; making drugs illegal simply makes them more valuable for criminal enterprises to sell and distribute. This creates a perverse incentive for illicit drugs to be made more widely available, instead of achieving the intended goal of eradicating drugs. In addition, federal prohibition doesn’t necessarily reduce the demand for drugs. Since

Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001, illegal drug use has actually declined among teens and according to Glenn Greenwald from the Cato Institute “[Portugal’s drug policy] has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.”

The citizens of Colorado and Washington recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana — thus rejecting the failed drug war — with full knowledge that doing so would be in direct conflict with federal law. Yet President Obama has said prosecution of these recreational users is not a top priority. This may be because Obama knows that marijuana will be fully legal throughout the U.S. in the future and does not want to be on the wrong side of history. Regardless, Gov. Scott Walker should be pushing the Wisconsin state legislature to legalize recreational marijuana use.

He should go a step further than the medical marijuana proposals introduced by Rep. Mark Pocan which are being taken up by Rep. Chris Taylor in the upcoming legislative session.

During Walker’s tenure thus far, his main theme has consistently been about improving the Wisconsin economy and creating jobs. If Walker truly wants to improve the Wisconsin economy, then all proposals should be on the table.

Legalizing recreational marijuana use in Wisconsin would save taxpayers money spent on law enforcement, prisons, judges, and lawyers and would also bring in new revenues through taxing marijuana sales. According

Kelsey Fenton The Badger Herald

Supporters at Madison’s annual marijuana rally, Harvest Fest, carry a giant marijuana cigarette, calling for the legalization of cannabis. Many economists argue that legalizing the drug would increase tax revenue and lower prison operating costs and that this could help states struggling to close budget deficits. to a report by economist Jeffery Miron, the U.S. would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs annually from legalizing marijuana, with $5.3 billion of that savings going to state and local governments. According to the same report, the U.S. would bring in new revenues

of $6.2 billion annually if legalized marijuana were taxed at rates similar to that of alcohol and cigarettes.

It is self-evident that the U.S. drug war has failed.

It is only a matter of time before politicians decide to end it and create viable drug policies like those initiated in

Portugal. In the meantime, Gov. Walker and our state legislature should legalize recreational marijuana use and tax its sale to improve the Wisconsin economy.

Aaron Loudenslager (aloudenslager@wisc.edu) is a first year law student.

College girl grows up: farewell to a ‘temperamental beast’ Adelaide Blanchard Former Editorial Board Chair There was only one month of my time at the University of Wisconsin where I was not involved at The Badger Herald, which is arguably the best secret fraternity on campus. For the last three and a half years, my head was always in some new venture or problem and I owe much of my professional success to the temperamental beast that is the Herald editorial

department. Leaving is bittersweet.

“College girl grows up” is neither a unique nor new story to be sure, but at some point at the Herald, “maturity” stopped being just a word and smacked me in the face. I grew from being a mediocre beat editor to an award-winning writer. I have been part of a trio of news editors who, on a daily basis, defibrillated the news section during a particularly challenging semester. I learned how to work with assholes, and I realized with a creeping, reluctant understanding when I was being an asshole in turn. I have become friends with former rivals and learned from people I formerly

taught. There were instances when I disappointed my fellow editors, sources and myself, but the gift of the daily news cycle is the fresh start of tomorrow’s work, which means learning quickly and not stewing on mistakes.

To my great relief, I was recruited for a good job in a copywriting department for major retail chain right after graduation. This was due in no small part to my time as an editor. I have been very lucky.

I hope every student at UW finds their own place with like-minded people who support and challenge them. I encourage everyone to think about joining the Herald, whether they are a freshmen or senior. No two experiences are alike. Admittedly, it is

not for everyone and it is not always easy. But for those who find their niche here, it is an organization like no other, especially for those seeking to be writers and journalists.

I was very lucky my job search ended on a very positive note. But as with any job search, it was laden with rejection as well as social and financial pressure that is inherent to approaching graduation day. I am blessed, for lack of a better word, writing will still be a part of my work going forward.

Copywriting makes the world go ‘round, but writing stories will always be my passion. Now that I am no longer a part of my journalism coven and have a full-time job, very few people

will hound me to know if I am writing, meeting deadlines and being creative off the clock. As long as I pay the bills on time, hold down a job and stay out of trouble, no one is going to cast a sideways glance at my daily goings on.

