N T O E M R A C L
rockin’ the boat
t h e
feb 10 | vol VII iss 2
pages 8-9
in(side) the port(side): campus, national, international news OBAMA AT ONE YEAR How the 5Cs’ approval ratings compare to the the rest of the nation’s
4
THE DEATH PENALTY An argument that lets the numbers, not the courts, speak volumeVII issue2
|
7
claremontportside.com
COPENHAGEN Why the U.N. climate conference won’t mean much |
f e b r u a r y 10
|
12
page 1
After being elected editor-in-chief of the Port Side this winter, I made two New Years Resolutions: one, I resolved to skyrocket the newsmagazine to 5C renown by laying out strategic plans for recruitment, training, and publicity; and two, overwhelmed by the “student health” theme of our October 2009 issue, I resolved to never again cover anything remotely related to sneezing, coughing, or swine flu. The latter failed – our cover story is a pro/con on the merits of the healthcare bill. I really wish we could move onto something else, but so far, 2010 hasn’t been the most victorious year for progressives in this country. We have a president, for whom progressives overwhelmingly voted, whose first-year approval rating has plummeted more than that of any of his predecessors since the 1930s, when Gallup first began polling. We lost a Senate seat in a historically liberal state to a man whose Cosmo centerfold is even freer than his party’s ideal markets. Our planet keeps getting hotter – though not yet at Scott Brown levels – and the Copenhagen talks this December did little to cool it down. Hundreds of thousands died in Haiti, where prior poverty relief could have reduced the magnitude of the earthquake’s devastation. National marriage equality looks bleak. The TSA is turning into a Peeping Tom. CMC is about as socioeconomically diverse as a bowl of bran flakes, and so on.
PORT SIDE
feb 10 | vol VII iss 2
While the healthcare bill may be the least of our concerns, placing it on the cover illustrates a much larger point: stagnation. Some policies progressives tend to support, like healthcare reform and the reduction of global greenhouse emissions, have largely remained stagnant in recent months. Others, like marriage equality, have seen waves of
the CLAREMONT
editor’s note
Stagnation and the Stag Nation
page 2
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
progress. Nonetheless, progress isn’t necessarily progressive. Progress is movement. Any value judgments of that movement depend on perspective, and progressivism is just one of many perspectives. Like sound waves, when waves of progress travel in opposite directions, they cancel each other out. The end result is frustration based both on the exhaustion of energy and resources and on the assumption that by not winning, we’ve lost. It is, to put it simply, a stagnant silence. As progressive journalists, we want to be heard. That’s why we’ve chosen to focus this print edition on the more “depressing” trends of 2010. We want to keep these issues progressing toward our goals when others say they’re stagnant. We seek to break the silence of the defeated among our ranks, those who chose to sigh, “There went my agenda” when Massachusetts turned red and Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority. I reject that attitude. I reject that progressivism necessitates a diehard espousal of left-wing political goals or a commitment to a particular party or administration. For me and for much of the Port Side staff, progressivism is an intellectual thought process. Our duty is to decipher each side of the debates in which we choose to engage, present our findings in a clear and reader-friendly way, and ultimately agree with one view or suggest a new or incorporative alternative. It’s a synthesis of two or more waves of progress, all progressing in conflicting directions. And no matter how many New Years Resolutions I have to break, we’ll keep pushing our www.claremontportside.com/blog waves of progress, especially when our opponents push back.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Michelle Lynn Kahn PUBLISHER Alyssa Roberts EDITOR EMERITUS MANAGING EDITORS Andrew Bluebond CAMPUS Mark Munro WEB EDITOR NATIONAL Jeremy B. Merrill Jonathan O. Hirsch INTERNATIONAL Veronica Pugin COPY EDITORS Kayla Benker, Russell M. Page, Nicholas Rowe, Jacinth Sohi ILLUSTRATORS Adam Kaiser, Nora McIntosh, Ashley Scott The Claremont Port Side is dedicated to providing the Claremont Colleges with contextualized, intelligent reports to advance debate among students and citizens. This is a progressive newsmagazine that offers pertinent information and thoughtful analysis on the issues confronting and challenging our world, our country, and our community. Each article in the Claremont Port Side reflects the opinion of its author(s) and does not represent the Claremont Port Side, its editors, its staff, or the Claremont Colleges. Letters, Questions, Comments? editor@claremontportside.com
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
Interview: Mary Spellman
New D.O.S. discusses community, student participation, alcohol
A: “I actually was very involved as a student in college. I went to Occidental College in Los Angeles, [where I] was very involved in orientation, helped plan family weekend, [and] was an RA. I loved being involved and was very close with the folks in our Student Affairs Office, but it never really occurred to me that this was work that you could do. A mentor of mine sent me to a workshop about higher education as a field, and I thought, ‘Wow, I love what I’m doing in college. If I could do that as a career that would be great.’” Q: “What sort of things do you want to carry over from Sarah Lawrence?” A: “I think the number one thing for me… is really understanding that you have to know the community and the students and listen to them and bring them into the discussion. Sarah Lawrence prides itself on having students at the center of everything, but we didn’t have students involved in many of our conversations beyond the Student Affairs Office when I got there. My colleagues and I at Student Affairs worked really hard to say, ‘You know what, we really need to involve students.’ It is a challenge to determine which policies students should be involved in or not, but I think as much as possible students should be consulted, if not part of the decisionmaking process. When we looked at our policies, students were on those committees, and those students were chosen by the student government and various other groups – instead of us hand-picking our student representation. Some of my colleagues questioned, ‘Well, don’t you think you should pick the students?’ And I said, ‘Well, if I want the stu-
A: “First of all, I am a realist on the issue of alcohol I am a realist on the isand other drugs. We are on a college campus; whether sue of alcohol and other drugs. it be a dry or wet campus, — Mary Spellman, D.O.S. students are going to drink. I think, for me, whatever policy an institution has needs to take into consideration the unique needs of that population. How do we create an environment that balances legal, moral, and ethical responsibilities, as well as provides an opportunity for students to explore, grow, and develop in a safe manner? It’s a fine dance because I can’t say, ‘It’s okay, everybody just drink.’ So I think it’s a balance. I think what was most powerful for me at this most recent task force at Sarah Lawrence is that we were intentionally creating a committee that was really representative.”
international
Q: “How did you become interested in becoming Dean of Students?”
Q: “How do you feel that colleges should shape their policies around alcohol?”
