January 2010 - Binghamton review

TRUTH AND TWO STAPLES

JANUARY 2010

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

THE NEW RENEWABLE RESOURCE University Administrators Plan to Use Your Tuition Dollars to End Global Warming INSIDE: BLUE BUS BLUES: OCCT IS GOING BANKRUPT... AGAIN ANOTHER SOCIAL WORK DEPARTMENT FREE SPEECH NIGHTMARE ZONING BOARD RULES AGAINST WEST SIDE STUDENTS, EVICTION PENDING

Binghamton Review

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000

EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

FOUNDED 1987 • VOLUME XXIII NUMBER 4 • JANUARY 2010

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Adam Shamah Managing Editor Randal Meyer

Contents

Associate Editors Edmund Mays Rachel Gordon Elahd Bar-Shai Copy Desk Chief Yadin Herzel Copy Editors Lawrence Faulstich Stephen Herman William Obilisundar Brian Curatolo

14

Layout Editor Elahd Bar-Shai

IT TAKES GREEN TO GO GREEN A Look at the Campus Climate Action Plan

Treasurer Rod Alzmann

6

Zoned Out by Adam Shamah

Business Manager Alex Paolano

8

Censored by Adam Shamah

11

State of Speech on Campuses by Gabrielle Pontillo

12

Review Joins the Army by Joseph Aguiar

16

Acting on Urges by Ethan Day

18

Be Careful What You Wish For by William Griffin

20

VICTORY in Massachusetts by Robert Edward Menje

21

Proudly Entitled by Taylor Arluck

Secretary Marissa Beldock Contributors Nick Valiando, Jason Birriel, Aaron Sebag, Michael Lombardi, William Griffin, Ethan Day, Nicole Narmanli, Joseph Aguiar, Taylor Arluck, Gabrielle Pontillo Godfather of the Review Louis W. Leonini Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family The Packer Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press in Chenango Bridge, NY. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

More trouble for students living on the west side The MSW program is back with its systemic attack on free speech F.I.R.E. releases its latest national report on campus speech codes Joseph Aguiar spends a weekend with R.O.T.C.

Joe Quirk helps justify our self-indulgent choices Imagine the Democrat’s Healthcare System, Overseen by the G.O.P. Scott Brown’s Impact on the Republican Party

Departments 3

EDITORIAL

22 SATIRE (CAMPUS PRESSWATCH WILL RETURN IN OUR FEBRUARY ISSUE)

Tell us what you think! Direct letters to editor@binghamtonreview.com.

EDITORIAL

FIRE Laura Bronstein

I

f someone told you that recounting an inappropriate story in class could get you expelled from the University, you would laugh them off. You can drink or smoke pot in your dorm room and face no more than several months probation. Even violent crimes might lead to no more than a suspension. Unfortunately, no one is laughing in the Masters of Social Work Department. For the second time in twelve months, a student has been targeted by the department simply for expressing his thoughts. Last year, Andre Massena was nearly expelled—before the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) intervened—for political speech. This year, another student, Michael Gutsell, has been expelled for simple, innocent words that elicited an over-dramatic response from some hypersensitive administrators.

The MSW department held Gutsell accountable to a contract he signed as a condition for remaining in the program at the start of the semester. The contract required he "maintain rapport with peers, instructors, colleagues and clients." The department was to receive "no reports from instructors or students that they are unconfortable with you [Michael]," for him to remain in the program. This, as FIRE points out, put Gutsell's fate in the hands of the most sensitive student in the program, as one report from an "uncomfortable" student would be enough to justify expulsion. (See full story on page 8.)

This is the second time in one year that FIRE has penned a letter to university President Lois DeFleur on behalf of a student whose rights were violated. So far, no one from the upper levels of the University administration has intervened on either's behalf.

That's too bad, because, compared to other colleges, Binghamton University is one of the most free, at least in terms

of commitment to free expression. According to a report by FIRE, over 70% of colleges and universities restrict the speech of their students or faculty. Though Binghamton University is not one of the eleven schools to earn FIRE's "green-light" rating—signifying no policies which restrict free speech—BU has earned a moderate "yellow-light" rating, meaning we are in a better position than most.

(See page 11 for full story.)

In 2005, FIRE wrote in their online blog that BU was close to achieving a "green-light" rating. What stood in its way was an unconstitutionally overbroad harassment policy, which opened any speech that "annoyed or alarmed" someone to investigation. That policy remains, but other controversial ones have been removed.

Just last year, the administration removed the controversial "failure-to-cooperate" policy from the Student Code of Conduct, after a year-long uproar from student civil-libertarians after the policy's implementation in 2008. No longer is it a punishable offense to refuse to exit your dorm room at the request of a University employee.

"The tradition at Binghamton, a public university, is that the full exercise of First Amendment rights is encouraged and protected," reads the student handbook. We are glad that the University acknowledges its duty to the U.S. Constitution. If it wants to maintain its credibility in that department, they can start by revising their harassment policy.

With six months left in President DeFleur's tenure, she should make one final stand in defense of the academic values she has spent a career preserving. Fire Laura Bronstein, the chair of the MSW department, and open the program to an external review. ◄

See Full Stories on Pages 8 and 11 Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives.

In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university.

We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission. www.binghamtonreview.com

3

EDITORIAL

Housing Horrors

T

he struggle for off-campus student housing has raged for nearly a decade, and reached its height last year with Matt Ryan's appointment of Newman Development Group Lawyer Ken Kamlet to the City's Commission on Housing and Home Development. the Review reported in detail on Kamlet's recommendation that the city more tightly control student housing so to "preserve" Binghamton's west side. He recommended more stringent limits on the number of unrelated renters permitted to live in the residential districts and a new enforcement procedure, known as "rebuttable presumption," which would allow the city to automatically evict students and other unrelated renters without the burden of proving that they are not the "functional equivalent of a family."

Once the student body got wind of Kamlet's plot, we mobilized against him and the very idea of limiting student housing anywhere in the city. Dozens of students showed up at an open forum on the matter at City Hall, and hundreds showed up to a forum held by Mayor Ryan on campus. Our message was clear: we expect to be allowed to live in any of the city's neighborhoods, so long as we respect their laws and residential lifestyle.

This message was received loudly and clearly by the mayor and his commission. In April, they rejected many, but not all, of Kamlet's recommendations. Rebuttable presumption was recommended only for homes in R-1, the lowest density residential district, and Kamlet's recommendation that the same strict standards imposed in R-1 be applied to R-2 and R-3 was squarely rejected. A clear victory for the student cause.

But we must not let our guard down. The decade-old battle between students and those who wish to limit where we can live has taken yet another turn. The city Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) recent ruling against a group of students living on Helen Street, in Binghamton's west side, reminds us that we must be vigilant in this fight. The ZBA ruled that seven students in violation of the City of Binghamton's zoning ordinance, which states that households in the city's three residential districts must be a family or the functional equivalent. The case is now in the hands of Mayor Ryan's Corporation Counsel, which will decide whether or not to pursue eviction proceedings. (See page 6 for the full story.)

This despite the fact that the students were cousins, related biologically. One served as the head of the household, and all of them shared expenses—characteristics of a "functional family equivalent" according to the zoning ordinance. Much of the testimony given during the ZBA meeting by disgruntled neighbors centered around complaints about the effects of the students' presence. There were too many cars parked on the street, and some of the students often

used profanity, the neighbors grumbled. Yet the first complaint was filed with the city months before the students ever moved in.

