The Cornell Review The Conservative Voice on Campus
An Independent Publication vol. xxxii, no. iv
blog.thecornellreview.com
BLOG
“We Do Not Apologize.” May 5, 2014
thecornellreview.com
SITE
The Real War on Women If men and women are truly equal, then men's and women's issues are the same
Laura Gundersen Staff Writer
n a C We r o F k n i h T ! s e v l e s r Ou
I
n his most recent State of the Union Address, President Obama used a great deal of time to discuss equal pay and his grave concerns about how women are treated in the United States. Obama’s assertions about how great of “an embarrassment” it is that women “still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns” seemed somewhat memorable in a speech so lacking in substance. Equal pay for equal work has been law since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. So why is this such a hot topic now? The real embarrassment is the inaccuracy of this claim, and the President’s overuse of this false “war on women” to help boost his image. This misconception that women make “77 cents on the dollar” comes from the U.S. Census, which finds that, in total, men are making more money than women based on raw wages. It doesn’t narrow the study to comparable jobs or number of hours worked, inherent differences in jobs more suitable and chosen more often by men, or experience. This theory implies that all jobs are in essence identical and that
awfully hypocritical. Furthermore, according to the Washington Post, these executive orders were a part of a Democratic effort to focus on wage-gap issues as well as to encourage women to vote in the midterm elections. It is safe to say that the intentions for these orders are questionable at the very least. Beyond the equal pay debate, an issue of seemingly far greater impor-
“These 'war on women' decriers are insulting and demeaning women’s intelligence, dignity, and ability to think independently.” the kind of job and amount of time worked shouldn’t affect the amount of money earned. This logic is clearly flawed, and when taking these variables into consideration, the wage gap drops significantly. In early April, the president signed two executive orders regarding equal pay for women. These orders affect federal contractors and require them to produce salary-based data in regards to sex and race. President Obama has a problem though: according to polling by the American Enterprise Institute, women at the White House are on average paid 12 percent less than their male co-workers. This seems
INSIDE! "Racist" Decoded
2
tance to feminists and activists than, for example, the poor economy or the healthcare mess with which we are currently struggling, is the great issue of government-provided contraception, abortion, and reproductive services. With women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke’s famous push for these services to be provided— with taxpayer money—has come significant support from like-minded individuals (and a convenient distraction from more serious issues). To Fluke and her feminist crowd, priority goes to government-provided coverage for contraception and abortion above anything else. Continued on page 8
Mayorjuana Debate Nathaniel Hunter Campus News Editor
I
thaca Mayor Svante Myrick ‘09, well-known connoisseur of the finer things in life and all-around righteous SAE bro, visited Ives Hall on April 16 to throw down with two members of the Cornell Forensics Society. The topic: marijuana legalization. The appropriate title: “This House Would Legalize Marijuana." Mayor Myrick, himself a Forensics Society alum, argued in favor of legalization, and the Forensics Society debaters, Srinath Reddy ’14 and Enting Lee ’17, took the opposing stance, which is a view more or less sacrilegious on college campuses. At the end of the debate, the audience overwhelmingly voted in favor of Myrick. No surprise. Myrick delivered three main reasons to do away with the criminalization of marijuana: First, he claimed that such laws are racist and classist because the poor and minorities are arrested at a much higher rate than the middle class whites are, despite about equal usage on both sides. Second, Myrick claimed that the War on Drugs is costly and ineffective: about $8 billion was spent last year to
Editorial: SA Takeover
3
Make a Liberal Angry. Very Angry.
Conservatives Censored on Campus
4
Ivy League Roundup
enforce federal drug prohibition laws, and despite the taxpayer expense and effort, the number of people who say they have smoked marijuana at some point in their lives is on the rise. Third, he maintained criminalization only encourages the illegal drug trade, which leads to thousands of deaths from related gang violence and consumption of poor-quality drug varieties. Myrick argued that were marijuana legalized, the rate of gang violence would drop drastically, since gangs would no longer have an “economic purpose.” Myrick went on to argue that the legalization and proper regulation of marijuana would not only curb drug use—if supported by education campaigns like those regarding tobacco and alcohol—but lead to a massive new stream of government revenue where once there was a massive stream of government spending. Most of Reddy’s and Lee’s arguments relied on insisting Continued on page 10
5
Who Will Be Cornell's Next Pres?
7
6
Sarah Palin vs. Wendy Davis
9
2
May 5, 2014
Opinion
Terrifying Power Misuse of the Term "Racist"
Roberto Matos Staff Writer
E
very time one turns around, one hears of a new racist conspiracy theory or of a new racist bogeyman to hate. In the great crusade against the politically unfashionable, those identified as undesirables are to be utterly castigated and totally destroyed. In the midst of the screeching cries of "racism" which have dominated the past few weeks and months, one cannot help but wonder how the word has taken on its present form, usage and character. The unfortunate comments of Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling have infused the anti-racist crusade with new momentum and popular legitimacy. The frenzied, allencompassing, merciless hunt for those with dissident opinions and unpopular tastes has gained ground. Admittedly, one can hardly come to the defense of these two men. Their own strangeness and incivility precipitated their doom. These men are rightly admonished. But as the social media mobs descend with fury upon their targets, we can be equally horrified with the quasi-religion which has taken hold across the country. None can escape the hunt, for even private conversations can be illegally made public if it serves the anti-racist cause. The illegal disclosure of private conversations by Sterling is now branded heroic and brave. In the court of social opinion his words are indefensible, and rightly so. In the court of legal opinion, however, this man's private property rights (ownership rights over his team) would probably not have been revoked for a few rude remarks made in a private conversation. But the crusaders hardly care. So why do ideologues continually use the term "racist" to characterize their political opponents?