It is absurd to think my goals and dreams are anyone else’s responsibility but my own. It is up to me alone to keep finding and writing stories. While I have always known this to some extent, the realization somehow rings with a greater truth when I am sitting in the Milwaukee suburbs about to start the next chapter of stuff.

Working full-time is exhausting and rewarding on several levels, and I imagine the rhythm of a nine-to-five

job and a steady paycheck being analogous to playing a single musical scale over and over — hypnotizing in both its repetition and harmony.

The next challenge will be finding time to write my own things that are not complete trash. I anticipate it being harder than it sounds, but I am ready to give it a go.

From the people who pick up the Herald daily to the people who religiously comb through the Shout Outs exclusively, thank you for reading. It has been a pleasure.

Adelaide Blanchard (adelaideblanchard@gmail. com) is a recent UW grad and former Badger Herald editorial board chair.

The Badger Herald | Opinion | Spring 2013 Registration Issue

B7

Livestrong legacy outweighs doping scandal Hayes Cascia Staff Writer Live, strong. Apart they are two simple words, but when brought together on a yellow band mean so much to so many.

The product of these two words, Livestrong, has become a symbol of hope in the fight against cancer with the legendary cyclist, Lance Armstrong, leading the charge. This is the Lance Armstrong who became famous for winning seven consecutive Tour de France titles in a row a few short years after overcoming cancer, an accomplishment that has served as a source of inspiration for people suffering from this horrible disease.

Armstrong was repeatedly accused of using performance-enhancing drugs; he adamantly denied these accusations until October this year, when the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released a report detailing allegations of doping throughout his career. In

Just like Bonds, an effort to end this doping saga, Armstrong interviewed Armstrong was able to achieve unheard of statistics, with Oprah Winfrey this but, given his normal sized week to “come clean,” and head, people were less publicly admit to doping. skeptical about him using To me, it comes as no performance-enhancing surprise to hear Lance Armstrong was doping at the drugs.

After hearing about height of his career in the Armstrong’s possible late 1990s and early 2000s. confession to doping On the contrary, I would be allegations, organizations shocked if he said he wasn’t are requesting Armstrong doping, but rather owed it pay back millions in prize all to his training regimen money and appearance fees. consisting of chopping It makes sense he should pay wood, lifting large boulders back all of the prize money and climbing mountains at from the Tour de France an undisclosed location in and other rural Russia. competitions, Armstrong but he should was an elite be able to keep athlete in “I would be shocked his appearance an era of if he said he wasn’t fees. sports when many peak doping, but rather owed Organizations like the performance it all to ... chopping government athletes wood, lifting large of South were using Australia drugs like boulders and climbing spent several testosterone mountains at an million dollars to gain an edge on the undisclosed location in just to have Armstrong competition. compete in For example, rural Russia.” their races Barry Bonds — but I can guarantee you used “The Clear,” a type of they made all of that money steroid, to hit a MLB record back, and then some, in number of home runs. He sponsorships that were also attained the world attracted by Armstrong’s record for largest head, stardom. as his dome substantially These organizations increased in size due to the should stop trying to extort drugs he was taking.

Courtesy of @lancearmstrong

Lance Armstrong, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles earlier this year, recently confessed to using performance enhancing drugs.

Armstrong for more money than his prize money and instead be thankful he brought cycling more popularity and economic success than ever imagined, even if it may have been through cheating.

Although the media might crucify Armstrong for deceiving his sponsors and fans and disgracing cycling, I think he should be remembered for all of the work he has done to fund the fight against cancer through the Livestrong Foundation.

Normally, I would say what he did was wrong, but so much more good than bad came from him cheating a

sport for almost a decade.

Armstrong’s efforts to cheat a sport for close to a decade sound pretty bad, but in light of the $470 million Livestrong has raised to fight cancer since the foundation’s inception in 1997, his doping is insignificant. If Armstrong did not cheat, who knows how successful Livestrong would have been or if it would even be around today.

People like success stories and Lance Armstrong rising from the ashes against all odds to claim cycling’s most coveted title seven times is one such story.

When Armstrong first started doping he probably

was not thinking about how much money he could raise to fight cancer, but he went on to assume the role of Chairman for the Livestrong Foundation and became an influential voice urging people to donate to combat this very real health crisis. Like every good parent, when I have kids I will tell them not to cheat … unless they cheat like Lance Armstrong and do it for a good cause. So, Mr. Armstrong, thank you for cheating.