Sarah Grace Campbell, one of the neighbors, explained during her testimony that the "for rent" sign on the Helen Street house worried her over the summer; what if students moved in?

Ms. Campbell works with Amy Shapiro, the director of the rabidly anti-student West Side Neighborhood Association (WSNA), which has for years claimed that they are not against students living on the west side. Filing a complaint against a student property without first knowing the number of students living there, or anything at all about the rental situation for that matter, is not consistent with these claims.

Neither is including on their website a guide to researching properties that might house students, and instructions for reporting such properties if found. WSNA was behind the 2008 eviction of six students living on Lincoln Avenue, and has consistently provided a public voice in favor of stricter zoning.

According to their own website, if WSNA had their way, rebuttable presumption would be in place in at least the R-1 districts, and there would be a mandatory rental registry program through which students (and other tenants) and landlords would have to register their housing arrangements with the City. The registry could easily be used, in conjunction with the automatic eviction process, to rid the west side of all student renters. That is WSNA's goal.

The Helen Street case reminds us, however, that WSNA need not advocate for changes in the law to implement their vision of a student-free west side. The city already has the power to evict any students living in the residential districts; all it takes is one complaint from a neighbor. During the ZBA meeting, one board member reminded the neighbors that the students' behavior is irrelevant to the board's determination; all that matters is whether the student renters meet the functional family guidelines in the zoning code. And judging by their ruling, students--no matter their circumstances—do not meet the requirements.

That means the city has the power, under current law, to evict the quietest of students living anywhere on the west side. Taken together with WSNA's nasty vendetta, this spells trouble.

If students are to remain on the west side, our strategy must evolve. We can no longer hope to defend our position by striving to meet the family-equivalent requirements and behaving as to not provoke a complaint. What is needed is a proactive and offensive approach. The current zoning laws must go, and students must be the ones to demand it. The city needs us. If we speak, they will listen. â—„

See Full Story on Page 6 4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

JANUARY 2010

EDITORIAL

Saving OCCT

T

hrough an exclusive interview with Student Association President Adam Amit, Binghamton Review has learned that Off Campus College Transport, BU’s student-run bus company, continues to face dire financial trouble that could threaten the service’s very existence. If nothing is done in the next three to four years, according to internal OCCT reports, the bus service will declare bankruptcy.

With costs rising, and funding remaining stagnant, OCCT and SA officials have known for years that its current model is unsustainable.

According to Amit, he and SA Vice President for Finance Matt Allwood, who acts also as OCCT’s treasurer, are investigating options for saving the company. Though nothing is official, one such option is turning full control of the service over to the University, and asking them to make the changes necessary to produce a solvent business model. OCCT is currently entirely student-run and receives only funding, not logistical assistance, from the University.

Amit and Allwood approached the Administration, unsolicited, last semester with this proposal. The idea is under consideration, and even if accepted would be followed by mounds of negotiation and a vote by the OCCT board of directors. No proposals regarding continued SA funding have been submitted.

Amit tells the Review that his “primary concern is that there is a bus service to serve student needs." Amit added, "I will do what I have to do to ensure that that is available. My second concern is to ensure that this is a student-run and operated bus service, and I will do whatever I can to protect this valuable tradition. However we have

to realize that OCCT faces very serious problems and sacrifices may have to be made.”

We agree with President Amit’s priorities. Having a student-run bus service is indeed a grand tradition at Binghamton University, but it has become apparent that OCCT cannot survive in its current state.

If it is possible to continue OCCT as student-run, without putting too much of a drain on students’ pockets, then great; we support it.

But that may not be possible. A university-run bus service is better than no bus service at all.

If the University were to take over, it may be able to alleviate insurance costs and make some other tough, cost-cutting decisions that no student-run board would been willing to make. One such decision might be to replace student drivers with professionals, whose insurance and training costs may be significantly lower than those of students. Students, because of their age, presumably require more expensive insurance coverage than would hired professionals. And because student drivers graduate after no more than four years of employment, new employees must be trained year after year.

We are in favor of these cost-cutting measures if they can save OCCT, which we consider an invaluable service to all BU students, on-campus and off-campus alike. We do believe that an arrangement with the University must be made, so OCCT’s financial model can be made more efficient. Most importantly, control by the University will bring consistent management rather than the current approach, which leaves the service with new managers frequently and a new board of directors annually. ◄

Agree with us? Disagree?

Let Us Know!

Email letters to the editor to editor@binghamtonreview.com

www.binghamtonreview.com

5

HOUSING

E

ELAHD BAR-SHAI / BINGHAMTON REVIEW

ADAM SHAMAH

Zoned Out From complaints and targeting by groups like the West Side Neighborhood Association (WSNA) to more formal attacks from councilmen and other city officials, the Binghamton University off-campus student has been under constant pressure in recent years. Now, seven Binghamton Univeristy undergraduates may lose their west side homes in the coming months for not meeting the city’s dreaded zoning standards.

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

arlier this month, the City of Binghamton's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) ruled on a case involving seven students living at 63 Helen Street, a house on Binghamton's west side. The ZBA upheld a previous ruling by city Zoning Inspector Ted Tedino that their living arrangement is not one which resembles that of a "functional family" or "functional family equivalent." This puts the property in violation of a city's zoning ordinance which requires that any dwelling unit within any of the city's three residential districts "meet the definition of a family or the equivalent of a family." A functional equivalent of a family may not be related, but must display such things as a head of household, the sharing of expenses, and the common ownership of furniture to be given the equivalent status.

This opens the students of 63 Helen Street and their landlord, Emine Bayram, up to potential civil charges or even eviction, depending on which route the city chooses to take, according to Andrew Block, acting Executive Assistant to Mayor Matt Ryan. Block stresses that although eviction is an option, no decision has yet been made on how to proceed.

A similar case involving a home at 8 Lincoln Avenue, also on Binghamton’s west side, ended with the eviction of seven students in 2008. They too, the ZBA ruled, did not meet the city’s functional family requirement.

Current city law states that the enforcement process is "complaint-driven," which means that a neighbor must file a complaint before the city will act on zoning infractions. One such complaint was filed with the city on August 31, 2009, by neighbors who believed Ms. Bayram was violating the City's zoning laws by renting to students. This despite the fact that the students currently living there had not yet moved in on August 31.

The primary complainant, Sarah Grace Campbell, explained her reasoning during the ZBA hearing: "Last spring, I saw a 'For Rent' sign out in front of 63 Helen Street. I thought this is a big house, it is not owner-occupied ... could there be a danger of students moving in? ... I decided to do what I thought was the right thing JANUARY 2010

The West Side Story Ten Years of Anti-Student Sentiment in the City of Binghamton MARCH 15, 2000

West Side Neighborhood Association founded.

SEPTEMBER 2004

City Councilman Joe Sanfilippo proposes plan to re-zone students out of the West Side.

DECEMBER 7, 2008

B.U. Professor Marilynn Desmond reports group of students living at 8 Lincoln Ave. Mayor Matthew Ryan personally inspects their house to check for zoning violations.

FEBRUARY 9, 2008

Zoning Board of Appeals rules against students living at 8 Lincoln Ave. Students later evicted.

AUGUST 15, 2008

Newman Development Group attorney Ken Kamlet reccommends stricter zoning laws and automatic eviction processes after being appointed to city Housing Comission.

OCTOBER 2008

Binghamton Review breaks story on Kamlet’s plot. Pipe Dream ignores the issue for months.