Confusion The term is often used incorrectly. With increasing frequency, one accuses his opponents of “racism” without the slightest clue as to its meaning. Since the charge of racism is so serious, it is critical that we set a strict definition of what the term purports to describe. To ensure that we are being responsible with our language, we should set forth laser-precise critera for what does and does not qualify as racially insensitive rhetoric. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for continual exasperation and playing cheap political sniping games. In strictly factual terms, the term “racist” has a very narrow, yet suitably precise, definition. Why should the applicability of this word be narrow? Because when a term has countless meanings, and can be used to
CR
brand any position with which one dislikes, then just how useful is it for serious communication? "Racist [describes] a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others” according to Reference, an online encyclopedia. Racial chauvinism is also associated with hatred or discrimination toward particular ethnic groups because of their races. Thus, identifying cultural pathologies which plague a group (say, endemic fatherless-ness, high crime rates, and chronic insubordination in school) is hardly "racist." To be sure, this might be culturally insensitive to that group, and it might be uncomfortable for social critics and policy analysts to have to acknowledge certain objective facts, but this has nothing to do with claims about biological inferiority. These are fundamentally questions of cultural environment, not questions of "innate differences" between supposedly "superior" and "inferior" peoples. The latter would be "racist" without a doubt. But the former—social observations and criticism rooted
Obfuscation The word "racist" is used so haphazardly, so loosely, and so opportunistically that its precise meaning has become rather unclear. In today's world, a growing number of opinions—no matter how innocuous and irrelevant to the question of race—are reflexively labeled “racist” by elites seeking to pander to grievance-based victim groups. Meanwhile, to many citizens, it is uncertain what "racist" actually means, and which opinions are to be deemed un-kosher. It would ap-
“The word "racist" is used so haphazardly, so loosely, and so opportunistically that its precise meaning has become rather unclear.” in culturally-related terminology— is not. Socially unfashionable? Sure. Racist? No. Harsh, persistent and relentless criticism of a person of color and his or her performance in public office or private employment is not "racist". Thus, when Newt Gingrich referred to Obama as a "food-stamp" President in 2012 he was certainly being crude, but he was referring specifically to documented facts associated with the rapid increase of poverty rates under the President’s tenure. Gingrich was lampooned for a statement that was construed as "racist," even though what he said was factually verifiable and addressed a legitimate public policy concern. His statements did not qualify as "racist" in the strictest sense of the term (the usage of which we ought to carefully adhere to for reasons already explained above). Unfortunately, in contemporary discourse, virtually any reference to cultural differences and cultural pathologies can be branded as "racist" by one's opponents. In fact, the mere notion that a culture does suffer from pathologies seems too offensive for serious consideration in politically correct circles.
pear that those who repeatedly use the term are steadily rendering it meaningless.
Evasion The accusation that one’s opponent is “racist”—or that the other person's argument is "racist"—is not an actual argument. The fact that a claim makes you feel uncomfortable, or the fact that that the position of the opposition strikes you as unpalatable, or the fact that an argument seems to have troubling social implications, or the fact that a claim seems socially taboo, does not make the argument's reasoning invalid. It has nothing to do with the validity of the argument itself. Admittedly, this standard is stiff, but it keeps social discourse from becoming too personal, and ensures that good arguments are not drowned out by cries of "racist" and "Hey you! What are you trying to imply with that statement?"
your critical view and that of the audience. They are trying to distract either you or the audience from engaging seriously and fairly on the substantive material in question.
Intimidation They are trying to intimidate you —and force you either into silence, or make you feel too scared to make potent arguments. It is a political weapon designed to paralyze the opposition in fear—meant to silence them, to impugn their character. One should deconstruct the argument which they take issue with, and not take the easy way out by brushing it aside as "code" or "racially chauvinistic." This is cowardly and anti-intellectual. In our current social regime, use of perfectly legitimate terms—like "violent crime," "hoodlum," "thug" and "bad neighborhood"—is considered "racially tinged." Those who use these terms are often presumed to harbor some racial animus (according to, for example, Dr. Cornel West and journalist Tavis Smiley).
Defamation Careers have been lost and reputations ruined for the slightest broach of taboos imposed by Political Correctness. One can unwittingly find oneself accused of using “racial code,” even for broaching legitimate issues (inner city crime, “welfare state excess,” etc). Mild references to cultural pathologies can get someone harshly denounced. Sadly, the tragic case of Cliven Bundy has given anti-racist, multi-culturalist zealots an opportunity to typecast American conservatives as crackpots and bigots.
Distraction
Truly, the unhinged hysteria of anti-racists and multi-culturalists in the wake of race-related controversies speaks more to their own fragility and intolerance than that of their hated rivals.
When losing the debate, ideologues resort to name-calling and emotionally-laden appeals in order to obscure the matter-at-hand from
Roberto Matos is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.
Editorial
Mike Navarro
Fake Student Assembly Clearly Does Not Understand Democracy
Laurel Conrad
Mike Navarro Editor-In-Chief
The Cornell Review
Founded 1984 r Incorporated 1986 Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter Founders Editor-in-Chief
President
Nathaniel Hunter
Campus News Editor
Casey Breznick
National News Editor
Contributors Kushagra Aniket Andre Gardiner Laura Gundersen Roberto Matos Bill Snyder
Emeritus Members Noah Kantro Alfonse Muglia Karim Lakhani
Board of Directors
Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Anthony Santelli Jr.
F
irst the facts: on the afternoon of April 17 in Willard Straight Hall, a group claiming to represent a number of “marginalized” student populations staged a melodramatic mock-takeover of the Cornell Student Assembly (SA). Led primarily by members of the group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the crowd of about 75 people waited for SA President Ulysees Smith '14 to call the meeting to order, then motioned to “disband” the current SA in favor of their own. This was followed by a symbolic re-arranging of chairs in the hall to create a circle; the unplugging of the SA's microphones; a word-forword reading of the much-hyped Resolution 72; representatives of other organizations airing their grievances with the SA during an open-mic session; and a completely
controversy with their first election as an indication of the culture of oppression on campus. Okay. It’s time to stop being polite, and start being real. ALANA had its funding cut because though it is supposed to distribute funds to 100 different organizations within its organization, the previous administration couldn’t stop going ridiculously over-budget on marquee events like Filthy/ Gorgeous. ALANA’s funding cut was not an example of the SA showing intolerance towards minority groups, but rather a prime example of a poorly run organization having to pay for its previous mistakes. In a sense, the speaker for ALANA was claiming that the group should qualify as “Too big to fail.” Item number two: free student bus passes were a stipulation of the final agreement between protesters and the school administration after the creation of the West Campus
