The Claremont Independent - April 2014 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXIII, NUMBER 4, APR 2014

Let’s Talk about Academic Freedom

Clay Spence • Page 8

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents 3

EDITORIAL: IN DEFENSE OF THE INDEPENDENT

Publisher Martin Sartorius

THE SIX CALIFORNIA DELUSION

Managing Editor Harry Arnold

A COMPELLING INTEREST IN HOBBY LOBBY

Associate Editors Derek Ko Hannah Oh Clay Spence Colin Spence

I HAVE A NIGHTMARE: THE FRACTURED STATE OF BLACK CULTURE

LET’S TALK ABOUT ACADEMIC FREEDOM: A RESPONSE TO THE HARVARD CRIMSON

Editor-in-Chief Brad Richardson

Editor-in-Chief Emerita Marina Giloi Technology Officer Chris Gaarder Layout Editors Lindsey Betts Lynsey Chediak Kelsey Gohn Photographer Lindsey Betts

Brad Richardson, CMC ‘15 Martin Sartorius, CMC ‘15 Collin Spence, CMC ‘15

Eugene Nandwa, CMC ‘17

Clay Spence, CMC ‘16

LONE STAR FARCE: A RESPONSE TO THE CLAREMONT PORT SIDE

THE CASE FOR ANONYMITY

AN OPEN LETTER TO INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

IN THE BUBBLE

Harry Arnold, CMC ‘17 Hannah Oh, CMC ‘16 Becky Shin, SC ‘15

Illustrator Kelsey Gohn Staff Writers Ambika Bist, Brian Eckhardt, Amelia Evrigenis, Nadeem Farooqi, Alexandra Holterman, Eugene Nandwa, Joel Porter, Becky Shin, Albert Xu

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. © Friends of the Claremont Independent. All rights reserved.

editorial

In Defense of the Independent

Brad Richardson | Editor-in-Chief The Claremont Independent has come under fire recently. Not only were several copies of our most recent issue physically torn apart on the Scripps campus for brandishing the sign of the devil (the drawing on the cover was of the GOP elephant), but the magazine also found itself being torn apart within the opinion pages of The Student Life, where one columnist opined on what he found most “incredulous” about the Independent. It is worth pointing out that we believe it a complete coincidence that the columnist only stopped to share his thoughts about the Independent after it published a not-so-flattering rebuttal to one of his previous columns, in which he urged the Claremont Colleges to join in the American Studies Association’s boycott of Israeli academic institutions. But, ulterior motives aside, the author’s criticisms of the magazine hold both little weight and scant coherence. From the top: First, the author notes his disappointment that “the magazine was not at all the source of libertarian or even classically conservative journalism that it claimed to be,” which assumes that we claim to be anything at all. If the author had taken the time to read our mission statement, talk to any of our magazine’s leadership or staff, or even read closely the name of the magazine (Claremont “Independent”), this initial disappointment could have easily been avoided. Second, the author censures the Independent as “…just another digest of popular Republican Party talking points,” no doubt referring to our piece about Republicans’ increasing odds of taking back the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections; however, this criticism does not have a leg on which to stand. Analyzing trends, polling data, and candidates to form an election forecast is hardly the same thing as espousing “Republican talking points.” In fact, since publishing our article, The Economist, The Atlantic, and Nate Silver’s “Big Data” website, 538, have published articles concurring in our view. We look forward to an upcoming TSL column deriding these media outlets as nothing more than purveyors of “Republican Party talking points.” Third, and perhaps most bizarre, the author claims that he – by taking the stance that the Claremont Colleges should boycott Israeli universities – is the true standard-bearer of the classically conservative spirit, and the Independent does “a disservice to the real principles of conservativism [sic] and libertarianism when they champion the intellectually bankrupt Republican platform.” Furthermore, the author blames this perversion of “true” conservatism, to which perversion the Independent has purportedly succumbed, on none other than Ronald Reagan (for reasons unknown). Rather than squarely address the rebuttal that the Independent wrote of his column, the author shifts the battle to one over undefined terminology. This shift to the undefined and infinitely flexible has a rhetorical purpose: it helps the author avoid a fact-