Hayes Cascia (hcascia@ wisc.edu) is a sophomore with an undeclared major.

Regardless of who gets taxed, society suffers the same Heikal Badrulhisham Staff Writer The economic perspective does not look at the benefit of an action or a program solely based on the utility captured by individuals or groups, but on the utility captured by society. This may sound wonderful, but applying this standard leads to a different perspective on the recent and on-going fiscal policy debates.

Recently in Congress and presently in the Wisconsin Legislature, proposals to either cut taxes on higher income people and/or increase taxes on the middle class have been met with uproar by a certain segment of lawmakers and media commentators. The gist of the criticism of fiscal plans of this nature is based on the notion the rich must pay their “fair share” or it is simply wrong to ask middle

and lower income people to be taxed more in proportion to their income. This kind of conflict is probably what made the fiscal cliff negotiations as time consuming as they were.

However, from an economic point of view, the notion the rich must necessarily contribute more and the middle class should not be touched is insubstantial. Let’s say we have two options to change a tax scheme, both of which will yield $X billion of additional revenue. The first option involves abstracting this additional $X billion from high-income people.

The second option involves abstracting this additional $X billion from middleincome people. From an economic perspective, society should be indifferent between both schemes.

Based on these criteria, everyone’s utility is equally important and ultimately what matters is what

happens to the welfare of society, not to the welfare of individuals. The issue is not who bears the additional tax burden, but the total additional wealth and income abstracted from individuals as an aggregate.

Under both schemes, regardless of who is taxed, $X billion is abstracted away from society. $X billion from the rich is the same as $X billion from the middle class.

A tax plan is not bad because it takes additional $X billion from the middle class, but because it abstracts additional $X billion from society.

Similarly, if a planned tax cut will benefit high-income earners, society benefits.

The additional utility from a tax cut for the rich is also the additional utility for society, because rich people are part of society. The fact that they are rich does not change anything. Also, because everyone is equal,

benefiting the rich should not be any less desirable than benefiting the poor and making the poor suffer should not be any more unpalatable than making the rich suffer.

Why is this kind of perspective always absent from debates on tax policy in the public realm?

There is a widespread notion that benefit to rich people cannot be sensibly considered as social benefit.

This is tantamount to saying that rich people are not part of society. Another explanation is society’s welfare improves if wealth is redistributed. This notion ignores that utility for one person is no different than utility for another. Thus, wealth redistribution does not increase the welfare of society. Still, this notion is widespread.

Furthermore, taxation produces real disutility on those to whom it is applied.

Even if people know the

welfare outcome of two tax schemes are the same, people would still prefer the other group bear the cost. This makes the debate about who should bear what share of tax burden a representation of constituents’ conflicting interests.

However, when the same welfare outcome will be achieved regardless of who is taxed, one might ask how an enforceable tax scheme should be chosen. It takes a lot of time and resources to negotiate a set of laws and eventually pass them.

A method that can save time and resources would be to automatically approve the set of tax laws that are proposed first.

This may sound farfetched, but under this system, lawmakers would be told that any proposed tax scheme must take away a set amount of wealth from society. Thus, if one group of lawmakers proposes

a tax scheme first, the other group has to simply stop formulating their alternative. This system would also speed up the process because there is no chance for negotiation or compromise, since there is no need to when both tax schemes would produce the same welfare outcome for society.

However, this proposal is not the main point of this column. The point is, what matters is the welfare outcome of society, not of individual groups of people. The federal fiscal cliff is past, but a similar debate is going on in the Wisconsin Legislature.

As long as lawmakers and media commentators do not understand this perspective, expect the debate to be long and bitter.

Heikal Badrulhisham (badrulhisham@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in economics.

Hazelwood ruling leaves students defenseless against censorship

Pamela Selman Editor-at-Large An infectious disease is quietly spreading across the country, harming students at college campuses and high schools alike and leaving behind collateral damage that can take years to correct.

The disease often goes unheard of, precisely because censorship lies at the center of the epidemic. Yet those responsible for instituting a cure for the devastating Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Supreme Court decision have turned a blind eye as the ruling, originally intended for application to high school students and minors under the control of the state but now used to justify ludicrous acts of censorship on college campuses everywhere.