“In the short-term, the Mock SA putschists can pat each other on the backs and feel good about accomplishing…well, nothing. ”
Faculty Advisor William A. Jacobson The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefit of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives. The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff of The Ithaca Review, Inc. The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We publish a spectrum of beliefs, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a wellreasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@ cornell.edu for consideration. The Cornell Review meets regularly on Tuesdays at 5:00 pm in GSH 156. E-mail messages should be sent to
cornellreview@cornell.edu
Copyright © 2014 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
unplanned opportunity for discourse with President David Skorton and Vice President Susan Murphy. So now that this iconic moment in Cornell SA history has passed, where do we stand? Exactly where we stood before. Nothing has changed. Hopefully. So why is this the case? Let us continue with a few fundamental truths and a few fundamental fibs. Regardless of what the group claimed, it did not represent all marginalized students. It represented a few specific organizations — namely SJP — that did not have things go their way this year. A prime example of this could be found in the scheduled open-mic session speakers. First, a student spoke on behalf of ALANA, arguing that the SA’s November decision to slash the organization’s funding was unfair. Next, another student spoke out against the SA’s recent discussions about the university's plan to eliminate free student bus passes, which would be insulting to the memory of those brave souls who dared to fight Cornell's decision to cut down the Redbud Woods to create the West Campus parking lot. After that, there was a speaker from Haven, who described the
parking lot. If we want to be honest, the parking lot was going to be made regardless of what students wanted: the bus passes were a handout to get the protesters to shut up. In my opinion, cutting the bus passes doesn’t dishonor the memory of those protesters as much as their presence does. It just serves as a reminder that in the end, they sold out for freebies. The controversy with the Haven elections doesn’t indicate a culture of oppression on the Cornell campus as much as it indicates a culture of oppression within Haven. What happened at the first Haven election was a conflict between two opposing ideologies — let’s call them the Equality Movement and Westboro LGBT — which cannot seem to get along. One side wants to engage in debate with opposing parties to find a solution that is best for everyone, while the other just wants everyone that doesn’t agree with them to burn in Hell. Fortunately for the future of gay-straight relations at Cornell, Fred Phelps LGBT didn’t win the final election. Either way, Haven’s problems are internal, and have nothing to do with the SA. But all of this is beside the point. What are the short and long-term
May 5, 2014
3
ramifications of the Mock SA Takeover on April 17th? In the shortterm, the SJP got the opportunity to have their resolution read in front of the SA, which it probably should have in the first place. Regardless of its content (which is pretty naïve), the SA does exist to serve Cornell students and their organizations. This does not, however, change the fact that the SA can not actually do anything that Resolution 72 demands. Had the resolution been read during a legitimate SA session, it still would not have been voted on, because, as I understand it, the content falls well outside of any SA legislative jurisdiction. So the SJP would have basically read Resolution 72 in front of the SA, but the only people listening would be its own supporters. By “taking over” the SA that Thursday, this is basically what they ended up doing—preaching to their own choir. In the short-term, the Mock SA putschists can pat each other on the backs and feel good about accomplishing…well, nothing. But at least this way, they get some attention out of it. So there’s that. In the long-term, there has to be some amount of worry that allowing this Mock SA Takeover may have set a precedent. The next time the SA is forced to make a decision that an organization does not agree with, what is to stop them from doing what SJP did? For that matter, what’s to stop all groups from doing the same thing every Thursday? For all its faults, the SA still exists as a constant amidst the ever-changing ebb and flow among all of the groups on campus. I am one to believe it should remain as such. While the takeover group claimed to represent all groups on campus rising up against the alleged tyranny of the SA, the fact remains that we are the ones that put them there. Just as in the Haven elections, if your organization votes for Fred Phelps LGBT as its president, then you understand that your group will be representing the ideals of Westboro LGBT for the next year, whether you personally agree or not. For better or worse, that is how representative democracy works. The Mock SA Takeover was a temporary rule by a disenchanted mob. The SA exists to serve all students and organizations on campus. The Mock SA served the interests of the 75 or so students in that room on April 17. Though they claimed to be the voice of the marginalized groups on campus, I would have to disagree. As the conservative voice on campus, I think the Cornell Review is about as marginalized as you can get at this university: The Mock SA certainly didn’t speak for us. Mike Navarro is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at mln62@ cornell.edu.
The Cornell Review thecornellreview.com
est.1984
CR
4
May 5, 2014
National
Cornell Review Exclusive:
Conservatives Censored on Campus Professor allegedly incited students to trash, vandalize students' conservative newspaper Casey Breznick National News Editor
W
hen is censorship actually censorship? You could ask Professor Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers, a biology professor and an award-winning scholar and blogger at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM). Or, you could ask John Geiger, a sophomore majoring in German and Global Business Management and co-founder of the conservative student newspaper, the Morris NorthStar. Several reports have recently surfaced alleging that, in several posts on his blog Pharyngula, Myers incited students at UMM to trash and vandalize copies of the NorthStar all together worth nearly $2,000 because he disagreed with the student’s conservative politics and satire-driven publication. On Friday, Nov. 22, several days after the November issue’s distribution, Myers crafted a blog piece highly critical of the NorthStar suggesting that the paper be treated “as trash” and appropriately disposed. Geiger reports that all of the newspaper copies then went missing from distribution sites located
around campus over the weekend of Nov. 23-24. Myers has steadfastly denied any involvement in the reported disappearance of all the November-issue copies and the defacement with a marker of 100 of the January-issue copies in late January. While Geiger admits he does not know whether or not Myers physically participated in either crime, he is currently in contact with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and mulling filing a First Amendment lawsuit against Myers. The ADF is a non-profit legal advisory and litigation group. The ADF and Geiger came into contact after 100 copies of the January issue featuring a preview on the front page of a pro-life story were defaced with marker. Geiger and the ADF argue that Myers’s actions went beyond his right to express his opinion and were predicated to incite censorship and theft. In a press release on their website, the ADF writes, “When a government employee engages in acts that ‘would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities,’ he violates the First Amendment.”
On 100 newspapers uknown perpetrators wrote "str" over "Life" to spell "Strife".