based discussion and replace the real debate with a series of random and incoherent bursts of unsubstantiated assertion that simply tend to shut-down understanding, if only because the reader can’t imagine where to try to begin. But try we must. The only hints that the author gives about what he might mean by “conservative” is that he appears to see liberty as its end goal: “…the Claremont Colleges should embrace the ASA boycott because in doing so, they will be contributing to the preservation of what the liberal arts are truly about: liberty.” But if the supposedly “conservative” principle of boycotting Israeli universities is simply a means toward the end goal of “liberty” (a dubious proposition through and through, but we’ll play along with it), then that would not make the principle conservative in the classical sense at all. Rather, it would almost by definition be liberal in the classical sense (or based on ideas rooted in liberty). Furthermore, perhaps it is worth asking from whence the author gets the bold idea that pre-Reagan conservatives often took anti-Israel stances. Even if one were to take his claim that perversion of the Republican Party began with Reagan at face value, then would the author have us believe that, say, Richard Nixon was a relentless antagonist of Israel? That’s a somewhat curious suggestion. It is now well known that President Nixon – a die-hard, pre-Reagan Republican – threatened thermo-nuclear war (by raising the alert status of U.S. nuclear forces worldwide) to protect Israel and to deter Soviet intervention on the side of an attacking Egyptian army during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Is that the move of a conservative who would want to boycott Israeli academics? Did the writings of the influential and legendary conservative scholar Irving Kristol, who is also Jewish, indicate some sort of pre-Reagan maliciousness toward Israel? Or maybe the author believes that the father of modern American conservatism and National Review founder William F. Buckley, who was so deeply fond of Israel that he proposed in 1972 that it become the 51st state, secretly held very anti-Israeli sentiments. Both in the perfectly malleable and therefore incoherent definition of conservatism he advances and in the entire history he completely overlooks, the author leads his helpless readers on a disorienting tour through the unexplored recesses of his own intellectual idiosyncrasies. But perhaps more important, this debate illustrates exactly why academic freedom should not be treated like just another piece on a political chessboard. By engaging with the author and pointing out the blatant flaws in his reasoning, we actually do more to alleviate fallacious speech than by allowing it to fester beneath the surface unchecked (as Clay Spence expands upon in this week’s cover article). If the purpose of the liberal arts is to liberate the masses, then its instrument in doing so is truth. And we can only arrive at truth when the free exchange of ideas goes unfettered and academic freedom reigns supreme. CI

opinion

The Six Californias Delusion

Martin Sartorius | Publisher Welcome to West California, everyone. Well… if Tim Draper parison, only injected $165 million for their drought relief program). get his way. Draper’s idea to break up California into six different If California were to split up, one can imagine that the new state governments in established agricultural bases, such as Central California, states has been trending across Facebook recently with students of would go bankrupt trying to keep their agricultural sectors afloat. This the Claremont Colleges, and, surprisingly, most of the responses have is problematic because California has been the largest food and agribeen generally supportive of the idea. cultural producer in the U.S. for over 50 years. If the agricultural secDraper argues that California’s government is too out of touch tor in new states such as Central California were allowed to go under, with the people, and that, therefore, California should split up into there would be a drastic increase in the price of food as food supply six states to bring government down to a more local level; however, drops. Food deficits, therefore, would have a negative effect on the by splitting up California, Draper would create many more problems livelihoods of individuals and families nationwide, not just those livthan he would ever solve. ing in what used to be California. Draper’s proposal seems vastly out of touch with the current Draper also ignores the monolithic logistical problems that his socioeconomic realities of California and very much skewed in the proposal creates. At the moment, California barely has enough water favor of wealthy Californians. This is evident simply in how Draper splits up the state of California. Under his proposal, almost every to keep going. It has gotten to the point where water has to be taken wealthy area in California would be bundled up from certain areas in the north of California down into either Silicon Valley (San Francisco, Palo to the south, to places like Claremont, which Alto) or Western California (LA, Anaheim). does not get enough water to survive on its own. Therefore, under Draper’s proposal, California Currently, the issue of water rights is extremely would immediately see the gap between the contentious, so one can imagine that it would be wealthy and poor widen to an unimaginable an even more difficult task to make agreements extent. In interviews, Draper claims that, while between states to give each other water. he is a rich man (which is an understatement Furthermore, the way Draper drew his proposed states lines seems to show he has no idea for someone with a net worth of over a billion how people work outside of Silicon Valley. Take dollars), he just wants to see his children get a his proposed line between Southern California better education from his tax dollars. This quote and Western California, which would make the reeks of self-interest, as Silicon Valley, being the wealthiest of the six new states, would San Bernardino-Los Angeles county line (which clearly be able to provide Draper’s children falls between Claremont and Upland) a state line. with a better public education than it currently Suddenly, the almost two million people who Illustration by Kelsey Gohn does since his tax dollars wouldn’t be spent on prolive in the Inland Empire but work in Los Angeles viding education for children in poor areas of the would be living in one state, Southern California, old state of California. but working in Western California. This would lead all of these individuals having to file out-of-state taxes, all of which would go to the The outlook in the poorer of Draper’s proposed states, on the coffers of Western California. This would only serve to increase the other hand, would not be as rosy. Draper’s proposed state of Central California, which would include cities like Fresno and Stockton, gap between the poor and the rich states, and, essentially, segregate would immediately become the poorest state in the USA, with a per California’s citizens across socioeconomic lines. capita GDP $150 lower than Mississippi. One can imagine that, if All in all, Draper’s proposal seems like a rich man’s delusional California splits up, states like Central California would not be able plan to not have to foot the bill for the poor of California. Instead of to provide any of the services it currently provides to any sort of actrying to create vastly unequal states, Draper should use his billions to ceptable extent. Conveniently, Draper does not propose a way to keep try to cut some of the bureaucratic red tape that has covered California’s state legislature as of late. Tax and budgeting reform, as a start, Central California functioning at the levels it currently does while being supported by the tax dollars of wealthy Californians like himself. would cover many of Draper’s qualms about a state government that And it’s not just vital government services that would be unable is out of touch with the people. This could include moving budgetary to function at present levels if California were to breakup; entire state control of school funds to a more local level, instead of putting all economies would be at risk due to the breakup. It’s no small secret the power into the hands of bureaucrats in Sacramento who have no that California’s agricultural sector is dependent on the government idea of the needs of people in remote places in California (or those to weather bad seasons. For example, these past few months saw the in Silicon Valley, too). Hopefully, Californians (and, if it comes to it, California government inject $687 million into the agricultural sector Congress) will have the common sense to reject Draper’s proposal as part of a drought relief program (the Federal government, by comand find a better way to reform their state as one California. CI