APRIL 30, 2009

Housing Commission releases its report reccommending stricter enforcing standards and a renter registration program.

JANUARY 5, 2010

Zoning Board of Appeals rules against students living at 63 Helen Street.

DATA COMPILED BY BINGHAMTON REVIEW

and … I sent a letter to the property owner telling her about the R-1 classification and permitted residents."

Ms. Bayram contends that she had received threats from Ms. Campbell earlier last year after she closed up a hole in her property's fence that Campbell's children had been using to walk to school. Ms. Campbell allegedly threatened to use Ms. Bayram's tenants' status against her if she would not reopen the hole in her fence.

Campbell did not respond to repeated requests for comment. www.binghamtonreview.com

Campbell also made a statement about the current process for resolving these types of disputes, "We find it unfortunate and uncomfortable that the enforcement scheme for housing in the city is a complaint driven-process." What she alludes to is the possible institution of a "rebuttable presumption" process, originally proposed in 2008 by a member of Mayor Ryan’s Commission on Housing and Home Development, Ken Kamlet, in replacement of the complaint-driven enforcement. This would allow the city to

automatically initiate eviction proceedings against any group of three or more unrelated renters living in the residential districts. The tenants would then have to prove that they are in fact the functional equivalent of a family to remain in their homes.

The Housing Commission, after months of debate and deliberation, recommended that such a process be implemented only in the R-1 district, which is for low-density, single unit homes.

No formal legislation has been proposed by the city council and the process remains, for now, complaint-driven.

Anti-student sentiment on the west side is nothing new. Members of groups like WSNA have long made it their goal to rid their neighborhoods of student renters. WSNA is the primary proponent of “rebuttable presumption” enforcement, and other policies such as a rental registration program, which could be used in conjunction with rebuttable presumption to target students.

WSNA's website includes tips on how to identify students illegally living on the west side along with instructions for reporting them. WSNA members, including Binghamton University Professor Marilynn Desmond, were behind the complaints on Lincoln Avenue two years ago.

Campbell, who works with WSNA Director Amy Shapiro at the Binghamton law office of Hinman, Howard, and Kattell, admits to having never interacted with the tenants of 63 Helen Street. "We have nothing against the students... I have had no interaction with them." She claims her intentions are to prevent landlords from illegally leasing to students. “It is unfortunate that our housing system in Binghamton does not make it easier for students to understand where they are allowed to live together and where they are not." This line of thinking follows long-standing WSNA rhetoric. WSNA is not anti-student, they say; they are just trying to protect students from “moneygrubbing” slumlords.

Ms. Bayram promises to not go down without a fight, and will challenge the city’s ruling in court if she has to. ◄ 7

FREE SPEECH

The Systematic Attack on Free Expression in Binghamton University’s Masters of Social Work Program

by Adam Shamah

O

ne year after graduate student Andre Massena’s free-speech battle with the University made national headlines, the Masters of Social Work (MSW) department is again at the center of a free-speech controversy that forces us to reassess the University’s commitment to free expression.

At the end of the fall semester, MSW student Michael Gutsell was expelled from the Graduate School after a series of incidents that Gutsell and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) maintain are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Two separate incidents were the focus of a December 4th meeting of the department’s Advancement Committee, which addresses concerns related to MSW students’ academic or professional behavior. The department's reaction to both highlights its flagrant disregard for its students' rights.

The first occurred on October 27th, during a class with Professor Kevin Murphy.

According to statements by Gutsell, Professor Murphy told the class that they were to reach a unanimous decision as to the content and format of their midterm exam. Once the class reached a consensus, they were informed that the exercise

itself was their exam. Having tricked his students, Professor Murphy joked about them coming after him after class, to which Gutsell responded jokingly, “well just be careful when you start your car.”

The second matter presented to the Advancement Committee was a story that Gutsell told during a November 17th meeting of Murphy’s class. The topic being discussed was, according to Gutsell, “the docking of employee pay for infraction.” Gutsell mentioned that in Ontario, where he once worked, it is illegal to dock an employee’s pay unless that employee violated the law. He proceeded to tell a related story about an incident JANUARY 2010

“

“They don’t like a lot of disagreement. They don’t like diverse views [and are] very much about conformity.” -Michael Gutsell on the MSW Department

that occurred years earlier. “I said that an employer had tried to dock my pay for taking a pick-axe to a chair. It was my pick-axe but they couldn’t prove it was me so they were unable to dock my pay,” Gutsell wrote in a statement to the Office of Student Conduct (OSC).

Gutsell’s statements to the OSC and Advancement Committee explain that the pick-axe was his, but that he was not the one who used it to destroy a chair; that was done by a fellow employee. But he admits that he may not have made that clear in class, and explains that although he had noticed some negative reactions by his classmates, he did not clarify the full story because he did not want to disrupt his classmates after the discussion had moved on to other topics.

Nonetheless, several students approached Professor Murphy after class to articulate concerns over Gutsell’s story and to claim that his presence in class made them uncomfortable. “‘If he’s talked about destroying property, what suggests he wouldn’t do that in this setting,’” summarizes their thoughts as relayed by Professor Murphy during the Advancement meeting.

These two incidents—which according to FIRE represent “at worst a series of misunderstandings based on subjective overreactions to innocent, relevant classroom speech”—were used by the Advancement Committee as the basis for Gutsell’s expulsion.

On November 20th, Gutsell was contacted by University Police to address the two incidents. It was then that he was informed that the joke he made after the midterm assignment was now being considered a “threat.” After an interview with Professor Murphy—through which www.binghamtonreview.com

UPD learned that the professor did not even remember the so called “threat” and that the “pick-axe story” was relevant to class discussion—UPD concluded that they had “no basis for criminal charges” and dismissed the investigation.

A similar investigation by the Office of Student Conduct was also dropped. All the same, Gutsell was dismissed from the social work program on December 7th, when the department chair accepted the recommendation of the Advancement Committee.

As should be obvious, “[n]one of the utterances [made by Gutsell] constitutes an offense worthy of expulsion or exclusion from classes, none of them is even an offense,” according to FIRE in a letter to President DeFleur supporting Gutsell.

Then why did the department choose to expel him? And why haven’t his rights been protected?

According to the Advancement Committee’s ruling, the “significant discrepancy…between the purported intention of [Michael’s] verbal behavior and the ways in which [his] communications are perceived by others…” is the reason the committee called for his expulsion. During the advancement hearing, Cassandra Bransford told Gutsell that the matter has to do with “what you say and the tone in which you say it.”

These unreasonably strict standards seem to be regularly accepted as department policy. Earlier in the semester, Gutsell had been forced to sign a contract, or “written plan,” as a condition for his advancement in the program. Among several academic and professional requirements was one provision which required Gutsell to “build and maintain rapport with peers [and] instructors…” FIRE explains that this “set

an unacceptably high burden, as though somehow all people in the department are supposed to get along all the time without misunderstandings or complaints.”

With regard to another provision of the contract which stipulated “no reports from instructors or students that they are uncomfortable with you” as a condition for Gutsell’s advancement, FIRE points out that “no exception was made for untrue, unsupported, or unreasonable reports.”

Gutsell signed the contract in September after returning from medical leave last spring. Professors’ concerns, including one subjective report about “rude comments” Gutsell made in class, were considered cause for the written plan and a subsequent “trial period” this fall, during which Gutsell’s performance would be evaluated by his professors and department chair Laura Bronstein before he would be allowed to advance in the program.