The drama unfolding between the NorthStar and Myers can be traced back to events that occurred in October and November of last year. In mid-November, Geiger gained notoriety on campus after hosting an Affirmative Action Bake Sale, which offered minorities, women, and LGBTs discounted prices from what white males had to pay for cookies and juice. The November issue of the NorthStar came out about a week later, and included a picture of the crime scene photo of the deceased Trayvon Martin with a caption reading: “Trayvon Martin,
victim of racism and fascism, and what does [name of school administrator] have to say about it? Nothing. Not a single thing.” The article it accompanied, written by another NorthStar staff writer, called faculty members “fascist racist scum” for what the NorthStar indicated as being an opportunistic, disingenuous approach to combating racism. This article was a follow-up to a similarly-themed one published in the October issue. Though the NorthStar has a disclaimer at the beginning of every issue indicating that its Continued on page 11
DECLINE OF THE BITCOIN EMPIRE Nathaniel Hunter campus News Editor
A
nyone who has been the least bit active online over the course of the last six to seven months has become aware of Bitcoin. Many may not understand exactly what it is, or what it could mean, but most at least know the name. Its name has been shouted from every metaphorical hill the Internet has to offer – 4Chan, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit – and references to the new online crypto-currency can be found everywhere, from print newspapers to cable television. But Bitcoin is an empire. Or, was an empire. Today, Bitcoin is in decline, and soon it may fall off the precipice of society’s attention span. But, before delving into apocalyptic prophecy, I should first explain to the under-informed what exactly Bitcoin is. To incredibly simplify the whole business, Bitcoin is an online digital currency – every coin is simply a unique sequence of code. To buy an item using bitcoins, a user transfers the codes of his bitcoins from his own “digital wallet” to another user's wallet (note: "Bitcoin" capitalized refers to the
CR
software and community of users; lower case refers to the currency). Generally, a user obtains bitcoins by exchanging some actual national currency for it, but the process of actually generating bitcoins is a little more complex. Basically, super powerful computers solve incredibly complex problems through the process known as “mining.” Once the solution is found a bitcoin is
minute, and even second to a degree much higher than other currencies, and that's where we get into the interesting part of the subject. When bitcoins originally began circulating in 2009, every coin was worth about five cents. Since then, the currency has exploded in value. In October 2013 a single coin was worth around $100 and in late November it hit a peak of $1,126 per
“Bitcoin seemed to be the new gold standard and a rallying cry of those who support a free market in currency.” generated. The original Bitcoin protocol, whose inventor’s true identity still remains a subject of debate, caps the maximum number of producible bitcoins at 21 million. Since central banks and governments have no say in the process, rate, and origin of bitcoin generation, the value of a bitcoin is rooted completely in supply and demand, unlike with most national currencies. Partially because of this, its value is incredibly volatile, fluctuating widely by hour,
coin. Since then, bitcoins have experienced numerous fluctuations between $500 and $1,000 – as of writing, the price of a single bitcoin is around $454. What could possibly have caused such meteoric growth – growth on the order of thousands over the course of just a few years? Bitcoin, in its rise, became a refuge from all over the world seeking to circumvent inflation, sanctions, capital controls, and other restrictions associated with using legal tender. Be-
cause of its programmed creation, it is difficult to manipulate bitcoin prices, and so long as people want to use it for exchanges it will retain value. In countries like Argentina, where inflation is rapid and consistent due to flawed monetary and fiscal policies, bitcoin stands among gold and the US dollar as an alternative way to make transactions. In Iran, where the rial is falling and it is impossible to come by US dollars, many have adopted Bitcoin. Bitcoin seemed to be the new gold standard and a rallying cry of those who support a free market in currency. But, with all of the potential highs of a freer market come all of the potential lows. Enter the Silk Road. The Silk Road was the Internet's answer to the back-alley black Continued on page 10
4 Things That Will Make Any Liberal's Blood Boil
National
May 5, 2014
5
1. Bank regulators earn more than twice as much as bankers.
Avg. salary for bank employee: $49,450 Avg. salary for federal bank regulator: $190,000 93% of regulators earn more than bankers' avg.
2. Avg. spending on Amazon in states with
internet sales tax lower than those without. 3. The Supreme Court ruled Michigan's affirmative action ban is constitutional. But according to Big Brother...
4. EPA admins took a private jet for their cross-country "Earth Week" tour to promote energy conservation to prevent climate change.
Do As I Say, Not As I Do More Taxation is Higher Consumption
Bay Buchanan on Reagonomics Laura Gundersen Staff Writer
C
ornell’s chapter of NeW, the Network of Enlightened Women, hosted a lecture by Bay Buchanan, former Treasurer of the United States under President Ronald Reagan and prominent conservative political commentator. Buchanan engaged her audience in lecture and conversation about her years working with President Reagan, and what made this presidency revolutionary. Buchanan began her talk by placing us in the historical context of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and the declining vitality of the American spirit during this time. She spoke about how Reagan was considered a laughing stock, a cowboy by his fellow Republicans, and an extreme idealist by Democrats. During the primary she said Democrats, “Were
happy as can be…because [they thought] this is the guy they can beat.” We all know how wrong they were. Buchanan contributed this to a number of factors. “He spoke with his heart, not with his mind,” she said. When speaking about the economy, she said, instead of using statistics or numbers, Reagan would use anecdotes and stories about families to empathize with struggling business owners. His plans were simplified in a manner that was, by many, considered oversimplified and unrealistic, but as Buchanan puts it, “the people understood it and agreed.” This, Buchanan believes, was “not just good policy…he sold it. He believed in it…he knew there was a direction and he would take it. You believed him and he believed in you.”
Compiled by Casey Breznick Through this entrepreneurial spirit, positive mindset, and steadfast ambition, Reagan was able to accomplish many of his major goals, and to carry out his four-point plan of cutting taxes, reducing spending, enforcing anti-inflationary monetary policy, and deregulation. Reagan understood that the way to get out of the recession was through creating an environment in which small business could thrive, that “they [the people] will solve this problem. We can’t in government.” Through actions such as creating a 3-year period for depreciation of capital goods, Reagan encouraged small businesses to spend money, build their businesses, and grow the economy. Through this process, Buchanan explained, Americans experienced an amazing recovery and economic boom (a 30% growth in eight years). This prosperity, in turn, revived not only the economy but also the American spirit. An important takeaway from Buchanan’s lecture was her stress on the importance of speaking up and making your voice heard. She explained why she does notbelieve most “leaders” today are actually
leaders in practice. She expressed her disgust in the tendencies of modern politicians to be sheepish. Too many are too easily persuaded even in issues they may not agree with, such as entitlements, with a phone call from the president asking for a party-line vote. “Who’s telling me how to vote? Sheep can do that,” Buchanan said. Buchanan also talked about the need for leaders who are not afraid to say what they believe in every aspect of life. Because only then can you influence people, and there is no chance to do this with a closed mouth. She asked, “When the pressure’s on…what separates you from the crowd?” This is what Reagan did differently which made him so successful. “He was going straight ahead” and it didn’t matter what was said about him. Reagan believed in principles and knew what he wanted to do to accomplish his goals, and he did. Laura Gundersen is a freshman in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.
CR
6
May 5, 2014
National
Ivy League Roundup Compiled by Casey Breznick
Ivy League schools are not just competitive in terms of academics and athletics, but also in the realm of ridiculous, outlandish, and downright astonishing acts of leftism. In this Ivy League Roundup, we have selected some of the most alarming and cynically amusing recent examples of leftism on Ivy League campuses.
H
arvard is our rival, but its administration has outclassed ours by a long-shot. Several weeks ago two Crimson freshmen started Instanomz, a late-night food delivery service that delivered directly to student dorm rooms. However, in mid-April Harvard’s Office of Student Life shut the business down due to concerns over “excess foot traffic” and “overly commercial activity." Sounding like the Soviet Union’s New Economic Policy, the Harvard College Handbook for Students allows for only “modest levels of business activities on campus." Clearly, the premier institutions of learning and free-thought, the backbones of economic productivity and innovation, are becoming the very agents destroying the entrepreneurial spirit.
D
artmouth students occupied their president's office demanding the university adopt their "Freedom Budget." Nothing free about it, this budget was a list of demands entailing; mandatory faculty sensitivty training, changing the Indian mascot, mandate students take classes on "institutionalized injustice," gender-neutral facilities, hiring based on skin color, financial assistance to illegal immigrants, subsidizing travel costs for student families visiting during graduation, and creating a policy with "serious consequences" against "hate speech/crimes." Despite the underwhelming occupation, the "Freedom Budget" was not adopted.
M
any opinions float around Ivy League schools, but at Yale some of them are more right than others. For example, Choose Life at Yale (CLAY) became the first group in the school’s history to be denied membership in the school’s Social Justice Network of Dwight Hall. This came after the group spent a year as a “provisional member” during which it volunteered and fundraised for Dwight Hall, which according to its website serves “to foster civic-minded student leaders and to promote service and activism in New Haven and around the world." The chair of the Yale chapter of the ACLU, Andre Manuel, wrote an editorial advising against admitting CLAY because it would “divert funds away from groups that do important work pursuing actual social justice.” Flaw number one: ideological discrimination. Flaw number two: "social justice" as a viable and important concept.
S
exual violence on campuses is a problem, and Columbia seems to have found the perfect solution: a cake with "Prevent Sexual Violence" piped on it presented in a dining hall the day before 23 students filed a federal complaint alleging the school failed to properly handle sexual assault cases. Of course, left-wing media would never attack a left-wing institution like Columbia for improper conduct. It also seems the proponents of the Culture of Shut Up, which vehemently stifles the free speech of those who question notions of the leftist-manufactured “Rape Culture," have left Columbia untouched, too.
I∙vy∙i∙sm (eye-vee-ism) n. 1. School of leftist thought found on Ivy League campuses and practiced by most professors, administrators, and students (See also: socialism, progressivism, liberalism)
Campus
Noah Kantro's
May 5, 2014
7
Presidential Predictions With our illustrious fundraiser-in-chief David Skorton leaving us for the greener fields and warmer winters of Washington D.C., our noble alma mater will be needing a new helmsman to take us into the glorious post-Obama future. Here are a few serious and not-so-serious contenders:
Kathleen Sebelius
A
s the president's failed lackeys stream out of his failed administration faster than Darrell Issa can yell "Subpoena!" academia scoops them up and places them in cushy sinecures, warming itself in the glow of America's second black president. The University of California got Napolitano, who only botched the TSA and made a sieve of the border. How great would it be if Cornell could get someone who botched the implementation of the largest federal law in history? And did I mention that she's not a heterosexual white male?
Sandra Fluke
Bill Nye
C
ornell's favorite alumnus leftist science guy might not have the most outstanding academic credentials, but if he fooled me when I was a kid, he can sure fool the fools who donate money to Cornell now. He's a straight white male, but one of those bowtie-wearing lovable ones, not like our past presidents who have led us to such ruin.
Renee Alexander
S
ince the trustees' next 50-year plan calls for Cornell to transition from an Ivy League university to a multi-culti sleep away camp, who better to lead us than current diversity czar Renee Alexander? Plus, she's doing a great job of facilitating one-sided dialogue from a center that no one knows exists, having the perfect amount of melanin, and not being male.
G
ood God no. Another Cornellian, but I'm pretty sure our students already have all the free birth control they can handle.
Charles Krauthammer
W
hen he gave a lecture at Cornell last month, for the brief time he was on campus, he was the smartest person on campus. A guy can dream, right?
Wayne Clough
C
ornell and the Smithsonian just swap presidents.
College Craziness Continues
We promised an Ivy League Roundup, but (fortunately) not every Ivy delivered. However, Ivyism is really just leftism, and leftism can be found wherever college students are.
W
estern Washington University's primary interest lies not in education, but in its racial makeup. “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?’” So goes the third question from Western Washington University’s communications and marketing department’s school-wide questionnaire. Ostensibly, this was part of university president Bruce Shepard’s anti-white student campaign, which according to him has been a “failure." Remarkable: failure after instituting mandatory sensitivity training and initiatives to specifically hire factuly of color! Perhaps Mr. Shepard could do a favor to all the oppressed people of Washington state and reduce the whiteness on his campus by resigning.
N
YU’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) cell slipped “fake eviction notices” under the doors of students' dorm rooms the night of April 23, informing them that they had to move out by the by the 25th because their building would be demolished. According to NYUSJP, which calls Israel a “colonial” state that prospers exclusively at the expense of exploited Palestinians, this stunt was supposed to make NYU students empathize with Palestinians. One can’t help but wonder how NYUSJP students would feel if pro-Israel students in equally poor tast lobbed “fake rocket bombs” (i.e. rocks) at them to make them empathize with Israelis victimized by terroristic violence?
CR
8
May 5, 2014
National
"War" just a political ploy
Continued from the front page Some more hypocrisy: while Fluke and others so strongly push for the government to provide these services for reproductive health, there is a strong opposition to government involvement in reproductive health in regard to any possible anti-abortion legislation. Another thought: does being pro-life mean being antiwomen’s rights? Arguably, the prochoice stance is more damaging to women. Abortion kills thousands of unborn girls every day, and the damage goes beyond the unborn child, as abortion is also detrimental to the health of the mother. Apparently, only when it is convenient should the government become involved and not only permit but also provide financial support for these services. Contraception and reproductive health services issues are not unique to women, but of concern for both genders. They are also rejected by many followers of certain religious beliefs. It is an injustice to forcibly subject these individuals and their businesses to supply services they fundamentally disagree with. Endless problems stem from Fluke’s and the feminist crowd’s ideas. One of the greater issues with the “war on women” is the weight that is placed on these issues related primarily to female reproductive health, which implies that these issues are more important to women than issues such as our crumbling economy, the overall health care crisis, foreign policy, etc. This, while most likely not the intention of the feminist movement or the desires of Sandra Fluke, is most detrimental to the image of women. At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Sarah Palin touched on this idea in saying “Hey, Democrats, it’s your leaders who are demeaning to women. Liberals seem to think that the women of America are cheap dates, you know? Feed ‘em a few lines about that free birth control; throw in some scary quotes about the war on women and they will be yours.” By suggesting that the most important issues for women pertain to
CR
reproduction and that these are the only issues that need attending to in order to secure their votes, these “war on women” decriers are insulting and demeaning women’s intelligence, dignity, and ability to think independently. This “war on women” is something recently created and hyped up by the Obama administration in order to impose fear of the Republican Party and to maintain the majority of the female vote, as it had in both presidential elections. Women, in the minds of current lawmakers, seem to not be capable of thinking about anything other than their ability to reproduce. This idea is furthered by anyone who buys into it – female Obama voters who fell for his oh-so-sincere concern to combat the Republicans’ supposed war on women are actually indirectly contributing to a larger problem. If there is a "war on women" in the
Suffragettes rally not for privilege, but for equality: "Woman's Cause is Man's, They Rise Or Fall Together"
conservatism does not fall within the requirements. Furthermore, conservatives have very little freedom to critique politicians with questionable policies and viewpoints without being called racist, sexist, classist, anti-immigrant, etc. So why are comments by Democrats on women such as Sarah Palin in regard to family, motherhood, and personal life acceptable? Equally as ridiculous are claims that conservative women themselves are waging this "war on women," as re-
“This furthers the fact that women’s issues are everyone’s issues, and everyone’s issues are women’s issues. ” U.S., it is this deception, or the intended deception, of female voters, and the belief that in order to win a female majority in an election a politician must simply allude to her endangered reproductive rights. If a politician, group, or individual is looking to fight a war, there are plenty more urgent issues that could be examined for a greater purpose, not simply for political means. The increasing war on free speech, especially in relation to conservatism, is an increasingly dangerous and devastating problem. Even here at Cornell, students have claimed to be affected negatively for voicing certain opinions that are considered less acceptable and less commonly held. Cornell claims to be among the most diverse, accepting, and dynamic learning environments in the world, yet there is an overwhelmingly apparent fear for certain groups to voice their opinions. Evidently, only opinions that fall within a certain set of restrictions are acceptable, and
cently seen in the attacks on Michigan's Secretary of State and GOP Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land (who cleverly responded with an ad wordlessly refuting this nonsensical claim). Land went on to demonstrate the hypocrisy of these claims and that other issues often overlooked are more detrimental than those most talked about. “Well, the reality is, the real war on women is the fact that we have Obamacare,” Land said. “It’s actually going to the point where women can’t have the doctors that they want, senior women can’t have the plans that they want—whether it’s Medicaid or Medicare, they’re cutting the costs there…where families are worried about the ability to have an affordable plan, where they’re losing their plans in Michigan—that’s the real war on women,” she asserted. This furthers the fact that women’s issues are everyone’s issues, and everyone’s issues are women’s issues. Women share issues with men
and are not immune or more exposed to certain policies, and a good example of this is Land’s example of Obamacare’s detrimental effects not only on women, but also on men and families. Focus should shift to the real and urgent deprivation of women’s rights in places such as Afghanistan, where under Taliban rule women are denied rights to education or work; or in places like India and China, where the atrocity of female infanticide and foeticide (selective, gender-based abortion) are norms in these highly patriarchal societies. Comparing these issues to Fluke’s whines and demands for free contraceptives puts everything into perspective, and adds to the embarrassment of this phony movement to overcome the nonexistent war on women by Republicans. This movement is dangerous and counterproductive, and the focus by politicians, feminist groups, and others on securing the votes of women based on such narrow issues is demeaning and insulting. The deception of this administration targeted at women is extremely hypocritical, and should be used as an indicator that something is not quite right, and that we should be looking beyond this façade at what is really going on in our very damaged country. It should be known that women are indeed smart enough to look past distraction and care about and understand all issues, not just “women’s issues.” As Carly Fiorina, chair of the American Conservative Union Foundation and co-chair of CPAC nicely sums it up: “All issues are women’s issues.” Laura Gundersen is a freshman in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.
National
May 5, 2014
9
Main Stream Media Bias: Sarah Palin vs. Wendy Davis Mirror, mirror on the wall, Who's the fairest of them all?
Casey Breznick National News Editor
I
t’s a tale of two politicians: both are alluring females from politically diverse states who skyrocketed to national fame from out of nowhere. They each have their loyal, die-hard supporters, and they each have their relentless detractors. They each have political victories under their belts, but they each have personal blemishes. Why, then, is one a championed media darling and the other a target of vitriolic and sometimes disgusting criticism? The answer is simple. One is Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, a liberal Democrat. The other is former Alaskan governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican.
of the Texas border counties where large numbers of socially conservative Catholic Latinos live. However, to the main stream media such aspects of female Democratic candidacy are irrelevant. They shield Davis from any and all criticism by playing the sexism card, but slip out the back door when it comes to defending female conservatives like Palin. Worse, they even join in on the bashing or initiate it. Davis is the nation’s “conscience on abortion” according to The Daily Beast, Palin a “dumb twat” and a “c*nt” according to Bill Maher, ’78. Davis’s media acolytes furiously defend her and her serial flip-flops on her party alignment (previous to running for office she was a registered Republican), Second Amendment rights, and abortion. They dissipate criticism of or questioning of
“The result is that political double standards and journalistic double standards become indistiguishable. ” It has become glaringly apparent that the pro-liberal Democrat, anti-conservative Republican main stream media—the supposedly objective print, television, and digital entertainment-news sources that tried earnestly to destroy Sarah Palin—is now protecting Wendy Davis. She does need all the protection and allies she can get. Her Republican challenger, former state attorney general Republican Greg Abbot, holds a double-digit lead over her, according to a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling. This comes after Abbot receiving almost 800,000 more votes than Wendy in their parties’ primaries in March, which was due to more Republicans than Democrats coming out to vote. Davis’s claim to fame was her 11hour filibuster in the Texas senate to protest the passage of a bill that would impose new regulations on abortion clinics and ban abortions after 20 weeks. The bill eventually became law, but Davis has since not looked back as she rises to liberal stardom. Naturally, social conservatives found her defense of abortion abhorrent and fiscal conservatives and libertarians found her defense of government-financed abortions abhorrent. However, Davis has since clarified (i.e. flip-flopped) her position saying she could accept a post20 week abortion ban, finding that provision of the bill she filibustered the “least objectionable." In reality, this was due to her not carrying any
her parenting ethic and her relationships with former husbands. The Guardian called these attacks and investigations spearheaded by a Dallas Morning Star editorialist sexist – not even diversionary or irrelevant, which is the type of rebuttal that would be expected. MSNBC went as far as sweeping under the rug any criticism of Davis’s personal affairs, calling them all sexist. Meanwhile, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called Palin “profoundly stupid” because of her fumbles and gaffes during her interview with Katie Couric. Matthews has a history of making callous and sometimes sexist remarks, including ones regarding Hillary Clinton, and zany on-air ramblings about women he finds attractive, such as Michelle Obama and Brittney Spears. In the hours following the announcement of her vice presidential candidacy, nearly all elements of the mainstream media had a field day with John McCain’s choice of a “former beauty queen," not the thencurrent governor of Alaska. As governor, Palin cut federal earmarks by 80%, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere; pushed for renewable energy growth; and ditched amenities like a private jet and chef. Most in the leftist media ignored these accomplishments. Instead, the TMZstylized news media was more apt to make allegations that Palin’s youngest child with Down syndrome was actually her eldest daughter’s child.
