The Brown Contemporary - Spring 2008 by Matthew Corritore

The

Volume 1, Issue 2

Summer, 2008

Brown Contemporary

Snitch Power God

Our exclusive interview with the person who invited Bill O’Reilly to Brown’s sexiest party

On the Trail with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards

A look back at the Democratic primary

The Odd Couple Two radical leaders who pulled their countries apart

Closing the Gap

One man’s work to close the achievement gap in Rhode Island vol1iss2.indd 1

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

The

Editor’s Note Dear Reader, The Contemporary has gotten off to a gradual but auspicious start this year. In the last issue, I wrote that our goal is to give voice to the broad range of political thought on campus through intelligent, creative and well-researched writing that engenders a spirit of critical and courteous discourse. Our magazine was not conceived as purely progressive. Rather, it hopes to provide a forum for reporting and opinion that has found no other home at Brown. Many of our pieces are controversial—some contain viewpoints with which many of us disagree—but they all have one thing in common. They each bring a level of cogency and thoughtfulness to their topics. Their goal isn’t to serve as the final word on these issues. They instead seek to be jumping-off points for broader discussions across campus. As we hand the reigns to a new generation of editors, I’m certain that the Contemporary will only improve, and I hope you’ll stay with us as we grow and evolve.

Sincerely,

Brown Contemporary

Campus It’s Not Easy Going Green

SnitchPowerGod

Region Closing the Gap

Nation On the Trial with Clinton, Obama and Edwards

World The Odd Couple

Big Brother Meets Big Ben

Brown’s steps toward reducing its carbon footprint By Brynn McNally ‘10

Our exlusive interview with the person who invted Bill O’Reilly to SPG By Tor Tarantola ‘08

One man’s work to close the achievement gap in Rhode Island By Michael Ramos-Lynch ‘09

Three students stump for their candidates By Matthew Corritore ‘09, Max Chaiken ‘09 and Steve Moilanen ‘08

Two radical leaders who pulled their nations apart By Dave Rangaviz ‘08

Tor Tarantola ‘08 Editor-in-Chief

The international obliteration of privacy By Michael Lezcano ‘09 Editor-in-Chief Tor Tarantola ‘08 Managing Editor Matthew Corritore ‘09 Campus Editor Stephen Moilanen ‘08

Regional Editor Alex Mazerov ‘10

National Editor Michael Ramos-Lynch ‘09

World Editor Michael Lezcano ‘09

Production Editor Sara Chimene-Weiss ‘10 Senior Editors Brynn McNally ‘10 David Rangaviz ‘08 Printed in Rhode Island with union labor. Published with support from Campus Progress / Center for American Progress (online at CampusProgress.org). Illustrations by Jonathan Seligson.

browncontemporary.org vol1iss2.indd 2

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

Campus

It’s Not Easy Going Green

Brown’s steps toward reducing its carbon footprint By Brynn McNally ‘10

n an impressive display of athleticism, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse soared from his front row seat to the stage in Salomon 101 with a single leap. His leap onto Brown’s campus – both figuratively and, in this case, literally – jumpstarted a week of environmental awareness-raising Focus the Nation events. To a packed house of emPOWER members, professors, community members and interested students, Whitehouse spoke about the dangers of climate change and the need to put global warming on “the front burner” of both state and national agendas. Whitehouse began by reading two quotes. The first was recorded in 2003 from an Oklahoma senator who, at the time, was, scarily, Chair of the Senate Environmental Committee, and the second from a former governor of Texas in 2000, who you may notoriously recognize as the current (nearly former) president of the United States. In the recorded statements, both men questioned the validity of the science behind global warming and its dangers, revealing themselves as highly doubtful of an immediate need to address harmful greenhouse emissions. Using their ignorance as a starting point to prove himself before a presumably liberal audience, Whitehouse wasted no time in declaring his allegiance to the environmental activists and their push for quick solutions. “The problem of global warming is indeed a state-

ment of fact,” he said, emphasizing nearly three times his certainty that global warming “is not a hoax,” and that it is deserving of more government attention. Though pointing out this fact was perhaps not necessary when speaking to attendees of an event focused on “combating climate change,” Whitehouse set the stage for discussing his continued commitment to fighting for more eco-friendly, pollution-reducing legislation, as

warming. The first of these events, Senator Whitehouse’s speech, emphasized Brown as a leader in addressing environmental issues. Saying “this institution has made great contributions” to combating climate change, Whitehouse outlined Brown’s past accomplishments in controlling emissions, which he said paved the way for other educational institutions to follow. EmPOWER splashed on the scene in 2005 and has since captured the interest and commitment of hundreds on campus. From last February’s construction of the “1000 Faces for Climate Action” wall, to the most recent week of panel discussions, green fairs and movie showings, their presence has been impossible to ignore.

“Brown is not currently among the ‘greenest’ universities in the nation” well as Brown’s leadership in the fight against global warming. As Whitehouse explained, it is abundantly clear that concerns about accelerated global warming are grounded in hard science, and Brown students have certainly responded in kind. The recent push for a more responsible use of energy on campus has been hard to miss; the student organization emPOWER has in the past few years vocally pressed for tougher restrictions on university emissions. The Focus the Nation events – keynoted by Senator Whitehouse – took place between January 28th and February 1st, and were part of a broader national initiative designed to engage students, politicians and professors with the issue of global

nitially, emPOWER called for a 25% reduction in Brown’s carbon emissions by 2010. In the fall of 2006, the group raised its goal by demanding immediate climate neutrality at Brown, citing the immorality of in any way contributing to global warming. Signing onto the Campus Climate Challenge -- whereby hundreds of high schools and colleges around the United States commit to working toward net-zero carbon emissions -- emPOWER began vigorously pressing university officials to commit to a greener future for Brown. The group’s carbon neutrality strategy revolves around urging

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 3

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

the university to purchase carbon “offsets.” Offsets require the university to invest in green projects to negate the damage done by current emissions. In addition, the group has asked the university to commit to reducing on–site emissions, and eventually switching to the usage of low or no-carbon fuels. So in light of emPOWER’s recent demands, how deserving is Brown of Senator Whitehouse’s praise? emPOWER has certainly raised awareness of its cause; it seems virtually impossible to be a student here and not somehow run into an emPOWER event on the main green, read about their most recent campaign progress in the Herald, or randomly meet an enthusiastic member over dinner. Whether hosting the Rhode Island Climate Change Summit and preparing local schools and towns to run their own environmental campaigns, sending letters to Brown’s president and appearing before the university’s Community Council, or even posing naked in Post with ecofriendly light-bulbs - it has all been done by emPOWER members. But has all this awareness and pressure on the higher-ups been effective? What has the university done in response to emPOWER’s demands? For over fifteen years, Brown has been involved in minimizing its environmental impact. In 1991, the campus Environmental Stewardship Initiative was initiated by university president Vartan Gregorian. Called the Brown Is Green (BIG) campaign, it began as an environmental education and advocacy project, with the mission of expanding Brown’s involvement in research and analyses of environmental problems related

to the university’s operations. The goal was to develop a learning model that could be replicated nationally. Over the course of following years, Brown worked to incorporate energy efficient practices and design high performance buildings that minimize wasted energy. But if the university is to be lauded for its work reducing emissions in the past, emPower is to be credited for pressing the university to commit to emission reductions now. Since emPOWER’s formation, progress on “turning Brown green” has accelerated remarkably. In 2007, after pressure from groups like emPOWER and recommendations from Brown’s Energy and Environmental Advisory Committee (EEAC), President Ruth Simmons and the Sidney E. Frank Foundation committed $350,000 to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, an aggressive approach will be taken to limit carbon emissions. Incremental annual reduction targets of greenhouse gas emissions will be set starting this year. Facilities Management has outlined specific strategies such as replacing the lower cost, high emission “#6 fuel” currently dominating Brown’s fossil fuel consumption with less carbon-intensive natural gas, reducing the overall energy density of existing facilities by 20% by 2012. The energy density of all new facilities will also be reduced by 50% below building codes with no less than a 25% reduction in every building. Perhaps most exciting is Brown’s announcement of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing facilities to 42% below 2007 levels by 2020. According to emPOWER leader Julia Beamesder ‘09, “The goal truly is a bold one, and if the university successfully achieves it by following the recommendations provided by the EEAC, Brown will be taking a substantial step towards taking account for its carbon footprint.” On paper, Brown certainly seems to be making real progress. But even if Brown does deliver on its recent promises, how progressive are these emission reductions in a larger context? Is Brown truly worthy of all the praise Senator Whitehouse gave it for being at the forefront of the climate change movement? How does Brown measure up against other institutions of higher learning? Brown’s burgeoning commitment to reducing its carbon footprint is particularly important because the university is not currently among the