Q: “What roles have students played in shaping particular Sarah Lawrence alcohol policies?” A: “A student suggested a radical idea, and they were sure that I was going to be vehemently opposed to it. We had a practice that if a student went to the hospital for alcohol use because they needed medical attention, they then went to health services after they came back to campus for an assessment around alcohol and substance use. They were put on housing probation, which means they’d get kicked out of housing if any other problems came up. We didn’t always do it, but that was the threat, and we notified their parents. And the student said, ‘We think we should not notify parents the first time they go to the hospital, and we should not put them on housing probation.’ If we really see this as an educational and health related issue, then we need to give students the opportunity to learn from that. The truth is, my colleagues and I that were on the committee from Student Affairs said, ‘Let’s put it out there. Let’s make that recommendation.’”
volumeVII issue2
|
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
national
The Port Side sat down with Mary Spellman, Claremont McKenna’s new Dean of Students, to discuss her position and how her experience at Sarah Lawrence College translates to CMC. Coming to Claremont from Bronxville, New York, Spellman looks forward to learning the inner-workings of the Consortium and maintaining the high standard of living that our students appreciate.
dents on the committee to echo my belief – sure, but if I really want to have us as a community look into this issue and feel represented and create a policy that is representative of the needs of the community, then we have to trust the students.’”
|
page 3
campus
By Mark Munro Ca mpus Editor, CMC ‘ 1 2
Policy Changed. Did Our Opinions?
campus
national
international
Compiled by Alyssa Roberts Publ isher, CMC ‘ 1 3
58% 53%
OF 5C STUDENTS APPROVE OF THE WAY BARACK OBAMA IS HANDLING HIS JOB AS PRESIDENT
According to old polling data, 81% of CMCers voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election. A year into his presidency, the Port Side set out to determine whether 5C students are satisfied with his performance.* The result? We’re not all that different from the rest of the nation. We’re a little more supportive of Obama, more optimistic about our country’s direction, and slightly more liberal overall. As Daniel Fogel, CMC ‘11, notes, “We need to be careful not to interpret results from these polls as confirmation of a conservative backlash against Obama – while that may be the most common reason for the growing discontent with our president, there is a contingent of liberals like myself who view Obama’s term so far as a failure for very different reasons.” For further results and extended analysis, visit us online at claremontportside.com. * Editor’s Note: The national data is taken from the ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted on January 15, 2010. To gather the Claremont data, the Port Side administered the same survey to 103 5C students.
The United States did not vote for an expansive leftwing liberal model of government. Americans thought they were getting pragmatic centrist unity, and the President has proved them wrong. — Jesse Blumenthal, President of the Claremont College Republicans
APPROVE NATIONALLY
Generally, the United States is going... NO OPINION IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
37%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama is handling...
CLAREMONT COLLEGES
ON THE WRONG TRACK
62%
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
NATIONALLY
ON THE WRONG TRACK
44%
48%
How remarkable, with so much disillusionment built into the mix, that the new guy got such a huge initial boost in public approval, just for not being the old guy. It was a brief window of opportunity which seems now to be closing, as it did for most other Presidents in the past. I hope Obama enjoyed it while it lasted. — Ward Elliott, CMC Government Professor % APPROVAL page 4
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
Generally speaking, do you favor...
volumeVII issue2
|
SMALLER GOVERNMENT, FEWER SERVICES
49%
42%
NO OPINION
LARGER GOVERNMENT, MORE SERVICES
claremontportside.com
38%
|
NATIONALLY
CLAREMONT COLLEGES
The congressional [health care reform] bill is clearly better than nothing, but it’s not as good as the robust national health systems used by other developed countries around the world. Those national health systems deal with fundamental health problems much more efficiently. — Alex Rajczi, CMC Philosophy Professor
58%
f e b r u a r y 10
|
page 5
international national
The President’s basic problem is that he set expectations that he could not meet... He promised that health care deliberations would be on CSPAN. They weren’t. David Axelrod, his chief strategist, merely shrugged when a reporter asked about the congressional dealmaking: ‘That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will always be...’ If Democrats had wanted a nominee with experience in ‘the way it has been,’ they would have chosen Hillary Clinton. — Jack Pitney, CMC Government Professor
campus
% APPROVAL
49% ECONOMY 42% 17% HEALTH CARE 24% 6% FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT 5% 5% GLOBAL WARMING 1% 4% ETHICS/CORRUPTION 1% 3% TERRORISM 5% 1% WAR IN IRAQ 6% 15% OTHER 16%
NATIONALLY
Obama’s Job Performance Compared to Expectations
Most important issue for 2010: CLAREMONT COLLEGES
As difficult as some struggles may have been, the President has set this nation on a course that will rewrite the mistakes of the previous eight years. — Isaac Goldberg, President of the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges
Recruiting the Affluent
Socioeconomic diversity lacking at CMC, though worse elsewhere
campus
national
international
By Russell M. Page Copy Editor, C MC ‘ 1 3
so different from the rest of the country’s population, one must question whether CMC is doing enough to recruit socioeconomically diverse applicants.
Historically, elite selective private schools like the Claremont Colleges have been enclaves of the rich. In the past few decades, According to Dean of Admission Richard though, these institutions have begun admitVos, all selective colleges “do not truly repting more socioeconomically diverse student resent the American population.” Part of bodies to better the reason for this, represent the Vos explained, is a A Sad Observation: Comparing Incomes demographic “sad observation composition of a high correlaof the United tion between high States. NeverSAT scores and intheless, some come.” The Office would likely be of Admission must surprised by be realistic and tarhow much of a get highly qualified (%) difference there and deserving appli($) still exists becants in places and tween the averschools where they age American have succeeded in household and recruiting qualified the household applicants in the of a typical Clapast. More often remont McKthan not, this strateenna student. gy focuses on affluAccording to a ent students, who 2007 Census Bureau estimate, the median tend to come from families that put more household income in the U.S. is approximateof an emphasis on higher education and can ly $50,000. Comparatively, among families of afford to pay for private high schools, test CMC students who applied for financial aid preparation courses, and college counselors. in the 2009-10 school year, 77.1% reported Because “word of mouth” is so important earning over $50,000. While only 15.7% of in attracting students to a school like CMC, American households make over $100,000, our admissions office must continue to pri51% of those CMC families who applied for oritize its recruiting base, even if that means aid did. And this is only based on the CMC spending a disproportionate amount of rehouseholds that applied for financial aid. sources on lower-income students. Why is there such a disparity between CMC and the rest of the American population? As it turns out, CMC is not much different from its peer institutions; CMC actually does better than most private colleges in its efforts to make itself accessible and affordable for lower income students. The college is officially need-blind in the admissions process, meaning that ability to pay tuition does not factor into acceptance/rejection decisions. Nevertheless, when CMC’s student body is page 6
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
Although we should not stop our efforts to attract these exceptional students, the college should also seek to target the myriad intelligent and talented students from less affluent, underrepresented areas. Vos says the Office of Admission’s strategy in attracting students from different backgrounds is to “spread the net widely.” Throughout the recruiting season, CMC’s admissions officers visit approximately 500
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
high schools, 15 to 20 percent of which have never submitted an application to CMC. To find first generation and low income students, the Office of Admission targets more public than private schools. It also purchases names from the Student Search list derived from PSAT scores, a tactic that Vos deems a more egalitarian measure of finding students from diverse backgrounds. International students and transfer students also diversify the student body. CMC does better than most colleges in offering financial aid to international students, to whom the need-blind policy does not pertain. Vos claims that the increased number of international students, from 25 to 35 per class over the last few years, stems from a goal of globalizing the student body; however, one must wonder whether this stems in large part from international students’ demonstrating they can pay the full price. Moreover, with the college’s suffering endowment, removing need-blind admissions from the transfer application process has been discussed but repeatedly turned down. Although CMC falls short in recruiting and admitting a student body that represents the socioeconomic diversity of the American population, it does better than most of its peer institutions. Because of its need-blind admissions process and emphasis on financial aid, CMC has one of the most socioeconomically diverse student bodies of any selective liberal arts college. Of the other 5Cs, only Pomona practices need-blind admission. Most colleges cannot afford to be need-blind, and their student bodies are even less representative as a result. Still, there is much to be desired. Although disadvantaged students may not perform as well on standardized tests or come from schools that prepare them as well for the college search and admissions process, they should not be structurally barred from selective higher education. Without these students’ perspectives, selective schools like CMC isolate themselves from reality.
Wrongful Convictions
An argument that lets the numbers, not the courts, speak
In 2003, a study done by the Criminal Justice Magazine and published by the American Bar Association found that in the past 25 years, 12.6% of those on death row had their sentences vacated and were released. What should be clear is that wrongful conviction in our judi-
international
My argument is rather straightforward and lets the numbers speak more or less for themselves. The truth is that America’s legal system suffers from a disturbingly high rate of wrongful convictions. To be clear, this is not because we have a malicious or negligent legal system; in fact, America has one of the strongest legal systems in the world. But as long as our legal system relies on people as jurors, witnesses, and judges, mistakes will be made. Many people are unaware of how often these catastrophic mistakes are made, of just how often we get it wrong. By the most conservative estimates, 7,500 people each year are wrongfully convicted of index crimes (only eight crime categories), which includes those punishable by death. To repeat, these figures are self-recognized as very conservative, limited only to those wrongful convictions that were caught and reversed. These figures also do not include those whose convictions were overturned for procedural error, leaving only those who were shown to be factually innocent. Therefore, it is likely that the actual figure might be more than double this amount.
Clearly, we must have a judicial system and must make do with the best we can provide. Nonetheless, it is easy to see a significant difference between the death penalty and imprisonment. The death penalty, once administered, cannot be taken back: it is irrevocable. Thus, as changing technologies and new evidence are made available, we cannot go back and fix the mistakes of the past as we often can if the victim has been imprisoned. The success of efforts such as Project Innocence in demonstrating and reversing wrongful convictions is testament to this fact. This does not mandate abandoning our legal system. It does require that the courts recognize their own limitations in their ability to deliver justice and not act in such a manner that severely limits the possibility of correcting mistakes. Consider what really is at stake: on one hand, the killing of a guilty person who would spend the rest of their life incarcerated; and on the other, the very real possibility of killing innocents. I have sought to make my case from an objective standpoint, and I believe that even to those of us who find the death penalty an acceptable form of punishment, my argument makes sense. Let’s not let our lust for vengeance cloud our judgment – even in light of the understandable outrage we feel at the heinous crimes for which this penalty is reserved.
national
The death penalty has been a contentious issue within American constitutional law throughout the 20th century, but it reflects a broader debate within American society regarding the efficacy and morality of the practice. This debate has led to the elimination of the death penalty in 15 states, the earliest being Michigan in 1846. Ten of these states have abolished the penalty within the past 50 years, three of them since 2007. These changes show the results of an anti-death penalty movement that peaked in the 1920s and 1960s and has since ebbed. While the debate has been fought out by democratic means, the issue has also had its fair share of judicial oversight. Much of the debate regarding the policy has centered on the issue of whether execution constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. I would like to propose an alternative method of challenging the constitutional validity of the death penalty in both state and federal cases, one that I feel can and should be recognized by those of all political, religious, and moral values.
cial system happens and will continue to happen. These are not rare events, but rather they occur at frightening rates. Even as technology progresses, wrongful convictions will persist, largely because most are the result of witness error. The truth is, so long as man is fallible, so will be our judicial system. The truth follows then, that so long as we have a death penalty, we, as a society, will be killing innocent citizens. Do we want that blood on our hands? Are we comfortable with this reality, all for the sake of implementing a policy whose value as a deterrent has been brought into serious question?
SISTER HELEN PREJEAN A prominent activist against the death penalty, Sister Helen Prejean spoke at the Athenaeum on January 28th, after this issue went to press. Sister Prejean has counseled death row inmates and was instrumental in shaping the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty. More on Sister Prejean, as well as a supplementary article to this piece, can be found at claremontportside.com.
volumeVII issue2
|
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
page 7
campus
By Paul Kieran Jeffrey Co n tributing Writer, C MC ‘ 1 2
COVER STORY Health Care Pro/Con
PRO: This Might Be Our Last Chance By David Nahmias International Editor Emeritus, CMC ‘10
tive for years after the “HillaryCare” fiasco. Thus for decades health care costs will continue to spiral out of control, but this time the explosion in entitlement spending could cripple the federal government. Millions of Americans will still lack insurance coverage or be denied benefits due to preexisting conditions. Those who do have it will probably still pay more for quality care than do their
The health care bill is flawed. There – I said it. Yet the consequences of not passing it are dire. The goal of securing quality, affordable health care for Americans must continually guide us, and the bill serves as a significant stepping-stone toward achieving it. The Democrats will probably have no other opportunity like this to approve progressive health If we fail now, then health care reform, and wasting it will ruin the American health syswill become political taboo. No president tem for decades.
will risk reliving the disaster endured by the Democratic caucus after the closest attempt in American history to reform health care ultimately failed.