Such is what those obsessed with soap opera politics want to hear. One of Davis’s actual major problems is her lack of definite ideology. Her campaign website offers a few pithy paragraphs on four issues – education, the economy, government accountability, and veteran services. Her plan to provide exclusively Texas businesses state contracts is decidedly anti-free market, and her plans for education and veteran services are coded language for more spending. But she irked her liberal base by supporting local authority when it comes to gun rights, and as mentioned she backtracked on her abortion stance. In sum, Davis is only going as left as a Texan can. When conservatives like Erick Erickson call Davis an “abortion baby” or a “Barbie," they invite the media’s hasty characterization of all conservatives as holding such views. This is damaging to the conservative-libertarian ideological battle against liberalism and progressivism, and it hurts Republicans in elections. Ultimately, because Davis’s husbands and children are satisfied with her choices regarding them, everyone else should drop the issue. That Davis lied about her biography is significant and it casts doubt on her integrity, but it’s not a definitive issue. Unlike Senator Elizabeth Warren who faked claims of Native American heritage, Davis didn’t use discrepancies and lies to directly advance her career. By employing character assassination, spreading rumors, and passing parody as fact, the liberal media machine ground Palin’s image and credibility into a laughable pulp. This is neither to say Palin was without fault. The point is that now, not only have liberals concocted the false narrative of conservatives waging a “war on women," they have
managed to uphold this narrative while levying ruthless attacks on female conservatives. Case in point: just last year Martin Bashir of MSNBC said on his show that Palin “truly qualified” for someone to “sh*t in [her] mouth” after she made comments about slavery he did not like. No widespread outrage was expressed in main stream media. Several months ago, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas uploaded a video of Battleground Texas volunteers, supports of Davis’s campaign, mocking Greg Abbot for being wheelchair-bound. Again, the media’s uproar was conspicuously absent. Imagine if Bill O’Reilly or Tea Party activists had made similar comments about Davis or any other Democrat. Surely, the collective rage would swallow the Earth whole. In the main stream media, the degree of gushy praising or vitriolic criticism in its coverage is a function of the degree of perceived political sameness between their subject and themselves. Thus, the same institutions and people, like MSNBC and Bill Maher, that relentlessly defend Davis relentlessly ridiculed Palin (and they continue to do so). The main problem is that most of these organizations falsely promote objectivity in their reporting, and the gullible masses often believe them. The result is that political double standards and journalistic double standards become indistinguishable. Only if the public rebels against the blind consumption of main stream news and entertainment media will objectivity and civility in reporting and commentary be restored. Casey Breznick is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.
CR
10
National
May 5, 2014
Bitcoin Uncertainty Continued from page 4 market. It was the eBay of illicit goods and activities, where anything was for sale, and by anything I mean: laptops, cell phones, drugs, weapons, and lives. But mostly drugs. Since its founding in 2011, the Silk Road had experienced around $15 million worth of transactions every year, of which it is estimated about 70% was drug related. All of these transactions were carried out using bitcoins, due to the anonymity and lack of regulation this payment method provides. However, in late 2013, the FBI raided the home of 29-year old Ross Ulbricht, who is believed to be the infamous “Dread Pirate”, founder of the Silk Road. The FBI shut down the Silk Road, and are currently trying Ulbricht for drug trafficking, computer hacking, and money laundering. Soon after the shutdown, the price of bitcoins skyrocketed, possibly due to some combination of its newfound publicity as the Signature Currency of Criminals and the fact that the FBI seized about 144,000 of them, worth about $28.5 milion at the time, in the Silk Road Shutdown. Soon after this skyrocket to $1000 bitcoin holders experienced a sobering halving of the price to about $500. The Silk Road has since been rebooted by unknown others into Silk Road 2.0, but Bitcoin has been seemingly unable to recover. While its popularity still holds and more and more businesses are beginning to accept it as payment, its value is still volatile and trending toward a decline.
Mt. Gox, one of the world's largest bitcoin “banks” and exchanges, recently disappeared from the Internet in late February, taking most of its stored bitcoins with it. This came on the heels of frequent allegations of fraudulent conduct. It seems there may exist a potential flaw in the Bitcoin protocol, one which could potentially result in outright theft. The United States government, for one, has begun to regulate the online currency, beginning to take away what was potentially one of its draws in the first place–its existence outside of government regulation. As a final nail in Bitcoin's coffin, it seems the currency's criminal reputation has begun to taint it: when the man who most sources identify as the creator of Bitcoin, Japanese programmer Satoshi Nakamoto, was asked to comment on the currency, he refused to acknowledge any involvement with or knowledge about it. Bitcoin's reputation, value, and purpose are all dying. The Bitcoin Empire is in decline. As the promise of Bitcoin fades away, we are left to wonder if a free, unregulated market can exist. And if it can, can it exist without a criminal underbelly, or are the two inextricably linked? And if that is so, how can it survive and how long can it last before it is torn down?
Not So Itty Bitty Bitcoin-y Facts So far the number of bitcoins that have been mined is 12,696,175. The alltime high price of a single bitcoin was $1,126.82 on Nov. 30, 2012.
Paying one semester of Cornell tuition ($63,604) would cost 140 bitcoins. The bitcoins seized from Silk Road represented 1.2% of all those in circulation.
