The Claremont Independent - April 2013 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXIII, NUMBER 4, APRIL 2013

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents.

Editor in Chief Marina Giloi Managing Editor William Mitchell

Update: Open letter to President Gann

Why Not Just CMCers Should Care About Sexual Violence Policy

Secret Societies, “Private Organizations,” and Why We Should Care

5C Divestment Campaign

Warning: Do Not Criticize

A Wise Rethinking

Students from Syria

The Poison of Tinder

Associate Editors Amelia Evrigenis Colin Spence

Layout Editors Lynsey Chediak Tess Sewell Publisher Chris Gaarder Copy Editor Bradford Richardson Editors Emeriti Hannah Burak John-Clark Levin Publisher Emeritus Michael Koenig

Marina Giloi, CMC ‘14

Ian Grady, CMC ‘15

Colin Spence, CMC ‘15

Nadeem Farooqi, CMC ‘15

Martin Sartorious, CMC ‘15 Chris Gaarder, CMC ‘15 and Derek Ko, CMC ’14 Becky Shin, SCR ’15

Dean Spellman on the Sexual Violence Procedures

Illustrator Simon Giloi Staff Writers Ambika Bist, Nadeem Farooqi, Aidan Fahnestock, Joseph Hylton, Kyle Johnson, Derek Ko, Martin Sartorius, Becky Shin, Kyle Tanguay

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15

CMC Hires Assistant Professor of Portuguese

Rumor Has It: There’s a Republican at Pitzer

Rand Paul Pushes Libertarian Agenda

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Ambika Bizt, SCR ‘15

Bradford Richardson, CMC ‘15

editorial

UPDATE: OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT GANN by Marina Giloi

Editor in Chief

On Mar. 1, Editors-in-Chief of the Forum, the Claremont Port Side, The Student Life, and the Claremont Independent published and delivered an open letter to President Pamela Gann regarding the new student media policy that has gone into effect this school year. The response we received was, quite frankly, lukewarm. Though she acknowledged our concerns, President Gann did not indicate any plans to change the media policy’s status quo and instructed us to continue working with the Office of Public Affairs. Overshadowed by the buzz over “The Pai Memo” and onslaught of articles praising and criticizing CMC’s social scene, President Gann’s disappointing response to our open letter has been largely overlooked. But this is an issue ultimately more important than any school’s party scene. Though it is a Claremont McKenna policy, it impedes student publications from any of the 5Cs from gaining access to and interviews from CMC administrators without jumping hoops through the Office of Public Affairs. Given the interconnectedness of our consortium, one school’s restrictive media policy affects students from all schools’ ability to be informed about fundamental policies and structures that impact student life. We should not be content with President Gann’s response. Our letter outlined our publications’ and the Office of Pubic Affair’s pre-existing efforts to work with each other and why even those efforts, under such a restrictive policy, prevented timely, reliable exchanges of information. What’s more, Gann’s response does not address the fundamental problem of having a public relations office be the mediator between all administrative offices and staff and student media. Publications will come and go, but students will always deserve information relevant to their academic successes, job prospects, and personal lives from punctual, fair sources. The new student media policy prevents student publications from fulfilling this requirement. Changing the policy will be a continuing imperative for the Independent in the next year. Although our publication’s leadership will change, its commitment to upholding integrity and transparency on all 5Cs will continue. It is my hope that we will see this policy changed by the time I graduate next year, even if we are not able to change it under my term as Editor-in-Chief. CI

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

opinion

WHY NOT JUST CMCers SHOULD CARE ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE POLICY

by Marina Giloi

Editor-in -Chief

On Mar. 1, we attended the “5C Deans of Student Life Panel on Sexual Assault Policies,” hosted by the Motley and Sexual Assault Awareness and Resource Committee, both student organizations at Scripps. Five deans from each Claremont College were present for the 2 hour presentation, which consisted of the deans’ answers to pre-screened questions and a brief, live Q&A period. It was an overdue opportunity for administration to engage students directly for a discussion of changes

“

The burden is now on students to educate themselves on how and where 5C policies intersect and agree.

to sexual assault policies across the 5Cs. The discussion covered many questions ranging from “What do you intend to address in the policies?” to the concern that “previous policies didn’t address all [sexual] identities.” More insightful, however, were the deans of the other colleges’ answers in relation to those of Dean Mary Spellman, Title IX Coordinator and effective spokesperson for CMC’s changes to sexual violence grievance procedures in light of the Dear Colleague Letter. Dean Spellman pointed out that CMC’s sexual violence grievance procedure policy was already “technically in compliance” before the recent changes. However, it became clear from the discussion that the other deans were taking a strong lead from Spellman’s initiatives. For example, Harvey Mudd College VP of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Maggie Browning, said that Harvey Mudd is in the process of revising its grievance procedures after they “took a look at what Dean Spellman was doing.” Harvey Mudd College and Claremont McKenna College have already finalized the changes to their sexual violence

grievance procedures. However, the other three colleges in the Consortium are still in the process of revising their policies. Most of the deans emphasized that cross-campus policies were of particular importance, and it seems that policies are shifting to require that grievance procedures be carried out on the respondent’s campus. Given the frequency that students interact with one another across the 5Cs, the changes to grievance procedure policies on any of the five campuses have implications for any student at the Claremont Colleges. Dean of Students at Scripps, Bekki Lee, acknowledged, “in cross-campus cases, the learning curve is to know each other’s processes.” It is concerning that any type of learning curve is involved in the context of serious accusations. Such comments point to the need for students from all 5Cs to educate themselves on changes to grievance procedure policies and their accompanying implications, especially in the area of the 5Cs’ differing definitions of consent and incapacitation. For example, CMC’s rules explicitly state that an individual can give consent under the influence, while other Claremont Colleges consider intoxication prohibitive of consent. According to Dean Spellman, “each institution has its own culture of how to conduct processes. But what is really important is that where we do intersect, we have to be in agreement.” The burden is now on students to educate themselves on how and where 5C policies intersect and agree. This starts with the sweeping changes to CMC’s sexual violence grievance procedures, and their problems, something to which we have already dedicated several articles, and something from which several 5C deans say they are taking the lead. CI

Have something witty to say in 140 charcters or less? Accept the challenge! Join the conversation on Twitter

opinion

SECRET SOCIETIES, “PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS,” AND WHY WE SHOULD CARE by Ian Grady

Guest Contributor

The following opinion piece is written as a guest contribution to the Claremont Independent. Last month marked two years since my admittance to Claremont McKenna College. I remember the overwhelming sense of accomplishment and anticipation I felt as I signed and returned my acceptance letter. I had joined the ranks of an elite group of extremely talented students and gained access to an incredible alumni network. I had every opportunity in front of me, all thanks to CMC. Part of my excitement was that all of my future class would begin with a clean slate. The barriers and cliques of high school had been leveled. It didn’t matter whether we were from a private school or public school, AP or IB program, American or international students. We were all CMCers now; individual work ethic and character would define us from that day on. Of course, I soon found that these feelings, though wellfounded in principle, were naïve and incomplete. There are other factors beyond merit that affect achievement. At such a small campus, it soon became clear that “who you know” and reputation is a large advantage when competing within the CMC bubble. I soon learned that a minor degree of cronyism is a fact of life and social outreach is a means to success. While it is not true meritocracy, I like to believe that these opportunities are available to all and correlate with effort. But my concern is not networking; my concern is its exploitation. Before Spring Break, the ASCMC Elections Committee was forced to ask former ASCMC President and Vice President to remove themselves from deliberation on the new Executive Board appointments and restart the appointment process. While we do not have all the facts, it has come to light that membership in a “private organization” significantly skewed the former officers’ decision-making. Since then, we have had underwhelming journalistic coverage (aside from satire) on the issue. In order for us to avoid a more calamitous ethical issue, I find it necessary to put forth a number of issues raised by this recently uncovered secret society. My objective in this article is to first reaffirm the foundation of CMC culture and then argue that secret organizations are antithetical to it. Yes, secret societies are self-important and laughable, but they are equally threatening to CMC’s culture and should not be dismissed. The “Princes” pose a serious problem for the delicate balance of our inclusive philosophy and selective on-campus organizations. It rails against our inclusive culture and

delegitimizes campus leadership positions. If students suspect, or have substantial proof that, a group has underhandedly manipulated distributions of power on campus, student media has a responsibility to fully investigate and report on these unacceptable actions. In response, I believe the student body must perpetuate a culture that actively discourages further creation or reconvening of any such secret groups. While we can reasonably anticipate a certain degree of cronyism in on-campus selection processes, secretive and calculated motives are much different from the advantages of equal opportunity networking. Networking is fair because it is open to everyone—secret societies are neither. Students apply for the Executive Board because they believe they will be judged on the merits of their applications, their ability to work with fellow students, and possibly by who they know. But, in this case, they cannot reasonably suspect that those reading their applications will have blind allegiances to their competitors based upon subjective membership in a “private organization.” When the Elections Committee calls potential candidates, including myself and other current “members of the corporation,” to tell them what they should and should not run for in order to better maintain footholds for a sputtering old boys’ club, they violate the premises of CMC. When they manufacture an Executive Board based not on merit, or even connectedness, but in accordance with secret frat membership, they pose a greater threat to our social scene than any Friday class or TNC fence. Moreover, they remove the collaborative attitude of CMC’s culture, breaking down relationships between students and replacing them with undue barriers like those found at other colleges to which I refused to apply. And the threat is not limited to the social scene: the Princes systematically threaten the career opportunities of non-members, putting themselves before others in a predetermined selection process. Two great ironies of the past few weeks have been that (1) these actions happened at the hands of the ASCMC administration that promised transparency and reform and (2) just days after writing an open letter intended to resurrect the social scene through inclusiveness, the same individuals attempted to preserve the influence of a “private organization” through pervasive measures that are just as much of a threat to CMC culture. We need a critical eye to look past

continued on page 7

opinion

5C DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGN: SLAYING (OIL) GIANTS OR JUST TILTING AT WINDMILLS?

by Colin Spence

Associate Editor

Anthropogenic global warming, rising tides or melting icecaps; these terms represent the burgeoning visibility and prevalence of the issues surrounding climate change. In modern political discourse, arguments about these issues grow increasingly contentious and urgent. This discourse has expanded into all corners of the country and also onto the 5Cs. Last semester, the 5C Student Divestment Campaign began to call for the Claremont Colleges “to immediately freeze any new investment in fossil-fuel companies, and to divest within five years from direct ownership and from any commingled funds that include fossil-fuel public equities and corporate bonds.” This campaign is a part of a larger, national campaign organized by 350.org, a website started by renowned environmentalist Bill McKibben, to convince schools, governments, religious institutions and other organizations to divest from the fossil fuel industry. This campaign though, while founded with good intentions, does have several key flaws. There are several issues with this divestment campaign, both at the campus level and at the national campaign’s level. At the 5Cs specifically, demands for equivalence between the schools ignores the financial realities at the differing institutions. At Pitzer, where endowment returns only cover five percent of operating costs, such a decision does not have the same substantial financial impact that the same decision does at Claremont McKenna or Pomona, where the endowments cover 28 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of operating costs. Endowments usually rely upon stable long-term investments to provide consistent profits that then cover operating costs. Divesting from stable, mature industries like the traditional energy industry and transferring those funds to younger, more volatile alternative energy companies should not be undertaken lightly. In addition, the fact that representatives of the 5C divestment campaign argued that their efforts were based on “moral, scientific and philosophical” reasons, coupled with the national campaign’s claim that companies like Exxon and Chevron are “very risky investments,” raises concerns that very real financial considerations are being overlooked. Such companies are in fact blue chip stocks listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and represent stable and reliably profitable investment vehicles. Such considerations should not be ignored, especially at schools that rely upon endowment income to provide an excellent education to its students. In the end, each institution

will need to decide for itself whether or not divestment represents the correct approach to climate change, whether such an approach can work within its investment strategy, and whether it is worth the costs. At the national and international level, the problems become more serious and wide-ranging, and even the efficacy of the divestment approach itself becomes suspect. Divestment became the activist approach du jour after the campaign to divest funds from Apartheid-era South Africa and has been suggested as a solution in subsequent campaigns against other nations and corporations. Whether it will work against a multi-national industry, however, is highly suspect. In the South African case, which 350.org freely admits inspired their campaign, the divestment campaign targeted a certain policy implemented by a single centralized authority. This fact meant that it was easy to target business activity in one very specific region without disrupting the global economy significantly. The United States did exactly this in the South African case when it passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which banned all new U.S. trade and investment in the country. Now try to imagine the U.S. issuing a similar law in regards to the fossil fuel industry. The success of a divestment campaign, like the one imposed on South Africa, relies on high levels of participation. In the South African case, sanctions imposed by the U.S., Europe and Japan enforced these levels of participation. Such laws are highly unlikely in the case of the fossil fuel industry. Even if the campaign intends to proceed based upon private decisions to divest, and attains some critical mass, the fact still remains that the industry is decentralized, and unless the pressure exerted by the campaign is uniform across the board, some companies will benefit whiles the others suffer. This is because instead of a single central authority, like a national government, there are multiple diverse and often unconnected groups to target. The 350.org campaign has identified 200 such entities for divestment, and a quick look at the top 25 reveals the incredible diversity between the firms. To begin with, several of the top 25 companies are not listed on U.S. stock exchanges, and will thus benefit from a U.S.-based divestment campaign, as such a campaign will disproportionately target the companies that do trade on American exchanges. In addition, seven out of these 25 are statecontrolled entities, and would be unlikely to suffer from a

opinion divestment campaign, given that their primary or controlling backer also has the power to levy taxes. In fact, such entities may benefit from a successful divestment campaign, as they would be able to acquire assets from their shrinking capitalist competitors. This fact opens up another set of issues surrounding national security and energy. Any divestment campaign would naturally damage those companies with more individual, private shareholders, and thus benefit the competing state-run entities. This could become problematic from a national security perspective, as it would shift control of the global energy market into the hands of nations like Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela and several Middle Eastern nations, all of whom already have a strong presence in this market. Going “green” is also not a solution to this issue, as the campaign calls for immediate action, and even with the hypothetically substantial infusions of capital, the technology cannot improve quickly enough to be ready to immediately take over all energy duties from fossil fuels, and nor can our trucking-based infrastructure and predominantly coal- and natural gas-powered electrical systems be replaced overnight. Devising an alternative solution to divestment is no easy task. However, it seems that 350.org’s campaign is based off of the belief that these energy companies are unwilling to change their operations in any way, shape or form. In their FAQs, 350. org claims that “Exxon could still make a profit as an energy company if it transitioned its massive wealth and expertise over to renewables, but they’ll do it because of government regulation, not because they willingly decide to make the move.” This notion defies common sense. Energy companies like Exxon are motivated by profit, and will respond to market pressures much more positively than to politically vindictive regulation. Public opinion determines where the money

flows, and private companies follow the cash. It comes as no surprise that most of the predominantly Western, private energy companies have all dedicated some portion of their press materials to alternative energy. For example, Chevron says in the “global issues” section of its website: “Chevron is taking a pragmatic approach to renewable energy—pursuing and focusing on technologies that leverage our strengths. These include geothermal, advanced biofuels, solar and energy efficiency technologies.” Even if these statements are viewed cynically, the fact that these companies have made an effort to respond to public opinion and are making an effort to comply with these wishes is encouraging. Attacking these companies and indirectly helping the state-run enterprises and oil-states that have no such incentive to change seems counterproductive. Instead, it would be more productive to raise public awareness about climate issues, but more importantly help individuals identify what can be done to promote change on a personal and local level. Helping individual investors identify financially promising alternative energy companies is one such project. Another method is promoting environmentally sustainable alternatives for use at the corporate level or in local and state government. Sustainability is gaining ground in public opinion, and pushing for awareness of concrete solutions, as opposed to concepts, will help sustainable solutions become more financially viable, and subsequently more widespread. Positive grassroots campaigns that create public and market pressures in favor of environmentally friendly solutions and companies are much more likely to produce the changes desired than a divestment campaign, and without the added issues of creating conflicts of interest between financial and moral concerns, as well as avoiding global economic and security concerns. CI

Secret societies, cont. from page 5 by Ian Grady the messaging and into the inconsistencies of CMC politics. At best, we know that a more extreme form of cronyism took place in the original Executive Board appointment process —a form that violates CMC’s networking-as-usual. At worst, we have found a group that challenges the fabric of CMC, a systematic virus that extends to other prominent groups on campus. In either case, these actions are intolerable. We need publications to start a discussion regarding campus culture and how to reconcile ambition and ethics. The virus must be further investigated by the student press and strongly discouraged by future CMCers. To begin this discussion, the student body needs the

complete story. Through investigation, we must find the extent of the damage and set a standard so that future campus leaders act in accordance with the opportunities guaranteed by our acceptance letters. While we move on from the transgressions of the past, we must not forget CMC’s inclusive foundation and protect against the actions and groups that threaten it. CI

opinion

WARNING: DO NOT CRITICIZE

by Nadeem Farooqi

Staff Writer

On February 28, the Harvard Crimson released an article advising people who may want to “insult” Harvard to “neither apply, enroll, nor graduate” from the institution. The article, aptly titled “Warning: Do Not Enroll,” admonished members of the political right who criticized the university’s liberal leaning as simply attempting “to curry favor with the more anti-intellectual members of our body politic.” In particular, it rebuked conservative figures such as Mitt Romney, Bill O’Reilly, and Ted Cruz for criticizing Harvard for being too liberal after having attended the university. The article is bold, commanding, and clear. It also, however, goes too far. Let me begin by saying that I understand the sentiments of the Crimson. Should alumni of Claremont McKenna College begin to “insult” or criticize my institution in a manner with which I disagree, I would be fairly irked. I love my college and the intellectual development I am privileged to take

“

Should alumni...begin to “insult” or criticize my institution in a manner with which I disagree, I would be fairly irked.

part in; I am fairly certain that the Crimson staff writers feel the same way towards Harvard. In depicting and reproaching would-be critics of the institution as “anti-intellectual,” however, the Crimson may be sending a message eerily familiar to hyper-conservative groups. For example, the Facebook group “If you don’t like America then please don’t live here” declares, “Complaining about my country? Feel free to leave then!! … If you don’t like it, feel free to leave!” The group’s mission, moreover, is “To keep people who hate on this great country, of Yours and Mine, OUT OF IT!” Indeed, we are all familiar, to some degree, with impassioned demands of that nature. We find such calls objectionable because they run counter the principles of free expression that support healthy demo-

cratic deliberation. Criticism does not merely serve as indicator of disapproval, but as a marker for improvement. As James Baldwin once remarked, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” As citizens, we should thus remain wary of requests for critics to leave the country. As students, moreover, we should remain equally wary of requests for potential critics to desist from attending a certain academic institution. Should we fail – should we become subservient to our passions as opposed to our reason – we may find ourselves in the tragic predicament where freedom of expression is maintained so long as students subscribe to the dominant perspective. We may no longer find ourselves reading articles titled, “Warning: Do Not Enroll,” but instead reading ones labeled, “Warning: Do Not Criticize.” All of that being said, I do believe there is an alternative to urging would-be critics to desist from attending an academic institution: publically evaluating the veracity of criticisms. I assure everyone that this is not a fairly revolutionary idea. In fact, this is actually what happens all the time with student magazines and newspapers. Should a person make an argument that members of an institution find to be distasteful or flawed, another person can make an argument in response and leave it in a student publication. I, for one, find this approach a tad bit more appealing than the one recently adopted by the Crimson. In fact, my belief in such an approach served as the basis my decision to write this article in the first place. I believe that this approach is beneficial for academic institutions in two regards. First, it supplements the intellectual development of students by forcing them to respond effectively to the opinions of others in a reasoned and respectful manner. Such intellectual development thus allows students to gain new perspectives from others. Second, it fosters a sense of inclusivity within the student body by demonstrating that it is, in fact, okay – nay, praiseworthy – to disagree with the dominant perspective at times so long as one has a sound argument. While the Crimson’s sentiments are understandable, the message espoused by the article seems counterproductive. Instead of seeking to dissuade potential students from attending one’s university, current students should encourage the student body to evaluate the merits of a claim. But it’s okay if you disagree. I’m open to criticism. CI

opinion

A WISE RETHINKING by Martin Sartorius

Staff Writer

A few weeks ago, Tim Wise came to Pomona College amongst much fanfare (not to mention the unanimous support of every student government in the 5Cs) to discuss race issues in the United States. His talk covered his theory of white domination in the U.S., and how affirmative action can help counteract this past by increasing diversity in the upper levels of society. I strongly support the idea that we need to increase dialogue between races to understand the perceptions and experiences of each group of people. By choosing to either ignore the experiences of others or blissfully surrounding oneself with the views of one’s own race, one supports a culture of hostility and misunderstanding between peoples. That being said, there are a few places where I feel Wise could improve his argument. Wise claimed that affirmative action was fair because “white folks have twelve years of affirmative action” under their belts by the time they reach college. Wise is obviously pointing here to the disparity in the quality of K-12 education received by different races. What is interesting, though, is that he did not make any mention of a program for improving K-12 education in low-income areas. Would it not be simpler to cut the proverbial Gordian knot and remove the need for affirmative action by improving K-12 education in low-income areas? Although it would take some time and a considerable amount of resources, the effects of improving the education of kids in poorly performing schools would remove the need for affirmative action and allow college admissions to be race blind and fair at the same time (because everyone would roughly have the same education). The need for improved K-12 education has been underlined by research done by Richard H. Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. (found in their book Mismatch) that followed various students who went to university through affirmative action only to drop their desired major (usually in the STEM fields) because their K-12 education did not adequately prepare them for university. For example, Sander and Taylor talked with a black Dartmouth grad who said “people in my class had had science since grammar school, but I wasn’t even introduced to science until my sophomore year of high school… I had never developed the skills I needed to achieve.” Consequently, she changed from a STEM major to a humanities major. In addition, they compiled data that showed that black students at Ivy League schools are half as likely to finish a STEM major compared to whites, even though black students are slightly more likely to aspire to be a STEM major. On a different, yet related, note, Wise could adjust how he frames his argument to take into account the experiences of

The fact that Wise does not address this data is noteworthy.

”

low-income whites. Recently, there has been some noteworthy academic literature that shows a distinct similarity in the social problems of lower income whites and those of black and Hispanic minorities. For example, in his book Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010, Charles Murray studies the effects of the growing social and cultural divide between white classes. In addition to discussing how the upper class of whites have gained a large majority of the monetary and intellectual wealth in the US, Murray explains how the lower class of whites have, since the 1960’s, been facing oppressive social problems that are usually associated with black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Specifically, Murray uses Fishtown, a statistical construct, to show how the white lower class, like other low-income minorities, have been plagued by problems such as high crime, lower levels of education, illegitimacy, and joblessness. In light of this research, the fact that Wise does not address this data is noteworthy. Unlike minorities, whites cannot use affirmative action as a social ladder, even if they come from a low-income neighborhood with dismal education, job, and life prospects. Because of this, Wise should acknowledge the greyness of social inequality by acknowledging the existence of different classes in each race thereby preventing the alienation of potential supporters of his cause. All in all, although Wise’s argument in favor of increasing dialogue between races is sound, but by focusing on affirmative action as the sole catalyst of social equality he fails to address the root of the problem, namely disparity in K-12 education between upper and lower income neighborhoods. By improving K-12 education for lower income students of every race, we could remove the need to use affirmative action as a corrective force for educational inequality. Moreover, we could better prepare those lower income students with great aspirations to reach their academic goals. Although Wise is quite a controversial figure, this, I believe, is a solution that we could all agree on. CI

campus news by Chris Gaarder and Derek Ko

STUDENTS FOR SYRIA Publisher and Staff Writer

Seventy thousand dead. Untold hundreds of thousands wounded. Millions displaced. These are the numbers behind the two-year old Syrian crisis. Though the figures are but sanitized stand-ins for real-world horrors, they have understandably concerned a great number of people. Among those moved by the crisis are Melissa Carlson CMC ‘13 and Sara Birkenthal CMC ’13 who, on the suggestion of CMC International Relations Professor Ed Haley, founded Students for Syria in February 2013. The group has two primary goals. First, Students for Syria hopes to, as Carlson said in an interview with the CI, make a “more human connection” between the Syrian conflict and 5C students. Second, as stated in their petition, they hope to put pressure on “President Obama and the United States Congress to stop the killing and help Syrians attain selfdetermination.” In pursuit of their first goal, Students for Syria is launching a 5C campaign that includes a Facebook page, an upcoming poster campaign, an informational video and various campus events. The students’ campus campaign is meant to, as Carlson put it, “make noise” so people are compelled to confront the serious consequences of inaction on the part of the international community. For their second objective, Students for Syria plans a multi-pronged effort to, again, “make noise” and build enough domestic pressure on Washington to make the President and Congress act. To that end, the Students for Syria has launched a petition on Change.org that currently has over 200 signatures (which notably constitutes only about a third the number that the “Claremont McKenna College Administration: Take Action to Protect CMC Social Culture” petition has garnered). Still, the student leaders of the organization have big plans for the future, including expanding to other universities in California. Carlson also mentioned a Students for Syria delegation to Washington D.C. as a possibility in the more distant future. There, they would hope to meet with leaders of nonprofit organizations, congressional leaders and representatives from the Obama Administration to make the case for Washington to give greater weight to the Syrian crisis. However, the fledgling student organization has already run into a few roadblocks. Budgetary constraints aside, they were recently forced to change a line in their petition calling for “military force if necessary” because of the controversy and complexity U.S. intervention would entail. American warwariness is understandable, especially following long and drawn-out interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq that have not

yielded clear-cut victories in the eyes of the American public. Students for Syria felt that the backlash from specifying armed intervention as an option would only distract from their objective of ending the Syrian crisis. The organization now makes it quite clear they are simply calling for international action to end the bloodshed and not taking a specific position on what type of support should be given. Putting the issue of armed intervention (or lack thereof) aside, there still remains a serious division in foreign policy circles over the best long-term strategy in addressing the Syrian crisis. For expert opinions on the subject, we interviewed Professor Haley and fellow CMC International Relations Professor Jennifer Taw. Although they both agreed that breaking the Assad regime and producing a negotiated settlement was imperative, they had very different perspectives on how the U.S. should approach the situation. Haley specifically advocates for U.S. aid to Syrian rebel groups that best represent Western interests and could be trusted most to bring Syria through a democratic transition without initiating a mass-scale retaliation against the ruling minority. He points out that the Iran and Russia are already propping up the Assad regime, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are sending aid to various groups in the opposition. Britain and France appear likely to send aid to their favorite rebel groups in short order. Meanwhile, the U.S. has largely kept out of the crisis. If the U.S. does not sponsor a rebel faction, Haley does not think it will have the “persuasive voice” that other international actors would have gained by the time the regime crumbles or is brought to the table to begin negotiations. In addition to the importance of enhancing the influence of America among rebel groups through aid, Haley emphasizes that time is a crucial consideration. Unfortunately, according to Haley, “the longer it goes on, the worse it becomes for U.S. interests.” The longer the crisis continues, the more who will be killed, wounded, displaced, or otherwise harmed. A longer crisis will only develop deeper divides within Syrian society, and more fixed hostilities. Moreover, the victory of either of the Islamists backed by Saudi Arabia or the current regime backed by Iran and Russia would not serve U.S. interests or humanitarian concerns particularly well. Taw agrees that a negotiated agreement between all involved parties is ultimately the preferable solution to the crisis, but is careful to note that if not done properly, bringing a quick end to the current conflict could simply set the stage for “a new, and prolonged second act in which blood continues to

campus news flow, jihadists rise to the fore, and the region as a whole splits as it splits within Syria.” For Taw, even the idea that the U.S. could force the international community to act is doubtful. Already, “The U.S. can’t even prevent other countries from arming and otherwise supporting the regime,” and if a U.S. proxy were to succeed in the short term by way of force, “such an effort would undoubtedly be followed by a set of ongoing insurgencies similar to Iraq’s.” Taw is also skeptical about the notion that there are rebel groups that the U.S. can in fact trust in the long term. In other words, Taw views the U.S. capacity to influence the conflict in a positive direction as fundamentally limited. The situation in Syria is by all accounts a tragedy. There are no easy solutions or clear historical blueprints to follow. In the post-Cold War era, we have seen successful cases of international intervention (Bosnia), cases where many argue we should have had international intervention but did nothing (Rwanda) and cases where the West did intervene, with at best, mixed results (Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq). Will the U.S.

take action beyond providing humanitarian aid? That remains to be seen. Can we, successfully? That remains an open question. However, one thing is certain: whether U.S. intervention would be a soaring success, a complete disaster, or some murky mix of the two, time is rapidly running out for the Syrian people. It is about time that American policy-makers and students alike begin serious, public discussion on about the crisis. Whether one is a supporter of U.S. action or a staunch non-interventionist, Students for Syria is a force worthy of attention. CI

THE POISON OF TINDER by Becky Shin

Staff Writer

The iPhone application “game” Tinder, bluntly put, is a socially acceptable flirting crutch to meet other people across the 5Cs, in the Claremont area, and within a desired mile radius. In order to become a “player,” users form Tinder accounts through their Facebook profiles by selecting the gender with which they would like to be “matched” and setting a radius of up to 100 miles to confine the area they interact with. In addition, players insert up to four pictures for their counterparts to skim through, and the Facebook setting is advantageous in that it shows how many mutual friends Tinder users have in common. Then the game begins as profile pictures of other Tinder players pop up on the application. By mindlessly swiping the photo left (“not”) or right (“hot”), Tinder users are being trained to mindlessly rate people based solely on appearance. If the “hot” is reciprocated by both users, the two are notified and put in direct contact via Tinder’s instant messaging. The idea of Tinder being portrayed as a game makes this online, virtual flirting network less harsh than it actually is. The 2010 film The Social Network portrays the real-life event of computer genius Mark Zuckerburg as he creates a website to rate Harvard female students. Clearly, the females are not enthused as their pictures are illegally taken, and they are publicly objectified across Harvard to the audience of men. Ironically, Tinder, similar to Zuckerburg’s website of objecti-

fication, is a huge success. This could potentially be because Tinder users willingly post pictures of themselves, the objectification of men and women is mutual, and there is only positive feedback as people only know when they are “hotted,” which results in flattery. Of course we want to engage in conversation with people who find us attractive! Although I held negative presumptions about Tinder, I downloaded the application. Two weeks later, I created a Tinder account, which lasted for a day. Initially, I was extremely hesitant to engage in conversation with strangers and put my own picture out there. But as soon as I got over that bump, I started “hotting” and “notting” until there was no one else in my ten-mile radius to rate. Within the first two hours of using Tinder, I was hooked–constantly checking on my account and waiting for feedback from male Tinder users. At the end of the day, I reluctantly quit the Tinder app before becoming too addicted. Constantly staring at my phone screen and making rash decisions as to whom I wanted to know better shifted my mentality to the point where “hotting” and “notting” a person became second nature. Tinder is a poison, shifting outlooks, encouraging us to objectify ourselves, stripping us of valid social skills on a large campus, and confining our minds to one of two decisions—“hot” or “not.” CI

campus news

DEAN SPELLMAN - SEXUAL VIOLENCE PROCEDURES by Amelia Evrigenis

Associate Editor

After initially responding to our request for an interview with a statement entitled “Regarding Title IX,” the Claremont McKenna Office of Public Affairs granted the CI an interview with Dean of Students Mary Spellman to discuss the college’s Title IX sexual violence grievance procedures. Claremont McKenna College implemented new Civil Rights Policies and Civil Rights Grievance Procedures, which apply to cases of sexual violence, in accordance with a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) issued by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The DCL, sent to all educational institutions in the United States that receive federal funding, stipulates numerous Title IX requirements to which recipients must adhere in investigating and resolving complaints of sexual violence. The most controversial of its contents is a requirement that schools use a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in evaluating complaints of sexual violence. The preponderance standard is met if it is more likely than not (a greater than 50 percent probability) that the offense occurred. The DCL explicitly states that schools are not to use the clear and convincing standard (i.e. it is highly likely or reasonably certain that the offense occurred). When asked if Claremont McKenna College held any opinions about complying with the Department of Education’s ultimatum regarding the preponderance standard, Dean Spell-

“

If you have a process that is as robust as we want ours to be and we hope and think ours is, then the decision is easy at that point, because you have all the facts. The decision is either you do have enough information, or you don’t.

man responded that the decision-making standard is a minimally important aspect of the college’s grievance procedures. She said, “The decision-making standard is the least important piece, I believe, in how we handle sexual violence cases or any kind of student conduct case. It’s really about, ‘Do we provide a fair and neutral and equitable process to all parties?’ The decision-making standard is a small piece of that larger process.” When asked more specifically if the college was concerned that the use of such a low standard would produce wrongful findings of guilt, Spellman responded similarly, saying that the low decision-making standard should not be of great concern. She said, “The [decision-making] standard is one piece of a very important process, so we need to make sure we have a process that’s fair, that it has appropriate due process for all the parties, that the individuals, particularly the respondent, understands what their rights are and has a process by which the college has as much information as possible about the circumstance so that the trained investigator or trained hearing officer is able to make a fair, neutral and informed decision. So I think that that is the most important piece. We could have a higher decision-making standard, and if our process didn’t have all of the robustness that our process does, you could still have a problem. It could be a different problem, but you’re going to still have a problem. So the decision-making standard—you know, preponderance or something else—really, what’s crucial is the process that you get to that. With preponderance of the evidence, if you have a process that is as robust as we want ours to be and we hope and think ours is, then the decision is easy at that point, because you have all the facts. The decision is either you do have enough information, or you don’t. That’s, to me, the most important piece.” In other words, if the college institutes robust grievance procedures that offer appropriate due process for all parties involved, it doesn’t really matter whether the college uses a preponderance standard, a clear and convincing standard, or even a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. You either have enough information, or you don’t. For a perspective about why the decision-making standard does matter, and why the preponderance standard is a troubling aspect of CMC’s grievance procedures, see our previous article “Title IX, sexual violence, and the preponderance standard,” available at claremontindependent.com. CI

campus news

CMC HIRES PROFESSOR OF PORTUGUESE by Amelia Evrigenis

Associate Editor

Claremont McKenna College recently hired its first fulltime, tenure-track assistant professor of Portuguese to the Department of Modern Languages. Professor Norman Valencia holds a Ph.D. in both Portuguese and Spanish from Yale University, where he wrote a dissertation on patriarchy and power in the Latin American novel. He has published several articles about Latin American literature and co-edited a book of essays on the topic of Brazil. He currently serves as the Academic Subdirector of the Instituto Caro y Cuervo in Bogotá, Colombia. Professor Lee Skinner, Associate Professor of Spanish at CMC, explained that the decision to hire a professor of Portuguese manifested from the growing relevance of Brazil in international affairs. She said, “The decision to add a professor of Portuguese came about because there was interest and recognition from a lot of people that Brazil is an increasingly important area of focus and that CMC should offer students the opportunity to study Portuguese and to take content courses on Brazil as well. Brazil is the largest country in Latin America and the fifth-largest country in the world; it is a very important trading partner for the United States; and more immediately, it will host the 2014 World Cup in soccer and the 2016 Olympic Games.” She explained that although CMC and Scripps have previously offered occasional courses in introductory Portuguese, “having a full-time, tenure-track assistant professor of Portu-

guese and Spanish allows us to systematically build a Portuguese program for CMC and the 5Cs. So the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures proposed to the administration that we begin teaching Portuguese and that we hire a tenure-track assistant professor.” The History Department has also hired a professor of Latin American history who specializes in Brazil for similar reasons. Both the History and Modern Languages Departments received a grant from the Mellon Foundation for the Humanities to fund the first three years of the respective positions. Professor Valencia will teach both Portuguese and Spanish classes at CMC. The program will begin next fall with PORT 22 (Accelerated Intensive Portuguese) for students who have already studied another Romance language (Spanish, French, or Italian). In spring 2014, Valencia will teach PORT 33 (Intermediate Portuguese). As the program grows, the Modern Languages Department will add upper-division courses as well as introductory Portuguese for students with no previous experience in another Romance language. Professor Skinner concluded by saying, “This is really a great opportunity for CMC and the Claremont Colleges and we’re delighted to welcome Prof. Valencia to our community.” Look out for an interview with Professor Norman Valencia himself, to be published to claremontindependent.com in the near future. CI

Have something to say? Contact the editor: editor@claremontindependent.com OR Comment directly at claremontindependent.com

campus news

RUMOR HAS IT: THERE’S A REPUBLICAN AT PITZER

by Ambika Bist Staff Writer It is usually assumed that Claremont’s Republicans are housed at one of two schools, Claremont McKenna College or Pomona College. It is slowly being proven that this is not the case. In the 2012-13 school year the Claremont College Republicans received funding from all five schools, a feat that has never been accomplished before. I am proud to say that there are a couple Scripps students involved with the College Republicans and am personally happy to represent Scripps as Secretary of the club. The Claremont College Republicans now boast a member of Pitzer College, freshman and class president Felix van Der Vaart. I had the opportunity to chat with Felix about his experiences in attending a notoriously liberal college as a conservative student. How do you define your political views? I define myself as a conservative. Economically speaking, I am a big laissez-faire supporter and in general believe the less government intervention the better it is for the consumer and the “common man.” In this regard, I am also against progressive rate taxes. If you truly want to motivate the common man to innovate and take on the entrepreneurial spirit this nation was founded on, how can you expect to take away what he has earned and still motivate others to follow suit, knowing they will be treated similarly? People have a right to what they earn, plain and simple. In addition, allow individuals to donate where they choose. I don’t want government making those decisions for me. Socially, I’m also pretty conservative on most issues. While, admittedly there should be greater background checks within firearm sales (and to some degree, assault weapons aren’t really needed by the common man), I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms and the Constitution as a whole. Once part of that is taken away from the people, the question becomes what piece of freedom is next to go? I am also prolife. Since life is considered “over” when the heart stops beating, and since the human heart is beating 18 days into conception, I believe that abortion of the child after this is “ending a life” unnaturally. However, as Church and State were meant to be separate, I don’t believe gay marriage should even be an issue; people should be able to do as they please. This is part of the idea of government regulating more than they should. How did you decide to join the Republican Party? I decided to join the Republican Party when I found it fit more of what I believe than the Democratic Party does. Note that no person should be totally aligned with one party. I think it’s important for people to think through what they believe

in, more than just based on what others are all believing or what is “in” at the time (bandwagon fallacy). Additionally, it is important to continue the discussion. Not being able to relate and discuss views with the opposing party prevents progress and limits (at the very least) one’s understanding of a situation/ issue. How do you feel about being a Republican at Pitzer College? Overall, I like being a Republican at Pitzer. Sure, a couple people have written me off, but I still have found people who have been willing to discuss things respectfully and politely, and have had great discussions and widened my knowledge and appreciation for their different views. I will say it is frustrating sometimes as some of the boldest speakers who tend to dominate class discussions are not open to contrasting opinions and I have learned some “battles” are not worth fighting, so to speak. Additionally, there really isn’t any community in this regard for me, but I knew that coming in to this school and still am proud of what I believe and enjoy being around those who are interested in discussing issues in polite dialogue. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans have souls and do care about social issues and other people as well. Are other students accepting of your political views? A good amount of the students are accepting, but only a few are really open to discussing politics. I think a lot of accepting people are non-confrontational but that’s understandable with the general rush and hubbub of school life and work. That being said, I will say some people are not accepting, but that’s something you have to deal with in going to one of the nation’s most liberal colleges. Do you feel that you are as open about your political views as your peers are? I would say I am more open about my political views in most circumstances. That being said, I have chosen classes that are objectively graded (math and economics classes) to avoid any prejudice in grading that might come around from my contrasting beliefs. I think a lot of my peers don’t talk much about their political views since the vast majority of people agree on their views. Congratulations on being Pitzer’s Freshman president. Can you talk a little about the election process you faced? I have to admit that I do not believe Pitzer’s election cycle was nearly as advertised as some of the other 5Cs. I do know we had the highest amount of voters in school history

news during this election cycle (I want to say close to a third of freshmen voted), however. I know a couple of people knew I was conservative but a lot of them were my friends already and had seen I was open to discussion and didn’t feel threatened by me. I guess the dialogue could not have been all negative as I was elected.

Have you felt attacked due to your differing views? A couple of times but not regularly. I might get a skeptical look or a little judgment when I say something, but I have pretty thick skin from playing sports so it’s nothing serious. Like I said, a lot of people are non-confrontational so I don’t always feel attacked but I don’t always feel welcomed either. CI

RAND PAUL PUSHES LIBERTARIAN AGENDA by Bradford Richardson

Copy Editor

After a devastating loss in the November presidential election, it’s no surprise that Republicans are playing the blame game. At the March 14-16 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C., tensions between the different factions of the Republican Party became bitterly clear, most notably in the confrontations between Senator Rand Paul and the GOP establishment. “The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered,” the Kentucky Republican said at CPAC. “Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we’re going to have a Republican Party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP.” Traditional conservatives haven’t hesitated to parry the thrusts of Paul and his fellow libertarian Republicans. Arizona Senator John McCain was quick to brush off Paul’s recent Senate filibuster, which held up the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director over the Obama administration’s drone policy. “The country needs more Senators who care about liberty,” McCain said, quoting The Wall Street Journal. “But if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he is talking about.” There have long been philosophical, ideological and policy tensions between the three main wings of the GOP— neoconservatives, social conservatives and libertarians. CMC Associate Professor of Government Jon Shields believes these factions have been in constant competition for control of the party for several decades. “In a way, these tensions have always existed in the [modern] Republican Party because the party is built around these different factions that don’t share common philosophical grounds and objectives,” Shields said. “One of the big challenges of the party is keeping all of the various parts happy, which is a very difficult undertaking.” This enduring tension within the GOP—between an in-

terventionist foreign policy (one that abhors appeasing tyrants abroad) and the libertarian preference for a more defensive policy (one that abhors entangling military expeditions)—predictably grows when triggering events occur. Professor Shields points to the Afghan and Iraqi Wars as a recent trigger in the current feud between neoconservatives and libertarians for control of the GOP. “In the Bush years, you really saw the ascendance of foreign policy hawks in his administration, and the libertarians really disliked that—that was big government par excellence,” Shields said. “When the war went badly, it helped those in the party who wanted to reduce the size of government, so now they have more leverage than they once did, and neoconservatives are in a tough spot.” However, Shields warns against libertarians overreaching while they have popular support. “Let’s fight Obamacare, let’s not let this Leviathan get any larger—I think [libertarians] can generate some political sympathy for that,” Shields said. “But they can’t seriously talk about getting rid of social security or Medicare—that goes nowhere fast. I think their best hope is to try to limit government, cut taxes, reduce the size somewhat and reform entitlements that make them more sustainable.” While libertarians appear to have the momentary upper hand, alienating the other wings of the party—as Paul has done—is certainly not in the party’s best long-term interest. Rather, if Republicans want a legitimate shot at winning in 2016, they need to find a way to unite each group under the GOP banner. Republicans need look no farther than 1980 to find the recipe for success. Ronald Reagan successfully appealed to libertarians with his fiscal policies, to neoconservatives with his defense and foreign policies, and to social conservatives with his perspectives on social issues and a restrained judiciary. Reagan famously described the “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Perhaps that is a nice place to start as the GOP considers its future. CI

like us on facebook:

facebook.com/

ClaremontIndependent

Interested in writing for us? Attend our meetings this semester every Sunday at 9 pm in Kravis Center 321.