Before the “Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” entered committee, the public clamored for reform, and a majority of poll respondents consistently accepted the notion of a government plan akin to Medicare to compete with (not supplant) private insurance plans. Yet through prevarication and misinformation, the Republicans capitalized on the public’s fears of what they didn’t understand by disseminating macabre illusions about death panels and socialism that turned into juicy sound bites. They have made no attempt to alter the bill with keeping an eye on the ultimate goal of creating an affordable health care system for all Americans. Just managing to bring the health care bill to a full vote was a feat requiring remarkably filthy tactics (Ben Nelson comes to mind). Nonetheless, it is essential that the Congress passes health care reform now. If we fail now, then health care will become political taboo. No President will risk reliving the disaster endured by the Democratic caucus after the closest attempt in American history to reform health care ultimately failed. Neither political party even suggested the initia-
page 8
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
peers around the world. The insurance industry will continue to hold the health of the American people hostage. Throughout history, dramatic social change has taken place in increments. No grand, sweeping national agenda is realized in a day – we try out innovative policies, tinker with them, save the good and scrap the bad. One single speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., did not change American society; the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not instantaneously erase centuries of entrenched segregation and discrimination. It took an entire Civil Rights Movement to transform national norms and attitudes, and numerous pieces of legislation built upon one another to create a body of laws and regulations guaranteeing civil rights. Similarly, today’s current health care bill follows a legacy of Congressional debate and legislative action to create and improve health care. From expansion during the New Deal and the LBJ’s Great Society through Reagan’s Medicare cuts and Clinton’s welfare
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
reform, the American health care system has transformed step-by-step. Health care reform in 2010 is just another step, albeit a substantial one. Once these regulations are in place, assessments of its progress will commence and eventually spark new ideas, legislation, and change. The goal of quality, affordable health care will not be attained when President Obama signs the bill, but we will be heading in that direction. Consider the steps that the health care bill takes. Health care reform is fiscally responsible. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office asserts that the House version would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over ten years. The Senate plan also halves Medicare’s annual growth rate of spending per person. In addition, the bill enacts stiffer regulations of the health insurance industry, most importantly by prohibiting insurance companies from denying patients based on preexisting conditions. Yet above all, it expands coverage to 30 million more Americans, leaving only about 7% of the population uninsured. Weren’t these goals all along: to cut costs, regulate the health care industry, and provide nearly universal coverage? It is imperative that we remember these goals, why Democrats have put their historic majorities on the line in order to pass health care. We weathered vicious attacks and political ploys to arrive at this moment. The recent election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat has Democrats in an uproar, but they still must not squander this pivotal opportunity. The health care bill has its flaws and requires further evaluation, but no accurate assessment can be made until the regulations are codified and the system slowly transforms. Though we have not accomplished fundamental objectives of health care reform, with this bill we take the crucial step forward.
the anchor
CON: Scrap it and Start Over By Jeremy B. Merrill N a tional Editor, CMC ‘ 1 2 To hear Democrats and progressives discuss health care reform is to be told (implicitly, of course) that the health care reform bill currently waiting for Congressional approval follows as a solution to the problems in our nation’s health care systems as closely as food is the solution to hunger or sleep to fatigue. This assertion is not only obviously false but has also cost the Democrats support among the American people. I am often asked why I don’t support the Democrats’ bill; too often, that question is followed by another one: “Don’t you know that 40 million Americans don’t have health care?” Yes, I know that. I also know that many people can’t get coverage and that costs are rising. I even acknowledge that society as a whole bears a moral imperative to care for its sick and elderly. But all these facts don’t add up to support for the health care bill. Not only will the current plan not achieve its goals, but other ideas floated in the past few months’ shameful excuse for a national discussion would work better. In other words, the “Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” is one step forward but two steps back.
Here are some of the “benefits” in the current bills, and why they’re not so beneficial: 1. Deficit Neutrality – As David mentions opposite this article, the CBO has touted the bill as lowering the deficit by more than a hundred billion dollars over ten years. Unfortunately, this depends on a 21% reduction in Medicare payments to doctors that is scheduled to occur... but everyone knows it won’t. Those savings disappear once that $247 billion pretend cut is added back in. 2. Mandate – The mandate will do more harm than good. Those of you who have
taken Econ 50 will recall the phrase “price elasticity of demand.” The individual mandate will drive price elasticity of demand for health insurance pretty close to zero, allowing the near-oligopolistic insurance companies to raise prices with impunity. After Massachusetts passed an individual mandate in 2007, health insurance costs skyrocketed at the fastest rate in the nation. (For more, see Nicholas Rowe’s “Massachusetts Has Got It Wrong” in the October 2009 Port Side.) 3. Subsidies – Keep remembering Econ 50. Subsidies create “dead weight loss,” which means money spent by government and consumers for the last unit of health insurance is more than the value of that health insurance to the consumer. In other words, subsidies mean we’re throwing money down a hole. 4. Abortion Near-Ban – The House bill contains the wholly repugnant Stupak Amendment, which would ban federal dollars from paying for any health plan that covers abortions. This would mean that subsidized plans on the “exchange” could not cover abortions, making abortion effectively unavailable for many lower-income women who cannot afford an expensive medical procedure on their own. The Senate bill would make the abortion ban contingent on state legislatures, saving California and Massachusetts women, but putting those in Nebraska, Kansas and much of the rest of the country at risk.
Here are some better ideas that will actually achieve the goals of healthcare reform: 1. Free markets, not exchanges – We don’t need special “exchanges” for other important goods. Let us deregulate many portions of the health insurance industry to allow companies to offer competing health insurance plans.
gent, specific regulations for what insurance plans must provide. These onerous restrictions, while often well-intentioned, make it impossible for insurance companies to offer the same product in multiple states. This greatly increases overhead costs. By replacing those barriers with reasonable federal rules, America could have a true, nationwide free market for health insurance, with all the downward pressures that will exert on prices. 3. Remove illogical tax benefits to employer-based policies – Health insurance plans paid for by employers are not subject to an income tax, while those paid for by individuals are paid for out of after-tax income. So, in effect, employers get a 33% discount on providing health insurance for their employees over what their employees would pay themselves. There’s no reason to keep this policy. Let’s level the playing field. 4. Make the consumer the customer – When the consumers of health care do not pay for it, they have no incentive to keep costs down. If we encourage individual policies, consumers will be able to choose plans that best fit their needs. The current health care bills will do more harm than good. It’s time for the Democrats – and the Republicans, if they decide to be productive – to acknowledge the bills’ faults, scrap them, and start over. A new bill can achieve the goal of true health care reform without breaking the bank or risking the collateral damage that the current bills will cause. Let’s not walk away from reform, but start over.
2. Remove state-level barriers to competition – In many states, legislatures have set strin-
volumeVII issue2
|
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
page 9
1 in 10,408,947
The botched boxer blowup and ridiculous response By Ashley Scott Il l u st r at or, C MC ‘ 1 1
international
Everything in life carries risks. While some might advocate bearing any and all costs to save a life, this argument does not ring true: we all take technically unnecessary risks like driving or drinking alcohol. And even compared to these ordinary risks we undertake on a daily basis, the risk of an air terror attack is extremely small. According to political statistician Nate Silver, the probability of being a terrorism victim on a flight in the United States is 1 in 10,408,947; being struck by lightning is over 20 times more likely. The key, therefore, is to balance the risk of a particular event with both the effectiveness and the harm that preventative measures realize. In that respect, the response to the failed Christmas Day air terror attack scare is proportionately overblown. Air travel has become a necessary mode of transportation for many Americans, so the costs of excessively strict and invasive security requirements imposed upon travelers require extensive examination. The addition or expansion of security measures seem to completely disregard costs (of both time and money) and passengers’ sense of privacy. But unlike the risk of being a terror victim, the harm caused by invasive security procedures is tough to quantify.
The carry-on luggage restrictions are equally problematic. While basically everyone would agree that it is reasonable to confiscate more dangerous items, such as pocket knives, it is difficult to argue in favor of one’s right to bring liquids through security without confiscation. When TSA officials take a tube of Aquafresh out of a passenger’s carry-on bag, the harm to his or her livelihood is minimal. After all, the passenger has several other options: packing it in checked luggage, bringing a mini tube, or borrowing toothpaste from a friend. Yet the probability of being killed by an exploding tube of toothpaste (or similar substance) used as a terrorist’s weapon of choice is too small to justify the confiscation. Moreover, the difficulty of differentiating between successfully deterring an incident and taking a potentially dangerous item from an innocent person who forgot about it makes determining the effectiveness of these measures impossible.
Although the U.S. should not have granted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a visa, the Christmas Day incident was largely out of the TSA’s control. Nonetheless, the TSA has included another new security measure: a watch-list, “designed to be unpredictable.” As a recent New York Full body scanners, which can see the naked body and Times article mentions, the TSA has been medical implants in addition to potential weapons, are under scrutiny because of its the most egregiously unreasonable watch-listing of eight-yearand wasteful. The U.S. plans to old Mikey Hicks, who shares triple the number of full a name with another potential body scanners used for airport offender. In addition, watchys security in 2010. The scanners’ wa r i listed people can change their name $150,000 price A can to remove themselves from the watch tag will yS d o B list. While unpredictable security measures ostensibly carry the benefit of “surprising” terror suspects, the lack of consistency appears to yield ineffective procedures. It is also difficult to surprise people with the “unpredictable” security measures, since people will sooner than later predict a pattern of the new types of make controls they have... unless the controls are truly random, air travel which does not seem effective. even less affordable for lower incomepeople(and All of these newly implemented security measures are tough poor college students) as costs for passengers, the airline industry, and the government to are passed on to the consumer. justify - especially given the economic recession. The monCost aside, these scanners aren’t even that effective; they etary costs and personal embarrassment far outweigh the 1 usually do not display explosives hidden in body cavities. A in 10,408,947 risk that Silver calculated. But unfortunately, it is German talk show aired a demonstration of a scanner failing highly unfeasible for most people to boycott air travel. to show bomb-making components taped to a man’s body.
national campus
Given these critical flaws, the full body scanners’ benefits justify neither the money nor the infringement upon personal privacy, which most people highly value.
p a g e 10
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
From Speech to Action
New global development plan has promise
While critics argue that ClinThat Clinton has expressed a comton failed to articulate specific policy initiatives, her plan mitment to coordinating U.S. relief efforts does lay out a promising six piece strategy that departs with local Haitian leaders shows that she is significantly from how the following through with her plan to move away U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from patronage and toward partnership. and and other development efforts have previous operated. The plan proposes the following: rity. And given the speech’s chronological pursuing development through partnerproximity to the Christmas Day attempted ship rather than patronage, from failed air terror attack, her view is both timely baby-sitting towards shared responsibility and prescient. and consultation; integrating the development agenda with the defense and diploInterestingly, the first test of Clinton’s new macy agendas; facilitating coordination to development agenda came not with a naavoid the overlapping and contradiction tional security threat but with a natural that mars the collective efforts of varisecurity threat. On January 12th, the now ous U.S. departments, NGOs, and IGOs; infamous 7.0 Haitian earthquake shattered basing U.S. global development policy on the country’s capital, Port-Au-Prince, and “health, agriculture, security, education, the neighboring city of Leogane, leaving energy, and local governance”; increasing an estimated 200,000 people dead and anvolumeVII issue2
|
other two million homeless. Promptly, on January 16th, Clinton traveled to Port-AuPrince to discuss relief efforts with Haitian president Rene Preval. That Clinton has expressed a commitment to coordinating U.S. relief efforts with local Haitian leaders shows that she is following through with her plan to move away from patronage and toward partnership. Even so, French Cooperation Minister Alain Joyandet complained that the U.S. was dominating the Haitian aid process and stifling international contribution. Although other French officials did not back Joyandet, his opinion reflects a lingering worldwide acknowledgment that the U.S. has historically overstepped its bounds in international efforts. Clinton’s declaration of the need for an organized global community to respond to the Haitian crisis should assuage his concerns. She supports and has committed to participating in the March 2010 U.N. conference, which will continue to unite international donors in the process of rebuilding the devastated infrastructure of and restoring livable conditions to Haiti. Nonetheless, only when USAID is not responding to a crisis will Clinton’s new global development agenda truly be put to a test. Then we can determine whether the U.S. will follow through with Clinton’s commitment to initiating development projects in impoverished countries like Haiti, where an investment in earthquake safety outfitting may have prevented thousands of unnecessary deaths.
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
p a g e 11
international
So what does all this mean for global poverty? In particular, Clinton’s new outlook involves the way in which USAID responds to situations in foreign countries. With Dr. Raj Shah recently appointed as USAID administrator, Clinton has spoken optimistically of a long-term solution to global poverty that would get to the root of the problem. While a moral prerogative may have motivated Clinton’s change in course, selling it to the American people requires framing it in light of the more traditional foreign policy dialogue. Throughout her speech to the CGD, Clinton consistently justified her plan, assuring her audience that American tax payer dollars would pursue U.S. interests abroad. Logically, this makes sense; global poverty creates global instability, increasing the likelihood of future threats to U.S. secu-
national
After decades of stressing national security and military interventionism, the United States finally has a vision for a foreign policy that pushes global poverty alleviation to the top of the agenda – and it didn’t even take the earthquake in Haiti to get us to that point. On January 6th, six days prior to the earthquake, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a major policy speech at Washington, D.C.’s Center for Global Development (CGD) that put the three D’s – defense, diplomacy, and development – on equal footing. Before jumping to cynical or skeptical conclusions, one must realize the motives behind Clinton’s proclamation of a need for change in how the U.S. deals with global poverty. Clinton’s decision to prioritize international development efforts does not reject a strong emphasis on national security but rather recognizes that the two foreign policy goals are inextricably aligned. It’s a good case for a good cause, and one that should garner popular support.
investment in innovation to make technology more accessible; and paying more attention to the strong potential of girls and women in the developing world.
campus
By Veronica Pugin Inter national Edit or, C MC ‘ 1 2
Negotiation Without Mitigation
Why the Copenhagen Climate Conference won’t mean much By Ashley Scott Il l u st r at or, C MC ‘ 1 1
international
Though held only two months ago, the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference already seems like an insufficient way to tackle global climate change. Much to the dismay of many environmentalists, the 15th annual Conference of Parties (COP15) talks were little more than a weak precursor to aid future negotiations: dialogue and promises without concrete action or enforcement. To put substantive analysis of its provisions in an appropriate context, the accord’s first and perhaps most egregious deficiency is the absence of legal backing. Neither the United States nor the 24 other countries involved in the negotiations legally adopted the accord; instead, they “took note” of it. Yet in this “all talk, no action” conference, even some of the talk was fundamentally flawed.
campus
national
The accord provides, by 2020, $100 billion annually from wealthy nations to enable developing countries to “prepare for climate disasters.” This defeatist attitude indicates that the goals of the conference were not very ambitious. The majority of the 192 countries in attendance have conceded that climate change is inevitable and that it is more beneficial to aid those who would be impacted most severely than to address the prob-
p a g e 12
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
claremontportside.com
|
lem of climate change itself. Part of the funding will also help disadvantaged countries “develop low fossil-fuel economies,” even though the volume of developing countries’ emissions pales in comparison to that of wealthier countries. (It is noteworthy that China, the world’s largest net emitter, has graciously agreed to refuse these funds.) Moreover, the funding pledges from the three largest world economies amount to only $25.2 billion, and it is unclear where the remaining 75% of the promised funding will come from. The European Union ($18,387,785 million USD, or 30.18% of the world’s nominal GDP), the U.S. ($14,441,425 million, or 23.31%), and Japan ($4,910,692 million, or 8.06%), followed by China (who also will not contribute), boast the world’s largest nominal GDPs. The 2010-2012 funding pledges include $10.6 billion from the European Union, $11 billion from Japan, and $3.6 billion from the U.S., which emits 20.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions. Considering its large economy and volume of emissions, the U.S. pledged to fund disproportionately less than it should have. The accord also has a goal of preventing the Earth from becoming more than two degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Although scientists had previously reached a consensus that a temperature increase greater than two degrees Celsius would be the threshold for catastrophic natural events, recent studies have shown that a rise in global temperature of two degrees Celsius may be more detrimental than previously thought. Having recently discovered that polar temperatures appear to rise more quickly than the global temperature, scientists now believe that a two degree increase in temperature could raise the sea level between six and nine meters. In addition, the summit failed to address specifically how to prevent the temperature increase. As a result, this vague and arbitrary
volumeVII issue2
As Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat stated, the Copenhagen Accord should be viewed as a “letter of intent.” In this light, the accord does provide some hope for future conferences, like the COP16, set to take place in Mexico during winter 2010. Yet COP15’s failure to directly provide for any substantive or immediate change means that another year will go by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to increase with no global consensus on how to improve our situation.
CLAREMONT AT COPENHAGEN Pomona College seniors Dawn Bickett (left) and Grace Vermeer (right) attended the first week of the Copenhagen Climate Conference to conduct research regarding the role of citizen deliberation in the policy process. They traveled as part of a group called World Wide Views on Global Warming, which gathered people from around the world both to deliberate about how to combat climate change and to deliver a report at COP15. Though Dawn and Grace blogged about their experiences on the Pomona Environmental Analysis website, they also participated in an interview with the Port Side. Here is what they found most striking about the summit: 1. S tudent participation: Many students, particularly other Americans, attended COP15. Dawn and Grace noted that many of the students did not appear to take the conference very seriously or appreciate being there, as evident in their casual dress and somewhat disrespectful demeanor. 2. Protests: As she expected, Dawn witnessed many protests both inside and outside of the conference center. However, the protesters were geared more towards the media than the delegates and they sent out a very vague message with no real information. The protests appeared to be more theatrical, to show the media that many people cared about the climate crisis. 3. L ack of input: Grace notes that it “seemed like there were two conferences happening at the same time and held in the same venue.” The party members’ deliberations were not open to the NGOs or other advocacy organizations and there was minimal
interaction between the two groups. There was no facilitation for input, which proved to be a great failure of the system. 4. Insufficient dialoGUe: During the entire first week of the summit, the party members were “reading prepared statements at each other,” which Grace believes could have been done remotely prior to the summit. Grace never saw “organic interactions between two party members” – the important negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, and the media was later notified. Therefore, there was little room for negotiation and public involvement. Dawn was at the summit during the second week of negotiations, and she noted that NGOs were “entirely shut out starting Wednesday [of that week].” Though the U.S. attempted to be transparent during the first week, no NGOs were present during the crucial talks the second week. This was frustrating, especially since many of the NGOs were working with smaller, less powerful states.
Regarding the future, Grace believes the current schedule of an annual climate change summit doesn’t encourage any real action: “It’s frustrating that a few days into COP15, they were already talking about COP16.” Though the summit’s structure didn’t allow much interaction to occur, Dawn thinks the “huge amount of activism and activity of groups gives hope for action outside of the international policy arena.” volumeVII issue2
international
Finally, the accord encourages developed countries to submit “quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020” and poorer countries to “implement mitigation actions,” which include protecting and enhancing vegetation. Though the commitments or actions were due in late January, the accord allows countries to set their own greenhouse emission re-
duction goals for 2020. In the absence of binding emissions reduction targets, success seems unattainable. If emissions reduction targets are set independently by each country, it is unclear how the less than two degree Celsius temperature increase could be achieved – especially considering the difficulty of perfectly predicting future impacts of current emissions.
|
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
p a g e 13
national
Additionally, the countries agreeed to measure, report, and verify greenhouse gas reductions, as well as financial allocations from wealthy to developing countries, “in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.” Wealthy countries’ transparency would improve compliance, making emissions reduction and funding data vulnerable to international pressure. This provision is similar to and follows from another concept: voluntary reporting by multinational corporations through the Global Reporting Initiative, which external parties usually audit to ensure compliance. Theoretically, since consumers can use these data to support only the most environmentally and socially sustainable companies, such measures incentivize transparency and
responsibility. Nevertheless, the Copenhagen Accord’s lack of accountability severely weakens this provision. The GRI is successful because both auditors’ factchecking and consumer pressure lend some accountability to companies’ selfreporting. Since there are no provisions analogous to consumers or auditors in regard to the Copenhagen Accord, it is quite possible that some nations may not follow through with previous commitments or agree to them in more binding future negotiations.
campus
goal does little to address the problem of global climate change concretely.
So Happy Together
In Costa Rica, social capital buys smiles
campus
national
international
By Cecilia Ledesma Contributing Wr it er, C MC ‘ 1 2 In an attempt to avoid the general unproductiveness often associated with winter break, I decided to invest my time and energy volunteering abroad. When I committed to spending two weeks in Costa Rica, I was excited about the opportunity to help construct a community center in Latin America. Initially, I envisioned towns lacking running water, the sign of a society whose residents struggled to meet their basic needs. While La Carpio, the town in which my project was located, confirmed some of my prior notions, I was surprised to discover that it was very much an anomaly of typical Costa Rican life. From highquality education to affordable health care, the range and quality of resources that the country’s government provides contribute to a quality of life that most citizens of its Central American counterparts unfortunately do not enjoy.
owned preserves, but landowners are also paid annually for each protected forest acre. The sole mission of the Costa Rican National Environmental Office (SETENA) is to oversee the environmental impact of prospective builders and developers and to ensure that ecological preservation takes precedent. Because of the government’s emphasis on sustainable development, eco-tourism has risen substantially in the region. Scenic beaches and tropical rainforests attract myriad travelers seeking refuge in its tranquil beauty. The country’s $2.2 billion annual tourism industry indicates that economic well-being is not just compatible with forest preservation but also a beneficial outcome of it.
The government’s 1949 decision to dismantle its military and invest instead in education truly sets Costa Rica apart. Education accounts for 4.1% of the Costa Rican national budget, while military spending constitutes a mere 0.4% of total GDP. Given these resources and the popula- Increased schooling has created a stable tion’s unique culture, it is no mystery why society less prone to the revolutions and the New Economics Foundation’s Happy dictatorships that have raged elsewhere in Planet Index ranks Costa Rica as the hap- Central America; politicians focus their efpiest country on forts not on overthe planet. The throwing political index examines regimes but on With a literacy rate of constructing high sustainable happiness on a na- 95%, Ticos, as Costa Ricans call schools and unitional level, rankversities. Although ing 143 countries themselves, are proud to say that they universal Central according to have more teachers than soldiers. American applicathree measuretion of this model ments: citizens’ would be neither self-reported happiness, average life expec- realistic nor practical, Costa Rica’s experitancy, and ecological footprint per capita. ence shows that directing more money Costa Rica excels in all three categories. toward popular education would greatly benefit neighboring countries. Education As a model of sustainable development, has helped boost the economy by enabling Costa Rica sets a prime example. Though the country to become a major exporter of small in size, it possesses high levels of computer chips. The population’s Englishbiological diversity, which the govern- language skills have also improved, spurred ment has taken great strides to preserve. by an effort to attract American eco-tourNot only is up to 33% of its land protect- ists. With a literacy rate of 95%, Ticos, as ed through national parks and privately Costa Ricans call themselves, are proud to p a g e 14
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
say that they have more teachers than soldiers. The countless “No Army Since 1948” t-shirts I encountered in souvenir shops are a testament to this pride. While biological diversity, education, health care, and economic success have factored significantly into Costa Rica’s Happy Planet Index ranking, they are not the key source of Costa Rican happiness; rather, it is the vast opportunities that those resources enable. Receiving access to educational opportunities and not worrying about skyrocketing health care costs allows Costa Ricans to focus instead on building strong social networks. During my stay with my host family, I observed the strikingly important role of family, friends, and community. Social interactions are not merely reserved for weekends and holidays; they are an integral part of daily life. From midday family visits to Monday night social outings, Ticos enjoy a very social lifestyle. While their professional lives are essential in accumulating monetary capital, social capital proves more valuable. Any student of comparative politics knows about influential political scientist Robert Putnam, whose key contributions center on the role that social capital plays in strengthening societies. He argues that a sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks bring great benefits to people. This factor, built into the core of Costa Rican culture, is truly the foundation of their happiness.
Can Technology End World Poverty? This December, as Apple enjoyed yet another Christmastime sales boom, the non-profit organization One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) publicized a much-anticipated design concept for its own “future computer,” not unlike the iPad Apple just released. The XO-3 is the latest in a series of lowcost laptops intended for school-age children in the developing world. Scheduled for release in 2012, the XO-3 boasts a slew of high-tech features: it is half as thick as an iPhone, has a virtual keyboard, and can charge itself through induction rather than through a traditional port. And, at an estimated $75, it is far cheaper than its bulky predecessor, the XO, ultimately priced at $172. As one reporter put it, with such design plans in the works for what could someday be the cheapest laptop on the market, “you may start to wish you were a third-grade child in Burundi.” Herein lies the problem with former MIT professor Nicolas Negroponte’s non-profit effort. With t h e needs of its beneficiaries in mind, the original XO was designed to be a durable, low-energy and cost-efficient laptop accessible to schoolchildren and responsive to their environment. Perhaps not the most aesthetically pleasing laptop to hit the market, the XO took into consideration more pressing concerns, such as extreme environmental conditions and the importance of long-range wireless capability. But plans for flashy additions to the latest and greatest XO have garnered obvious interest among citizens of the developed world, and it is becoming increasingly uncertain for whom this laptop is truly intended.
volumeVII issue2
But for all the advances in the XO-3 laptop’s technology and OLPC’s scope of distribution, the question remains whether the program has truly made strides in improving the root causes of the structural disadvantages the developing world faces. Like many other trends in global poverty alleviation, Negroponte’s approach is a far cry from traditional international aid. With the advent of microlending and economic development, international monetary aid has been increasingly thrust to the wayside in favor of adopting more creative efforts toward sustainable improvement. I am an advocate of such programs, which in many cases can lead to a more stable, workable economy and bring significant, lasting changes to the developing world. Yet with approximately three billion people – roughly half the world’s population – living on less than $2.50 per day, it is difficult to concede that most enduring such desperate poverty are able to access the true benefits of a connected laptop, especially when they are hungry and sick. Coupled with international monetary aid and appropriate educational training programs, Negroponte’s vision may come to fruition among the severely poor, but much needs to be done to achieve success. |
claremontportside.com
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
p a g e 15
national
Basing his endeavor on the core principle of education as a fundamental human right and seeking to provide adequate resources for achieving this education, Negroponte envisioned a program that would provide children in developing countries with basic access to an increasingly inter-connected and digital world. This program has strong merit. We are living right smack in the middle of the digital age, and the notion of an integrated and educated world community without access to computer and Internet technology is unfathomable. Internet communication is now the fastest and most popular way to interact internationally – the sheer speed at which information flows has the damaging potential to leave those without access in the dust. By placing laptops in the hands of needy children worldwide, OLPC seeks to free them from the crippling cycle of world poverty and allow them to further their education and shape their future. So far, OLPC has successfully distributed laptops worldwide. Expansion of the program to the South Pacific, Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Middle East, and Uruguay indicates its growing popularity among its targeted recipients and more importantly, program funders.
campus
By Rachel Brody Contributin g Wr it er, C MC ‘ 1 2
international
Auditing the One Laptop Per Child program
Here Comes the Pride?
Why I found merit in the anti-marriage movement the plank By Jeremy B. Merrill N a tional Editor, C MC ‘ 1 2 When I first heard of the National Marriage Boycott, I was pretty skeptical. In fact, when I first pitched this article, I had planned it as a criticism of the NMB. Yet in the research process – and particularly after talking to Allie Foote, CMC ‘10, and Lt. Dan Choi at the Athenaeum – I became convinced that the NMB is not only a strong part of the gay civil rights movement’s push for marriage equality but also a great option for college students and myself. In this article, I will try to share with you what I used to believe and why I have changed my mind. The National Marriage Boycott is a studentled movement for marriage equality started by students at Stanford after Prop. 8’s passage in November 2008. The NMB is exactly what it sounds like: straight allies (and gay people in the few states that grant marriage equality) promising to refuse to get married until Congress repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies recognition to gay couples. In doing so, it also denies them 1,138 federal rights, including the rights to visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital and to assume instant custody of adopted children when one partner (the “paper” parent) dies or faces legal trouble. My primary concern was that the NMB was poorly focused: I worried that the NMB could be easily dismissed as unserious since it targets, and indeed was started by, undergraduates. The Port Side spoke with Lt. Dan Choi – a combat veteran and Arabic translator with the United States Army discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – who spoke at CMC as a part of the Athenaeum’s 40 Years Since Stonewall: Marching Towards Equality series. Lt. Choi emphasized that colleges and p a g e 16
|
f e b r u a r y 10
|
universities are not just educational institutions but also the main places where students explore their beliefs and enter into more long-term relationships. “As you learn about love-relationships,” he explained, “It’s important to share ideas about what marriage is.” For this reason, he deemed the NMB a strong statement in support of marriage equality.
That’s why the NMB will be so effective as a message tool - because many of us do have that choice. We, as either allies or queers living in those few enlightened states that provide marriage equality, have the choice whether or not to marry someone we love. But until everyone can make that choice, we’re choosing to abandon our right. If you don’t choose to sign it, because you don’t feel you could keep the commitment, that’s fine by me; if you choose to sign on, it’s an important commitment to keep. And it’s supposed to be: marriage is an important social institution. It’s so integral to the American moral ideal of equality of opportunity that everyone must be given the right to participate in that institution.
Undergrads are notorious (perhaps deservedly) for being flighty idealists, who are willing to jump onto any political bandwagon but can’t be counted upon to remain passionate about that issue a week later, whether it is carbon caps, marijuana legalization, or marriage equality. But committing to the NMB is unlike other stereotypical undergrad commitments; it doesn’t require daily changes to one’s lifestyle, such as forgoing meat or showering only once a week to save the environment. Instead, commitment to the NMB is a choice we have to make only once in our lives: a choice to delay one commitment, marriage, in support of another commitment, to gay rights and marriage equality. The NMB is both serious and long-term.
claremontportside.com
|
volumeVII issue2
Besides, imagine the commercials. Imagine a straight couple declaring their love for each other (on a white backdrop, not unlike the Mac v. PC ads), but then discussing how they will not – how they morally cannot – get married until their queer friends can. Such commercials would, I think, go a long way toward helping convince relatively liberal folks of our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, who might not know any gay people, of the need for marriage equality. The realization that not being able to watch their son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter walk down the aisle is just what is happening to someone else’s queer family member might allow them to see viscerally why this cause is so important. As Sean Penn’s Harvey Milk said in Milk, “They’ll vote for us two-to-one if they know one of us.” The National Marriage Boycott is a step towards making that connection easier to create: now, to understand the need for equality, people don’t need to know a queer person but merely a young person who believes in it.