Nathaniel Hunter is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu
Compiled by Nathaniel Hunter
Debate About Government's Role, Not Pot Continued from the front page that marijuana was far more dangerous and unhealthy than Myrick suggested, even though the mayor so quotably remarked: “I’m here to tell you that drugs are bad.” The student debaters gave a
manufacture and sale of marijuana
government: on Myrick’s side, a
morally wrong? Ultimately that
products, and this would be so
government which legislates based
was the problem the debate really
obviously reprehensible.
on rights, and on the Forensics
centered on and the problem we
Society’s side, a government
are still faced with here. Marijuana
of the anti-legalization argument
which legislates based on ethics.
usage has not been shown to be any
was the argument that upon the
Myrick has decided, rightfully, that
real detriment at all to the rights of
legalization of marijuana drug
criminalizing marijuana oversteps
the general populace. If anything,
Probably the most salient point
cartels would not simply disappear.
the bounds of proper government,
its criminalization has been far
laundry list of potential symptoms
Instead, they would regroup, and
which should only aim to secure
more damaging. So it really is a
of marijuana overuse that ranged
begin to market their product to
the rights of its citizens. Reddy and
moral question: is buying, selling,
from hallucinations to depression to
younger children, who still would
Lee, on the other hand, seemed
and using marijuana ethically or
birth defects.
not be able to purchase legal
to have decided that it is the
morally right? That doesn’t seem to
marijuana if it were to be regulated
government’s job not to guarantee
be the government’s business. As
to legalization—the side that would
as tobacco and alcohol are. While
rights, but to enforce a set of ethical
long as a person’s decisions do not
generally be aligned with traditional
this sounds a bit fatalistic, it does
standards. Under this scheme,
impinge upon the rights of others,
conservatism—used some of the
make a good point: drug cartels
because government believes drug
the government has no place being
most anti-corporate language in the
have far too much infrastructure to
use is unethical it does not allow its
involved.
debate. Reddy and Lee both argued
simply give up their business. They
citizens to do it.
that if marijuana were legalized, Big
will not go quietly into the night.
Ironically enough, the opposition
or similar corporate CRTobacco entities would take over
During the debate there seemed to be two competing theories of
This is the question to ponder:
Nathaniel Hunter is a freshman
does the government have the right
in the College of Arts & Sciences. He
to tell us what is morally right or
can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu
National
May 5, 2014
11
University Condemns Newspaper Continued from page 4
articles may contain satire, no indi-
other “self-martyred Breitbart wan-
vidual stories carry any disclaimers.
na-bes." He indicated particular
According to Geiger, the pur-
disgust at the aforementioned cap-
pose of this photo was to question
tion and the allegations levied on
the administration’s stance on racial
the faculty and administration, call-
equality. Geiger has taken issue with
ing the newspaper’s writers racists
institutionalized
ac-
and comparing them to the Ku Klux
tion at colleges and the insulation of
Klan. The professor also wrote in
UMM’s administration in “a large-
the same blog post: “Treat their scat-
affirmative
ly white rural community” despite claiming to “[care] so much about racial equality” in the context of the Trayvon Martin case.
tered papers as hate-filled trash and
In response to what was most likely satire on the part of the NorthStar, across blogs posts dated from Nov. 22, 2013, to April 16, 2014, Myers labeled the NorthStar “a disgrace” and an “evil rag” written by “right wing genius” Geiger and
ter to the local newspaper the Morris
dispose of it appropriately.” On Nov. 29, UMM’s Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson submitted a letSun Tribune (which has a business partnership with the NorthStar) clarifying the NorthStar’s views are not reflective of the university’s and that the university does not fund the operation. Johnson called the
NorthStar’s critique of the administration a “hateful attack." Several weeks ago Johnson, prompted by the marker defacements, sent an email to students and faculty at UMM indicating the illegality of damaging and stealing property. Geiger noted that Johnson did not explicitly condemn the theft. “So you clearly have someone who is ready to condemn our actions, but not the actions of those who try and silence us. It's really kind of sad,” Geiger said of Chancellor Johnson. In recent blog posts, Myers has continued to write about the ordeal from his own end. He reported receiving formal inquiries from the ADF; having his Miranda rights read to him by campus police; and
receiving phone calls from Fox News reporters. All the while, Myers has maintained innocence in the theft, vandalizing, and censorship of the NorthStar. In a blog post dated April 16, Myers criticized Fox News’s Todd Starnes, who broke the story on the national scene. In criticizing Starnes and listing his grievances against the NorthStar, Myers did write “I advocate kicking such behavior off the campus altogether.” Whether or not a lawsuit will come to be remains unknown, but in the mean time both Geiger and Myers will continue publishing. Casey Breznick is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.
More recently censored conservative student newspapers University of Massachusetts Amherst
Georgetown University
After an article published in The Minuteman criticized by name Vanessa Snow, the school's Student Government Association (SGA) leader, Snow stood on top of a stack of the newspapers and grabbed copies out of the hands of students. Then the SGA Senate passed a resolution suspending from campus the newspaper's publisher, Silent Majority, until it addressed the paper's representation of SGA members. It was not until the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education got involved that the adminstration rebuked the ban and held Snow accountable for theft.
Though a private university's privately published newspaper, Georgetown's The Hoya has recently come under fire from conservative journalists and activists because editor David Wong kicked out conservative columnist Robert Swope for articles he wrote that angered campus feminists (not a hard thing to do).
Oregon State University Oregon State University was found guilty at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for censoring The Liberty and was forced to pay former student William Rogers $101,000 -$1,000 for damages and $100,000 for legal fees. In 2009, the university adminstration removed the newspaper's distribution boxes from campus and threw them into a trash heap at the edge of campus (pictured right). The university still maintains no wrongdoing, claiming the act was part of a campus "beautification" project, even though the distribution boxes of other campus publications remained intact.
Compiled by Casey Breznick
blog.cornellreview.com
CR
12
May 5, 2014
Wisemen & Fools I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. Benjamin Franklin I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. William F. Buckley The world's biggest problem is the unequal distribution of capitalism. If there were capitalism everywhere, you wouldn't have food shortages. Rush Limbaugh Seniors love getting junk mail. It's sometimes their
only way of communicating or feeling like they're part of the real world. Harry Reid History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. Ronald Reagan A people that values its prvilieges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening. Most people never listen. Ernest Hemingway Isn't that amazing to think of? [Greg Abbot is] in a wheelchair and we want to
Read archived issues online at
stand with Wendy [Davis]? Unidentified Battleground Texas volunteer
Award for his generoisty, inspiration and leadership. NAACP
We, the Concerned Asian, Black, Latin@, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students at Dartmouth College, seek to eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus. These systems--which include racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism-are deployed at Dartmouth and beyond as forms of institutional violence. We demand that Dartmouth challenge these systems by redistributing power and resources in a way that is radically equitable. Opening lines from Dartmouth students' "Freedom Budget"
It doesn't matter if a cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice. Deng Xiaoping
The NAACP is proud to honor Donald T. Sterling [a] 2014 Lifetime Achievement
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. Jean-Paul Sartre Whatever crushes individualism is despotism. John Stuart Mill Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change Barack change Obamachange
thecornellreview.com
Join the Review. CR
Come to Goldwin Smith 156, Tuesdays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu