The Claremont Independent - December 2011 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT

VOLUME XX, NUMBER 6, DECEMBER 2011

Condi Comes to CMC: Welcome to...Ducey? page

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents Editor-in-Chief Hannah Burak Publisher Michael Koenig

FROM THE EDITOR

WOMEN WANTED: Closing the Gender Gap at HMC

HARWOOD HALLOWEEN

LIBERTOPIA: A REFLECTION

THE COMPLEX PURSUIT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

CONDI COMES TO CMC

Web Editor Parth Padgoankar

LEPPERT TALKS CAMPAIGN FOR SENATE

Copy Editor Marina Giloi

AN INVITATION TO COPPERATION

Layout Editors Lynsey Chediak Tess Sewell Managing Editor Chase Gray Associate Editors Julio Sharp-Wasserman Ross Sevy News Editor Evan Lind Illustrators Heidi Carlson Aliza Kellerman

Editor Emeritus John-Clark Levin

Hannah Burak, CMC ‘13 Marina Giloi, CMC ‘14

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Evan Lind, CMC ‘14

Catherine Tung, CMC ‘14

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Chris Wolfe, CGU

Julio Sharp-Wasserman, PO ‘13

Publisher Emerita Justine Desmond Staff Writers Eliot Adams, Janet Alexander, Travis Athougies, Joanna Chavez, Breanna Deutsch, Amelia Evrigenis, Aidan Fahnestock, Paul Jeffrey, Will Mitchell, Christina Noriega, Linden Schult, Jason Soll, Colin Spence

editorial by Hannah Burak

FROM THE EDITOR

Editor-in-Chief

David Oxtoby is doing his job. The Board of Trustees at Pomona is doing theirs. And yet there are protests. I imagine that few students at the Claremont Colleges have a more liberal ideal for the appropriate amount and kind of immigration laws in this country, or a greater distaste for what ICE does, than myself. That does not mean that I want my college to take a political stance on the issue. In response to a complaint about the hiring practices of the Oxtoby administration at Pomona College, the administration seems—by my understanding—to have acted quite reasonably. It received a complaint that the administration’s policies were in violation of the law. The administration acknowledged the complaint and rectified the situation. At this point, Michael Teter claimed—in an open letter the Pomona community—that the Oxtoby administration should have stopped. If the hiring policies were in violation of law, there was sound reason to suspect that the employment of workers was in violation of law. A college president cannot simply ignore the possibility that the college has hired workers illegally and hope that the problem goes away without resurfacing. But some think that the ethical position would be to uphold that ignorance. They claim that Pomona College has lost its moral high-ground. I can only assume that they mean in terms of ethicality of its treatment towards its workers. But as Teter points out, people are arguing from two mountaintops here—compliance with the law and concern for workers. Morality can be argued on both sides. One can twist Pomona’s “tribute to Christian civilization” in support of either. I would rather shape the discussion in terms of Pomona’s obligations to its students. When Pomona was established, its primary concern was and still should be, the education received by its students. Popular notions of social justice and consideration of the community of a college extending to its non-academic workers rather post-date the 1887 founding. Ending the livelihoods of 17 workers is a grave decision, which I am sure the administration took under serious consideration as it weighed its options. But it likely also considered the potential consequences to the college’s reputation and its environment. Pomona College is a place for the development of students and the nurturing of dialogue on important issues like this one. It is not the hero of immigration or labor reform. Think about it—when a politician is found employing undocumented workers, it’s a scandal. His or her position on all sorts of difficult questions like immigration policies, am-

nesty, and worker’s rights come under scrutiny and public lambasting. Do we really want the same for an institution of higher learning? Suppose the college ignores the complaint and the complainant instead goes to the media. The college can sheepishly change its policies or it can defend the rights of its workers, standing up to the law in the newspapers or in the courts. Pomona would no longer be reputed as the elite liberal arts college somewhere in California, but as a college whose leaders have been unable to keep policy views from affecting its administration. Much like Pomona’s long-time policy against allowing ROTC on campus, this issue is one with the potential to signify the willingness of an administration to distract itself from offering students the best opportunities in a neutral, dialogueinducing setting. I am happy that the administration has chosen not to turn its policies into a crusade for social justice. Greater justice in society is, and always will be, the job of the bright, passionate graduates which it continues to serve. CI

campus news

WOMEN WANTED: Closing the Gender Gap at HMC

by Marina Giloi

Copy Editor

If hordes of men on unicycles is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Mudd, that might be about to change. According to Harvey Mudd College’s admissions website, the 2011 entering class is 42.6% female and 57.4% male . Last admissions year, it reached an unprecedented high of 52% female and 48% male. Peter Osgood, HMC Director of Admission, asserts that the gender gap “has been a focus for decades,” but only a few years back, females made up only 2030% of the entering class. So what has recently changed and why so drastically? I sat down with Osgood to get some answers. Osgood offered several explanations for the recent closing of the gender gap. Among them, that for the first time Franklin Olin--a prestigious engineering school--has recently changed its tuition-free policy, making many of the most promising engineering students look harder at Harvey Mudd. Osgood also noted quite simply the fact that Harvey Mudd is “a place that welcomes a lot of students.” I asked Osgood to respond to the theory of some that the closing of the gender gap results from Mudd accepting somewhat less-qualified female applicants in favor of gender diversity. Osgood pointed to the difficulty in measuring “wellqualified” students and said that Mudd won’t admit students that, through a combination of factors, don’t seem likely to succeed. Emphasizing the importance of a good fit and the ability to add to the college’s environment, Osgood maintains that admissions tends to focus on comprehensive qualities. He went so far as to say that in accepting the best of the best, he “hopes to God that you don’t use the SAT.” Yet when I pressed further, asking him if admissions lowers its test scores or GPA expectations when looking at female applicants, it seems that quantitative characteristics do matter - but only certain ones. Osgood pointed to the fact that admitted females often come in with higher GPAs than admitted males. However, when I asked about females’ success rates once admitted, he said that he’s not convinced that superstars are shown through GPA. So what matters? My takeaway was this: “well-qualified” is difficult to measure and the SAT isn’t the best metric for it. Qualitative measures matter more, yet a Mudd applica-

tion requires the SAT or ACT exam scores, a Math 2 SAT II exam score, and a second SAT II exam score of the applicant’s choice. GPA is also a “good indicator” and accepted females often have higher GPAs in high school. But once you get to college, GPAs don’t really indicate the superstars. I decided to go directly to the source and got an anonymous female 1st-year attending Harvey Mudd College to offer her opinions. While she acknowledges that the women at Harvey Mudd are “all brilliant and most likely deserve to be here,” she does think that admissions may give females more leeway when it comes to being admitted. And while she personally is

In accepting the best of the best, he “hopes to God that you don’t use the SAT.”

”

in favor of closing the gender gap, she thinks “it most likely unfair. There are probably some better male candidates that apply that are turned down while a female who is at the same level or even below is accepted.” Mudd needs to admit to what its own students are acknowledging: admissions has different standards for female applicants. And that’s fine. Gender diversity is an important component of the environment which the admissions office shapes and most female students at Mudd may still be more than qualified to be there. But minimizing the importance of test scores and quantitative measures in explaining the remarkable shift in the gender gap is disingenuous. The reality is that the test scores are significant in the admissions process, yet the admissions office is sometimes willing to accept female applicants with lower scores in favor of fostering a larger representation of female students. We either need to justify leveraging variables like gender in admissions process or stop taking applicants’ gender into account. In any case, there will probably still be unicycles. CI

campus news

HARWOOD HALLOWEEN

by Amelia Evrigenis Staff Writer

As I walked with friends to my first Harwood Halloween, I wondered whether attending the party sober was a good idea after all. A naïve freshman in a cat costume, I did not know what to expect from my first college Halloween party. What I did expect, however, was to have quite a different perspective on the event than my peers. The harsh sting of sobriety hit when I entered Pomona’s South Campus parking lot. I felt as if I had just stepped into a giant orgy. To my surprise, colleagues at the Claremont Independent told me this year’s Harwood was much better than events of the recent past. But I didn’t really know what “better” meant. People were a little less wasted? There was less vomit on the floor? To learn about the differences between Harwood 2011 and past Harwood Halloweens, I interviewed Pomona Student Affairs staff members who planned and chaperoned the event. Ellie Ash-Bala, Assistant Director of the Smith Campus Center and Student Programs at Pomona College, said that Harwood 2011 was “the most safe and tame Harwood I have seen in my five years working at Pomona.” She attributed much of that success to this year’s location change from Pomona’s IT parking lot to the South Campus parking garage. Last year, the IT parking lot was not large enough to accommodate all of the students rushing into the party, so pushing and shoving at the entrance became a big issue. Fenced walkways had been erected to form lines at the party’s entrance. Brenda Schmit, Manager of Retail Services of the Smith Campus Center and Student Programs, was stationed at the entrance to those lines. She said there was no crowd control to contain the swarms of entering students; only two staff members and two campus safety officers were present. Students collectively pushed into the walkways, creating a dangerous mob. An aggressive student even pushed over one of the fences, knocking Schmit down with it. Desperate to control the situation, head of Campus Safety Shahram Ariane tied the entrance gate closed with a whip that Schmit had confiscated from a student’s costume. Pomona eventually closed all entrances to the party; the parking structure had reached full capacity and the pushing

had become too dangerous. The South Campus parking garage offered a space large enough to safely accommodate all students attending Harwood this year. The Pomona Events Committee (PEC) considered hosting Harwood in the Athern parking garage below Pomona’s North Campus dorms but was concerned by the steep entrance to the parking lot. Ash-Bala explained that the steep entrance could be a safety hazard to drunk students, especially those wearing high heels. Additionally, cement car barriers in Athern could cause people to trip. The cement barriers at the South Campus garage, located only at the perimeter of the lot, created no such hazard. Though the PEC would have preferred to host Harwood at a more central location, the South Campus garage offered the best solution to the pushing and shoving issues experienced last year. While the crowd control issue was solved, excessive alcohol consumption continued to be an issue at this year’s Harwood. The Student Programs staff wasn’t surprised by this, as it happens every Halloween weekend. Ash-Bala explained that some students were considered too drunk to attend the party and were thus denied entrance: “Students who were deemed to be too intoxicated to safely enjoy the party were not allowed to enter. This was a judgment call based on how the student behaved when entering the party. For example, if they

CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

opinion

by Evan Lind

LIBERTOPIA: A REFLECTION News Editor

I confess. When I first heard the name of this conference, I too let out a bit of a giggle. Libertopia? I’ve often (and unfairly) been accused by some of my more conservativeminded friends as being a severe idealist and optimist, and going to such a wistfully named conference was not going to help my case. My suspicions about the seriousness of this conference were only heightened after I visited the official website, chockfull of imagery evocative of my father’s old Grateful Dead posters. But we live in a world where a series of protests without any clear objectives or goals have sparked in cities across the globe with the speed and inanity of an internet meme. We live under governments that are more concerned with defining marriage than balancing budgets. We enter voting booths, faced with an essentially dichotomous choice between over-regulated industry and over-regulated personal lives. And it’s time when I think about the world in this light that I begin to think that a weekend of voluntaryist panels, libertarian speakers, and anarchist entertainment might be exactly what the world needs. What I actually found upon attending was far from what I had expected. Sure, a lot of the message was on point; I met many people similarly suspicious of large concentrations of unchecked power in the hands of a small and tightly connected political elite. But while I’ve always jokingly called myself an extremist of sorts, I had not truly understood how much further I could have gone. I watched as speakers called for the immediate dissolution of all borders. I sat in on workshops in which people decried the economic hegemony reinforced by the very existence of the Federal Reserve. The atmosphere was not unlike that of Occupy Wall Street; I saw a whirlwind of passionate opinions backed up by little or no evidence or conventional logic. More than anything, hearing these discussions and lectures made me consider my own journey as a libertarian. I was raised just slightly to the right of Marx himself, but in a family environment in which I was encouraged, no, compelled to question anything and everything and never accept another’s opinion as fact. Upon graduating high school, I moved into an apartment with two socio-anarchists while I completed a year volunteering with AmeriCorps. At home, I faced debate after debate about “the violent nature of capitalism” and myriad kooky conspiracy theories. But worse was at work, where I was forced to participate in workshops in which anyone who spoke against socialized medicine or affirmative action would

be actively silenced. It was nothing short of governmentsponsored liberal indoctrination. I began to question all of this, especially when I examined the incredible inefficiencies with which I was surrounded within the AmeriCorps system. I knew there had to be better ways to address very real issues such as the dropout crisis than by sending a ragtag bunch of high school graduates into third grade classrooms with even less training than they had real responsibility. This got me thinking about the flawed nature of government solutions to social problems. I began reading Friedman, Bastiat, and of course, Reason Magazine. I realized that there was no way a behemoth government could sufficiently address these problems, many of which had their very roots in government itself. For me, my take on government intervention originated in a sense of pessimistic reality. I saw the abject failure of bureaucratic agencies and programs to do anything but exacerbate the very problems they set out to address. Never has my faith in the free market or my valuation of individual liberty been steeped in any utopian abstractions. That’s why I struggled to see so much fantasy-based absurdity at a conference that, in name, claimed to reflect my principles. The country finds itself on the verge of a gigantic step forward against government paternalism, but this can only be realized if we choose to unite around more modest gains. Are some of the goals expressed at Libertopia ideal? Of course they are, in many ways. But it’s time for us, as libertarians of all kinds, to turn these ideals into reality. CI

opinion

THE COMPLEX PURSUIT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

by Catherine Tung

Staff Writer

“You can’t change who people are without destroying who they were” - The Butterfly Effect I closed my eyes as I heard another blow. BAM! It echoed loudly through the gymnasium during stretching. “Two, two… three…four…five…six…” “ANSWER ME!” BAM! “…seven…eight. Three, two…three…four…” BAM! BAM! BAM! On it went for about two minutes straight. The most difficult two minutes of my life. I tried to open my mouth but my jaw was clenched. I tried to walk three steps to put me right next to the coach, whom by now was kicking his athlete, but my mind refused to acknowledge that I could walk. I just stood on the side, hearing blow after blow, mute and incapable. In my senior year of high school, I trained with a sports middle school. To keep these young athletes focused on their goals, they were monitored strictly. Students only went home on the weekends, so that they could have their twenty-lap run at 8pm every night and wake up at 7am for weight training. They were required to be polite and respectful to me, addressing me by my honorific. They had several rules as a sports team; one was that you were not allowed to date while serving the team. A friend of mine had a boyfriend before joining the team. They stopped their relationship after joining the team, but continued texting. When the mother of the boy found out that he was texting her extensively, she disciplined him. To her horror, he told her off. When his aunt heard about this, she called the coach to report the activity between my friend and her boyfriend. When I walked in the gym, a coach was yelling at my friend while everyone was stretching. I was late, so I stretched on the side, next to the coach. The coach said things like “You think you are so capable, don’t you? How far are you going to take that repulsive ego of yours?” The coach went through both their phones, then called over the boyfriend (who had been stretching) and started yelling at him. Shortly after, the head coach arrived and asked, “What’s going on?” in a calm voice. I thought to myself in relief: Finally he is going to stop all this nonsense! However, right after the explanation, he immediately shouted in his loud, deep voice, “WHY DID YOU TELL YOUR MOM OFF? TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHY YOU SAID THAT TO HER,” and began to hit him. I just stood there, about five feet away, concentrating on