“Reducing its own carbon footprint is the least Brown can do” support projects designed to reduce carbon emissions around Providence, complementing Facilities Management’s efforts to make buildings greener. Accompanying this monetary commitment was the formation of CCURB, or Community Carbon Use Reduction at Brown, a program to spearhead these off-campus projects. According to the Department of Facilities Management website, in 1990, greenhouse gas emissions at Brown totaled 50,000 metric tons of CO2. In 2007, they were projected to be 82,000 metric tons, an increase of 64%. Since the EEAC recommends

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 4

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

“greenest” universities in the nation. Consistently topping “greenest university” lists are schools like Middlebury, Oberlin, the University of California campuses, and Ivy Leagues Harvard and Yale. In 2007, the environmental news and commentary website Grist recognized the top 15 green colleges and universities, with Middlebury at #2, Oberlin and Harvard at #5 and #6, respectively, and Yale at #12. Brown wasn’t even a runnerup. The website AlterNet concurred in its “Top Ten Greenest Colleges and Universities in the U.S.,” with Oberlin at #1, Harvard at #2, Middlebury at #6, and Penn State and Tufts at #8 and #9, respectively. Other campuses have launched effective climate change initiatives that Brown can learn from. For example, in 2005, Oberlin students created a web-based monitoring system in some dorms showing how much energy and water is being used, giving students realtime feedback to help change their consumption habits. A year later, they worked with Cleveland-based CityWheels to create a car-sharing program on campus. Oberlin also has Ohio’s largest solar array, and is in the process of transitioning to 100% earth-friendly cleaning products. Another consistent leader of the environmental movement - Harvard - began its Green Campus Initiative in 2000, and it has since continued to grow. Since 2002, twenty new construction and renovation projects have been certified for green credits, more than at any other university in the country. Additionally at Harvard, biodiesel is being made from kitchen oil and is now used to fuel university buses. Though Brown is far from the “greenest” university nationally, it is certainly not at the back of the pack. In fact, the progress that has

vol1iss2.indd 5

been made in the last two years due to the efforts of emPOWER and others has been noticed by prominent environmental think-tanks. In their 2008 “College Sustainability Report Card,” the Sustainable Endowments Institute, a Cambridgebased NGO working to advance sustainability on college campuses, gave Brown an overall score of B+, up from last year. The B+ grade, which accounts for investment priorities, administration, climate change and energy, transportation, and food & recycling considerations, was the same grade Yale received, and positioned Brown just behind Harvard and Middlebury’s A- grades. Brown is demonstrating that it is on track with its increasing investment in sustainable practices. More broadly, there is cause for optimism because of the progress in sustainable movements being made by campuses nationwide. The 2008 College Sustainability Report Card concluded that, overall, green building practices are becoming increasingly widespread, accompanying a dramatic rise in endowment investments in renewable energy funds.

rown has recently taken great strides in its commitment to combat climate change. EmPOWER has played a large role in that effort. Looking forward, Julia Beamesder said, “emPOWER will continue working with schools like [the University of Rhode Island] to push for aggressive emission reduction standards at the state level.” As the scope of its focus extends even further beyond Brown, emPOWER members have the potential to make a real impact on climate change. People like Danny Musher ’10, an emPOWER member since 2006 and current leader of emPOWER’s state legis-

lation group, certainly supply hope. Musher, also the Brown student liaison to the Rhode Island chapter of the Sierra Student Club, lobbies tirelessly for upcoming Rhode Island legislation involving renewable electricity and energy efficiency in transportation. His work embodies the seriousness with which the university is just now beginning to embrace the fight against climate change. Reducing its own carbon footprint is the least Brown can do in a Providence community where it owns an exceptionally large percentage of real estate and is the 5th largest employer. As a leading university, its impact extends far beyond its presence in Providence and even Rhode Island; Brown has a special responsibility to be a role model for the development of more sustainable practices to combat climate change. If its most recent commitments are any indication, Brown is well on its way to assuming that leadership position. ● BC

Contribute to the Brown Contemporary Email editor@ browncontemporary. org

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

SnitchPowerGod

Our exclusive interview with the person who invited Bill O’Reilly to SPG By Tor Tarantola ‘08

n Saturday night, November 12, 2005, Brown’s Queer Alliance hosted its annual SexPowerGod party in Sayles Hall. The event, which has become a fixture of campus nightlife, is famous for its skimpy dress code. Most attendees wear little more than their underwear, if they wear anything at all. In 2005, the event garnered an unwelcome level of attention and notoriety. Unbeknownst to the party’s attendees, Jesse Watters, a producer with The O’Reilly Factor at Fox News, attended the event and videotaped a number of scantily clad students dancing, some of them visibly intoxicated. That following Monday, The O’Reilly Factor broadcast a segment dedicated to the party, featuring an interview with Watters and showing portions of his footage without blurring anyone’s face. During the interview, Watters claimed to have observed a number of students “making out,” some engaging in public sex. O’Reilly also speculated that students at the party had been using illegal drugs like ecstasy and criticized the party for resulting in a record number of emergency medical calls. According to the Providence Journal, more than 30 students required medical attention, about 20 of whom were hospitalized – a record number for a Brown social event. This caused university officials to initiate a review of its alcohol and event management policies. In an email sent to all undergraduates the evening following

SexPowerGod, David Greene, then Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services, expressed concern regarding the record number of EMS calls following the party. “That these problems occurred at events where alcohol was not served,” Greene wrote, “suggests the need to examine the climate for social events, their means of promotion, the practices regarding admission to them, and the culture of ‘pre-parties,’ which can lead to serious health consequences.”

who attended the event. No effort was made to shield the identity of those caught on camera, and many attendees were clearly identifiable. The broadcast itself, besides raising issues of alcohol and event management policy, caused a great amount of concern regarding expectations of privacy. The Herald reported in April 2006 that, according to Josh Teitelbaum ’08, QA co-president at the time, both the university and QA were aware before the party that a student had informed The O’Reilly Factor of the event and that a producer was planning to videotape it. Teitelbaum also claimed to have been informed by the Brown News Service that it had convinced the Factor not to go forward with the segment. During the Factor segment, Watters reported that he had purchased a ticket to SexPowerGod on the Internet for $80. The person who sold him the ticket was not the same person who had initially contacted the show’s producers. The Contemporary was able to interview the person who originally contacted the Factor about SexPowerGod. That person, who was a Brown undergraduate at the time, spoke on the condition of anonymity. The following is a transcript of the conversation between the Contemporary (BC) and the O’Reilly informant (OI): BC: Can you describe your part in Bill O’Reilly’s report on SexPowerGod?

“They never told me outright that they were going to run a story on it. But after he called back, I knew it was very likely.” -O’Reilly informant O’Reilly also criticized the university for supposedly allowing the party to be funded with a portion of the student activities fee, an amount charged each undergraduate and allocated to the Undergraduate Finance Board for distribution to student groups. According to the Brown Daily Herald, Swathi Bojedla ’07, the UFB chair at the time, claimed that the party was in fact funded exclusively by raised money and ticket sales. The Factor broadcast caused embarrassment for a number of students

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 6

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

OI: I called The O’Reilly Factor and told them about the party. They then researched the party on their own and found out that Playboy had ranked it the #2 best college party in the country or something. They then asked me more about the party and I told them what I knew. They then asked me if I could get them a ticket. I said no. I still have no idea how they got a ticket. BC: Who did you talk to at the Factor? OI: I don’t remember. It wasn’t Jesse Watters . BC: Was it a producer? OI: Yes, I think so. He told me after the phone call that they would research the party and discuss it with Bill and the other producers. He said that they had done a similar report at Harvard before. BC: You mentioned that they asked you more about the party. Did they call you back? OI: Yes. I only made one phone call to them. BC: How long after this initial call did they call you back? OI: I think a day or two. The thing is, they never told me outright that they were going to run a story on it. But after he called back, I knew it was very likely. BC: You said you told them what you knew about the party. What exactly did they ask you, and what did you tell them? OI: I told them I had never been to the party myself but that I had heard about the things that happen there: all the sexual activity, excessive drinking, emergency room trips, etc. While the behavior there is cer-

tainly unacceptable, I thought that the worst part about it was the fact that the university not only tolerated it, but actively supported it by letting them use one of the most historic buildings at Brown and supplying security and such for it. BC: So give me an idea of the timeline. How soon before SPG did you contact the Factor? OI: Right around when tickets began going on sale...so probably a

cause in any sense. BC: What’s your definition of “actively supporting?” OI: I remember after the whole thing erupted, Swathi Bojedla and others were nitpicking about whether or not the student activities fee was being used for the event. These people completely missed the point. The QA is a recognized student group that receives a significant amount of money from the university. They use this money to recruit members, hold meetings, advertise, etc. In order to have this party, they need the active consent of the university. The university allowed the QA to use Sayles Hall, and provides security and medical assistance to the party. Brown knew exactly what was happening at the party. Forget about trying to stop it, they enabled it. BC: What’s the nature of your objection? What should the university have tried to stop? OI: It’s not good university practice to support a party where students are having sex on the floor of one of the most historic buildings on campus and being taken to the emergency room in astonishing numbers. I don’t think this is an unreasonable objection. BC: How do you know that this went on there? I thought you’d never been to SPG. OI: I had heard it from enough people to believe it. BC: Enough people who had actually been? OI: Yes. BC: OK let’s talk about the consequences of the report. As you know, one of the producers was able to bring a video camera into the party and later broadcast his footage. Did