One particular incident, says Gutsell, in particularly caused a peculiar overreaction by the department. After registering for classes last Spring, he emailed the department secretary thanking her for her help with the registration process: “This is excellent. Thank you again for all your hard on helping me with this. It is very much appreciated.” The email was obviously missing the word “work” after the word “hard,” but nonetheless caused considerable concern amongst the department’s faculty.

Gutsell’s trial period ended after an October 27th meeting of the Advancement Committee, during which they recommended advancement, only to reverse course several weeks later with the expulsion.

As Review readers may be aware, this is not the first time FIRE has intervened on behalf of a student whose rights were 9

FREE SPEECH

violated by the MSW department. Last December, MSW student Andre Massena was nearly expelled for putting up posters that criticized the department’s hiring of a professor Massena believed to be responsible for “social injustice.” Massena was to be suspended and forced to apologize and retract his criticisms before FIRE stepped in with a letter to President DeFleur and a posting on their website. FIRE explained the free speech and freedom of conscience protections that were being violated, and, one day after the case was made public, the department dropped its charges.

The parallels between the Gutsell and Massena cases—in terms of department abuse—are glaring. Neither was informed in advance of the charges that were being brought against them by the Advancement Committee, denying them their right to prepare a defense.

FIRE contends that Gutsell’s Advancement meeting “covered his entire set of utterances since entering the program,” all of which were to be held again him. This is supported by the fact that an appeal committee, which heard Gutsell’s appeal, upheld his expulsion but noted that “the two incidents reported from Professor Kevin Murphy’s [class] are not the primary basis for your dismissal.” This despite those two incidents being the only ones discussed at the advancement meeting, according

to an official transcript. These conflicting explanations leave Gutsell wondering to this day the exact reasons for his expulsion.

Similarly, during the Massena case, Bronstein added dozens of pages of new charges, unrelated to the posters, after Andre’s appeal.

The most blatant consistency, however, is the department’s treating of innocent words as expellable infractions.

Gutsell, who describes himself as “critical,” “assertive,” and “not afraid to disagree with people,” blames this on department culture.

“They don’t like a lot of disagreement. They don’t like diverse views [and are] very much about conformity.”

In a letter written last year in support of Massena, MSW graduate Cindy Overstreet describes how she had “repeatedly encountered a tremendously disturbing pattern of fear and institutional bullying by the program against social work students.” Several other MSW students penned similar letters last year supporting Andre, all which decried the department’s abuses and cited additional cases of students being targeted for things like “insubordination.”

The “advancement” process is the means through which students, including Massena and Gutsell, have been targeted.

According to department policy, when concerns relating to a student’s performance

are raised, said student’s academic advisor is to devise a “written plan” which the student will be required to follow. (Gutsell’s plan demanded he maintain rapport with his peers; Massena’s required he apologize and retract his poster’s statements). The student’s progress is later evaluated by the Advancement Committee, which has the power to recommend “the student be suspended for a period of time or dismissed from the program.” Gutsell’s assertion that Advancement Committee can “expel you for anything,” appears to have merit, judging by its unchecked discretion in his and Massena’s cases.

Despite not having exhausted his final appeal, Gutsell plans to leave Binghamton later this week to return to Vancouver, Canada. He explains that even if he were to win his second appeal, he doesn’t believe the department will let him graduate. “The department will make things either too unpleasant or impose further restrictions that I cannot meet.”

This unfortunate ending is sadly not the first, and may not be the last we see in Masters of Social Work Department.

The department’s flagrant disregard for its students’ basic liberties has already received national attention. The question is now, when will it receive attention from those at the University level who have the power to intervene? ◄

YOU’LL GET YOUR DEGREE FROM BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY...

BUT YOUR EDUCATION FROM BINGHAMTON REVIEW.

YOU’RE WELCOME.

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

JANUARY 2010

FIRE

GABRIELLE PONTILLO

FIRE and the State of Speech on Campuses

I

n their annual “Spotlight on Speech Codes” released last month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) brought to light some troubling information regarding students’ rights on college campuses.

According to the report, more than 70% of colleges and universities violate the U.S. Constitution by maintaining policies that restrict the speech of their students.

FIRE pointed out that “the overwhelming majority of speech is protected by the First Amendment.” While the Supreme Court has “carved out some narrow exceptions: speech that incites reasonable people to immediate violence; fighting words; harassment; true threats; intimidation; obscenity; and libel,” universities will often “misuse these exceptions to punish constitutionally protected speech.”

For example, some universities hide their speech codes in their harassment policies. “Hundreds of universities persist in maintaining ludicrously broad definitions of harassment that include large amounts of constitutionally protected speech,” reads FIRE’s study. Northern Illinois University, for instance, defines harassment as the “intentional and wrongful use of words, gestures and actions to annoy, alarm, abuse, embarrass, coerce, intimidate or threaten another person.”

Actual harassment, according to FIRE, “is extreme and usually repetitive behavior— behavior so serious that it would interfere with a reasonable person’s ability to receive his or her education.” The speech must go above and beyond mere annoyance.

FIRE places universities into one of three categories: red, yellow, and green. These denote the level of restrictions placed upon speech.

A “green-light” campus maintains no policies that could be construed as problematic from a constitutional perspective. Currently, only eleven universities—Carnegie Mellon University, Cleveland State University, Dartmouth College, Grinnell College, www.binghamtonreview.com

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, the College of William & Mary, the University of Nebraska, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of South Dakota, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, and the University of Utah – receive a “green-light” rating from FIRE. Conversely, a “red-light” university maintains policies that substantially restrict speech. “The threat to free speech at a redlight institution is obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied.”

Seventy-one percent of the schools examined by FIRE were given red-light ratings. One such school is SUNY Brockport, which was given FIRE’s dreaded “red light” label in response to a policy banning all uses of email that “inconvenience others.”

“Inconveniencing” others includes “offensive language or graphics (whether or not the receiver objects, since others may come in contact with it).” Another “red-light” school is New York University, which proffers egregious policies such as one which openly prohibits “insulting, teasing, and even inappropriate jokes when they are based on a legally protected status such as race, gender or religion.”

The middle ground is the “yellow-light” rating. Binghamton University, according to FIRE’s website, is a “yellow-light” institution, meaning that the University maintains “at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.”

FIRE cites several policies as cause for BU’s “yellow-light” rating. Take, for example, the university’s policy regarding hate crimes.

“In addition to preventing and prosecuting hate/bias crimes, New York State University Police, staff in the Division of Student Affairs, the University Ombudsman and the Affirmative Action Office assist in addressing bias-related activities that do not rise to the

level of a crime. These activities, referred to as bias incidents and defined by the University as acts of bigotry, harassment or intimidation directed at a member or group within the Binghamton University community based on national origin, ethnicity, race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, color, creed or marital status, may be addressed through the State University of New York's Discrimination Complaint Procedure or the Rules of Student Conduct.” This wording is so vague and all-inclusive that almost any action can be construed as a “bias incident.”

Who defines what an “act of bigotry” is?

Another “yellow-light” policy of ours tackles the issue of advertisement and posting on campus. “Advertisements should avoid demeaning, sexist or discriminatory portrayal of individuals.” It seems that the university has placed this rule on students as a way of ensuring that no one gets their feelings hurt. I think someone should call the administration out on their bullshit. Wait, am I not allowed to say that?

Or would that be considered “demeaning”?

Then there is the university’s definition of harassment, which according to the student handbook, is “conduct intended to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person.”

FIRE considers this broad and problematic from a free-speech perspective.