keeping my mind blank. I couldn’t sleep that night. I didn’t understand why I grew up a victim of this, and now, at eighteen, I could not stop it. I abhor corporal punishment. It is often violent, and in schools, practiced in front of everyone, making it embarrassing as well. The last study in 2005 by the Humanistic Education Foundation showed that in Taiwan, 65% of primary and junior high school students have received corporal punishment in school. I thought about the possibilities. If I had stepped in, it would be an awkward experience, and the coach might have turned his hand against me. If I had called legal authorities, it would have been disrespectful, since I was only a guest athlete. Moreover, the boy’s mom was the one who wanted the coach to “fix him up.” This was when I realized that the problem wasn’t just the practice of such punishment, but the way Asian society values respect and filial piety. We cannot fix a problem by fixing the consequences. We must fix the axiom upon which the consequences are built. It is because of the axiom of filial piety and respect for ancestors/elders that he was beat up. Just as Western society is built upon the axiom of valuing the individual, East-Asian society is built upon the axiom of valuing filial piety and social harmony. These practices arise from two separate tracks of beliefs. One says the individual is to be respected and thus corporal punishment is immoral, the other says adults and group harmony are to be respected and thus not practicing corporal punishment is immoral. The same argument applies to many other problems we don’t see eye to eye on in society. Using affirmative action to “counteract” racism isn’t effective, because it attempts to change the consequence of a belief rather than the belief itself. To start by fixing the consequence will only put society on the wrong foot and keep the general focus on the negative product, which will just produce more of it. The Fundamental Law of Education, passed in 2007, bans corporal punishment in schools in Taiwan. The practice has diminished in schools over time (even prior to the ban), but fundamentally, nothing has changed. My friends from Taiwan believe that corporal punishment is not only moral, but necessary. People don’t change their habits and practices from the rules. They change from the beliefs they hold. CI

opinion

CONDI COMES TO CMC

by Amelia Evrigenis Staff Writer

At four o’clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, November 29th, “Unwelcoming Condoleezza Rice” protesters gathered at the Keck Joint Science Center to prepare for their appearance outside Condoleezza’s Rice’s long-awaited talk at Claremont McKenna’s Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum. At Keck, they made posters and entered, as their Facebook event states, a “peaceful protesting mindset.” At four thirty, Pitzer College Vice President for Student Affairs Jim Marchant spoke to the group about 5C protest policy. At five, they headed to Ducey Gym to lead teach-ins about Condoleezza Rice and her service in the Bush administration. What exactly were these protesters upset about? The list of grievances includes Rice’s supposed authorization of torture, infringement upon American civil rights, dishonesty with the American people, doctrine of preventative war, and numerous violations of international law. Anticipated teach-in topics included “the nature of her involvement in the Bush Administration, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, race and gender issues in politics, waterboarding and Guantanamo, United States foreign policy, Libya, and many more” according to the group’s Facebook page. In the days preceding Rice’s speech, tensions regarding the protests rapidly heightened. On Monday, November 28, Adam Griffith’s article “Occupy Athenaeum” appeared on the CMC Forum. Among other things, Griffith’s article criticizes the protesters’ claim that Rice’s rehearsed presentation would have no educational value. He sarcastically writes, “I guess we should be learning from Condoleezza Rice by ignoring her.” Braden Bernards responded on the Claremont Port Side’s website with “In Defense of ‘Unwelcoming Condoleezza Rice.’” Bernards backed the protesters by asserting that Rice’s presentation could have no educational value whatsoever. He writes that Rice’s discussion would be educational “if the event was a round-table discussion with professors, students, and foreign policy experts, but it unfortunately is not.” Apparently we cannot learn anything from someone by simply listening to him or her speak. That same day Jeff Huang, Vice President of Student Affairs at Claremont McKenna, sent an e-mail to CMC

students informing them of substantial changes made to Rice’s lecture. Huang asserted CMC’s respect for the protesters’ freedom of speech but expressed the college’s concern that individuals outside the 5C community might join the protest and create a security hazard. To address the issue, CMC moved Rice’s lecture from the Athenaeum to Ducey Gym and canceled Rice’s appearance at the Athenaeum dinner. A typical Athenaeum dinner commences with a reception, continues with a sit-down dinner, and concludes with the speaker’s presentation and a question and answer session. Rice’s event, however, would begin with the lecture at six o’clock in Ducey and conclude with dinner at the Athenaeum without the guest of honor. An open letter written by Athenaeum Fellows Clare Riva ’13 and Jake Petzold ’12 and former Fellows Jeremy Merrill ’12 and Pyper Scharer ’13 appeared on the CMC Forum just after midnight that Wednesday. The letter was also submitted to the Claremont Port Side. The Fellows believe that alterations to Rice’s lecture robbed it of its identity as an Athenaeum event. They expressed their disappointment over losing the intimate environment and opportunity for conversation offered by traditional Athenaeum dinners. They write that “a one-sizefits-all lecture elevates the importance of the unmediated interactions between students and guests that a reception and dinner offer - in short, the stuff that makes the Ath the Ath.” The Fellows could not have been more correct. As I lined up to enter Ducey for Rice’s talk, I found myself disappointed by the protesters. They gathered outside the gated entrance holding signs displaying slogans such as “War is state-funded murder!” They held their signs proudly and cheered a few times. I heard a man discuss Rice’s actions as an alleged war criminal. One Pitzer student approached me and my friends to invite us to “share our experience” with the protesters after the presentation. An especially memorable young man walked around with a life-sized caricature of Rice in a scandalous Wonder Woman costume, offering students the chance to take a photo with her. There’s nothing like a sexist caricature to earn respect for a cause. Inside the gym, Rice took pictures with a long line of attendees before her presentation. She discussed her experi-

feature ence as a college student and encouraged us to learn from her struggles and triumphs. She prodded us to challenge ourselves with courses outside our comfort zone. She also recommended we each study a foreign language. She poignantly encouraged us to view our college education as a privilege rather than a right, thus fostering an attitude of gratefulness rather than entitlement. It felt a lot like a commencement speech. Her presentation was uplifting and insightful but did not address the burning political questions regarding her service in the Bush administration. Rice shined the brightest in the question and answer session. She did not talk around the tough questions about waterboarding, Vladimir Putin’s resistance to democracy, Iran’s nuclear program, or the Obama administration’s strike on Anwar al-Awlaki. Most interesting however, were Rice’s responses to questions about her race and gender. She said that she has indeed experienced blatant racial discrimination, but she explained that she is more troubled by the subtle bigotry of people who exhibit lower expectations for others based on the color of their skin. Her intolerance towards racist condescension was admirable. Rice believes her gender was an asset in her roles as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State

because it afforded her the opportunity to be a powerful role model to women worldwide, especially those living under oppression. Bernards’s article warned, “Condoleezza Rice is coming to the Athenaeum as part of her book tour. Don’t expect substance and education from her speech.” Rice mentioned her book only one time in passing at the end of her lecture. And was her speech educational? I cannot comprehend how anyone could have left Ducey Gym that night without an enhanced understanding of Rice and her role as a public servant. I am grateful to have witnessed Rice’s lecture, but still regret that CMC made so many alterations to her presentation. I am not upset that the protests occurred, but I am bothered by the fact that the protests provoked CMC to change the event in a way that undermined core elements of our Athenaeum. Talks are meant to be small and intimate, offering students the opportunity to closely engage with the speaker. Sadly, we lost that intimacy by altering the program to increase security. Protesters can believe what they want, say what they want, and scream what they want. All I ask is that they do not ruin the Athenaeum experience for everyone else. CI

Harwood Hallowwn, cont. from page 6 by Amelia Evrigenis

couldn’t walk straight or without assistance or they were belligerent, they were not allowed into the party.” Some of these students were given a water battle and told to stay outside the party with friends until they sobered up a little. More serious cases were sent to the “safe room,” a room in Frank Dining Hall stocked with mattresses, water bottles, and granola bars to help students sober up. A number of students from inside the party were sent to the safe room as well. Schmit and four other staff members searched for students who were sick or too drunk to walk and transported them to the safe room in wheel chairs. Schmit said that more students this year were sent to the safe room than last year- not because more people were drunk, but because Pomona staff was out looking for them. Pomona staff and half a dozen CPR and first aid certified student volunteers staffed the safe room, identifying students who needed medical attention from one of the two emergency medical technicians on site. Additionally, a nurse from the health center and psychologist Marcelle Holmes, Associate Dean of Students for Student Support and Learning and Dean of Women at Pomona, staffed the safe room. An ambulance waited outside the parking garage. Over the course of the night, five students were rushed from Pomona’s campus to the hospital. Schmit was impressed by the peaceful transition from the party to the food trucks outside. She said the food was a good way to help people sober up, but wishes that it had been

easier to obtain. Frustrated by long lines, drunk students became pushy and aggressive. Carl’s Jr. shut down because students began shaking the truck. When the other stations ran out of food, people dangerously rushed the taco stand. Thankfully, Pomona faculty Paul Roach and Sharon Kuhn took control of the situation and got students to move away. Schmit recommends that Pomona bring more practical food items to campus next year. She said, “Next year we need to make sure we can put out food that is completely grab-and-go like sandwiches, burritos, and wraps. Things you can eat with your hands. That would make things much easier, rather than having to use utensils for things like crepes and rice and beans.” I suppose I am quite fortunate that this year’s Harwood was my first. The PEC and Student Affairs staff worked hard to improve the event this year and it is clear their efforts paid off. Chris Waugh, Associate Dean of Students and Director of the Smith Campus Center and Student Activities, said that the best is yet to come: “I appreciate PEC’s desire to host a campuswide event on Halloween weekend that brings together the 5C community in a safe and fun way, and they are working...to assess the program and generate ideas to make it even better next year.” Halloween weekend is problematic at most colleges and universities, but Pomona’s Harwood prevents more extreme behavior by offering students a safe party environment. CI

opinion

LEPPERT TALKS CAMPAIGN FOR SENATE

by Chris Wolfe

Staff Writer

Tom Leppert, a graduate of Claremont McKenna College (class of â&#x20AC;&#x2122;77), was mayor of Dallas from 2007-2011. He is currently running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate seat in Texas, an office currently filled by Kay Bailey Hutchison. I had the opportunity to interview Mayor Leppert this October, looking forward to the 2012 election year. The first questions I had for Leppert had to do with his election strategy. I pointed out that there were at least two other Republican candidates with strong polling numbers, David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz (who was even featured on the cover of the National Review). Leppert responded confidently that if he does well enough in the March 6 primary, he will be able to pull ahead in the runoff. The runoff is the critical stage of the election according to Leppert, since at that point the election becomes a headline in local newspapers across the state. With more awareness, more people will know Mr. Leppertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s record, and he will start getting support beyond his already strong base of support in North Texas. And from there, in a heavily Republican state like Texas it is highly likely that the Republican nominee will win the general election. The Democrats do have a decent candidate in General Ricardo Sanchez but it is very unlikely that he will win. This is in part because Democrats in Texas have to seek campaign support from outside the state, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Party would be willing to spend its limited resources on a slim chance during the impor-

tant 2012 election year. I then asked Leppert about the political makeup of Texas. How did Texas become such a strong Republican state? Leppert responded that Texas has always been conservative, but only decided to leave the Democratic Party once the Democratic Party shifted to the far left. In addition, there were many Republicans who worked hard to give their party credibility. The state where Leppert grew up, Arizona, is another example of a place where this party change occurred. Leppert shared with me the story of how he ended up at Claremont McKenna, which he attributed to divine providence. Leppert came from a blue-collar town in Arizona and attended a poorly funded and overcrowded high-school. He had no conception of what a good college was or what he should do in life, but he was fortunate enough because of the people who helped him on the way. During one summer in the 1970s, Leppert bummed a ride from some friends driving out to California. They ended up visiting Claremont, and Leppert struck up what he thought would be a short conversation with an admissions counselor at CMC. That conversation went on for several hours, and ended with the admissions counselor inviting Leppert to attend CMC on full financial aid. The most significant part of the Claremont experience for Leppert was not the books, but the people. The education he received in how to think and communicate those thoughts had been invaluable, said Leppert. CMC offers a liberal arts education in a small setting that creates leadership and practicality, and avoids the thought that living in an ivory tower will solve your problems. Tom Leppert was proud of the job he had done as Mayor of Dallas. There had been tangible results, such as a reduced crime rate, and intangibles too. Leppert said that the people of the Dallas had more confidence and trust in government than they did when he started as mayor. Disputes were also handled in a more civil and optimistic manner, he felt. I asked Leppert about his position on immigration, and his answer was consistent with his overall philosophy. Leppert said that the problem at the border had to be addressed by equipping law enforcement officials with what they ask for, and holding them accountable if they continue to fail. It was good to meet a proud member of the Claremont community and a politician who leads by focusing on responsibility. CI

opinion

AN INVITATION TO COOPERATION

by Julio Sharp-Wasserman

Associate Editor

The 1840 Anti-Slavery Conference in London was an important event for the feminist movement. Despite the fact that a number of feminist women, such as Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B Anthony, had been prominent voices in the abolitionist movement, female attendees of the conference were prevented from sitting with male activists, but were rather concealed behind curtains in the balcony seats of the assembly. One of the few male attendees who sat with them instead of joining the male section of the conference was William Lloyd Garrison, a libertarian feminist and abolitionist who stood out in the latter movement for his progressiveness on feminist issues. Male abolitionists were relatively indifferent to women’s issues, and not only marginalized feminist concerns in the decades leading up to the civil war but also, again with the exception of Garrison, abandoned the women’s suffrage movement after the war. Garrison was not unusual for libertarians of his day in his sympathy for feminism. Although today these two camps, with the notable exception of the abortion issue, are often at odds in public debate, this was not always the case. Before a large part of the libertarian movement joined forces with conservatives for strategic reasons in the context of the Soviet threat, libertarians—that is, individualists who derived their anti-statism from some type of Locke-inspired doctrine of selfownership—were typically critics of patriarchy. In fact, that these two political forces today are at odds to the extent that they are may be largely a product of shifting strategic alliances during the Twentieth Century that concealed some fundamental congruities between the two movements. In the late 19th century, the free love movement especially marked an important point of intersection between the two movements. American textbooks tend to emphasize Margaret Sanger’s role as a seminal force behind the cause of female reproductive freedom, but an equally important figure was the libertarian free-love activist Moses Harman, who published the free-love journal Lucifer the Light Bearer. After having otherwise attracting the ire of law enforcement by frequently publishing information about contraceptives and abortion, he was prosecuted under the Comstock Act of 1873 for publishing letters deemed obscene, authored by women who wrote into the journal. These letters touched upon the then publicly unacknowledged problem of rape within marriage. A fellow free-love activist and libertarian with his own journal, The Word, demonstrated solidarity with Harman by republishing his letters. Both faced legal consequences, which included, for Moses Harman, forced labor at age seventy.

Furthermore, as has been documented by the libertarian philosopher and historian Roderick Long, libertarian philosophy of the late 19th Century was filled with condemnations of patriarchy and recognitions of feminism as a movement somehow complementary with, if obviously not identical with, the libertarian cause. Herbert Spencer, for instance, believed that the class division between men and women was responsible for the original formation of the state, and blamed the cultural attitudes and social relations engendered by Patriarchy for contributing significantly to scourge of militarism, a belief espoused by many American feminists in later history. Stephen Peal Andrews, another prominent libertarian thinker of the era, embraced a belief common among libertarians of his time, that patriarchy was a corrosive influence on society, but one that would ultimately only be eliminated by profound cultural change, of the type that comes about through transformation in general consciousness and attitude, rather than through legislation. The real work in advancing the cause of feminism would be done by inspiring “a public sentiment, based on the recognition of the sovereignty of the individual,” that is, of men and and women alike. At around the same time, one of the main philosophical fathers of John Stuart Mill, who was himself married to the prominent feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, expressed a similar sentiment in On Liberty, decrying the affront to individual autonomy represented by patriarchal social norms. Contemporary feminism is most obviously at odds with modern libertarianism in that some the most visible advances in women’s rights in recent decades have taken the form of state regulations of the private market, a means of achieving feminist goals that libertarians tend to believe is both unnecessary and unjust. Nevertheless, some of the deepest and most lasting advances in women’s rights have taken place at the substate level discussed by Andrews. And this form of feminism continues in the academy as well, in Gender Studies departments. While not everything taught in these departments is worthy of intellectual respect, someone whose political beliefs are oriented around freedom from coercion and the creative potential of the free individual, should not categorically oppose the efforts embodied in these departments. In short, while libertarianism and feminism are distinct movements with different philosophical arsenals for social critique, both the contemporary libertarian neglect of feminist concerns and the visceral hatred that many feminists feel for libertarianism are uncalled for and counterproductive for both movements. CI