“These are students who have no shame about dressing like fools and having sex with random people in front of their peers. They are a disgrace; I have no sympathy for them.” -O’Reilly informant

vol1iss2.indd 7

week? BC: What motivated you to call the Factor? OI: The idea that the university was actively supporting such debauchery just wasn’t right to me. My other problem was the double standard. Brown’s policies on fraternities and sororities are actually quite strict. Yet because the [Queer Alliance] hosts the event, the university seems entirely afraid to criticize anything they do. I fail to see how throwing this kind of a party advances their

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

you expect that this would happen when you talked with the Factor? OI: They didn’t tell me, but yes, I thought it was likely. BC: The footage featured a number of students dancing in their underwear (or who were otherwise very scantily clad), and the Factor did not blur anyone’s face. This caused a great deal of embarrassment for a number of these students. How do you feel about this? Do you regret your decision to contact the Factor? OI: These are students who have no shame about dressing like fools and having sex with random people in front of their peers. They are a disgrace; I have no sympathy for them. In fact, I think it’s a good thing that their parents know what they are spending $40,000 on. BC: B u t surely only a small number of them engaged in public sex, if this is in fact true. What about those who were just enjoying themselves? Do they deserve to be embarrassed on national television? Isn’t there some presumption of privacy that should be respected? OI: People show up to the party with an expectation of random hooking up to say the least. I don’t know that they deserve to be embarrassed per se, but I can’t say that I feel particularly bad that they were caught on camera. BC: So you feel no guilt for the trouble you caused the people who were unwittingly caught on camera? OI: No. If they were that concerned about their sexual privacy,

they wouldn’t have gone to begin with. And they wouldn’t have gotten so drunk. BC: But surely the privacy abdicated at a party doesn’t include the expectation of being videotaped and broadcast on national TV in front of a million people... OI: The QA themselves stated that their goal was to bring sex out into the open. I helped them accomplish their mission. They should thank me for that. BC: But surely that mission also

Alliance sponsors SPG play any part in your objection? OI: Yes. I have two objections. First, reasonable people can disagree on the issue of gay rights. The problem with the QA is that they don’t actually try to focus on these tough issues. Instead, they sponsor out-ofcontrol parties. If anything, they actually confirm the conservative critique of gay rights. Second, I don’t like the double standard from the university. Brown gives the QA a free pass because they are too politically correct to criticize queers. BC: Are you saying the university wouldn’t have allowed such a party if it were sponsored by another group? OI: I would hope the university would ban all parties of that nature. BC: Does that include parties where any drinking takes place? OI: The legal drinking age is 21. Whether or not you think that law is right, Brown certainly has an obligation to enforce it. BC: So your issue is with underage drinking? OI: My issue is with underage drinking, sexual debauchery and the QA’s conduct on campus. BC: How do you feel about the supposed inaccuracies and unverified assertions in O’Reilly’s coverage of the event? I’m talking specifically about his speculation about drug use, and the false assertion that student activity fee money was spent on the party. OI: Student activity fees were indirectly used. Any journalistic inaccuracies should be condemned. BC: How were they used indi-

“I leaked the story to the Factor because I care about Brown. It is just wrong for Brown to be allowing this kind of thing on its campus.” includes the creation of a safe space for sexual expression - isn’t national embarrassment inimical to that goal? OI: How exactly does random hooking up and excessive drinking create a “safe space for sexual expression?” BC: I think you’re over-generalizing - I doubt everyone who attended hooked up randomly or drank excessively. OI: It may be true that not every single person who attended the party got drunk or hooked up randomly. But the purpose of the party was very clearly to promote this kind of behavior. That’s why the party had become so famous. BC: Does the fact that the Queer

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 8

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Summer, 2008 rectly? OI: The QA is a Brown-recognized student group that receives university money and uses university facilities to recruit members and hold meetings. Rather than using their resources responsibly, they spend time facilitating debauchery. BC: But the student activities fee goes directly to the Undergraduate Finance Board (UFB), and according to the UFB chair at the time, SPG was funded entirely by ticket sales. How does this substantiate your (and O’Reilly’s) claim that student activity fee money was spent on the event? OI: The QA gets UFB money. The QA organizes SPG. BC: How do you feel about any damage done to the university’s reputation as a result? As you might remember, O’Reilly called President Simmons a “pinhead.” OI: I leaked the story to the Factor because I care about Brown. It is just wrong for Brown to be allowing this kind of thing on its campus. I remember seeing Wikipedia, blogs and other things mention SPG as being a part of Brown. University administrators knew for several years what was happening at SPG and still refused to do anything about it. The negative attention they received after the O’Reilly report forced them to start cleaning up their act. BC: What would you say to those who would argue that it’s not the university’s place to control the behavior of its students, most of whom are adults? OI: My argument is simply that the university should not be enabling this kind of behavior.

BC: Let’s talk about the university’s response to the story. What do you think about the changes they implemented as a result? OI: They certainly took steps in the right direction. The interesting thing about the university’s response, though, was that it focused almost entirely on the alcohol problem at SPG and student safety. I’m glad that they confronted that issue. However, they completely ignored the nature of the party. I did not see a single administrator condemn random hooking up

BC: Aren’t students going to do what they do anyway? You could argue that any party could lead to random hooking up. Should the university ban all parties? OI: The reason SPG had become so popular is because of its reputation for over-the-top sexual activity. As a general rule, the university has an obligation to respect the law and should try to enforce certain basic standards of decency. BC: Now that you’ve seen the consequences of the Factor broadcast, are you glad that you tipped them off? OI: Yes. SPG is nowhere near as bad as it once was and the university’s alcohol policies are much improved.

“If SPG had a vote, it probably wouldn’t.” -Katie Lamb ‘10

vol1iss2.indd 9

at SPG or criticize the QA for hosting the party. And while they stopped allowing the party to happen at Sayles, it still happens in a university building. The proper response would have been to ban the party completely and cut off any university support or recognition to the QA unless they started acting responsibly. BC: Is it really the university’s place to regulate its students’ sex lives? OI: They should not enable random hooking up in university buildings. BC: Even in dorms? OI: I obviously don’t think Brown should have cameras monitoring students at all times. But no, Brown should not encourage students to randomly have sex with each other. I don’t think this is a particularly controversial argument.

While the Contemporary’s source alleges that the university enforces stricter standards for fraternity and sorority parties than it does for SPG, the source was unable to point out any specific policies or instances where this has been the case . atie Lamb ’10 is the current head chair of the Queer Alliance. She also served as an event coordinator for the QA’s dances, including SexPowerGod, in 2006 and 2007. In offering comment for this story, she made it clear that her views did not necessarily represent those of the Queer Alliance. Joshua Teitelbaum ’08, who coordinated and staffed SPG 2005 while serving as Queer Alliance co-president, declined to be interviewed. Lamb acknowledged that there were problems with SPG in 2005. “I would agree that the statistics (concerning the number of students

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Campus

Summer, 2008

requiring emergency medical attention at the dance) are obviously a problem,” she said, “but it’s a problem that’s bigger than SPG... I knew there had been controversy and problems and I saw SPG as something really important. And I wanted to make SPG a safer place.” As a result of the problems surrounding SexPowerGod 2005, the university placed the Queer Alliance on probation following a disciplinary hearing. According to Lamb, the QA was forbidden from holding its annual spring dance, StarF*ck, and the coordinators of SPG ’05 were prohibited from planning the dance in the future. The university allowed SexPowerGod to continue in the fall of 2006, contingent upon a number of requirements being met. According to Lamb, these included hosting emergency medical personnel on site, hiring security guards to manage each entrance and exit, and requiring each student party manager to complete a 90-minute training with Health Education and the Student Activities Office in order to ensure that intoxicated students were not admitted. The Queer Alliance was also required to notify the Office of Public Affairs and University Relations before proceeding with the dance. In response to the O’Reilly Factor broadcast, SexPowerGod event coordinators now keep a guest list instead of selling tickets, and only Brown ID holders and their guests are admitted. Cameras are no longer allowed inside the dance; yearbook photographers were denied permission to take pictures, though they had been allowed