While there have not yet been cases of free-speech violations based off of these policies, the potential for abuse does still exist due to the vague and broad nature of our code of conduct. Hence, our “yellow-light” rating stands for another year.

Being politically correct is all well and good—in fact I encourage it—but not to the point that it restricts the rights of another human being. I truly hope that within the upcoming years, Binghamton will see its status change from “yellow” to “green” by simply rewriting the questionable parts of our handbook.◄ 11

ROTC

h t S n i o J [Review TC O R h t i w d n e k a wee

by Joseph Aguiar

After about thirty seconds of trekking through the cold, pitchblack forest with the squad that I was embedded with, I began to wonder if I should have accepted the invitation to go on the night navigation exercise. But after stepping in the 950th mud puddle of the evening, I stopped caring about how dirty my shoes were and how wet and cold my feet were.

T

he daytime exercise was difficult enough, searching for eight unique markings strewn throughout a massive, overgrown forest with only a map and a compass as a guide. A few cadets managed to correctly chart seven or eight of the points during the day; most found the minimum of at least five needed to pass the navigation test. The night exercise, however, was another matter. A three out of five was needed to pass, and while the day was largely a success, the night proved to be a trial by fire for most of the cadets.

Few passed; many found none or one. Right away, I learned that even in the days of GPS, map reading is as important a skill as it has ever been.

I spent Friday and Saturday, November 13th and 14th, embedded with Excelsior Battalion (Excelsior Battalion consists of five area colleges and universities, or companies: Ithaca College, Elmira College, Cornell University, Cortland University, and Binghamton University) of the US Army’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC). Most of us have heard the term “ROTC,” but don’t really know what it is exactly. Basically, if you think that all Army officers spent their four college years at West Point, you are mistaken. Here at Binghamton University, and at colleges all across the country, students in the ROTC spend their four years training to become future platoon leaders in the Army while living 12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

in a “halfway” cross between pure civilian life and pure military life. Prospective cadets sign a contract before entering ROTC to accept a commission after graduating, and have their tuition fully paid for by the government. In the meantime, cadets attend regular classes at a civilian college and receive a stipend.

Additionally, they take a weekly military science class and have physical training three days a week. Also, once a semester, they spend a weekend practicing military tactics (called FTX), where they are evaluated and critiqued. This is all in addition to their normal, fulltime undergraduate work, so life as an ROTC cadet is hectic to say the least.

West Point, the Virginia Military Institute, and the Air Force Academy – to name a few – are what most people think of when they consider officer training. In reality, Army ROTC is the largest officer-commissioning program in the American military, producing 60% of the second lieutenants in the Army, Army National Guard, and US Army Reserve. Army ROTC, in fact, has produced six Army Chiefs of Staff and two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including such icons as Colin Powell and George Catlett Marshall (one of only six officers to receive five stars). It is an organization with a proud JANUARY 2010

] Y M R A he history, and it continually produces officers of extraordinarily high quality.

There is a stratified ranking system within the ROTC where the seniors run virtually all of the exercises. Freshmen are ranked MS-1, sophomores and other second year cadets are ranked MS-2, and juniors are ranked MS-3. Seniors, ranked MS-4 with a black diamond insignia, have a unique status in the ROTC; they are not yet officers, but serve the basic function. At the onceper-semester FTX, the MS-4s evaluate the other cadets, and are referred to as “sir” by the other MSs. After four

www.binghamtonreview.com

years in the program, the MS-4s are given quasi-officer positions.

The real attention, however, is paid to the MS-3s who are responsible for leading mock attack operations on designated points held by opposition forces, or “OP-4s” who are volunteers from across the different branches of the military. Most squads would go through around five different stations or “STX” on Saturday, and at the end of each exercise, the MS-4 tracking the group and the MS-4 in charge of the particular exercise, as well as the OP-4s, would critique and offer advice to the MS-3s about their preparation, poise, leadership, and execution. The MS-1s and -2s play the roles of enlisted soldiers, many of whom were participating in their first STX runs during my time on the 13th and 14th. From the first exercise to the last, there was a noticeable improvement in the MS-3s’ abilities, culminating in a successful hostage negotiation by my squad leader in the final exercise. Then it was off to dinner.

During my two days, there are three things that struck me in particular. First, the food was not only tolerable, but was actually delicious. I’m not exaggerating. Lunch and dinner were the best parts of the day. Having eaten Sodexo food for the last three months, I felt like I’d returned home for some of my mother’s or grandmother’s home cooking. The standard issue Meal, Ready-to-Eat (MRE), a lightweight packaged field ration, is seriously better than anything you can get here on campus. And the buffet line for dinner… well, let’s just say that I

definitely would have paid for it if I wasn’t given it for free. I spoke to some of the veteran officers about the food, and they told me that Excelsior Battalion was not an exception. Military food is always good.

Second, I realized immediately that these students and their commanding officers are normal people. The Full Metal Jacket stereotype of the in-your-face, grizzled, and confrontational drill sergeant is grossly inaccurate. Sure, they do exist, but they are the vast minority. Discipline is certainly one of the highest virtues, don’t get me wrong, but commanding officers never belittle or humiliate their cadets in the ROTC. All of the officers I spoke with were consummate professionals. I did not meet one during my day-and-a-half who was anything less than perfectly courteous and professional.

Third, I realized that the praise we shower our armed forces with, and the respect that we have for our military personnel, are well deserved. The propaganda commercials we see on TV are often humorous, but they are also accurate.

The Army and the other branches of the armed forces really do produce quality citizens, and there is an uncommon level of professionalism and respect from the highest ranking 4-star down to the newest second lieutenant down to the freshly enlisted eighteen-year-old PFC. Sleeping on a cement floor with just a sleeping bag and no pillow was an adventure. I’m more of a soft mattress kind of guy, I guess. And waking up at 4:30 AM on a Saturday morning when a lot of BU students were just getting to bed was tough to do. Do not get the impression that ROTC life is easy and laid-back. Late to bed, early to rise, and all day outside are the norm. But it is a program among many in the military that is a quality-citizen-making machine. For me, it was a trip well worth the muddy shoes. ◄ 13

CLIMATE

RANDAL MEYER

IT TAKES GREEN TO GO GREEN A LOOK AT THE CAMPUS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

O

n November 30th, the University administration released a report entitled the “Climate Action Plan.” The Climate Action Plan outlines different measures that will be adopted in order to reduce the carbon footprint of our university.

Our carbon footprint, which stands at approximately 63,000 metrics tons of CO2-equivalent (MT eCO2) as of 2008, will be significantly reduced to near 0 by 2050.

Vice President for Administration Jim VanVoorst states that “[Binghamton] signed onto the initiative to stop the effect of global warming…”

According to the Climate Action Plan, “In September 2007, President Lois B. DeFleur signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), pledging to eliminate, over time, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with Binghamton University’s campus activities.” The ACUPCC is a coalition of university presidents who aim to reduce the carbon footprint of their respective colleges and universities. After the commitment was made to the AACUPCC, DeFleur created the Climate Task Force to draft up the plan we currently see today. The Task Force hired an outside consultant in order to help them with this mission.

The plan’s measures will target the University’s three main sources of carbon emissions: campus heat, commuters, and purchased electricity. Carbon offsets will be purchased to offset additional emissions. The funding for each of these initiatives draws from different budgetary and organizational sources.

The campus commuter reductions involve measures to reduce the motor vehicle traffic on our campus by 1,000 student vehicles and 200 faculty/staff vehicles. This will be achieved by offering incentives for carpooling, such as premiere parking spots and reduced parking fees for carpoolers. Work towards this plan began in 2009 with the recent appearance of the Hertz car sharing program on campus.

As of now, reducing the number of available parking spaces and increasing fees is not off the table According to the report, “[o] ther less-popular options include raising the fees to park on campus and reducing the available parking space to discourage people 14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

from driving to campus if alternate modes of transportation are available.” So, off-campus students can potentially look forward to being twenty minutes after spending their morning trying to find parking on campus.

The section targeting purchased electricity, which will cost a total of $34,903,260 of the $38,147,382 endeavor, is the most subject. The plan calls for enforcing LEED Sliver or higher standards on all new construction projects, purchasing renewable energy credits (required by Patterson’s Executive Order 111), installing wind turbines and solar panels, and implementing efficiency projects on campus (including lighting controls, variable speed drives, lowflow fume hoods, high efficiency motors, and consolidated building scheduling).

The completion date is set at 2030.

With regard to financing the operation, VanVoorst commented that “cost is a factor, but we need to find a way to make this plan a reality.” According to VanVoorst and committee member Sandy DeJohn, the operating budget of the university will be used to pay for this section of the plan.

That means that, over the next twenty years, $34,903,260 of mostly tuition and NYS SUNY-subsidies will be used to offset our carbon footprint. DeJohn further commented on the cost of the plan as a whole, “It’s not going to be cheap … especially crediting all building projects to sustainability.”

While this may not seem like a big deal, remember that class size is increasing, less full-time faculty is being hired, academic programs (like the economics minor) are being suspended for a lack of resources, and major programs are having difficulty putting out the necessary classes.

The last part of the plan is involves carbon offsets to make up for the remainder of the greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, there is no plan on where to acquire the funds to JANUARY 2010

purchase these offsets. They will not be instituted until 2050, and are the last phase of the reduction plan. They will offset approximately 18,900 MT eCO2 at a cost of somewhere between $2.75 and $30.00 per MT eCO2. These offsets could potentially be of significant cost, and the lack of solid funding

from sources outside the University’s operating budget worries those of us at BR. Our university should focus on investing its operating budget in the academic opportunities and strength of this university rather than on reducing its carbon footprint. President

DeFleur has stated that “at Binghamton University, green isn’t just our school color, it’s a commitment to our planet and to future generations.” Perhaps a more apt commitment would be one to academic excellence and to offering a diverse curriculum with appropriate funding. ◄

BINGHAMTON REVIEW WE ALREADY CONTROL CAMPUS. SOON, IT WILL BE THE WORLD.

JOIN US BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE Scheming sessions every Thursday at 7:30 p.m.

New Union Basement UUWB05 Email editor@binghamtonreview.com for info www.binghamtonreview.com

15

MORALS

Ethan Day

ACTING ON OUR

URGES

Joe Quirk Helps Justify Our Self-Indulgent Choices

L

ate last semester, Binghamton University welcomed Joe Quirk, author and self-declared “Amateur Biologist” for a lecture on love, sex, and relationships. While his talk and accompanying slideshow provided well-placed jokes and some interesting theories, what everyone really enjoyed was the assurance that it provided: Every urge, every longing, and every dirty little desire, and what happens when we act on those impulses, is okay. It’s fine. It’s justifiable because, after all, it’s biology.

I will not question many of Quirk’s research findings, as I am not a biologist. But then again, neither is he. What needs examination is the casual and dangerously progressive approach that Quirk takes on people letting their instincts and dispositions guide them in what can be described as a chaotic rush to find satisfaction. After sitting in on the lecture and reading his book, It’s Not You, It’s Biology, it became clear how the idea that the pursuit of sexual contentment at any cost would be attractive. Unfortunately for those who embrace this line of thinking, however, true satisfaction is rarely found. There is a right and wrong, and it’s not relative to an individual’s preferences, whether they think it is or not. Staying within the confines of what we know is right will not only bring contentment, but also provide complete fulfillment for our biological needs.

Mr. Quirk provides unique insight into human interaction with a strictly scientific approach. In the first chapter of his 16

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

latest book, It’s Not You, It’s Biology, he asks, “Why won’t he commit? Why does she inexhaustibly want to talk about the relationship? Why can’t he finish our first conversation before he’s trying to maneuver me into the sack? Why do I have to do so much talking to maneuver her into the sack?”

Through a few debatable theories, including Darwin’s theory of evolutionary biology, Quirk answers these questions while simultaneously dispensing with all that is sacred about love and the physical expressions that it involves. It would seem that all that matters is “sperm-spreaders” (men) being bread by “egg-protectors” (woman) through natural selection to ensure the continuance of the human population. In trying to be funny and simplistic, Quirk undervalues everything that he can’t attribute to one clear biological cause. So it is no surprise that he sees no harm in seeking self-gratification by any means necessary? Multiple casual sex partners, homosexuality, and even infidelity seem to have a justified place among Quirk’s line of thinking.

In America, we have the right to live freely and to make lifestyle choices as we please. That doesn’t mean that we should live recklessly and irresponsibly. Quirk provides a shaky base JANUARY 2010

that people are more than willing to use to rationalize their destructive decisions. Some things are just wrong.

Blame it on biology, but that still, small voice is hard to silence. The first conflict the Joe Quirks of the world try to defend is infidelity – unfaithfulness to one’s spouse. Some would argue that men and women cannot be fully satisfied by a single, monogamous relationship, and therefore seek multiple partners to fulfill different roles. That would appear to be reasonable evidence to support having affairs, but one should also consider the emotional consequences, the effect on children, and even the domestic violence all frequently connected to extramarital relationships.

According to Quirk, “Among mammals, the bigger the males are than the females, the more polygynous they are. Gibbons are mostly monogamous, and males and females are the same size.

Alpha male gorillas control harems of as many as six females, and are double the weight of each female.” Should you happen to pick up a copy of Quirk’s book, you will find that he often points to animal activity as a way to justify similar behaviors in humans. Vultures defecate on their own legs to cool themselves off, should we emulate that behavior as well? Animals do not face the social and emotional ramifications that humans must confront when involved in parallel situations.

Another lifestyle conflict that Quirk and many others work feverishly to justify is homosexuality. Western culture is currently experiencing a push to accept this behavior, which

www.binghamtonreview.com

is unnatural by definition, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. Quirk would direct you to a few pictures of animals of the same sex involved in sexual activity.

Again, not only is it a stretch to compare animal behavior to human behavior, but researchers universally agree that the term homosexuality applied to animals is “irrelevant” because the “motivating factors are completely different from those of humans.” Agenda-driven researchers work tirelessly to tie homosexuality to biological and genetic roots so that it can be given moral approval and not labeled as a misguided urge. However, even infamous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, whose work many gay rights advocates point to, ultimately rejected the idea of a biological origin for homosexuality.

Another small stumbling block: according to researcher and author Miron Baron, “From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction. Thus the purported linkage stands in apparent contradiction to the flimsy genetic and epidemiological evidence…”

It is uncomfortable and even agonizing to have the frail rationality that supports our selfish pursuits called into serious question over and over again. If only the justification of biology could help eradicate the feelings of guilt the next time that I act on urges for temporary gratification. If only it didn’t matter who I use and who I hurt to get that next release of sexual energy. But it does matter, and there is a right and wrong whether we want to accept that or not. This isn’t a lecture from someone who is better than everyone else, but rather from a guy who wants to find true happiness, love, and contentment – something that everyone would likely prefer to a conquest that leads to emptiness.