This issue has severe ramifications for plainspoken students who don’t think anything they would ever say could be called into question by their universities. But this is just the problem: the landmark Hazelwood court decision gives public universities the freedom to censor students, including journalists, artists

and musicians, at whim.

Universities can even go so far as to censor graduation speakers.

In 1988, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 (with one seat vacant) that schools no longer needed to demonstrate censored speech was disruptive in order to justify silencing students.

Instead, administrators could censor any curricular speech that warranted “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

Hazelwood hits close to home for me. When I moved on from high school to college, I breathed a little easier knowing a censored media and student body were being left behind. The recent trend of expanding Hazelwood’s reach to college campuses gives me pause and reminds me of the danger this ruling represents for a public campus. I am fortunate to work for The Badger Herald, which has complete independence from the University of Wisconsin and as such falls outside the jurisdiction of the Hazelwood decision, but not all student newspapers have that luxury.

My junior and senior years at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Ill., were marred by an administration determined to dispirit its own students via arbitrary acts of censorship against its student newspaper, where I worked as the Editor-in-Chief. The administration decided

hard-hitting stories about a spike in teen pregnancy, violations of the student code of conduct and students involved in a series of local thefts were “not appropriate for print.”

They attempted to bully my team of editors and me into revealing the names of our sources, threatening suspension for one or both parties. They continued to remove stories as the weeks went on, bringing students to tears time and time again and demoralizing our staff by insinuating our awardwinning team consisted of poor writers and unethical reporters. While both sides brought in legal counsel, the administration succeeded in squeezing out our talented adviser and forced the resignation of the entire upper management student editorial team.

Because I understood the law and the minimal rights Hazelwood actually afforded to us, I was able to make sure that our censorship story was heard — I was not going to allow a powerful and image conscious administration to bully their students into silence. Our story became a national headline, and we gained the support of major editorial boards such as the Chicago Tribune’s.

The reason I am telling my story one more time is because not all students know their rights before they run

into trouble, and the result is that most of these stories go unheard and students’ voices are silenced.

Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the Hazelwood ruling — 25 years since the Supreme Court put a black mark on public education’s academic freedom. The anniversary came and went, but our fight as students and as a community cannot end so quickly. It is time to cure Hazelwood and take a stand against those who say students are better seen than heard, better off being taught than trying to teach others.

I had a handful of friends in high school that did not understand why the fight against Hazelwood was important. They made the argument that public school students are minors under the watch of the state and should not be able to publish controversial or upsetting content in a student newspaper simply because they were students and had no business stirring things up.

Here are just a few reasons for which the current laws allowing administrators of both colleges and high schools to censor their students are dangerous and arbitrary: • A Texas high school cheerleader was disciplined after she quietly sat down instead of participating

in a cheerleading routine that included the name of a basketball player who, as the school knew, was the subject of a criminal complaint accusing him of raping her.

• A Florida high school yearbook editor was fired after he challenged the principal’s decision not to run a senior picture of a lesbian student who was wearing a tuxedo.

• A New York administrator was allowed to censor a story that truthfully reported that his school of 3,600 students had only two functional bathrooms.

This list, complied by the Student Press Law Center, has no end. The number of students who have their voices silenced serves as a legitimate threat to the democratic principles this country is founded on.

When Justice William Brennan dissented from the Hazelwood ruling, he argued, “[U]nthinking contempt for individual rights is intolerable from any state official. It is particularly insidious from one to whom the public entrusts the task of inculcating in its youth an appreciation for the cherished democratic liberties that our Constitution guarantees.”

Brennan’s dissent could not be truer. The lessons

censorship teaches create a hostile environment in which students, and our society, cannot grow. They send the message that educated and colorful debate and discourse are unacceptable.

But that’s not the worst part of it. Perhaps the most frightening ramification of the Hazelwood decision is the impact a lack of information has on a community. Without a truthful and honest press holding officials and groups accountable, democratic society as we know it is at risk. The responsibility of the journalistic community is to tell the stories no one wants to hear and to protect society by publishing information that may be inconvenient but nevertheless true.

If we as a community do not act together and act soon, the fundamental democratic principles of our society may dissipate quickly and with the public knowing very little until it’s too late. It is time to reverse Hazelwood and to stand up for the rights of every student.

Students’ rights should not end at the schoolhouse gate.

Challenging Hazelwood will be a test of the our generation’s ability to succeed when the real world hits hard.

Pamela Selman (pselman@ badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.