to in the past. By all objective measures, the precautions taken by SPG coordinators since 2005 have been successful in addressing the health problems that plagued that year’s event. The Herald reported that 14 students required emergency medical attention at SPG 2006, and that only five EMS calls were made the night of SPG 2007 (only one of which, according to Lamb, occurred at the dance). But health concerns were not the only issues raised by the Factor broadcast in 2005. The reputation that SPG has garnered over the years has raised issues about how it reflects upon gay rights groups like the QA. When asked about the consequences of the broadcast, Lamb said, “The

not about the political controversies of the time or about what one person thinks is right. It transforms itself as it’s going on, and it continues to do so. And that’s the beautiful thing about it.” Lamb denies that SPG encourages a stereotype of gays and lesbians as being hypersexual. “When you’re at the dance,” she said, “it’s not about ‘I’m straight’ or ‘I’m gay.’ It’s about learning more about yourself and questioning what it means to be attracted to somebody and what it means for them to be attracted to you...The thing is, the majority of people who go to SPG do not identify as gay or lesbian.” While she believes Jesse Watters, the O’Reilly producer who snuck into the dance with a video camera, is a voyeur, she does not harbor resentment toward the person who tipped off the Factor. “I don’t necessarily think it’s an entirely bad thing that that happened. To some extent, I would be curious to know why they did it. I wouldn’t be angry or anything,” she said. “Maybe in the long run it helped. I’m sure it sucked at the time. I’m glad I wasn’t around in ’05. I’ve been more than happy to pick up the rubble and reconstruct something.” ● BC

“I don’t necessarily think it’s an entirely bad thing that that happened.” -Katie Lamb ‘10 light that was put on SPG was not a kind one. And, you know, they pulled on national issues that kind of weren’t the point. They said this gay rights group was throwing a giant orgy and students were shit-hammered and blah blah blah. But that’s so not the point. It dragged in a lot of controversy. SPG is not about gay rights. And to bring it to that level – it’s not fair to the event.” The QA comprises a number of smaller committees that focus on different issues and projects, many of them political. But, according to Lamb, SPG is different. “There isn’t really a very political side to it,” she said. “If SPG had a vote, it probably wouldn’t. It’s beyond all of that. It’s

Send letters to editor@ browncontemporary. org The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 10

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Region

Summer, 2008

Region

Closing the Gap

One man’s work to close the achievement gap in Rhode Island By Michael Ramos-Lynch ‘09

here is an educational achievement gap in this country that has a created a stark difference in opportunities available to poor students of color and more affluent white students. According to a Pathways to College Network report, 79% of Asian Americans and 72% of whites graduate from high school in four years or less, compared to only about 50% of African American and Latino ninth graders. Additionally, students from low-income families who have graduated high school are 25% less likely to enroll in college than students of high-income families who have graduated high school. According to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, there is a striking funding disparity between funds available to high-poverty schools and schools in more affluent areas. Moreover, “students who attend high schools with high concentrations of poverty are more likely to: lack proper nutrition, come from singleparent families, to move residences often, be taught by unqualified teachers, have friends/classmates with low levels of achievement, to be offered fewer pre-collegiate courses, and to have higher teacher turnover.” The education achievement gap plagues every single state in our nation, including Rhode Island. In 2007, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a testing project of the U.S. Department of Education and the only nationally representative and continuing assess-

ment of student achievement, administered a reading and math test to Rhode Island public school students. Only 34% of fourth graders scored proficient in math, and only 30.8% tested proficient in reading. For eighth graders, only 27.7% scored proficient in math and only 27.2% were proficient in reading. Perhaps most striking, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, a proxy measure of poverty,

one of the assistant principals at Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School. Mr. Chiappetta is a long time advocate of closing the education achievement gap. He joined Teach For America, a non-profit organization whose mission is to close the academic achievement gap between children from different socio-economic backgrounds, in 1995. He taught social studies and chess to an underserved school in Harlem, New York. The chess team he coached while at the school won the 1997 National Junior High School Team Chess Championship. He has a B.A. in History from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master’s degree in Business from the Yale School of Management, and a Master’s degree in Education from the University of Rhode Island.

“Low-income high school graduates are 25% less likely to enroll in college”

vol1iss2.indd 11

had an average score in 2007 that was 25 points lower than students not eligible. The evidence also suggests that not only is the educational attainment gap as it stands a serious problem, but that it is widening between some groups. In 2007, black students scored on average 29 points lower than white students; that is a 7 point increase from 1998 when the gap was 22 points. Hispanic students in 2007 had an average score that was 34 points lower than white students, a 5 point gap increase from 1998. In order to better understand these statistics and their implications for the educational achievement gap both on a national and regional level, I interviewed Jeremy Chiappetta,

M. R-L. How did you become interested in education? J.C. I am a first generation college graduate (Penn, ’95), and the opportunities that I had because of my education were and are tremendous. During my senior year, I spent winter nights volunteering for Project Home in Philadelphia, urging homeless people to come into shelters on cold winter nights. I hoped that by joining Teach for America I could be part of a societal solution to break the cycle of poverty and end homelessness. M R-L How long have you been the assistant principal at Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School?

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:00 PM

Region

Summer, 2008

J.C. I am currently in my second year at Perry. M. R-L. Where did you work before? J.C. After Teach for America, I joined a non-profit in New York City called Chess-in-the-Schools. Chessin-the-Schools teaches chess to thousands of New York City kids in more than 100 NYC public schools. I left there to go to the Yale School of Management where I earned my MBA. After school I joined IBM as a strategy consultant, but I quickly found my way back to my passion: K-12 education. I came to Providence as a special assistant to the superintendent through a program called the Broad Residency. M. R-L. How does being an assistant principal compare with work you have done in the past? J.C. It might be a surprise, but being an assistant principal requires many of the skills that I have needed to be successful in the nonprofit and private sectors. At IBM we used data to identify solutions to challenging problems and we communicated these solutions to our clients. As a school leader, I spend much of my time looking at tough situations and working with teachers, students, and families to build solutions. M. R-L. Why did you make the transition from your corporate job to working in a middle school? J.C. While I loved my colleagues, the intellectual challenge of the work, and the paycheck, at the end of the day the work I was doing was not nearly as fulfilling as working with young people. Moreover, I believe that public education is the civil rights issue of our time, and that

K-12 needs talented and dedicated people to work to ensure that one day all students have the opportunity to obtain an excellent education. M. R-L. Did your experience with TFA play a role in your decision to return to education? J.C. Teach for America was the most challenging and fantastic experience of my life. I have never been more physically or emotionally tired at the end of a day or a week as in my first year of teaching. (I never celebrated a snow day as hard as I celebrated a snow day in February of my first year of teaching!) Yet, during my two years of Teach for America, I know that I made a positive impact on students’ lives. M. R-L. Did your experience in

refer to our 6th graders as the class of 2018, the year that they are slated to finish college. We now have a school-wide belief that our students truly can achieve this goal. M. R-L. What is your favorite thing about being an assistant principal? Are there any encouraging stories that you can recall? J.C. Last spring, 42 Perry students toured Boston University and Harvard University. The students wrote admissions essays taken from the “common app” and had the opportunity to see, first-hand, what colleges look and feel like. For the remainder of the year, the student conversations in the halls often were about what it would take to go to BU or Harvard. This year we are planning to tour Rhode Island colleges, including Bryant University, the University of Rhode Island, Providence College, and, of course, Brown University. M. R-L. What is your least favorite thing about being an assistant principal? J.C. Assistant principals are charged with discipline and safety. While dealing with kids having bad days or students who have “beefs” with other students is part of the job, so is lunch duty. Ugh! 90 minutes every day standing in a lunchroom watching kids eat just is not fun. M. R-L. How does Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School compare to other middle schools in the district? J.C. Perry is one of seven middle schools in Providence. We serve approximately 750 students who represent dozens of nationalities and cultures, including Hispanic (Mexican, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Guatemalan), Asian (Chinese, Lao, Cambo-

“I have never been more physically or emotionally tired at the end of a day or a week as in my first year of teaching.” -Jeremy Chiappetta TFA help you in your ability to perform at your current job? J.C. Absolutely. M. R-L. How so? J.C. Teach for America taught me to be persistent and flexible. These two characteristics helped me through each position that I have had, whether it was IBM or Providence schools. As an assistant principal, Teach for America taught me about the power of expectations. Many of my students excelled because of my belief in them. As an assitant principal, I work every day to help my teachers and students raise the bar. We now

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 12

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Region

Summer, 2008

dian), African (Nigerian, Liberian), African American, and Caucasian. 98% of our students qualify for free or reduced price lunch. While we are not that different than most of the public schools in Providence, Perry’s student poverty level is among the highest in the state. In terms of student achievement, Perry is making strides academically. Even so, our achievement levels are still strikingly low. For example, we improved the percentage of students meeting standard in writing by 100% (from 9% to 18%), but that still means that fewer than 1 in 5 students are writing at the proficient level. Clearly there is much work to be done. M. R-L E d u c a tion Week’s “Quality Counts 2008” report card gave Rhode Island Ds in the categories of student achievement and the state’s efforts to improve and evaluate teacher quality. Do you agree with Education Week’s assessment? If so, what do you think Rhode Island schools should do in order to improve in these two areas? J.C. Incremental improvement is not enough. In order to have dramatic improvement or disruptive change in any endeavor, be it business or education, structures need to change. One model that has shown dramatic improvement is the Kipp program, a national model for middle school reform. Kipp schools work with disadvantaged student populations and have breakthrough student achievement. They do this in part through school cultures that set ridiculously high expectations. They also change

the school structure: longer school days, longer school weeks, and longer school years. While implementing this type of program in Rhode Island would require changes in contracts, funding, and, perhaps, state law, our civic leaders need to find a way to support dramatic change. I am fortunate to work with some of the greatest teachers in the city, if not all of Rhode Island. To be sure, four Perry teachers recently won full scholarships to a master’s program at Brown University! Even so, we have positions in our school system that are unfilled because we do not have qualified candidates for these positions. It is my sincere hope that the

help close the education achievement gap in our country? J.C. Volunteer. Get in classrooms. See first-hand the good, the bad, and the ugly of public education, and make a decision that the status quo is unacceptable. Teaching is not for everyone, so if this work is not for you, bring a sense of urgency for reforming schools to whatever your profession of choice is. And, you can always go out and make a bunch of money and donate to school reform – we need philanthropists too! An excellent resource for volunteering in Providence schools is VIPS (www.Vips4kids.Org - full disclosure, I am a board member). And, if you are serious about service, consider Teach for America, Peace Corps, teaching fellow programs in New York, New Orleans, or Chicago (to name a few). M. R-L. Thank you very much for your time. I greatly appreciate it. J.C. Thank you. ● BC

“See first-hand the good, the bad, and the ugly of public education, and make a decision that the status quo is unacceptable.”

vol1iss2.indd 13

Rhode Island Regents seek to change certification requirements and state law to allow for alternative certification programs that encourage programs like Teach for America, New Leaders for New Schools, and Peace Corps fellows to come to Rhode Island. M. R-L. What are your future career plans? J.C. I love what I do. Some day I hope to expand the impact that I have by leading a school or even a school district. In the meantime, I intend to do everything that I can to help make Perry the best middle school in the state of Rhode Island. M. R-L. Do you have any advice for young people who would like to

Advertise in the Brown Contemporary! Reach hundreds of sophisticated readers at affordable rates. For more into, email matt@ browncontemporary .org

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Nation

Summer, 2008

On the Trail with Clinton, Obama and Edwards

Nation

Three students stump for their candidates

By Matthew Corritore ‘09, Max Chaiken ‘09, and Steve Moilanen ‘08

he Democratic primary seems like a distant memory, with Senators Obama and McCain having officially clinched their parties’ nominations. The Democratic party appears to have coalesced around its candidate, despite worries that its protracted primary battle would make unity impossible. The Democratic party seemed as divided as it has been in recent memory — and Brown was no different. We asked three students to look back at their experiences campaigning during the far-frompredictable early primary season.

Clinton

Matthew Corritore ‘09

car police force will without a doubt cite you for five above the speed limit. All these peculiarities only really managed to give the place that quaint charm, and it goes without saying I fell for the town. Yes, I thought delightful the place where Mitt Romney vacations (and is worshipped) every year, the municipality with a greater density of Republicans than any other in New England. Wolfeboro was where I spent three weeks over winter break interning on Senator Hillary Clinton’s New

pact. But by the time I left Wolfeboro after a thrilling come-from-behind Clinton victory, I had learned that no matter the size of the campaign, ordinary volunteers can make or break a presidential run. Penny, a hip older woman who lives alone, designed the house that served as Clinton headquarters herself. If she were in college in the late 60s, she surely would have lead many a protest, and I got the sense she supported Hillary because she was a woman, not necessarily because she agreed entirely with Hillary’s centerleaning views. We worked out of Penny’s house because the campaign couldn’t justify renting office space for just two staff members. Eventually I found out why I was sent to work in a house and not in the larger Conway office; I was the only Carroll County intern not allergic to Alice, Penny’s lovable but creepy Siamese cat who liked to snuggle in my lap as I entered data into the computer. My most lasting impression of Wolfeboro came when local volunteers suggested Fabien and I talk to voters at the dump. It was clearly a bizarre joke, so I laughed. Then I realized they were serious. Hundreds of townsfolk socialize with their neighbors at the local dump on Sundays, where they toss the week’s gar-

“Local volunteers suggested I talk to voters at the dump. It was clearly a bizarre joke, so I laughed. Then I realized they were serious.”

’ve lived in the suburbs most of my life, so adjusting to life in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire was difficult at first. Wolfeboro is a small town in Carroll County with about 6,000 residents; it’s “The Oldest Summer Resort in America,” which means its population decreases substantially in the cold months. Need to gas up your car at 8 PM? Sorry, the town’s two gas stations close at about that time. Have a frontwheel drive Civic and want to drive down Mountain West Drive? You might want to call the tow truck in advance. Wolfeboro’s sole traffic signal on Main Street is really just a de facto stop sign, and the three-squad

Hampshire primary campaign. Given the town’s mostly fair reputation as a Romney enclave, I was hardly surprised that no Democratic campaign had ever assigned permanent staff to Wolfeboro. The Clinton campaign decided to give the town a shot, so it hired one field organizer to work there beginning in September of last year. When I came onboard, I found Fabien, my supervisor, working 14+ hour days out of a local Clinton supporter’s house. At first I was skeptical that two people and a handful of volunteers could have much of an im-

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 14

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Nation

Summer, 2008

bage and swap dusty treasures and the week’s gossip. It was the perfect place to pitch Hillary’s healthcare plan or flaunt her work in the Senate. Maybe working in Wolfeboro robbed me of the quintessential campaign experience. I looked forward to meeting hoards of fellow interns scampering about a bustling office, as phones rang off the hook and important looking twenty-somethings mused about get-out-the-vote strategy. But ultimately I think the benefits of my atypical campaign experience outweighed the costs. One indisputable positive was that Penny always had piping hot coffee and biscotti ready after I came in from a long, cold day of knocking on doors. Most importantly, we didn’t want to be rude and do data entry late at night in Penny’s living room, right? So I just had to (sigh) somehow live with doing my work from the comfort of my warm bed at Wendy and Roger’s house across town. Wendy and Roger were kind enough to put me up in their beautiful lakeside home for my time in Wolfeboro. Unlike Penny, who I am confident would support any nominated Democrat, Wendy often threatened to vote for McCain if Hillary wasn’t the nominee. She and Roger had two grown children named, believe it or not, Bill and Hillary. I was too amused to probe whether or not their names were a happy coincidence. Wendy also attended Wellesley College just a few years after Hillary. A distant relative of George W. Bush, she had a particular distaste for Obama, and

each day over breakfast would unveil her latest diatribe about why Obama was not ready to be president. Wendy and Roger were placed in charge of the visibility operation, an essential component of New Hampshire “retail” politics. I believe Wendy was put on this earth to wave at cars, elicit honks, and jeer at the middle fingers or occasional mooning we’d get from a Romney supporter. Wendy’s passion also made for rather entertaining friction between her and the Clinton staffers at regional headquarters. She was adamant that we were losing votes by phoning people at too late an hour and knocking on doors too often. We did lose Wolfeboro to Obama by 123 votes; maybe she was right, maybe we annoyed at least 123 people with our ground assault. My theory, though, is that we lost because most Wolfeboro Demo-

be our unofficial slogan stuck. New Hampshire voters displayed remarkable independence picking Clinton right when the enormity of Obama’s Iowa win was setting in. The mundane work is the same on every political campaign: reciting a script over the phone to annoyed people eating dinner, dealing with the occasional door slammed in your face, trying to read house numbers at night, etc. What made Wolfeboro special for me were the ordinary people the campaign depended on day in and day out. I don’t think most of the volunteers realized the impact they were making. It was devastating for me and Fabien if even one volunteer cancelled his or her shift. In as small a campaign operation as the one we ran in Wolfeboro, each volunteer did a huge share of the work we needed to finish. And so I left New Hampshire with new skills and experience, yes, but also a greater appreciation for the ordinary people that make these multi-million dollar campaigns work. My deepest thanks go out to Penny, Wendy, Roger, and everyone else who contributed to Hillary’s success in the Granite State.