It’s not easy to live for tomorrow’s satisfaction by resisting today’s urges, but I have no doubt that it would be well worth the effort; life can be more than just a series of quirks.◄ 17

HEALTHCARE

WILLIAM GRIFFIN

Be Careful What You Wish For Imagine the Democrat’s Healtcare System, Overseen by Conservatives

D

espite the liberal exuberance over Congress’ healthcare bill, much of the American people are, as evidenced by the numerous town hall protests, anything but blissful over the prospect of a government takeover of the healthcare system. Many of the arguments against the socialization of one-sixth of the U.S. economy have been articulated already – in these pages and elsewhere – but I have one concern that I do not believe has been given much attention, one which stems from my knowledge of history.

A nationalized healthcare system is hardly the American liberals’ first wet dream. During our parents’ time, under the Johnson administration, federal funding of schools was championed and then implemented by liberals much in the way that ObamaCare is today, without any thought given to the shifts that always occur in US politics.

What started as a liberal dream became a liberal nightmare when conservatives came into power in 2000 and used the system created by liberals to further their own policy beliefs. What resulted from this was the federal government using funding threats to force schools

18

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

to teach things based on politics and religion rather than reason and science.

This ranged from the pseudoscience that is “Intelligent Design,” which made our system into an international laughing stock, to the dangerously stupid “Abstinence-Only” sex education.

With this historical precedent in mind, think about ObamaCare and other forms of socialized medicine again. If the government has that much influence over the quality and content of your education, do you really want them to be controlling your healthcare? Right now, we may have the most liberal president and Congress since the 1970s, but they will not remain in power forever. Well within our lifetimes, another socially conservative president or Congress will be in power. If the pressure of the Religious Right can gut education,

one can only imagine what might happen to healthcare. To begin with, all the women reading this can say goodbye to reproductive rights that took fifty years of fighting and science to create. Who needs to repeal Rowe vs. Wade when Congress or the President can simply prevent any funding for abor tion? If the government is the only source of health insurance available, where else would one turn? We all witnessed the arguments over stem cell research a fe w years ago. What happens to medical techniques based on such research if some fundamentalist congressman thinks that God does not like them?

Liberals, you may like the idea of a government-r un healthcare system when you are the ones in control of it. But before you suppor t a system that will outlast your rei gn of power, think of the influence and power that it may give your opposition once they are the ones in control.

Judging by most 2010 polling numbers, that day may come far sooner than you think.◄

JANUARY 2010

Celebrate Black History Month with Binghamton Review

Star Parker Self Proclaimed “Former Welfare Queen” February 23

Time and Location To Be Announced Check B-Line, binghamtonreview.com, or our February issue for details.

SENATE

Robert Edward Menje

VICTORY IN MASSACHUSETTS Scott Brown’s Impact on the G.O.P.

A

few weeks ago, you had never heard the name Scott Brown. Today, the entire world knows it. The individual who has heard that name the loudest is President Obama. On January 19th, the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sent a message to Obama, a man who had garnered 62% of their vote in 2008, that they are fed up with the Democratic machine. Brown's election makes Obama zero-for-three in elections for which he has campaigned since his inauguration. He is zero-for-two in "blue" states.

Massachusetts did not always have the fortitude to send such a message to the Democrats in Washington. For the past 30-plus years, the people of Massachusetts were loyal to the Democratic Party like a drug addict to their dealer. For once, conservatives and Republicans around the country have Massachusetts to thank.

What does the election of Scott Brown mean? It means the death of the costly health care bill, a bill that would grow government, solve nothing, and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. The election of Scott Brown also means an end to the Democrats’ ability to do whatever they want in Congress without consequence. Brown can force them to work with the minority party.

But most importantly, Brown has given the Republican Party hope. If Republicans can win in Massachusetts, then they can win anywhere. Republicans are going to pick up many seats in both houses of Congress in 2010, and at the way the Obama administration is operating, the Oval Office in 2012 is within reach. Who should lead this charge? Scott Brown!

I believe that Scott Brown will challenge Obama in 2012.

Not only will he challenge Obama, but he can beat him.

Brown was not always this rock star politician with aroundthe-clock coverage by every major news source from Boston 20

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

to Los Angeles. The Scott Brown that I know is a mildmannered, common man who drives a pick-up truck.

I have known Scott Brown personally since 2005. Before I graduated from Binghamton University, I worked on several political campaigns in Massachusetts, including a 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Scott Brown, a state senator at the time, was always just a phone call away, always willing to help.

He would not just show up at campaign events when the camera was around; he helped make phone calls, put together lawn signs, distribute literature, and much more. Scott fought for the causes he believed in.

Scott Brown is also a family man. When his daughter’s music album came out (Ayla was a finalist on American Idol, season 5) he hustled copies of it out the back of his pick-up truck. When I told Ayla about this, she simply replied, “that’s my dad.” He is also a patriot. Scott helped the campaign on weekends, but would often have to leave early to do his duty for the Massachusetts National Guard (he has been in the service for over 30 years). He never asked for anything in return... he just did it. Scott Brown is the kind of guy that we can all look up to. He is the kind of guy that we should all aspire to be like. The people of Massachusetts have realized this. Soon the entire country will too, and if they are smart, they will elect him president.

It only takes one profound event to put yourself on the national political stage. For Obama, he gave a keynote address for John Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This was before he was a US Senator. Two years later, he was running for president. Two years after that, he was elected president. Scott Brown has more political clout now than Obama had going as far back as 2007. The election of Senator Brown will help save this nation, and your wallet. Just watch and see.◄ JANUARY 2010

EXCESS

Proudly Entitled

I

t is safe to say that we Americans live in a privileged society, one in which complacently assumes far more to its name than it is entitled to. This is not to say that as a prosperous nation we are not allowed to expect certain amenities due to our prowess. However, there lies a contour for every nation, a line that if crossed, pride shall transgress progress and the descent of a nation becomes imminent. Our hubris is ubiquitous, yet we willingly justify it as a consequence of our greatness, a just dessert fit for our platter.

One might ask why we shouldn’t exhibit the pride that we so blatantly do express, either towards foreigners or ourselves. Have we not earned the fruits of our labor? Can we not reap what we sow? True, though these proverbs maybe, but another proverb contends otherwise: “Pride cometh before the fall.”

Every great hegemony (whether individual, group, or state) that the scribes of history have studied through the ages has, through great fault of its own, fallen from power due to its own pride and the ravaging consequences that follow it. The immoral cancer that is pride will consume us if we do not restrain our demons. The demons of which I speak are nothing more than manifestations of the pride that can be seen among all tiers of our society, from the common citizen to the corporate executive to the government official. Carnified, these demons take many forms, whether they are entitlement programs, exorbitant bonuses and stock portfolios, or rampant profligacy with public finance. At the core of each of these demons is sin, sin of terrible proportion whereby one simple yet

www.binghamtonreview.com

TAYLOR ARLUCK

crucial word has been removed from our lexicon and replaced by another. In the wake of our greatness, made most clear at the dawn of post-modern America, we as a country consciously omitted “sacrifice” from our tongue and replaced it with “entitled.”