opinion

A Compelling Interest in Hobby Lobby Colin Spence | Associate Editor

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, on March 25. These two cases will probably be the most prominent ones decided in this court session, because they represent the intersection of several important and sharply contested issues. Both cases consist of arguments surrounding corporate personhood, the extension of religious freedoms, access to contraception, and the new rules and regulations of the healthcare law. The two cases have produced strong responses from the left and right, as the competing interests, reproductive rights, and religious freedoms are respective foundational elements for each side. In these cases, two privately held, for-profit companies have asked for religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate that was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services as provided for by the Affordable Care Act. Of the 20 contraceptive methods and devices that the mandate requires be covered, Hobby Lobby objected to covering four, and Conestoga objected to two. Religious families own both companies and claim that they run their businesses based on religious values, and that these values are inextricably linked with their business practices. They therefore argue that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) that the mandate “substantially burdens” their free exercise of religion, and does so without a “compelling government interest.” Given this claim, the Court will probably rest its decisions more on narrower statutory grounds, and less on the broader underlying constitutional principle. The first question the Court must address is whether or not these companies qualify for protection under the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA. This question has raised similar

arguments as those in Citizens United (2010), which addressed corporate free speech rights. In that case, the Court ruled that the Free Speech clause addressed speech, not speakers, and based on that interpretation, there is no constitutional basis for the wholesale exclusion of certain categories of speakers. A similar argument, raised in an amicus brief by an organization of Christian booksellers, applies in this context, as free exercise was intended by the Framers to apply to both organizations and individual persons. In hindsight, this makes sense, as it would be strange for a free exercise clause to deny that right to churches, archdioceses, and other religious organizations, all of whom often organize in some corporate form. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), the Court argued that the debate should not be if corporate persons have First Amendment rights and their extent versus those of natural persons, but rather, the law should be examined based on how it affects rights the First Amendment seeks to protect. Under this rationale, the two companies’ claims qualify for evaluation under the RFRA, which imposes a significant burden on the government when it seeks to abridge religious rights. To qualify, religious practice must be “substantially burdened,” and the government must lack a “compelling interest” for imposing that burden. In these cases, both companies argue that they run their companies in accordance with religious values and that means providing healthcare to employees, providing for more flexible hours and leave to emphasize family, as well as providing substantially higher starting salaries. Under the mandate, both firms would have to drop coverage and pay a fine, or cover procedures that violate their religious beliefs. In either scenario,

opinion

the owners would have to violate their beliefs in order to comply with the government rule. Such scenarios should qualify as a substantial burden, as they would be required to violate their conscience daily in order to comply. The government can still impose such a burden if it can prove it has a compelling interest. The government said in oral arguments that it has a requisitely compelling interest in protecting the rights of employees to get free contraception from their insurance plans; however, the facts surrounding the cases suggest otherwise. Congress did not choose to include the contraceptive mandate in the text of the healthcare law, choosing instead to allow HHS to decide what services should be covered. If the contraceptive mandate were of such importance, one would assume that Congress would have said so, instead of leaving its fate to HHS. In addition, HHS has already provided exemptions for different groups and organizations that provide coverage for millions of employees. One would expect exceptions to be far fewer, or even non-existent, if the mandate were of vital concern. Finally, the entirety of the healthcare law, taken in context, reduces the government interest. The law, if operating effectively, should provide access to affordable healthcare via the exchanges, thus negating the need for private employers to provide insurance that violates their beliefs, as their employees should be able to access affordable and adequate care easily elsewhere. Finally, in these particular cases, both companies

cover a majority of the required contraceptives, they each only object to a few (2-4) of the 20 required methods and devices, further reducing the government’s interest. While it seems likely that the companies will win their claim, several Court observers have noted that the Court may rest its decision on a narrower provision of the RFRA. This provision requires that the government rule be the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing its goal. The court could rule that mandating contraceptive coverage by obligating employers to cover it is too restrictive, but then leave the door open for future challenges to the RFRA. Such a decision would strike the type of balance intended under the RFRA. As Chief Justice Roberts described it in a unanimous decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006), “Congress has determined [with the RFRA] that courts should strike sensible balances, pursuant to a compelling interest test that requires the Government to address the particular practice at issue.” Regardless of the statutory basis of the decision, Conestoga and Hobby Lobby should prevail, not because of the strong arguments in their favor, but because of the government’s inability to make a compelling argument against them. The contraception mandate was never anything more than a political handout, and the government’s post-hoc attempt to elevate it to a “compelling interest” only further illustrates this administration’s blithely cynical attitude to this country’s fundamental rights. CI

I Have a Nightmare: The Fractured State of Black Culture Eugene Nandwa | Staff Writer The citizens of California passed Proposition 209 in 1996 to prohibit the use of affirmative action in state employment, contracting, and public education admission decisions. Earlier this year, the California State Senate attempted to reverse this ban by approving a constitutional amendment, known as SCA-5, to revive affirmative action in California state schools; however, as public outrage over SCA-5 quickly spread, the bill was withdrawn before reaching a vote in the State Assembly. The bill’s authors instead plan on including it on the 2016 ballot. SCA-5 was originally initiated to address the low level of minority students in college, particularly within the UC system. While opponents of SCA-5 acknowledge the lack of diversity in higher education, they maintain that affirmative action does not provide an adequate solution for traditionally underrepresented groups. Affirmative action, they contend, does little to improve

the quantity and quality of minority student college applications. Instead, it merely redistributes college admissions decisions to influence the matriculation outcomes – and not necessarily for the better. Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, has written extensively about affirmative action and its consequences. Sowell argues that the redistributive function of affirmative action policies ends up hurting minority groups, particularly African-Americans, as they are the group primarily targeted by such policies. Sowell points to two main reasons affirmative action is injurious to African-Americans. First, affirmative action policies only help the people who already have the resources to apply for college, thereby creating a sharper class divide in African-American society between the affluent and the less affluent. Sowell

opinion points out, “Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto.” Second, affirmative action, by artificially inflating applicants’ test scores and GPAs, actually hurts minorities by sending them to universities for which they are not qualified and where they are less likely to graduate. As Sowell says, “You are not doing anybody a favor by sending them where they are more likely to fail, rather than where they are more likely to succeed.” Since affirmative action has been prohibited, Sowell continues, “These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems – no longer being mismatched with institutions whose standards they don’t meet. They now have a better chance of graduating.” A recent Scripps Voice column entitled “Feminism and Cultural Appropriation” echoes part of Sowell’s sentiments by recognizing there is a class divide among African-Americans. The author notes that “a cloud of shame has hung over many African-American communities that causes them to reject and distance themselves from the culture of impoverished members.” Although the author rightly points out that black culture is fractured, she confuses the reasons for this divide. She claims that the divide has occurred for two reasons: (1) White-American impulse to minimalize African-American culture or to view it as non-existent and (2) African-Americans distancing themselves from their history. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to have served on the highest court in the land, once stated, “I have never understood the notion that we have to focus on race in order to get over race.” Thomas tells a story of his time in Savannah, GA, where he was one of few black students in a predominantly white school and town. He recounted that he never thought of the other kids as white and himself as the black kid – he always thought of them as “just kids.” Justice Thomas’ story highlights the hypocrisy of efforts like affirmative action that attempt to alleviate racism by perpetuating it. The class conflict created within the African-American community is a result of policies like affirmative action, which inherently create a divide among social classes. It also groups blacks into a box and gives them special treatment, as if they cannot make it on their own. Justice Thomas noted, “I don’ t have

“

to keep telling people that I’m black and I don’t have to limit myself by saying, ‘Look, they say because I’m black, I’m this or I’m that.’ I’m Clarence, I’m a citizen, and I’m a human being.” Perhaps a deeper problem with the divide between the African-American community lies in the social norms and values that are associated with black culture today. For instance, according to the Brookings Institution, about 75 percent of African-Americans are born out of wedlock, which means the chances of having a father present in their upbringing are greatly diminished. A University of Michigan study points out that lack of a positive role model, particularly among young boys, results in a greater presence of violence and a reduced high school graduation rate, which in turn leads to poverty and the road to violence – a vicious cycle. Many blacks view these things as tainting the black pride that the likes of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks worked so hard to cultivate during the Civil Rights era. The Scripps Voice author’s reasons for the fracture of black culture are misleading. By recognizing the harmful cultural practices that happen to be more prevalent within the black community, blacks are not distancing themselves from black pride and black history, and whites are not looking down on blacks. The idea that someone is turning on their own culture or being racist toward another culture, when in fact they are only trying to curb the negative and harmful aspects more strongly associated with the culture, is what perpetuates the idea of the “uncle Tom” and hinders real progress. The solution the author provides equally undermines the issue. She suggests, “For African-Americans to fight against cultural appropriation, Black folk must first work together in solidarity to dismantle the chains of shame that cause us to internalize the poverty and deprivation that has been imposed upon us.” This solution, like affirmative action, groups black people into a box and does not allow for a higher level of understanding of the issue. It only creates a deeper interracial divide, which the author claims we should be trying to get rid of in the first place. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of creating a color-blind society has been forgotten by both sides. Blacks’ efforts to separate themselves into a racial category and policymakers’ efforts to put blacks into a box only make achieving MLK’s dream increasingly more difficult. CI

Justice Thomas’ story highlights the hypocrisy of efforts like affirmative action that attempt to alleviate racism by perpetuating it. The class conflict created within the African-American community is a result of policies like affirmative action...

opinion

Let’s Talk about Academic Freedom: A Response to the Harvard Crimson Clay Spence | Associate Editor attempting to persuade Korn to revise her beliefs on the subject, In a recent Harvard Crimson article, Harvard student SanI’ll articulate a philosophical argument for strict First Amenddra Korn endorses the abridgment of academic freedom in order to prevent the publication of research promoting or justifying opment protection of academic freedom. Korn argues that “academic justice” requires censoring pression. Her view is not particularly remarkable, and it certainly isn’t novel, but it is worth correcting nonetheless. academic publications in order to ensure they aren’t oppressive. The constitutional case for academic freedom is clear. This is sort-of intuitive at a very superficial level – after all, opIn Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), the Supreme Court acceptpression is bad, and we should prevent bad things when possible. ed Justice Frankfurter’s rationale in Wieman v. Updegraff that Furthermore, Korn contends that “no one ever has ‘full freedom’ “unwarranted inhibition [of academic freedom]…has an unmisin research and publication…what papers are accepted for pubtakable tendency to chill lication are always continthat free play of the spirit gent on political priorities.” which all teachers ought But this semblance of a to cultivate and practice… syllogism and unapologetic Teachers must…be exemnaturalistic fallacy does not plars of open-mindedness bear out. Korn ought to take and free inquiry. They a philosophy class. must have the freedom Korn’s chief exof responsible inquiry, by ample of an oppressive thought and action, into academic publication is the meaning of social and Harvard Professor Richard economic ideas, into the Herrnstein’s 1971 article checkered history of so“I.Q.,” which makes the cial and economic dogclaim (which would later ma.” Later, in Keyishian v. be reiterated in Herrnstein’s famous work The Bell Board of Regents (1967), the Court also upheld acCurve), that intelligence is primarily hereditary and ademic freedom and freevaries by race. According dom of association in light to Korn, Herrnstein conof the First Amendment. cludes in “I.Q.” that “social Both Sweezy and Keyishian were explicit programs intended to estabconstitutional prohibitions lish a more egalitarian socion McCarthy-esque purgety were futile.” Graphic by Lindsey Betts es and invoked the phrase Even granting her “academic freedom” in particular. Because Korn’s vision of “academic justice” requires censorship of professors’ publications on the basis of their political views, it is analogous to McCarthy’s witch-hunt of socialists. One can assume then that Korn does not find the constitutional argument for academic freedom compelling. So, in the interest of

this caricature of Herrnstein’s thesis, Korn’s strategy of promoting “academic justice” by ensuring that research that promotes or justifies oppression isn’t published is highly problematic. Any attempt to censor politically incorrect views creates problems for Korn’s argument because any method for distinguishing between “sufficiently

opinion oppressive” and “trivially oppressive” speech is ultimately arbitrary. How will one go about delineating between views that are sufficiently oppressive to be censored, and views that, while marginally oppressive, don’t cross whatever arbitrary “oppressiveness threshold” one constructs? For instance, is this article the sort of thing that ought to be censored? I am, after all, openly endorsing the publication of exactly the kinds of oppressive academic works Korn opposes. While certain kinds of academic speech, for instance Holocaust-denial, would clearly fall on the “oppressive” end of Korn’s spectrum, few such cases are so straightforward. The erection of a litmus test for acceptable ideology is a messy, oppressive endeavor. Remember, for instance, McCarthy-era Red-baiting. The question: “Who must agree that an academic work is oppressive in order for it to be justly censored?” is unanswerable, and itself suspect. A liberal commitment to inclusion of conflicting voices renders Korn’s principle untenable in theory and in practice. That being said, Korn has captured the germ of an important issue. Some academic works, like Ward Churchill’s essay comparing the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to “little Eichmanns,” clearly perpetuate unjust views. However, I contend that, instead of censoring these publications, one must counter oppressive views through reasoned debate. Academic discourse over controversial publications is not only an effective means to combat oppressive viewpoints, but, more important, the only way to avoid well intentioned, but morally bankrupt, censorship of the Joseph McCarthy variety. Oppressive viewpoints are definitionally false viewpoints, so the task of undermining an academic’s arguments for an unjustified belief should, generally, be an easy one. The primary feature of reasoned discourse is that it tends to get at the truth, including those truths that undermine the arguments in offensive academic publications. Herrnstein’s work on IQ is a case

“

in point. In an article summarizing statistical findings post-Bell Curve, UC Berkeley Professor David Kirp notes that sociological research on the IQ debate has concluded that, while inherited genetic makeup is the largest determining factor on intelligence, socioeconomic factors and access to quality education also play a significant role. Taken together, research on this nature/nurture debate supports the conclusion that social justice policies like educational reform still have a significant role to play in levelling the playing field for the least well-off. The philosophical problem of identifying which academic publications are, according to Korn’s argument, “unjust,” and the practical problem of assembling commissions to evaluate whether a particular publication meets whatever standards of injustice Korn might try to outline are convincing reasons to opt for an inviolable right to academic freedom. Though, clearly, some publications seem to perpetuate just views and others unjust views, most academic works inhabit an uncertain gray area. Consequently, rulings on the “justice” of a particular academic work are highly susceptible not only to human error, but to the broader possibility that our current conception of “academic justice” is, as Joseph McCarthy’s was, just plain wrong. In light of these human failings, and understanding the history of academic censorship in this country, we would do well to be wary of the notion of censorship itself. Therefore, the appropriate response to academic works that disseminate unjust viewpoints is not the crude strategy of moral browbeating embodied in censorship, but an exposition of reasons an unjust view is unjustified. The right strategy in combating oppression is not to silence the opposition, but to engage in debate and invalidate oppressive viewpoints with factual evidence. One must remind the public not only that academics who endorse oppressive views are wrong, but also why those academics are wrong. While the risk that censorship may be abused is ever-present, engaging in moral argument to refute an offensive academic publication is, ethically speaking, risk-free. CI

The philosophical problem of identifying which academic publications are, according to Korn’s argument, “unjust,” and the practical problem of assembling commissions to evaluate whether a publication meets whatever standards of injustice Korn might try to outline are convincing reasons to opt for an inviolable right to academic freedom.

opinion

Illustration by Kelsey Gohn

Lone Star Farce: A Response to the Claremont Port Side Harry Arnold | Managing Editor In what will be the most high-profile gubernatorial race of the year, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott looks to succeed the 14-year incumbent Rick Perry, who has led the Lone Star State to the pinnacle of economic prosperity. Abbott’s Democratic opponent will be State Sen. Wendy Davis, who ascended to national fame in 2013 by filibustering a strict Texas abortion bill that ultimately became law. Unless Abbott catastrophically implodes, the governor’s mansion is unequivocally projected to remain in Republican hands. Regardless, liberals nationwide have seized this opportunity to advance their agenda of exposing misogynistic elitism and the oppression of women. The Claremont Port Side appears to have drunk the Kool-Aid. In an article entitled “Lone Star Democrat – Why Texas Can’t Handle Wendy Davis,” published in the magazine’s recent “Feminism Issue,” the two authors embark on a variety of uncoordinated tangents and proffer a series of unsubstantiated claims regarding the gubernatorial race. As a consequence, the article’s account of the gubernatorial race is misleading and skews political realities to accommodate their narrative of Republicans

unfairly persecuting Davis. Throughout the article, the authors advance the idea that “republicans are desperate to slander Davis’ character” because “an ambitious woman threatens men.” However, this assessment rests on a painfully superficial understanding of Texas politics. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), the first female Senator to represent the Lone Star State, recently retired after a very successful 20-year congressional tenure. Her enormous popularity was exhibited by the fact that she nearly defeated Rick Perry in a 2010 GOP primary challenge for governor. Other women who have made significant inroads into the Texas political scene include two current justices of the Texas Supreme Court, Eva Guzman (R-TX) and Debra Lehrmann (R-TX), both of whom have been elected with wide margins. Moreover, Nandita Berry (R-TX), recently became the first Indian-American and one of only a handful of women to serve as the Texas Secretary of State. In an obvious way, these women are all living, breathing examples of how “women can stand up for themselves in Texas.”

opinion They are indicative of the fact that oppression of women in Texas politics is neither systematic nor commonplace. As a result, the Port Side’s underlying theme that Davis will suffer in the general election due to an anti-female political environment holds little to no merit. She’ll suffer in the general all right, but she’ll lose on policy – not as a victim of insidious structural oppression against women. Nevertheless, the authors seek to crystallize on this point, claiming that “by virtue of her being a woman, Davis endures far more scrutiny than male politicians.” Yet the only concrete example provided of unfair criticism directed at Davis is an isolated incident in South Carolina (note: South Carolina), where former state Republican Party Director Todd Kincannon made a series of offensive and ill-advised comments. I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Kincannon’s slanderous Twitter campaign was despicable – but one cherry-picked extreme case from another state does not prove a rule. Here’s an alternative narrative that coheres with all the facts: conservatives are critiquing Davis because she’s a liberal progressive, and investigating the accuracy of her personal story because (and let’s be absolutely clear on this point!) she’s playing the game of politics. Greg Abbott, a paraplegic, has been subject to equally venomous slander from the Davis camp. Battleground Texas, a liberal group composed of veteran Obama campaign officials, seeks to help elect an increasing number of Democrats in the Lone Star State, Davis included. A recent undercover video exposed members of the organization mocking Abbott for his disability and confinement to a wheelchair. The legitimacy of the video is validated by the fact that it merited a response from Davis herself, who quickly condemned the video’s cruel language. Wendy Davis has undoubtedly received brash, unwarranted criticism that lacks any possible justification; however, liberals such as those at the Port Side appear to suffer from severe

“

tunnel vision, believing that they are the only victims of political foul play. This is a dubious proposition considering the aforementioned criticism direct at Abbott, which was sadistic and beyond the realm of reason. Remember: this is politics we’re talking about. The authors conclude their disparate series of observations by offering the prediction that the “conservative backlash against Davis” will be “pervasive enough to significantly impact the gubernatorial election.” Once again, this assertion simply is not grounded within the realm of reality, and is nothing more than wishful thinking. For months, Abbott has held a comfortable double digit lead over Davis, one that is not expected to dissipate anytime soon. Perhaps the most damning reality for liberals is the fact that no Democrat has been elected to a statewide office in Texas since 1994. In today’s deeply polarized political environment, the chances of Davis upsetting the status quo are minimal at best. While those at the Claremont Port Side may believe that Davis will be able to remain a “viable political candidate in Texas,” we at the Claremont Independent hold a more rational perspective. Barring a move to another state, Davis will likely disappear into political abyss following a decisive defeat this fall. This is due to the fact that the current political environment in Texas, coupled with the limited lifespan of political candidacies, will effectively mitigate Davis’s chances of ascending from her state senate seat to any statewide office. Brandishing the victim card and angrily appealing to the oppression of women, while classic feminist strategies, are ultimately ineffective at securing concrete political outcomes – at least in Texas. In addition to energizing the Republican base, polarizing feminist rhetoric will alienate many independent voters, which are critical in a general election. So don’t be surprised when Abbott sends Davis into political oblivion this November. CI

Wendy Davis has undoubtedly received brash, unwarrented criticism that lacks any possible justification; however, liberals such as those at the Port Side appear to suffer from severe tunnel vision, believing that they are the only victims of political foul play.

opinion

The Case for Anonymity Hannah Oh | Associate Editor The ancient legend of Gyges in Plato’s Republic offers a telling tale about the power of anonymity. In this story, a shepherd named Gyges finds a mythical ring that allows him to become invisible. Using the ring, Gyges kills the king and takes over the realm for himself. Here, Plato’s brother Glaucon posits that any man, even the most just of men, would similarly abuse this power and act unjustly if he had no fear of being found. Morality, he then concludes, is bound to identity disclosure: Without any accountability, we have no reason to act morally at all. Over 2,400 years later, Plato’s thought experiment has come to fruition. In the advent of the Digital Age, the controversial practice of anonymous online commenting has given every Internet user a metaphorical ring of invisibility. Social media networks, blogs, and news sites – including online publications at the Claremont Colleges – have become infamous for their malicious comment threads, where not-so-mythical internet trolls lurk in cyberspace. Internet trolls use comment sections to espouse inflammatory remarks or to foment discord, often through crude and vile language. Recent studies have confirmed that anonymity online cultivates a culture that lacks social inhibitions, allowing people to speak more boldly than they would in face-to-face conversations. This phenomenon – aptly named the Gyges effect – is becoming increasingly harmful to online discussion threads.

Yet, for all of its vices, anonymity certainly has its virtues. These virtues have become overshadowed, however, by the negativity surrounding internet trolls and the havoc they wreak online. It is, therefore, important to highlight the benefits of anonymity in a modern-day context, and to weigh these benefits against popular criticism fairly. Opponents of anonymity argue that anonymous online comments can be extremely disruptive. We often see Internet trolls provoking readers through “bait” posts, created with the specific purpose of instigating reactions. These posts lead readers astray and can actually influence readers as much as (or in some cases, more than) the story itself. In a study conducted at the University of Wisconsin, researchers produced a balanced news report and showed two groups the exact same report, but with one difference: One group saw civil comments at the end of the report, while the other saw uncivil comments that included name-calling. The group assigned to read uncivil comments after the report became much more polarized in their views, suggesting that the substance and tone of online comments can actually alter the way an audience thinks about a given issue. However, this finding does not necessarily amount to a negative outcome. What this study concludes is that a comment thread leaves a noticeable impression on readers, who (knowingly or unknowingly) evaluate content differently based on the

opinion posts they read at the end of an article. While in the case of troll posts, these implications may be more harmful than good, other anonymous posts may expose readers to new perspectives or valuable insights that can shape readers’ views in a productive and meaningful way. Indeed, anonymity allows people to express their insights more freely, uninhibited by the fear of being personally criticized for their beliefs. For reserved or introverted students, anonymity can make all the difference in deciding whether or not to voice their opinions online. This kind of calculative mentality is especially true for students at the Claremont Colleges. In our relatively small community, there is even greater likelihood of being identified or judged by friends, peers, and professors, which sufficiently deters readers from contributing to online discussions—particularly on sensitive topics like sexual assault and rape. Forum CMC’s recently published an article titled “I’m Not a Victim,” written by an anonymous author who described her personal experience of being sexually assaulted. Her article ignited an important conversation, where numerous anonymous commenters came forth and shared their similar experiences. Many of these commenters had been sexually assaulted themselves and thanked the author for creating a space for them to speak about this difficult issue. One anonymous commenter remarked:

“

pen to other girls to happen to me…I kept quiet out of my fear of my rapist and my fear of losing my identify and becoming a victim. Thank you so much for sharing your story! So many of us can’t. For sexual assault and rape survivors, disclosing their identity has far deeper implications than just being associated with an opinion. It attracts labels; it marks them with a stigma. Their private experience becomes a part of their publicly-known identity, changing people’s perceptions of who they are and how they interact with them. Similarly, in situations when commenters want to speak out against authority figures or on other issues that put them in jeopardy, anonymity provides a necessary security. Students deserve an outlet for true expression, where they can candidly voice their thoughts and opinions without fear of reprisal. No matter how safe we may feel around those we trust, there is no substitute for complete anonymity. The right to remain anonymous is an important one, especially as we address more sensitive and controversial issues in the future. In a liberal arts environment, where we encourage an open exchange of ideas and value a broad range of opinions, providing a space for anonymous online commenters broadens our limited perspectives by including people with experiences that are entirely new to us. The power of anonymity enables people to do things they wouldn’t normally do. And if one of these things is voicing their otherwise unexpressed thoughts, it is certainly a power worth keeping. It is then our burden as readers to filter out the distractions and to focus on the real issues. CI

The right to remain anonymous is an important one, especially as we address more sensitive and controversial issues in the future. In a liberal arts environment, where we encourage an open exchange of ideas and value a broad range of opinions, providing a space for anonymous online commenters broadens our limited perspectives by including people with experiences that are entirely new to us.

…I remember the terror I felt that someone would find out and then I would be the broken victim that everyone walked on eggshells around. That’s why I was silent for so long—I didn’t want the hushed whispers and the ‘oh poor things’ that I saw hap-

humor

An Open Letter to International Students Becky Shin | Staff Writer In the first few lines of The Great Gatsby, the title character shares some wisdom passed down from his father: “‘Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people in the world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’” I find a lot of truth in this quote. I believe that the societal “advantages” of growing up in a specific place are truly knowing that culture and its expectations. By being raised in America, I took these cultural norms as common knowledge rather than considering them a product of my environment. I unconscious-

Dear International Students,

ly projected the American common knowledge even onto those who had not grown up in America. Before I went abroad to Edinburgh, Scotland, I did not realize that it was actually beyond my capacity to understand the difficulty of adjusting to another culture. Although I was vaguely aware of my narrow, Americanized, unaccommodating perspective, I could have never imagined the difficulty of bridging these cultural gaps until I was thrown into the experience. With that said and on behalf of others as unaccommodating as I was, I would like to apologize for our obliviousness.

I wish to begin by apologizing for all the times we have failed to even inquire about the initial adjustment to the American lifestyle. As I have come to learn, there are a few things that blatantly suck about coming to America, specifically switching from the universal Metric system to the English system, where feet and inches are not nearly as coherent as centimeters and meters. A second frustrating and nonsensical adjustment you may have had to make was a switch in spelling with “s” to “z,” such as “recognise” to “recognize.” Perhaps a final necessary cultural obstacle may have been learning American currency, although, in this case, it may have already been cheaper to use U.S. Dollars instead of your home currency. Aside from the unavoidable changes listed above, you may have also heard ridiculous acronyms thrown around, such as “YOLO” or “You Only Live Once,” a saying popularized by American rapper, Drake. (“Carpe diem” apparently did not suffice for our American lingo.) Other times, we cannot even blame our illogical vocabulary on hit songs; sometimes these nonsensical words have been engrained into our language. An example of this is “eggplant,” a purple vegetable that looks nothing like an egg, but must be a plant, as are carrots, even though we don’t call carrots, “carrotplants.” (The Scots say “aubergine” instead of “eggplant.”) I did not realize how absurd some of our vocabulary was, until my Scottish friends started pointing them out—why “soccer” instead of “football” or “pants” instead of “trousers”? Apparently “pants” actually means “underwear.” Why do we Americans have these things so backwards? There are also some things that are great about coming to America, specifically Southern California. Although the food may be heavier, greasier, and fattier than what you’re used to, LA is an eating Mecca, a foodie’s heaven. At the end of the day, change is neither good nor bad, but must be recognized and catered to. Cultural adjustment is hard, and the least we could do is seriously consider the cultural gap that you may be dealing with, all the while trying to adjust to college life. There are many things that those of us who have been raised in America accept without question, or do not even realize we should question. That attitude may be dangerous in leading some of us to believe that culture is innate rather than learned. When we believe that it is innate, we make false assumptions, whereas when we recognize that culture is learned, we become more willing to seek understanding. With that, we apologize for the many presumptions and the failure to acknowledge the cultural adjustment in many areas. With love, Your American friends

feature

In the Bubble

It’s impossible to keep up with everything that’s happening around the 5Cs – even for those of us in the journalism business; however, we diligently read through each of the other publications on campus and featured some highlights to keep you up-to-date on the campus dialogue. Here’s what’s happening in the bubble:

Quotes not necessarily representative of the views of the publications in which they appear.

visit us online:

claremontindependent.com

Interested in writing for us? Attend our meetings this semester every Sunday at 9:00 p.m. in Kravis Center room 321.