“She remarked, ‘A nice young man came to my door yesterday, and we had such a lovely conversation. That really did it for me!’” crats are in fact quite liberal, and they gravitated to the more liberal Obama despite our best efforts. Wendy and Roger were also emblematic of the kind of people I met in New Hampshire. They knew they were privileged to vote in the country’s first primary, and they took their vote seriously. After Clinton’s loss in Iowa, we tried to speak to this sentiment while going door-to-door. We said, “Don’t worry about what Iowans think. Iowans pick corn; Granite Staters pick the President.” May-

Obama

Max Chaiken ‘09

t 5 PM on January 5th, 2008 I was walking around the sixth ward in Manchester, New Hampshire knocking on doors as a volunteer for Barack Obama’s primary campaign. At one of these doors I met a nice elderly lady whose screen door was iced shut, but she insisted that we chat through the screen. She told me that she was still choosing between Sena-

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 15

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Nation

Summer, 2008

tor Obama and John Edwards, and we discussed the election for a few minutes. Had I never encountered her again, our conversation would have been enough to remind me how important hitting every single door and talking to every single voter is. But the next day, as I sat making calls from headquarters, I called one house and the very same elderly lady answered the phone. Once again she told me of her positive feelings for both Obama and Edwards, not remembering my name or even thinking she might have met me just the day before. As I wrapped up my phone pitch, though, she remarked: “You know, after all that, I do think I’m leaning towards Obama. A nice young man came to my door yesterday, and we had such a lovely conversation. That really did it for me!” Since the middle of last summer I have been working actively as the coordinator for Students for Barack Obama here at Brown. It is the first campaign that I have ever worked on and at first I was nervous. “Why am I suddenly getting involved in presidential politics?” I asked myself. What difference can one person really make? Over this last semester, I have started to answer those questions. I am involved in this campaign for a host of reasons, but in short, I am involved in this campaign because one candidate has given me reason to hope for our country. After seven years of a destructive Bush administration waging an unjust war and failing to address the critical challenges that we face, we need more than a president of a different party.

We need a president who can unite the country and inspire individuals to believe again in the United States. We need a president who can actively call students and Americans of all ages to action. Since day one students have been involved in this campaign, both on campus and around the country. Students were an active part of Senator Obama’s primary victory in Iowa on January 3rd. Students here in Rhode Island have made phone calls across the country to get others involved.

tuning in and working hard to make their voices heard. While this has undoubtedly added some degree of confusion to the process, it also seems to have made it more democratic and viable – more people of different ages, races, classes and genders are participating than ever before and that is a healthy development for American democracy. As I already mentioned, I have never before been involved in any sort of political campaign. I have never felt so passionately about any particular candidate, and therefore I embrace any opportunity to share my passion for Barack Obama. My experience in New Hampshire has taught me that we as students must participate. The minute that we do not we are at best disenfranchised, and at worst apathetic to the outcome of perhaps the most important election of our generation.

“In the end, Edwards came up short, falling victim to the extraordinary organization of the Obama campaign.” Students have raised thousands of dollars through small, personal donations. And students have raised awareness in our local communities. But most importantly, students have realized that each and every one of us can be a force for change in this election; a force for good in this country. While in New Hampshire, we woke up early on many mornings to do visibility and we saw people supporting every candidate. As we cheered and held signs for our candidate, I was truly inspired by the sense of commitment that every volunteer possessed – not just to Obama but also to the democratic process. The primary process this year has been more tumultuous and well-covered by the media than any primary in history. Turnout in every state has been high, and new states have been brought into the process. Voters are

Edwards

Steve Moilanen ‘08

fter bouncing along the dirt road for a few minutes, I give up, turning off the ignition to the car. I rifle through the Edwards campaign literature (“A Fighter Who Can Win,” the pamphlet blares) to dig out the Iowa maps I bought at the gas station a ways back. The house I am supposed to canvass – 154 Red Tree Road, somewhere in the vicinity of Nora Springs, Iowa (population 1,532) – is nowhere to be found. Nor, in fact, is any sign of civilization. Looking around, surrounded by fields that stretch to the horizon, the crops laid low by the winter winds, I

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 16

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Summer, 2008 can’t help but feel like I have fallen off the face of the earth. This is the nature of the ground game in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses – hundreds of twentysomething volunteers (trying to) knock on doors and ask for the support of the 125,000 folks who usually turn out on caucus night. When you first arrive in Iowa, it’s hard to escape the feeling that there’s something absurd about the whole process. The results of the caucuses, after all, are influential and often determinative in electing the leader of the free world, and the idea that those results hinge in some small way on whether I can find 154 Red Tree Road is, to me, horrifying. At the same time, after spending a week volunteering in Iowa, I began to understand the usefulness of presidential candidates having to run the gauntlet with voters in Mason City, Waterloo, or Nora Springs. Barack Obama often uses the anecdote of having a grizzled farmer in overalls and a straw hat ask him about the political situation in Burma to illustrate the point that Iowa residents take their jobs as voters very seriously. From my experience, that’s absolutely the case. I spent a summer working for John Edwards and, by extension, learning his policies and platform, but I found myself bumping up against the limits of my policy knowledge as Iowans grilled me on Edwards’ positions on mental health treatment for veterans, or carbon sequestration technology in coal-fired power plants, or trade normalization with China – to name just a few. In addition to being policy wonks, Iowa residents are extraordinarily nice people. Of the folks whose doors we knocked on, most invited

us into their homes. Almost everyone was ready to engage us in conversation, or at least listen to our spiel, despite the fact that they had been politically carpet-bombed for ten months straight. On my last day of canvassing, for instance, I found myself in three separate Iowans’ living rooms. One elderly lady was thrilled us “young bucks” were engaging in the political process, and insisted that she show us yellowed photographs of her posing with politicians from the 1950s and 60s. A second couple insisted that we meet the Lhasa Apso puppies they had just brought back from the Humane Society. I also got

to seeeeeee yew” to each person he shakes hands with and, when he looks you in the eye, you feel like he sincerely means it). And Iowans, for their part, reciprocated by making Edwards into something of an adopted favorite son. I talked with plenty of folks who supported Edwards, of course, but even those who were supporting other candidates had nothing but kind words to say about Edwards. In fact, many caucus-goers who supported other candidates were almost apologetic for doing so. On more than one occasion, people said things like “I’m supporting Hillary, but I really, really like John. He is such a good man. When’s the last time we had a candidate who actually stood with working people? And his wife is such a dear! Oh I just don’t know who I’m going to support. Maybe you should mark me down as undecided between John and Hillary.” In the end, Edwards came up short, falling victim to the extraordinary organization of and enthusiasm for the Obama campaign. But I’m proud of the campaign he has run, and I’m proud to have participated in his campaign. In fact, I’d still travel to the ends of the earth for him. After all, Nora Springs, Iowa, is just around the corner from there. ● BC

“Edwards is the consummate retail politician, a man who excels at the interpersonal part of politicking.”

vol1iss2.indd 17

to talking with a middle-aged man about Edwards and the war in Iraq. He said he couldn’t support Edwards because Edwards had opposed the surge. When I asked him to elaborate, he told me of his service in Vietnam, his father’s service in World War II, and about the fact that he and his father had three purple hearts between them. Given this dynamic – that the Iowa caucuses are all about retail politics, about winning voters person-by-person, conversation-by-conversation – I can understand why Senator Edwards staked his candidacy on the state. Edwards is the consummate retail politician, a man who excels at the interpersonal part of politicking. (Edwards drawls out “Goooood

Contribute to the Brown Contemporary editor@ browncontemporary.org

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

World

Summer, 2008

World

The Odd Couple

Two radical leaders who pulled their nations apart By Dave Rangaviz ‘08

f the United States and Iran traded electoral systems, both countries would likely have different presidents. Imagine what could have been… Iranians voting in the summer of 2005 did not select Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to lead their government. Instead, they elected a centrist expresident with a strong preference for avoiding conflict, especially with the United States, Akbar Rafsanjani. Unfortunately for Rafsanjani, the Iranian President is not elected through a “first past the post” system as in the United States, but rather through a runoff voting system. In this tworound setup, the top two candidates selected in the first round of voting move on to a one-on-one second round. Think of it as a way of weeding out all of the Ralph Naders in a field of over one thousand candidates. Just as President Bush did not win the U.S. popular vote in 2000—and likely wouldn’t have won the electoral college if we could have eliminated our one and only Nader—so Ahmadinejad did not win in the first round of voting in Iran. Moving beyond the similarly tenuous legitimacy of their country’s elections, a recent Newsweek article even went so far as to compare the two men’s personalities and politics. The editor of a Tehran newspaper laid out the list: “simple mindedness, arrogance…a habit of pandering to their conservative political bases while shrugging off what the world thinks of them…cynical use of religious fervor for political ends.” In 2006, Ahmadinejad’s candidates for

city councils throughout Iran were soundly defeated in an election seen as a referendum on the President himself, not unlike our own midterm elections—yet another similarity between the two men. In Iran, however, this election took place only one year into Ahmadinejad’s tenure, putting Iranians about 5 years ahead of the American learning curve. You wouldn’t guess it from reading the news stories, but the President of Iran is actually not the most powerful figure in the country. He doesn’t even control security and nuclear policy. This job belongs to the religious leader, Ayatollah Khamanei. In this respect, the constitution of Iran is unique, as it intertwines theocracy and democracy. Candidates for president must be vetted by the Ayatollah, and once in office, defer many powers to him. Similarly, in the Iranian legislative branch, once a law is passed by the Parliament it must also pass through a “council of guardians” who judge it against the Quran. If deemed inconsistent with their religion, it does not become law. Last year, the council vetoed half of the bills passed by the Parliament. Despite Iran’s political idiosyncrasies, after visiting the country I am convinced that the people of our two countries have more in common than either realize. Cab drivers seemed intent on driving recklessly, buildings were very tall, and I now know that I have both a crazy American uncle and a crazy Iranian uncle. But it was not merely the similarities that amazed me most, but rather the warmth for all things American throughout the country. Posters for American mov-

ies adorned the buildings, our music blasted from car stereos, and everywhere I went I was welcomed as an American. This was not the country that the American government had told me about. You may not have received your copy, but President Ahmadinejad sent you a letter in late November of 2006 (it was addressed to “the American people”). In this letter, Ahmadinejad called President Bush’s behavior “illegal and immoral” while highlighting many other similarities between the Iranian and American people. “Both our nations…greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.” He doesn’t sound like someone we should fear, but unfortunately (as we’ve learned painfully with President Bush) a president’s rhetoric does not always match his record. In response to U.N. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear policy, Ahmadinejad told the West that “the Iranian nation has humiliated you many times, and it will humiliate you in the future.” Iranian-American relations have been set back significantly since the election of Ahmadinejad and his confrontational approach to Iran’s nuclear policy. While this is certainly the most publicized political position of the Iranian President, his disastrous policies within Iran are also particularly noteworthy. Ahmadinejad has removed nearly all moderates from positions of power in the Iranian government, and replaced

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 18

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

Summer, 2008

World

them with hardliners like himself. In addition, Ahmadinejad has cracked down heavily on dissent with Patriot Act-style methods of interrogation that are acknowledged as the worst such practices in Iran in decades. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been used to make sure that women wear the proper clothing demanded by their religion, including the hijab. Recent statements at Columbia in which the president announced that there are no homosexuals in Iran point to the repression and fear that

vol1iss2.indd 19

the Iranian gay population must experience. Ahmadinejad’s campaign promises, in which he swore to return oil revenues to the Iranian people, have proven fruitless; Iran remains economically weaker than ever. Rising oil prices have delivered a windfall to the Iranian government, which has responded by building political capital instead of investing in the future, pushing inflation toward 20% annually. Rents in Tehran have skyrocketed, benefiting property owners and contributing to a widening gap

between rich and poor. Since the Islamic Revolution, the people of Iran, unlike their government, have moved increasingly toward secularization. While they have no say in the selection of the religious leader or members of the “council of guardians,” the election of Rafsanjani in the late 90s signaled the end of a string of radically religious presidents in the model of Ayatollah Khomeini. The election of Ahmadinejad was supposed to be the triumph of the poor, those whom had

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

World scarcely had a say in Iranian politics (think of him as the Iranian Paul Wellstone—the populist ex-Senator from Minnesota). Instead, he has neglected his campaign promises (like an Iranian George W. Bush), and made Iran into the next likely target of American aggression. Ironically, Ahmadinejad is now heavily dependent upon his U.S. counterpart for what little approval he has left. The Iranian president has moved from a populist presidential candidate elected by the working classes from which he came, to an extremist galvanizing support in the Middle East as the symbol for antiAmericanism (helped immensely by an unpopular war on his border), ignoring the very people who got him elected. Not only does Bush make Ahmadinejad more popular with his warmongering, but he also allows him to keep his job. Their religious leader, who could “fire” the president at a moment’s notice, refuses to do so, and likely never will to avoid the appearance of appeasing American leaders. Better relations between our two countries would be horrible for Ahmadinejad politically, making them unlikely for the duration of his term. The presence of U.S.-Iranian antipathy strengthens Ahmadinejad and silences his critics. The President of Iran is now attempting that which was previously thought impossible in politics: the revival of revolutionary rhetoric and ideals a generation after the revolution itself. To take a fading ideology and radicalize it again is altogether unique. The only other example in recent memory is Chairman Mao’s revival of the force of the Chinese Revolution, resulting in the Cultural Revolution. Recognize the escalating tensions for what they truly are: an argument between two reactionary idealogues with 300 million Americans and 70 million Iranians trapped in the middle. And for those of us with a foot

Summer, 2008 in both camps, a good outcome is looking more and more unlikely. Make sure that when you talk about Iran, you remember to identify the government, as even the people of Iran disapprove of their leader. In the last poll done by Iranian state television, Ahmadinejad managed a paltry 35% approval rating (just a shade above President Bush’s current 32% rating). Would you think it fair if the world judged Americans solely by the actions of our president? Of course not. The release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which says that “Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015” as a result of their freezing the nuclear program five years ago, makes the bellicose urgency of the “World War III” rhetoric of the Bush administration seem all the more absurd. Obviously, the president responded as hawkishly as he could; he called the estimate a “warning signal” for the international community, because Iran could restart the program at any time. Meanwhile, last September the spineless Democratic Senate voted 76-22 on an amendment designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “foreign terrorist organization.” Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the amendment. In her defense, she did say that she remained firmly against a “rush to war.” Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, who voted against the amendment (and knows more about foreign policy than she ever could), called her out—identifying the difference between opposing a rush to war and no war at all. Meanwhile, Barack Obama couldn’t even tear himself away from the campaign trail for one day to cast his vote (which he claims would have been nay). Make no mistake—a war with Iran would be the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of this

country. Iran would stop all oil flow from its fields, limit freighter movement through the Strait of Hormuz, and likely launch military strikes on Saudi oil fields to trigger a massive spike in oil prices and a worldwide recession. Unparalleled inflation would likely follow, as ballooning oil prices drive up the price of almost everything else. With a war going on in Iraq that is already spreading our budget thin, extending military operations into Iran would nearly bankrupt the United States and devalue the dollar even further. Meanwhile, the gloves would come off toward Israel, and Ahmadinejad would carpetbomb the Holy Land. Perhaps worst of all, the entire population of Iran would rally behind a leader that continues to misrepresent his people. If you doubt for one second that anyone could support this kind of leadership, just remember what happened in September of 2001. Our country was attacked, and quite naturally, the American people rallied behind President Bush. People are so desperate for leadership in times of war that they’ll follow almost anyone—just look at the president we let blindly lead us for years after those attacks. The potential for a U.S.-Iran alliance makes this standoff between the two countries absolutely nuts. An attack against Iran by the United States would provoke this gut-level rallying around the flag in their country, and shatter any love Iranians might have for the United States. At a time when pro-American sentiment in Iran’s neighborhood is at an all-time low, what could be worse than that? ● BC

Send letters to editor@ browncontemporary.org The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 20

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

World

Summer, 2008

Big Brother Meets Big Ben

The international obliteration of privacy By Michael Lezcano ‘09

he world has changed. Global walls of imprisonment have been erected and we have helped lay the stone. Never before in the history of mankind has information been shared so seamlessly, quickly, and with such abundance. In the age of nanotechnology, biometrics, and mega data storage, the line between private and public, individual and society, has been eradicated. Privacy can no longer be defined as the “right to be left alone;” this definition is impossible today given the need to be connected to the online world. One can no longer simply “opt-out.” Invasive data collection and storage is all around us – we cannot escape it. The list goes on and on: your photos and information on Facebook, Myspace, AIM chat logs, Gmail (which permanently stores every email you have ever written), satellites, wiretapping, DNA technologies, drug testing, etc. While I am not arguing that we should halt technological advancement or refuse to enjoy the benefits, it is absolutely critical for society to consider the very real and, possibly, very dangerous implications these technologies could have on the human race in the next 50 to 100 years.

computer has linked humanity via a web of interconnected information systems to achieve the “removal of space.” Communication between any two parts of the globe takes microseconds, rendering natural boundaries increasingly insignificant. This removal of space through technological advance has allowed for the expansion of global commerce, travel, instant communica-

were installed on 322 buses. Multiple cameras were installed on the interior of each bus to ensure complete coverage, and digital event recorders were used to securely capture video, audio, and sensor data.” While the intent of such surveillance may be to increase freedoms by exposing criminal behavior, these systems are having the opposite effect. They are creating a society in which freedoms are restricted not by physical coercion, but rather by the threat of an anonymous authority monitoring everyone’s actions. Furthermore, the push to capture more and more data has meant that these surveillance systems are not only omnipresent, but also accepted as part of the technological revolution.

“The reality is that the human race has never before been so enslaved by technology.”

The Removal of Space

lobal society is no longer made up of different cultures separated by geography – the

vol1iss2.indd 21

tion, medical breakthroughs, etc. But surveillance over the world’s people has increased as well. While it may seem that society has never before enjoyed such unparalleled freedom, the reality is that the human race has never before been so enslaved by technology. In the past, only small populations could be controlled through surveillance; today advanced information technology allows surveillance and control of the entire world population. An example is Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). The increased demand for CCTV has been driven in large part by its use by police. According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “In Chicago, Illinois, onboard transit surveillance systems

The Disciplinary Society

t can be argued that even unprecedented levels of surveillance do not necessarily mean we live in a “disciplinary society” in which freedoms are restricted. There can be CCTV cameras on every street corner, and people can still act without restraint. The argument goes that because one is not physically restrained by an outside force then one is free to do as he or she chooses. This reasoning, however, is ultimately flawed. It is not necessary for a structure of physical discipline to be present to restrict freedom; society’s very ability to “watch” itself can reduce individuals to subjects.

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

World

Summer, 2008

Omnipresent surveillance causes people to think, “I do not want others to witness my behavior for fear of social repercussions,” and thus control their physical body and mind within the hierarchical structure of discipline and policing present in an organization or society as a whole. People can never know for certain who is watching them through the camera. This anonymity gives authorities control by creating a “watchtower entity.” Employers, for example, post disclaimers on computer screens stating, “All communication may be monitored.” Employees do not know even if someone is monitoring them, let alone who, when, or how. Employees must then selfregulate – they must act as if they are being watched, policing their own actions because of the possibility that someone is monitoring them. This technique of control grants the employer the ability to focus on other business issues, rather than having to constantly watch for every infraction. Employees in essence relinquish their autonomy and free will, becoming subordinates because they do not know how to escape the power of authority. Another surveillance system that forces people to tailor their behavior in response to an omniscient authority figure is traffic cameras at street intersections. Many states now have surveillance cameras at intersections that automatically photograph the driver and license plate of every vehicle that runs a red stoplight, resulting in a traffic fine. Whereas in the past a police officer would have to physically catch a driver who ran

a red light, these cameras force drivers to tailor their actions because they know they are under surveillance. Drivers consequently internalize the omniscient authority figure and police themselves. Surveillance has become the new method of enslavement. In the past prisoners were physically restrained by shackles and chains - we too are now restrained, but by nebulous structures of visibility that strip us of our privacy. A quest for perfection is emerg-

any history of infraction will be biologically accessible. Those unwilling to subscribe to evolving social standards will be relegated to the fringes of society, barred from re-entering by surveillance and biotechnologies. Biotechnological advancements include DNA testing or hair-follicle testing, as well as nanotechnology implanted in the body. Researchers Monahan and Wall find that “government agencies are investing heavily in nanotechnology for surveillance and security purposes…such as integrating nanosensors into paint or ‘smart dust’ so that the built world continuously monitors people through vast nanotech networks.” And while these networks would only allow for omnipresent surveillance in relation to physical environments, new forms of medical technology have already broken the line between one’s internal body and the external world. Body-monitoring technologies have become more common and have raised issues regarding the integrity of bodily information and its dissemination. Fernando Sanchez, CEO of BodyMedia, a company that collects physiological information, stated, “your body is spewing off millions of data points a second and no one else will be able to understand the signals coming off our bodies the way we do.” What poses a real threat to privacy is this transformation of the human body into “physiological data” or “lifestyle information” that allows the body to be classified as a piece of information that can be stored and accessed. Monahan and Wall note that “once rendered into at-

“How can society protect privacy rights in the context of unparalleled technological development?” ing that is sacrificing freedom and privacy – although society regards itself as more tolerant, it is actually becoming less tolerant of those who violate its rules and laws. The pursuit of a perfect social order has become addictive and technology is both aiding that quest and ultimately feeding our addiction for it.

Biotechnological Imprisonment

hile real-time video surveillance clamps down on deviations from the established rules of society as part of a quest towards a social utopia, the move towards “permanent information” by way of biotechnological advancements threatens freedom and privacy in a different way. These technologies are creating a world in which deviations from the norm are not only unacceptable, but

The Brown Contemporary

vol1iss2.indd 22

10/5/2008 12:19:01 PM

World

Summer, 2008

omized data, human bodies become much more vulnerable to social control mechanisms within larger, more intricate and robust information infrastructures.” Even more radical biotechnologies have already been implemented. Known as radio-frequency identification (RFID) implants, this new medical technology is a microchip that has begun to be implanted in consenting patients’ bodies in two hospitals in the U.S. “The roots of VeriChip trace back to the events of September 11, 2001 when New York firemen were writing their badge ID numbers on their chests in case they were found injured or unconscious,” according to Monahan and Wall. While such technology was created in order to maximize medical efficiency, its capabilities threaten privacy. The Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, for instance, has garnered notoriety for their expansion of this technology. As Monahan and Wall describe, “patrons can carry their credit card information around in their arms, obviating the need for purses, wallets, or much clothing… In some senses, the human embodiment of capitalism that theorists have traditionally spoken about metaphorically has now become quite literal.”

Privacy and Public Policy

ichard Thomas, the UK Information Commissioner, warned against the creation of a surveillance society such as those of former communist regimes, stating, “my anxiety is that we don’t sleepwalk into a surveillance society [because of] what can happen when government gets too powerful…when everyone knows everything about everybody else…” Thomas’s insight exposes government officials’ inability to see this trend that is quickly emerging. Perhaps we already live in a “surveillance society,” one rapidly becoming a biotechnologically-enforced disci-

vol1iss2.indd 23

plinary society. This rapid expansion of potentially invasive technology combined with irresponsive government policy-making creates a dilemma: how can society protect privacy rights in the context of unparalleled technological development? The answer is that policymakers have to become more forward-thinking. For example, one cannot turn on the television without hearing about pollution and global warming. Some claim that it is now too late, that global warming is irreversible. Policymakers should have addressed the pollution problem when industrial technologies (ships, large factories, automobiles, etc.) first became available on a widespread scale. But rather than questioning the obvious implications such technologies would have on the environment, politicians simply focused on reelection. Today we are facing the same problem. Policymakers must question where we are headed in the future - not just how we are situated in the present. Failure to do so will only result in irreversible damage.

Privacy is dead and we have killed it

f a public official suggested a policy to place CCTV cameras within citizens’ homes to protect against rising rates of domestic violence, a public outcry would be heard and that official would probably be voted out of office. The very thought of having a surveillance camera in peoples’ homes conjures up thoughts of an Orwellian dystopia. Why then isn’t such public commotion created when surveillance within the body is featured on the cover of Wired magazine? Because society has been fooled into thinking the home is a private space. Privacy in the home is simply an illusion, yet it remains the way society defines its “right to privacy.” Courts have defined private space as

just that – a space in which the individual must be left alone – a person’s home. It seems, then, that there are legal protections against the invasion of private spaces. But while we may believe we enjoy privacy in our home, society is in reality pursuing other more intrusive forms of surveillance and discipline. In other words, while CCTV cameras in the home would not be approved by courts of law, much more invasive technologies such as RFID chips, thermal imaging technologies, biometric scanning, etc. have been. What has resulted is the destruction of the line between public and private spaces. These surveillance technologies are not restricted by physical barriers because they can be implanted in the body, making arguments about the integrity of the private sphere worthless. Legislative bodies have not and will not keep up with technological expansion, allowing the power of these surveillance technologies to go unchecked. The future is one in which biotechnology will be used to control and punish. Science has today risen to become a seemingly divine, objective bearer of absolute “truth.” And as such, privacy will be stripped under the guise of “objective scientific legitimacy,” just as the church used “divine legitimacy” to discipline and control in centuries past. While these scientific advances may appear to represent progression towards liberty and freedom, they are in reality just a new version of domination. ● BC

Contribute to the Brown Contemporary editor@ browncontemporary.org

The Brown Contemporary

10/5/2008 12:19:02 PM

Shop for Brown Contemporary gear! cafepress.com/contemporary

Support Brown’s new progressive voice with these fashionable wearables and accessories: • T-shirts starting at $14.99 • Mugs starting at $14.99 • Hats starting at $17.99 • Hooded sweatshirts starting at $29.99 Each purchase goes to support the continuing production of the Contemporary. -ADVERTISEMENT-

Our staff is always growing, and we’re looking for editors, writers, and artists to join our team. We’re beginning our application process soon for the 2008-2009 editorial board, and we always accept new story proposals. For more information about joining the Contemporary or contributing content, email Matt Corritore at: matt@browncontemporary.org.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Get involved with the Brown Contemporary!

Read the Contemporary online at:

browncontemporary.org vol1iss2.indd 24

10/5/2008 12:19:02 PM