The generation born prior to postmodern America knew little else aside from sacrifice. Those old enough to see their parents march to foreign soil or domestic factory would live a life of humility. This humility would later be magnified by the austere climate of the Great Depression, only to have it eclipsed by the hellish wars of the European and Pacific theatre. This, too, the so-called “Greatest Generation” weathered, and after having endured all of these calamities, they then returned home with the intent of living simple lives, lives that their legacies could not possibly justify given their noble sacrifices. To these stoic men and women, we owe our allegiance and entitlements to, not to ourselves.

Though we may take pride in the sacrifices of our “Greatest Generation,” who with honesty among us today can claim that we deserve the fruits of their labor? May we truly reap what we alone have not sown?

Rather

than give duly deserved thanks, we take it in the forms of state funded “entitlement” pensions and healthcare that were originally meant for their consumption. Rather than manufacture the arsenal of democracy that liberated a continent, we engineer financial derivatives with opaque value and fraudulent mechanisms. Rather than balance our budgets and restrain our global empire, we continue to spend money that we do not have on things that we do not need. These symptoms of pride will end us.

When will our reckoning come?

And it is precisely the when which terrifies me the most. Even a poor read of the news will reveal the graves that we leave in deserts, or the people that we evict from homes, or the allies that we no longer have.

How much more can the mighty American colossus bear before it collapses beneath its own weight? Pride in our history and success has lead led us to become something that we are not. The only question that remains is can we, as a nation, summon the strength of our past to sacrifice the entitlements that we feel entitled to today? ◄

21

SATIRE

Campus Climate Chaos Academic Departments across Binghamton University are up in arms over the influence that the green movement has had on their classrooms. The University’s revised “Campus Climate Primary Directive,” or as it is more colloquially referred to, the “First Five-Year Plan,” has made several additions to our current framework for carbon footprint reduction that have been meet with mixed reactions.

“I can understand a few simple changes to make us greener, but compelling professors to spend half of class outside to reduce heat usage in winter is absurd,” stated Professor Hugh Rosenblatt.

Health Services has been inundated with students exhibiting symptoms of extreme frostbite. “We aren’t capable of giving basic medical attention to our walk-ins, let alone all of these students who obviously have pneumonia and not frostbite.”

Meanwhile, some professors have approved of the policy. Professor Allen “Talks-with-Shrubs” Thames said, “Buh like dunchakno that like being like outside in Mother Nature’s cold time is like so totally the best way to commune with the majestic snow fox?”

Further measures that the Administration has taken involve construction projects. One such project is replacing the “University Union” with an ecologically sustainable grass hut called the “University Commune.”

When asked to comment on the new project, Vice President for Student Affairs Brian Rose stated, “I believe that this new project will be of great benefit to students.

With no food court, bulimia among Newing sorority girls will fall almost 64%.

Also, those pesky SA and BR kids finally won’t have an office to plot against us in.”

Students will also be banned from using notebooks not purchased at the University Bookstore. Notebooks must be returned to the bookstore at the end of the year to be sold as “used notebooks” at a discounted price. Many students expressed approval of the plan until they realized the “used notebooks” are not being distributed according to class, but randomly. All clothing sold in the bookstore will be made strictly of hemp made by CIW residents.

Recently, CIW outsourced the labor to sweatshops in Hinman.

Many are frustrated over the new parking situation. All M-lots have been converted into parking for “Bicycles made for two.” Physical Facilities personnel have commented that having all students come to campus on “carpool bicycles” will reduce emissions by somewhere between 54 % and 192%. As a result, on-campus traffic has become similar to the Triborough Bridge at 5 p.m. on a Friday, and the University Police Department is understaffed for such traffic control. One UPD officer commented, “We have used our TASERs

more in the last 48 hours than we have since we got the things.”

Former EMO and current Communist party member Andrew Epstein has become despondent over these recent changes.

“I never realized how miserable my ideas would make people. I have recently switched to the Republican Party and purchased an S.U.V.” Mr. Epstein has become a regular columnist for Binghamton Review.

Review Editor-in-Chief Noam Shamsky has commented on Epstein’s defection, stating that “Mr. Epstein has quickly become an asset to Binghamton Review’s political arm, the Student Action Coalition. However, he is under close scrutiny as just last week he was caught separating out the glass and plastic from the BR trash can, a violation of the organization's constitution.”

Perhaps the most aggravating new policy is the “sustainable shower” policy physical facilities has implemented this month. Students will get four free “Shower Tokens” each week. Shower tokens can be put into a slot in every on-campus shower to turn them on. Showers now have a 45 second time limit. Additionally, only 15 seconds of hot water is given per shower.

Students may acquire additional tokens by purchasing carbon offsets. Newing has organized full-scale protests over this policy.

Residents in CIW were polled for comment but it appears none have experienced the policy's pitfalls.◄

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive one copy of the Review free of charge (non-transferable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submission become property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 1987-2010 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kethryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell, Nathaniel Sugarman, Robert E. Menje

22

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

JANUARY 2010

TRuTh aNd TwO STaplES

NOVEMBER 2009

Binghamton Review

Help The Review Grow

Prohibition is back!

ScaNdal ENSuES afTER STudENTS dRiNk BEER

INSIDE: The Fed CLIMATe Week BeLLWeTher eLeCTIons sTudenT ACTIvITy Fee

October 2008

Binghamton Review

E Plus:

d E t c vi

!

For 22 years, Binghamton Review has been the voice of the campus right at Binghamton University. Now, more than ever, B.R. needs your help. Please consider donating to our cause. Every penny counts towards advancing the conservative movement on B.U.’s liberal campus.

Donate now and get Binghamton Review delivered to your home free of charge.

BR Uncovers the Plot to Kick Students Out of the City

BR Interviews Walter Williams Open Borders Advocate Speaks on Campus, and Hinman RAs Try to Indoctrinate!

It’s all here, in Binghamton Review, the voice of students!

Fill out this form and return to:

Truth and two staples Binghamton Review, April 2005

April 2009

Binghamton Review P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 Include a check made out to Binghamton Review Your Mailing Address:

Truth and two staples Binghamton Review, April 2005

April 2008

The Latin American Student What Keeps This Campus Union is a Disgrace to Latin Apart? Multiculturalism Culture-Campos and the VPMA-Powell

B inghamton R eview Thirsty?

BR Investigates the Killer Coke Campaign and Reports On What Really Happened In Colombia

Plus an Exclusive Interview With UPD! Binghamton Review, April 2005

Truth and two staples

Enclosed is: n $50 n $100 n $150 n $200

Thank you for your support!

n $250 n $500 n $1,000 n $Other

________

Binghamton Review is a registered 501(c)(3). All donations are tax deducable.

EV

From the XCEL Award Winning Team That Brought You THE EXODUS: A West Side Story

Stupid Association Films Presents

EVICTAR The WSNA People Have Sent Us A Message... That They Can Take Whatever They Want

“You don’t need 3D glasses to see this bullshit.”

-Binghamton Review STUPID ASSOCIATION FILMS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESENTS A REBUTTABLE PRODUCTION. A FILM BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. DIRECTED BY AMY SHAPIRO AND SARAH CAMPBELL. WRITTEN

BY NIMBY SNOBS. STARRING BINGHAMTON REVIEW AS THE ONLY PAPER OF RECORD AND SEVEN INNOCENT STUDENTS AS THE PERSECUTED NATIVES. SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY KEN KAMLET AS THE COLONEL. SOUNDTRACK BY MATT RYAN AND SOME DRUNKS AT THE BELMAR. COSTUMES DESIGNED BY THE SENSATIONAL SAM SUSSMAN.

R

RESTRICTED REQUIRES ACCOMPANYING FAMILY OR FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT