Cornell Review XXXIII #1

The Cornell Review "We Do Not Apologize."

An Independent Publication vol. xxxiii, no. i

blog.thecornellreview.com

BLOG

The Freshmen Issue True or False: Israel Edition

3

Role of Due Process in Campus Rape Cases Israel-Hamas Conflict

4

Cornell’s Role in Facebook Study

Interview with the President of Cornell College Republicans

5

6-7 10 11 Summer Review Ithaca’s Ferguson Moment

Students for Justice in Palestine Protest

thecornellreview.com

SITE

September 7, 2014

Welcome, Class of 2018

INSIDE:

2

The Conservative Voice on Campus

Who, Conservatives What, at Why: Cornell Casey Breznick Editor-in-Chief

F

irst, I’m going to make an assumption about you, and then you can make an assumption about me.

My assumption: As a Cornell freshman, you are smart, curious, and scared.

Your assumption: As a Cornell conservative, I am stupid, close-minded, and scared.

The more astute reader will realize I actually made both assumptions, but I think you get my point. To be a conservative—or a libertarian, as I politically identify myself—at college is certainly not easy, for it carries a lot of undeserved baggage.

However, why would I, or any of you, with great intellect and energetic, inquiring minds want to get by easily? Or want anything but a challenge? To maintain, cultivate, and mature one’s beliefs and ideas about politics, economics, and the like at Cornell, or at any college campus, is an enormous feat. To do so in the conservative or libertarian paradigm is a near-Sisyphean struggle, but it is definitely worth it.

So, to all the conservatives, libertarians, neoclassicists, Republicans, and those who are decidedly not liberal or progressive in the Class of 2018, I offer an unparalleled opportunity.

The Cornell Review is the campus’s only conservative-libertarian publication, and it is your avenue and tool by which to express the beliefs and opinions you know are true but are assaulted, maligned, and countered everyday on campus.

Whether these ideas or beliefs pertain to politics, economics, philosophy, or culture, the Review is your solace and springboard to hone your writing and debating skills and in turn defend your beliefs to a wide readership of people who mostly disagree with you.

Though we purport to be the “Conservative Voice on Campus,” this publication has no set ideology. Indeed, our current

staff varies from libertarians to paleoconservatives. There is no litmus test, no battery of policy questions given to new members to determine if they “fit in.” Chances are, if you’re still reading this, you do fit in.

And no, we’re not all Republicans and we do not necessarily support the Republican Party.

No doubt you have heard the horror stories of the domineering and sometimes crazed liberal presence at colleges and universities, especially at the Ivies. It is all true. Among students and faculty, liberalism and progressivism reign, with the occasion socialist and communist thrown in to spice things up. I suspect you are already familiar with them—the Ivory Tower Intellectual Limousine Liberal types.

Otherwise put, the overwhelming majority of people you will meet at Cornell are those whose political ideology is captured by the umbrella term “leftist”—that is, any of the following: liberal, progressive, or socialist (Democrats, too, but that is a political party, not an ideology).

The Cornell Review is comprised of individuals who are the exact opposite: conservatives and libertarians. Whereas leftists are collectivist, we are individualist. Whereas they are close-minded and perform groupthink, we are open-minded and prone to debate each other as much as we debate them.

Whereas leftists seek to drum up controversy at every opportunity, we seek to ascertain a rational understanding of reality, current events, and contentious issues.

I could go on. Indeed, as you read other campus publications this year, talk to friends and classmates, and listen to some professors, and then read this newspaper occasionally, you will learn for yourself the truth of my statements above.

Before I go on, I need to make an important disclaimer: I am not here to victimize myself or any other Cornell conservative. To be frank, the hardships any of us might endure are manageable, if they even are true hardships. Most of the

Continued on page 10

National

2

ISIS , The US , and The Forever Wars Two Perpetual Wars Are Unfolding on Familiar Turf in the Middle East

Roberto Matos Staff Writer The Revolt Against Civilization

W

hile many in the Western intelligentsia inveighed against Israel’s offensive against Gaza in July, a far bloodier ordeal gripped the countrysides of Syria and Iraq.

A wayward cult of Sunni militia made its way across Northern and Western Iraq, razing villages, seizing American-made munitiations, capturing strategic garrisons and sending the largely Shiite Iraqi army (such that it is) in a tail-spin.

Ancient Christian communities - predating the arrival of Islam in Iraq - were systematically terrorized and massacred, with members of the Islamic State gleefully showcasing their gorry handy-work on social media. Crucifictions and beheadings of Christians, Shiite Arabs, Sunni Kurds and Yazidis left little doubt about the manancial nature of the Islamic State’s intentions. The death toll has surpassed several thousand in Iraq since early June. The death toll in the mirroring Syria conflict is rapidly approaching 200,000.

Despite reports that the Islamic State (IS, also know as ISIS or ISIL) is meeting reversals at the hands of American airstrikes and hard-nosed Kurdish counteroffensive, this well-funded, well-trained, and well-armed group of 17,000 self-described “holy warriors” shows little sign of abating in its quest to establish its draconian “Islamic Caliphate.”. Under this regime, all opposition is to be swiftly crushed, with little regard for human compassion, and with utter contempt for the laws of war.

Painful Irony The Islamic State’s base of operations, Syria, will remain a refuge for its fighters IS regardless of what occurs in Iraq. IS now guards its front against the equally ruthless Bashar Al-Assad. Because its stronghold in Eastern Syria is far less tenuous than is its control in Northern and Western Iraq, US military and intelligence officials are now recommending airstrikes against Syria’s Sunni extremists.

Because such intervention would undoubtedly divert pressure from the Syrian despot’s Iranian-backed regime in Syria, the thought of intervention in Syria against IS can be greeted with a chuckle. After all, just one year ago, the US was considering intervening on behalf of some of these very same anti-Assad rebels, who’ve become more radicalized in the year since.

The Western world once stood ready to punish Assad. Now it stands ready to wage war against the dictator’s Assad’s enemies in Syria. This news comes to the delight of Iran’s Shiite proxies throughout the region (namely Hezbollah), who would love nothing more than to see the United States fight against a bitter Sunni rival.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely chuckling as well. A year ago, he warned that opposing Assad in Syria would merely empower the most radical elements in the region. His prediction proved correct. For all its faults, the Assad regime is one of the few forces of stability in this troubled region. American foreign policy analysts and pundits are now cringing, since they are now forced to flirt with the notion of partnering with the loathsome Assad against a more ferocious enemy. Putin and the Iranians are chuckling again.

With the “moderates” in Syria besieged from both the Assad regime and the Islamic State, American officials are still considering subsidizing these enfeebled groups, even though they have little potential of gaining traction and recruits. The Islamic State is gaining ground every day, while the “moderate”, Western-backed rebels cower, with little chance of retaking either Homes or Aleppo.

As noted by Fareed Zekeriya, in his Washington Post article “the Fantasy of Middle Eastern Moderates”: “the moderates [aren’t] that moderate. As they [become] authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements [grow] and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS [gain] tacit or active support.”

Zekeriya argues that, in a context of misery and hateful violence, “moderates” don’t thrive. They merely become extreme, or they get overshadowed.

As the bloodbath intensifies in Syria, another Putin prediction proves correct. The Arab Spring in Syria was hardly a struggle for democracy. It was, and is, part of a sectarian power struggle between Iranian-backed Shiite forces on one side and Arabian-backed Sunni extremists on the other. It has nothing to do with the traditional Western notions of “freedom” or “liberty.”

Continued on page 8

ISIS Stats

13,000

Square miles thought to be under direct control of ISIS

30,000-50,000

Estimated number of soldiers fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria

5

$2,000,000,000

0

300

Number of nations with which ISIS has had direct combat: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, & Turkey Number of openly practicing Christians thought to be left in Mosul

Approximate value of ISIS’s cash and assets

Low-end estimate of number of Yazidi women taken as sexual slaves by ISISI Numbers courtesy of The Huffington Post

(Thanks Nate)

Israel in the Eyes of the United States Laura Gundersen Managing Editor

I

srael has recently been the focal point of much unfound criticism, new anti-Semitism, and groundless assumption in the U.S., and our leaders have chosen to be less than supportive--to say the least--of our ally as it continues in its struggles with Palestine.

Anti-Israel protests and sentiments are on the rise across the world, even in this country. Yet, the reasons many people give for this rising tide of so-called anti-Zionism are the products of ignorance. Those uneducated about the conflict assume that Israeli forces are the evil ones in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, without understanding the full story. This unfortunate belief is infecting the country, and creating an enormous amount of fear and hatred toward the country struggling to defend and protect its people.

This unsubstantiated dialogue thrives in the White House. Our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused Israel of disrespect, stating “We

encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.” Meanwhile, Clinton seems to believe that she has control over Israel’s decision-making as she recently spent

walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family,” as reported by The Telegraph.

Further, according to Fox News reporter Anne Bayefsky, “President Obama denied Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request to meet with him in September, despite the Iranian peril” and “President Obama’s UN ambassa-

“Yet, the reasons many people give for this rising tide of so-called anti-Zionism are the products of ignorance. ” 42 minutes on the phone attempting to stop construction in East Jerusalem, to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not comply. Great idea for Hillary, considering her own actions.

President Obama, too, has shown incredible disrespect for Mr. Netanyahu. For example, in March Obama left the Prime Minister “to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly

dor, Susan Rice, didn’t even attend the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly in September – during which he made a plea for global attention to the Iranian threat.”

These are only a few examples of the poor treatment of a close ally, and a demonstration of how this administration is causing US-Israeli relations to deteriorate. While traveling the world kissing the feet of our enemies and

insulting our friends, Obama and his administration continue to weaken our reputation as a global world power, as well as the perception of Israel in the public eye.

Resentment toward Israeli policies can be seen in recent, often anti-Semitic protests and social media activity, for example. Celebrities, too, are becoming involved, with the recurring “#SavePalestine” tweets and more anti-Israel demonstrations.

Most recent claims against Israel are simply untruthful. One claim: Israel is an apartheid state.

First, apartheid in South Africa was a legal system developed to segregate whites and blacks, and involved separate schooling systems, beaches, living regions, and hospitals. Non-whites were not allowed to vote or run a business in white areas, and they were surely not allowed to participate freely in government. The facilities assigned to nonwhites were often far inferior to those supplied to whites, and the entire effort

Continued on page 10

The Cornell Review

Founded 1984 -> Incorporated 1986

Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter Founders Casey Breznick Editor-in-Chief

Mark LaPointe President

Laura Gundersen Managing Editor

Nathaniel Hunter Treasurer, Editor

Staff Writers Roberto Matos Andress Sellitto

Contributors Christopher Nowacki Alexis Cashman

National

The Campus Rape Epidemic Cure: Eradicating Due Process of the Accused Nathaniel Hunter Treasurer, Editor

O

ne could mark the Duke Lacrosse Scandal of 2006 as the beginning of “The Campus Rape Epidemic” — or, at least, it was the first time everyone started talking about it. Since the Duke verdict was laid down in early 2007 (as an ironic aside: it should be noted that the Duke lacrosse players were in fact falsely accused, or so the courts ruled), ‘rape culture’ has become all most feminists can talk about — besides The Patriarchy, that is.

In 2011, “The Campus Rape Epidemic” boiled over. The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education issued the “Dear Colleague” letter, which invoked Title XI, calling sexual assault a form of sexual discrimination ( just think for a moment about how suspect that logic is), and urging colleges to crack down on campus sexual assault.

Now, the sentiment of the anti-sexual assault crusade is a nice one. Sexual assault is, obviously, a very bad thing, and it should not be tolerated. However, the anti-sexual assault crusade is like pret-

may very well be based on bad facts and worse statistics, but who cares? Is it not still doing good on college campuses nationwide? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: sexual assault is an intolerable evil. Why shouldn’t we do whatever we can to put an end to it? And in that sense, I can’t blame the crusaders.

However, the truly frightening part of the anti-sexual assault is not my first criticism; it’s not the movement’s poor foundations. It’s my second criticism: the campaign against sexual assault has very quickly devolved into a witch hunt.

Since the Dear Colleague letter, campuses have in fact begun to crack down on campus rape, and so far they’ve mostly done so by cracking down on the due process rights of the accused. Most colleges rely on their own tribunals to try sexual assault cases, rather than sending alleged offenders to court. Post2011, these tribunals have gone from a bit inept and ill-equipped to deal with major cases (they lack the powers and resources of legitimate courts and police departments) to inept, ill-equipped, and outright unjust.

Board of Directors

Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Anthony Santelli Jr.

“The campaign against sexual assault has very quickly devolved into a witch hunt.”

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 regularly meets on Tuesdays at 5 pm in 162 Goldwin Smith.

E-mail messages should be sent to

cornellreview@cornell.edu

Copyright © 2014 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

3

ty much every liberal feminist crusade in two crucial aspects: first, it’s based on faulty premises and tenuous-at-best logic, and second, it has very quickly devolved into a witch hunt.

You may have noticed that I’ve already pointed out some of those faulty premises and bits of tenuous logic: the Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the event that introduced everyone to the “rape epidemic” was actually a case of false accusation.

And again, can you really call sexual assault sexual discrimination? Are muggings in New York City a form of racial discrimination? Just because something happens mostly to a certain demographic doesn’t mean it was motivated by prejudice. Correlation is not, in fact, causation.

But it goes deeper than that. The statistics feminists tout describing the supposed sexual assault epidemic on campuses nationwide — for example, the Campus Accountabiltiy and Safety Act’s claim that 1 in 5 female college students has been raped— have been shown time and time again to be incorrect and based on bad methodology. Most studies say that the number is more like 3-5%, roughly in line with nationwide rates. True, that rate could be lower, and should be zero, but there is almost certainly no “campus rape epidemic,” no more than there is a “nationwide rape epidemic.”

But now, I’ll offer a counterargument: Who cares, other than statisticians? The anti-sexual assault crusade

The injustices of the college tribunals are best enumerated by example.

All of the following cases actually occurred, and to make it challenging, I’ve limited myself to presenting cases that hit the news only this summer (this is, after all, the summer review edition): A student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, recently filed suit against the university for “pre-judgement” in his sexual assault trial. He was not given copies of case documents beforehand; he did not get to present key evidence in his defense; his testimony was repeatedly interrupted by the tribunal; and his questions were ignored.

Furthermore, the complaint against him never called what he allegedly did rape, assault, or even harassment. Despite never actually being accused, he was found “responsible”’ for sexual harassment and misconduct and forced to move off campus.

Also at UMass Amherst, a student was denied his degree a week from graduation, after the university decided to subject him to further discipline for a nearly 5-year-old sexual assault case, which his lawyer says was settled three years ago, in 2011.

At the University of Cincinnati, a student was subjected to a months-long disciplinary hearing, even after a grand jury refused to issue an indictment for sexual assault against him — which means that there was not even a preponderance of evidence in the case. The hearing then refused to allow the student to defend

himself, disallowed evidence the police found crucial in determining his innocence, refused his right to cross-examine witnesses, and gave the student redacted copies of reports.

At Yale, to be found ‘culpable’ of rape, the university needs only a preponderance of the evidence (that is, not 100%, not 99.99%, but 50.01% is proof of guilt).

The process also denies the accused the right to an attorney and the right to cross examine witnesses. Even under these measures, a student was found ”not culpable,” but the university issued a no-contact order against him anyway, and he was forced to attend “sexual assault training.”

An Occidental student was expelled for rape, even after being acquitted by the police. A professor said he fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he “had a high GPA in high school, was valedictorian, was on the water polo team, and came from ‘a good family.’”

I could continue with further examples, but I’d really rather not. I can only take so much. Each of these students has been permanently branded a rapist — or at least as someone ”mandated to attend sexual assault training” (which is practically just as bad), despite the fact that, in many cases, they were found not guilty by the actual justice system.

These violations of student rights will continue unabated unless someone acts. The recently announced Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a bipartisan bill deemed to be the be-all endall of campus sexual assault legislation, contains no protections for due process rights. If anything, it will encourage universities to keep on doing what they’re doing, and that’s no solution at all to a problem that very well merits one.

There are organizations out there fighting the good fight. For example, FIRE, the Foundations for Individual Rights in Education, primarily known for protecting students’ first ammendment rights by attacking restrictive university speech codes, has also been involved in many lawsuits regarding students’ due process rights.

My advice is twofold. For everyone reading this: call your congressman and tell him you’re concerned about due process in university trials of sexual assault. They might even listen. You could also get involved with FIRE (check out thefire.org), or even just read their well-updated blog.

And, for the men reading this: get to know a notary public and make sure you get that consent in writing. California, with its recently passed “Affirmative Consent” Bill, already basically requires students to do just that. And if you can’t beat ‘em, you might as well join them in making sex a real downer.

Nathaniel Hunter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu

The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor.

Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best suited for publication in the Cornell Daily Sun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words.

Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@cornell.edu.

National

4

Israel-Hamas Conflict A Big Red Brother Deadly Propaganda War Is Studying You Andres Sellitto Staff Writer

3

,055. That is the number of missiles Hamas launched into Israel since the current conflict between Israel and Hamas began on July 8, according to the Israel Security Agency. The Palestinian supporters will argue that these rockets are harmless in comparison to the high-technology arsenal the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) possesses. But facts and morality speak for themselves: there is no reasonable claim that can justify 3,055 promises of sheer murder that are day-after-day randomly cast upon Israeli children and women who are as innocent as any children and women of the Gaza Strip.

Keeping this in mind, we know that the main characteristic of the conflict the mainstream media has highlighted has been the alleged “asymmetry of powers” between Israel’s military and Hamas’ terrorist forces. Nevertheless, what the mainstream media and pro-Palestinian activists have not mentioned—and do not intend to—is the essential role of Hamas in the denial of peace.

weapons storage facilities and shelters for Hamas’ terrorist fighters.

In light of these truths, I ask you, the readers, especially those who find Israel at fault or in the morally inferior stance, a series of questions that you should probably keep in mind before choosing sides in a war that ultimately has no winners: Why has no one talked about the responsibility of Hamas in the deaths of their own people? Why has no one condemned the fact that these alleged “resistors” hide behind innocent women and children, using them as human shields, instead of fighting like real soldiers? Why has no one noted that Hamas has always been the first to attack, to breach 6 ceasefires in the 5 weeks of the conflict, and to foster martyrdom amongst little children as a glorified way to die?

Most of the critics of Israel place undue focus and scrutiny on Israel’s response to Hamas’ missile attacks. Yet, they ignore the fact that Hamas initiates every exchange of fire, and that unlike Israel, whose goal is self-defense and self-preservation, Hamas seeks to wipe out Israel.

According to Hamas’ Foundational Chart, “Israel will rise and will remain

“... the terrorists have time after time chosen to engage in the sacrifice of their people to annihilate another...”

Hamas, the elected leaders of the Gaza Strip, continue to indoctrinate Palestinian society with their anti-Israel, anti-Semitic clarion calls. This brainwashing fuels the passion of men, women, and, most egregiously, innocent children that both ensures Hamas’ continued power and the continuance of the deadly conflict with Israel.

Since the conflict’s beginning, Israel has targeted numerous weapon compounds spread across Gaza which were estimated by Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence) to contain at least 2.5 tons of warfare material. Shin Bet estimated the cost of those 2.5 tons of weapons to have cost several millions of dollars to procure, which sounds like a considerable amount of money spent on the glorification of death when the Palestinian people remain largely in poverty.

The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that when Hamas came to power in 2007 its annual budget was just $150 million; in 2014, it grew to an estimated $900 million. During the same time, Hamas’ civilian and military payroll swelled to $500 million as its number grew to 45,000, representing a nine-fold increase.

So where are the playgrounds, the schools, the hospitals that should have been built with the important amount of money that that the United States and other countries have given to support Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)? (The PLO is the terrorist organization that controls the West Bank, and that has been responsible of several attacks worldwide since the 1960s).

On top of everything, we learn that the schools and hospitals that actually stand there—mostly built by the United Nations as neutral places for learning and treatment—are constantly used as

erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

Now, why does no one notice the thirst of annihilation of terrorists whose only self-proclaimed purpose in life is the elimination of an entire country and its people, even if it means the sacrifice of their own people?

These rock-solid facts are indisputable, just as the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorism is indisputable, and just as the intentional overlooking of these facts by mainstream media is indisputable. The blood of thousands of people, and of their own people, is uniquely in Hamas’ hands.

The ball has been put in Israel’s court by the international community, but it should actually be on Hamas’ side. Israel bears the brunt of condemnation, and is forced to take blame for the entire conflict, when Hamas had, and still has, the key to peace.

Instead, the terrorists have time after time chosen to engage in the sacrifice of their people to annihilate another, while their leaders enjoy the sweet life of “yihading”—watching the conflict on TV from their five-star hotel rooms in Qatar, as anchors of Egyptian AlTahrir TV have repeatedly pointed out in a story covering the conflict. According to this Egyptian television coverage, leaders such as Ismail Haniyah and Mohammed Shtayyeh proudly pointed out the forced sacrifice of Gazans who climbed on top of building roofs to get hit by rocket fire, even after Israel Defence Forces had taken unprecedented measures to warn Gazans of upcoming rocket fire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a CNN interview on July 27th with Candy Crowley, asked something that people who choose to have

Continued on page 8

Cornell’s Involvment in Controversial Facebook Emotion Study Raises Ethical Dilemmas Mark LaPointe President

T

he Cornell Chronicle released an article this summer regarding a study about “emotional contagion” via Facebook. The article released on June 10 described a research project conducted

by Prof. Jeffrey Hancock and doctoral student Jamie Guillory (now attending University of California, San Francisco) of Cornell University and Facebook researchers that investigated the communicable effects of emotional manipulation on social media sites, particularly Facebook.

In the experiment, 689,003 of Facebook’s 1.3 billion users were presented with news feeds generated by a modified content selection algorithm. The modified algorithm reduced the amount of positive or negative content of a user’s news feed. The user’s following status updates were then analyzed to determine whether the change in news feed emotion correlated with a subsequent change in expressed user emotion.

But the study published June 2 entitled “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks” by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science-Social Science sparked quite a bit of controversy. For one, there was initial confusion about Cornell University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the study. Secondly, many Facebook users were surprised to find out that they had (or had not) agreed to participate in such studies when they signed up for Facebook. The seeming lack of “informed consent” gives rise to potential issues of mental and emotional health along with a concern for user privacy.

Of course, there was also the aspect of potential government involvement in the study as well.

Initially, Princeton University Prof.

Susan Fiske, who edited the study, expressed concern on whether the study was approved by Cornell’s IRB. In an article by The Atlantic, she noted that the Cornell researchers explained that the study was approved since “Facebook apparently manipulates people’s News Feeds all the time.” However, it was later clarified that Cornell IRB had approved the use of a “pre-existing dataset,” which implied that the data and the methods used to obtain it were already approved by another organization, presumably Facebook. The more significant implication of this statement is that it reveals the data had already been collected prior to Cornell IRB’s review.

A media statement released by the Cornell Media Relations Office confirmed that the IRB was consulted after the study had already taken place. However, the IRB defended the researchers by adding that no review of the study was required in the first place because the Cornell researchers involved had access only to the research results.

The trouble with Cornell IRB’s approval is that it unquestioningly accepted Facebook’s approval process. While the Cornell researchers did not have access to confidential user data in any way, the ethical validity of the study was left up to Facebook. As an independent review board, IRB would have been wiser to analyze the study independently and conduct the appropriate actions necessary if ethical issues were found.

The American Psychological Association (APA) requires informed consent,

Continued on page 9

National

No Stone Left Unturned: Armed With FATCA, IRS Now Has International Authority Casey Breznick Editor-in-Cheif

T

he U.S.’s newest export is its onerous tax law. Armed with FATCA— the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act—the IRS now has the power to access Americans’ foreign bank accounts in its crusade to reel in tax evaders.

FATCA was an amendment to the 2010 HIRE Act, quietly tacked on as a sure harbinger of government “revenues,” and became law July 1 of this year. This global tax law requires all Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) to report on all American accounts in excess of $50,000 or face a freeze out from access to U.S. financial markets, a disastrous consequence for financial institutions. If the FFIs do not turn over all American account information—account numbers, balances, names, addresses, and U.S. identification numbers—to the IRS, further punishment comes in the form of a 30% withholding tax on all U.S.-originated income.

(For further analysis of the finer tunings of this byzantine scheme consult white papers on the topic provided by the Tax Executive Institute.)

So far, over 80 countries and over 77,000 financial institutions have signed on to abide by FATCA, including notable tax havens like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Even Vladimir Putin

signed a law recognizing FATCA and mandating making Russia’s financial system become IRS-compliant, though Putin waited until only one day before the deadline.

FATCA is the latest, and seemingly most powerful, weapon in the IRS’s arsenal to enforce its system of taxing worldwide income. Along with the African country of Eritrea, which has a GDP per capita of $776, the U.S. is the only other country in the world to tax its citizens based on income they earn anywhere in the world.

Momentum for a law like FATCA

Expectedly. FATCA has financial institutions on edge. A Forbes article from 2011 claimed that compliance costs alone—not including penalties and fees—could amount to $100 million per institution regardless of any wrongdoing. A single overlooked, undeclared American account can trigger the 30% withholding tax on all of the FFI’s U.S. income. The fallout on the finance industry and the economy at large is incalculable, but almost certainly negative.

FATCA will pay for itself if it manages to bring in at least $800 million a year in tax receipts. However, the law was

“[FATCA] has augmented the IRS into a truly unprecedented international policing power, ...” can be traced back to an unprecedented 2009 deal struck between the U.S. government and Swiss bank UBS. The Swiss bank avoided criminal prosecution by agreeing to hand over account names suspected of belonging to U.S. tax evaders and by agreeing to pay the Department of Justice $780 million in fines. In May of this year, Credit Suisse paid $2.6 billion for similar charges. These number combined makes up about 1% of the estimated annual amount of money the US government misses out on due to tax evasion.

passed without a cost-benefit analysis or regulatory impact study, so it is unknown just what ramifications the law could have on US and foreign financial institutions.

Furthermore, even though it imparts massive power upon the IRS, the law is vague in regards to exactly whom it concerns. FATCA stipulates FFIs must turn over information on clients who are “US Persons,” a definition which includes green-card holders and non-citizens with financial ties to the U.S. In fact, the Economist quoted a tax professor from

5

McGill University saying even Canadian snowbirds spending enough time in the U.S. could be “caught in the net.”

The same article even questions the impact on the IRS itself, claiming that the agency might not have enough staff to deal with the mass influx of information from the FFIs. Those experiencing the immediate negative impact of FATCA are the 7 million American expats. Foreign banks are declining to accept new accounts from Americans living abroad, lest they face possible future fines, taxes, and regulatory costs. Perhaps most notably, Deutsche Bank is closing its U.S. accounts in countries like Belgium where it does not have enough of a presence to keep up with the increased compliance necessary to maintain these accounts.

Continued on page 8

Looking for a Grand Old Party on Campus?

Check Out Cornell’s College Republicans Get to know Cornell’s College Republicans club and its president for this year, junior Brandon Thompson.

In one sentence, how do you describe Cornell College Republicans?

Why should someone come to Cornell College Republicans meetings?

“We are dedicated to having stimulating discussion; engaged students; and powerful, thought-provoking lecturers and events that promote conservative principles on an otherwise predominantly left-leaning campus.”

“Why wouldn’t you want to? We are all fiscally attractive (terrible pun, I apologize) and throw a Grand Old Party. Seriously though, our events and speakers are second to none on campus and our meetings have insightful dialogue and debate from many different perspectives about current events and issues.”

What are some specific activities the Cornell College Republicans have done or participated recently?

How do you describe yourself politically?

“Over the past year we have hosted Herman Cain; Governor Jeb Bush; and Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, as well as participated in the 9/11 Memorial on the Arts Quad, the Ithaca Veteran’s of Foreign Wars parade, and a Typhoon Haiyan relief fundraiser among other events.”

What’s one word that describes College Republicans?

“Leaders.”

I am fiscally and socially conservative on most issues but can lean moderate depending on the issue and context. Generally speaking, my political philosophy can be summed up as: limited government, Judeo-Christian values, and individual liberty while keeping in mind the importance and value of the community.

What’s your favorite hobby, biggest interest, etc.?

Probably reading a good, long book; but, I'm also a huge sports fan and love playing/ watching football, soccer, volleyball, and Taekwondo. Tell me you're a Pittsburgh Steelers fan and we'll become friends pretty fast.

Thompson stands next to businessman and former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain after a Cornell College Republican event in 2013 that featured Cain as a speaker.

Who is (are) your role model(s)?

Winston Churchill and William Wilberforce. They were both great leaders and good men to emulate.

What’s your grade, school, and major, and hometown?

I am a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and am studying Government with a minor in Business. I currently live in Rumson, NJ (though I’ve lived in about nine states so I don’t really have a “hometown”).

Interview conducted by Casey Breznick.

Brandon Thompson can be reached at brt36@cornell.edu

6

National

4 1 0 2 w e R i E v e M R M n i U S Compiled by Casey Breznick

t no point during Summer 2014 was the news day not bursting at its seams with story after story concerning

Aevents occurring across the country and the world that were truly explosive, striking, and often unprecedented.

Narrowing it all down to a just a handful to present in this section of the paper was painful, to say the least. The topics presented here are just some of the biggest stories of Summer 2014, but it wasn’t until they were compiled that we noticed they all had one aspect in common: they continue to dominate headlines because they continue to influence the nation and in some cases the world. Finally, no Cornellian should go about his or her day without at least a cursory understanding of these extremely important events and topics.

Plane Shot Down Over Ukraine

During summer of 1980 the country asked “Who shot J.R.?”

During summer of 2014 the world asked “Who shot down the plane?” Only July 17 a surface-to-air missile shot down a Malaysian airliner flying over pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine. Most likely, pro-Russian separatists shot the airliner down thinking it was a Ukrainian military craft, but worldwide condemnation immediately turned towards Russian President Vladmir Putin for his material support of the separatists.

Frenzy in Ferguson

Frenzy gripped the nation when an unarmed black teen, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri this past August. Throngs of rioters and protesters took to the streets for over two weeks, while police forces took full measures to try to restore order. The ordeal rocked the nation and brought to the forefront of national dialogue discussions about topics like racial profiling in policing, the overmilitariziation of police, and media sensationalizing. As of now, many of the facts of the incident remain unknown.

Israel-Hamas Conflict After Hamas agents kidnapped and killed three Israelis and some Israelis retaliated by killing a Palestinian in early July, the two began exchanging rocket fire, airstrikes, and ground force firefights. See pages 2 and 4 for more on this topic.

Islamic Terrorists Swarm Iraq Over the summer, ISIS—a terrorist organization hell-bent on restoring an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, and parts of Europe—made major gains across northern Iraq and Syria. They are notoriously brutal and an effective fighting force where no modern military stands in their way.

See page 2 for more on this topic.

National

7

Border? What Border?

The U.S.-Mexico border has been a political issue for over thirty years. This summer it became an explosive issue as news and images of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children flooding across the border into holding facilities flooded the news. So many issues, so many problems: amnesty, border security, disease, taxpayer dollars to house, feed, and transport the children to other states, and photo ops (or lack thereof ).

IRS Targeting Scandal: Hard Drive Edition The scandal involving IRS’s targeting of conservative groups is a throwback to 2013, but in 2014 it came roaring back to headlines in mid-June when it was revealed in a Congressional hearing that the hard drive containing Lois Lerner’s emails was “lost” and the emails are “unrecoverable.” Lerner, who retired last fall, was the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS. One email was found, and in it Lerner called Republicans “crazies.”

Vi gra ctim nt (s): Ch U Pe ild S C Co petra ren iti yo to zen tes r(s s, I ): U mm SP ioli tic ian s, D Vic ru tim gL (s): ord Con serv s, ativ eG rou Pepe ps trato May r ( be O s): Loi s Le ther rner s , IRS Und erlin gs, &

-

ten o y, P

TroopSwapGate On May 31 the U.S. government exchanged five Taliban Gitmo detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held captive for five years and was dubbed “America’s Last Prisoner of War.” It turns out Bergdahl was not the ideal soldier and was highly critical of the U.S. and its military presence in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his capture came under intense scrutiny, and talk of desertion and traitor sprang up overnight. Politicians and pundits, even staunch conservatives, began questioning the strategic value of the exchange. Bergdahl is currently working a desk job at Fort Sam Houston army base in Texas.

Forgotten Heroes In late April reports surfaced of at least 40 veterans who died waiting for treatment at a VA hospital in Phoenix. Since then the country reeled in disgust as reports surfaced of many, many more veteran deaths as a result of the criminally inept veteran-healthcare bureaucracy. Worse, VA executives were paid millions in bonus all while this was happening. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned in disgrace in May.

esi r r a P ilit se, n M efe US orld D : ) f s W o m( tire nt hl i e t n c m a Vi lly E art ergd p a e ti : D we B ) s o ( tor a, B a r t m p e ba ats Pe nt O r c de s ea r n a Bu ter e A :V tV ) p s e ( m In i : t ) c Vi r(s o t tra e p Pe

8

National

Hamas’s Lies Obscure Worldwide Opposition Truth, Promote Hatred To IRS, FATCA Growing Continued from Page 5

Continued from Page 4 opinion on this conflict should think about: “What would you do? Would you say, all right, we can’t do anything because they are hiding behind civilians? That is their whole strategy. You would actually give them immunity. You would give terrorist organizations a powerful weapon if you say that democracies, a legitimate democracy, cannot act against a terror organization because it is using civilians as a human shield, and therefore it should absorb attacks on its own civilians, on its own forces. You are giving them a tremendous victory. And I think that’s wrong. I think you want to minimize, as we do in any way that we can, civilian casualties. And we don’t target civilians. But you don’t want to give the terrorists the immunity because they use civilians as a human shield. That’s a mistake”.

In the same segment, Mohammed Shtayeh, Palestinian Economic Council Minister, responded then in a ludicrous statement that “President Abbas has actually come to terms with Hamas that they are accepting a two-state solution.

They are ready for quiet, this long-term quietness.”

A touching anecdote confirms my claims and the argument that one must see beyond the superficial propagandizing of terrorists to truly understand the

dynamics of this conflict. Judith Smith, an Australian pro-Palestinian volunteer said in commotion when asked about her views on the subject: “When a little kid blew himself up next to me, I opened my eyes and saw the real face of how things worked in Palestine: kids are taught the only education that is worthwhile is the one Allah will give them in heaven”.

In light of this uncensored testimony, perhaps those who champion Hamas will become more aware of reality on the ground, instead of endlessly repeating the propaganda that is so often mislabeled as news.

I want to close this article with a statement that roughly quotes Dennis Prager of the Columbia School of International Affairs: “There are 22 Arab states, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia.

There is 1 Jewish state, roughly the size of New Jersey, who is willing to coexist in peace with the Arab world, in a place that has historically belonged to them.

Why can’t the single Jewish state be allowed to exist?”

Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached as2747@cornell.edu

FATCA also boosts the U.S.’s legal extraterritoriality to unmatched and unprecedented levels. Georges Ugeux, founder of business consulting firm Galileo Global Advisors and citizen of both the U.S. and Belgium, called the law “bullying and selfish.”

With the flurry of problems and controversy surrounding FATCA, the IRS announced in May that there would be a two-year “transition period” where those institutions making good-faith compliance efforts would be exempt from taxes and other sanctions. This move buys time for companies to prepare for whatever FATCA might entail; according to a survey by Deloitte, 92% of CFOs of North American companies reported being unprepared for FATCA’s implementation.

Still, a growing number of politicians, businesspeople, expats, and privacy advocates are calling for the complete repeal of FATCA. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is currently seeking to do so, saying the law “has inadvertently ensnared every United States Citizen living overseas due to its overzealous invasion of privacy and punitive taxation and enforcement.” The RNC also cited a Times magazine article that reported on the sevenfold increase in Americans renouncing their citizenships between

2008 and 2011, due in part because of the passage of FATCA. In 2013 2,999 more renounced their U.S. citizenships, and in the first quarter of 2014 more than a 1,000 did so as well, according to the Economist.

Outside of the financial- and economic-themed news sources, the FATCA issue has been relatively underreported. Understandably, the nation is currently focused on the other controversy surrounding the IRS and its alleged targeting of conservative political groups. Furthermore, the intricacies of FATCA are mired in the relatively esoteric realms of international finance and banking.

Nevertheless, FATCA is one of the most important developments of the decade in the realms of international law and finance and privacy concerns. It has augmented the IRS into a truly unprecedented international policing power, and it stands to reshape the world economy in ways that are contrary to free markets, free exchange, and harmonious business and political relationships with foreign countries.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu

America and World Face Tough Choice on ISIS Continued from Page 2 Observation on American Intervention: Interloper or Savior?

Some Muslim commentators and political figures are now urging the United States to escalate involvement in the region, and not turn back. As Islamic State laid siege to Kurdistan, and prepared to massacre thousands of Yazidis in early August, Iraqi officials begged for American support. In early June, after Iraq troops fled in the wake of Islamic State, leaving behind expensive American equipment, Iraqi officials pleaded for assistance. Even now, as Islamic State prepares to massacre Shiites in the Iraqi town Amreli, the same call for American police power rings forth.

At a July White House Ramadan dinner event, Muslim attendants chided Obama for what then appeared to be hesitation to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria.

What is this?

After years of chiding the US as an imperialist interloper bent on recklessly encroaching upon the Muslim-world’s affairs, the US is the first nation whose aid is both expected and demanded by many Muslim human rights activists, by liberal idealists at the United Nations, and by the editorial board of the Washington Post. “How A somewhat humorous take on the real situation in the Middle East. can you ignore the Syrian tragedy” they cried throughout 2013 and 2014. Meanwhile hardly a peep is heard for Islamic countries to fight their own wars. Where are the calls for Saudi Arabia and Iran to set aside their eternal rivalry, which is driving the sectarianism throughout the region?

The expectation - on the part of neoconservatives, liberal internationalists and many Muslim human rights activists - is that the United States insert itself in the centuries-old rivalries which plague a region at war with itself, that Americans pick-and-choose which blood-soaked faction to endorse and fund, and that Americans fight the wars started by other countries. For every bloody rivalry in the Muslim world, is it really necessary for the US to choose sides between?

In one instance, the US is named-and-shamed for not intervening to save the Middle East from the massacres which its inhabitants eagerly partake in (see: Syria), and in the next instance, the US is demonized for “meddling” in Middle Eastern affairs. This is a no-win situation for the US in the court of international opinion.

At the Doorstep of Europe and the Arab States Puzzlingly, the United States is now fighting an enemy whose resources were supplied by American “partners” in the Arab Gulf States. That’s right. The Islamic State is the recipient of private donations from our very own “allies” in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. These Arab states sowed the seeds of bloodshed in Syria by endorsing the Sunni militants, so why don’t we see calls for the Arab League, Saudis and other Gulf States to put boots on the ground to end the crisis enveloping in Syria?

As European states look on curiously and uselessly at their war-torn neighbors in the Near East, one wonders why they aren’t called upon to intervene against IS. After all, thousands of the fighters who comprise the Islamic State’s forcesforces are European born-and-bred. Many of the Islamic State combatants will eagerly return to Europe, inspired, equipped, trained and ready to mobilize Sunni recruits in order to form terror cells. From a security standpoint, Europe has more reason to be alarmed by the Syrian and Iraq catastrophes than does the US. Europeans have grown complacent with respect to the problem of Salafi extremism, and they are only now beginning to consider the possibility that the US is not the only state with global responsibilities.

A Blessing in Disguise As the US expands its aerial campaign against ISIS, one bit of good news emerges from the ashes here. We’re finally seeing signs of mutually recognized and appreciated interests between the variegated political entities of the Middle East: Turks, Saudis, Iranians, Kurds, Shiite Arabs in Iraq, Shiite militia in Lebanon, may finally find a reason to cooperate. A pariah state lays flush against each of their borders. It is held hell-bent on destroying all borders in the region. Let us hope that these rivals answer the call, rather than wait for the United States to unilaterally solve their myriad problems.

Roberto Matos is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

9

National

Could Six Californias Be Better Than One? Billionaire venture capitalist Tim Draper has a radical plan to split up the highly indebted, ungovernable state of California into six states.

Nathaniel Hunter Treasurer, Editor

C

alifornia is big. According to Tim Draper, the mastermind behind the Six Californias plan, it’s far too big to do anyone any good. His solution to this problem is a relatively simple one: split California into six new states.

Draper says of his plan: “if we have six Californias and we in effect disolve the one we’ve got, those six allow us a new start.” And he’s correct, though not for the reason many would expect. Six Californias would definitely reshape the American landscape.

The Inevitable Rise and Rebirth of the GOP? Many have latched onto the plan as support for stronger political partisanship, a sort of ‘equal party representation.’ California has long been a blue state, though the blue clusters almost exclusively on the coast and in the cities, while the rest of the state is pretty strongly red. And so, some have suggested this balkanization as a way for Republicans to take back the electorate.

In actuality, the political situation on the federal level would be mostly unchanged. Of the six new states, two (Jefferson and Central California) can be expected to lean heavily Republican, two (Silicon Valley and West California) can be expected to be strongly Democratic, and the remaining two (North California and South California) will be fairly competitive, if district voting patterns remain consistent. So that’s a net zero on that front.

Local Government The real reason to put faith in the Six Californias Plan is its potential gains at the state and local levels. It’s common sense that smaller, localized governments do a better job of executing the will of the people and working in those people’s best interests, and that is what this plan offers.

If you’ve ever seen one of the many television spots advertising California tourism, you know one thing: California is not just Hollywood and the beach. It is one of the most ecologically, economically, politically, and culturally diverse places on the planet. The state has absolutely everything.

And all of this has already self-segregated into regions that roughly match up with, well, the six proposed states.

It’s not as if everything happens everywhere. Agriculture is almost exclusively relegated to central California, technology, business, and entertainment to the coast. Everything north of Sacramento is already practically its own country.

The divides are already there, it’s just a matter of formalizing them.

Surprisingly enough, that could happen. The Six Californias Initiative has made it to the California ballot in 2016, gaining 1.3 million signatures (presumably mostly from good ol’ secessionist Jefferson, a plan that’s been kicking around since the 1940s and just refuses to give up), significantly more than the 800,000 required to get on the ballot.

A Small Damper However, in all honesty, it won’t happen. At least not in 2016. Even if the initiative were to pass, which is somewhat unlikely, it would still have to make it past Congress and the President – and that could totally happen.

At this point, the best most supporters of the plan can hope for is enough votes to scare people. Like, 20, 30% of the ballot. Just enough people egging on balkanization to get Sacramento nervous. Six Californias won’t happen, but some serious thought may be given to expanding county and local authority.

And really, that’s the goal of this whole campaign: more local power. A government that can actually give the people what it promises. It’s not as if this is just some utopian ‘ideal form of government’ that we’re pushing just for the hell of it – there are, in fact, actual problems with the current California regime, many of which could be solved by more local, personalized care.

Take, for example, the drought-toend-all-droughts that’s been rocking California since late 2013: no state legislation has been able to handle mass water shortage in any meaningful way.

One source of this problem is that California has at least half a dozen different ecosystems, and that a one-size-fitsall water management plan simply does not exist. A far more intelligent way to handle this is to allow each region to construct its own, custom-fit plan to manage its water and its environment.

Similar problems also arise in job creation: funneling money into technology and infrastructure works great for people in LA and Silicon Valley, but leaves everyone in the rural half of the state high and dry (drought pun intended).

Maybe Not New States There are definitely problems with creating six entirely new states. The amount of new legislation to be passed would be absolutely massive. Some sort of contract would have to be negotiated regarding the aqueducts funneling water across the state. Something would have to be done with the Universities of California and California State Universities. And someone would have to build an actual, proper city somewhere in Jefferson.

At this point in the state’s economy, maybe this labor isn’t worth it. But there are compromise positions: say, for example, shifting some power out of the tyrannic hands of our GovernorOr-Something-Or-Other-For-Life Jerry Brown and into local governments.

Maybe put just a little of that money into the hands of local governments, and avoid further High-Speed-Rail-caliber wastes of money..

Or we could just split the state into NorCal and SoCal. That would be starting point most Californias could agree upon. Otherwise, ship off us into the Pacific.

Nathaniel Hunter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at nth9@cornell.edu

‘Emotional Contagion’ Study Infects Cornell’s, Facebook’s Reputations Continued from Page 4 or consent using “language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons,” of research participants.

While the current Facebook terms of service marginally seems to obtain informed consent of its users, the terms of service at the time of the study—before the policy update in May 2012—does not according to The Atlantic.

The APA further requires the notification of all study participants “no later than at the conclusion of data collection” for the “deceptive research” that the study conducted. Under the same guidelines, it also requires the study to “permit participants to withdraw their data.” No actions that suggest compliance with these guidelines have been reported by the study.

Some other issues raised about the study have been addressed to varying degrees. User privacy seems to raise much less concern because the study reports that no confidential user data was seen by researchers; user data was analyzed by software that reported only the results of the findings.

However, a great ethical concern lies in the fact that this study altered the mental health of people, unbeknownst to them. While most find no difficulty in coping with slightly more negative articles, the possibility remains that those that are mentally unstable could have been more drastically affected by the study. The extent of the study’s health effects are uncertain and are likely to remain so due to the difficulty in measuring such complex effects.

An initial press release by Cornell University claimed the research was funded in part by outside funding sources, including the U.S. Government. It was later corrected in an update from Cornell’s Media Relations Office that “While Prof Hancock, like many researchers, has conducted work funded by the federal government during his career, at no time did Professor Hancock or his postdoctoral associate Jamie Guillory request or receive outside funding to support their work on this PNAS paper,” according to an article from The Guardian.

Cornell University is one of several universities nationwide that is involved with the Department of Defense’s Minerva Research Initiative, which funds universities in research that improves “DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S.” according to the Minerva Research Initiative’s website. Prof. Hancock has conducted research funded by the federal government, including the Minerva Research Initiative, in the past as with many other professors at Cornell and from other universities. However, the University insists that no federal funding was requested or granted for this study.

Prof. Hancock was unavailable for commenting.

Mark LaPointe is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at mnl38@cornell.edu

10

Campus

A Few More Remarks for the Class of 2018 Continued from the front page

time, the worst you will have to put up with is listening to pseudo-intellectual babbling and similar nonsense: For example, a professor’s casual dig at Republicans/conservatives/Bush, etc., that has nothing to do with the lesson or course material. Indoctrination is a constant threat, and it appears in varying forms: sometimes clear and present, sometimes subtle, sometimes undetectable.

Even if you never become involved politically on campus, it is of paramount importance that any conservative or libertarian at college remains keenly aware of the liberal progressivism on campus.

It very easily creeps up on you, and sometimes it simply overwhelms you.

Liberal progressives have the powerful tool of peer pressure, and they use it to win over the malleable minds of young people that seek, and sometimes crave, acceptance.

What is this peer pressure pressuring you in to, exactly? Intellectual conformity predicated on either ignorance or the refusal to think.

The latter is in fact much more dangerous. Of the many vices you may succumb to at least once in college, let not refusing to think be one. It will be dangled in front of you more than anything else, I assure you. Refusing to think will often win you acceptance and social inclusion. In return for the luxury of

refusing to think, you have to sacrifice your values. Unfortunately, too many of our peers pay this steep price.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is never totally avoidable. No one has every life experience or knowledge of every esoteric topic. The best you can do is to continuously learn, to strive and yearn for knowledge and new perspectives, and talk to as many people on campus as possible.

My last point is for all those who say, either seriously or wantonly, that “politics don’t matter” or “my involvement won’t affect anything.” I ask you to look at the world around you, to see the wrongs of statism, leftism, terrorism,

etc. growing and winning, whether at home or abroad. People behind these ideolgoies never think their involvement doesn’t matter, and that’s why they are triumphing everywhere you look.

Of course, writing for The Cornell Review won’t stop these forces, but entering and fostering the debate now will, down the line, ultimately result in some good for this country, the world, and you.

Casey Breznick is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu

Country And Conflict Are Ithaca’s Ferguson Moment: Completely Misunderstood Analysis of Police Response Continued from the Page 2 was aimed at a mass separation due to racial prejudices.

To compare Israeli governmental policies to apartheid is an extremely inaccurate claim, especially considering non-Jews in Israel have complete representation and voting rights, and Arabs (some of the Israeli government’s toughest critics) are actually encouraged to participate in Israeli government, according to Israel’s Declaration of Independence. The documnent urges Arabs to “participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

This certainly does not sound like the harsh, instutionalized and legal segregation of apartheid.

On to another topic: Is Israel a warmonger, lacking concern for human life? Many think so, including Tehran’s Foreign Ministry who called Israel just that in response to Netanyahu’s statements on a CBS interview, where Netanyahu stated “...Our clocks are ticking at a different pace. We’re closer than the United States; we’re more vulnerable. And therefore, we’ll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does. But as the Prime Minister of Israel, I’m determined to do whatever is necessary to defend my country, the one and only Jewish state, from a regime that threatens us with renewed annihilation.”

Netanyahu went on to encourage the U.S. to keep a military option on the table, stating that he could not see enough of a sense of urgency from the United States in this important matter of the encroaching Iranian atomic bomb.

This statement from Netanyahu demonstrates not that he is looking for war, but that he is responsible in terms of self-defense. As he stated in the same interview, he assured that he would “not wait until it’s too late.” Responsibility should not be mistaken for recklessness, especially in a case as extreme as Iran’s threat of nuclear weapons attack and Hamas’s threat to destroy the entire country and its people.

Israel has been accused of targeting women and children and recklessly, ruthlessly killing Palestinian civilians.

When presented with the slanted media coverage sympathizing with Gaza and unbalanced numbers of casualties, the average person has reason to believe that there is truth to this. However,

without an understanding of Israel’s Iron Dome and highly advanced defensive and offensive techniques, one cannot fully understand these statements.

The Iron Dome, Israel’s air defense system that intercepts missiles coming from the Gaza strip, has saved countless civilian lives. It is claimed to have approximately a 90% success rate in curtailing these deadly attacks from Gaza, and is a major source of protection from civilian death. This protection system is not often considered when comparing the numbers of casualties on both sides, but is an important piece in the cause of Israel’s smaller death toll. This is only one example of the precautions by Israeli forces are made possible with the technology that does not exist on the other side.

In line with the Iron Dome, Israel has made a clear effort to protect and save its people, whereas Hamas--according to the recent letter of a 30-year-old tunnel digger working under Hamas control--has abused its workers and caused them to face extreme hardship and death in many cases . These workers include not only adults, but also children.

Proof comes in the form of a letter smuggled out of Gaza detailing a man’s experience digging the tunnels Hamas’ soldiers use to infiltrate Israel. The unidentifed Palestinian wrote: “We heard about the tunnels that Hamas dug and I understood that I helped them. We pray that the world will help to free us from the fearful and cruel Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. I pray for death to all Hamas members and that we will get freedom and a chance to live a normal life for our children in Gaza. Inshalla.”

As Netanyahu stated, “We develop anti-missile systems to protect, we use anti-missile systems to protect our civilians,” he said. “They [Palestinians] use their civilians to protect their missiles.

That’s the difference.”

For Israel’s sake, as well as our own, it is crucial for Americans to look at the conflict as well as Israel’s defense mechanisms with an informed eye. Especially in this extreme time of need, we should be offering Israel abundant support and lending our concern--not unprecedented anti-Semitism, demeaning name-calling, and blatant, baseless hatred.

Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@ cornell.edu

Laura Gundersen & Mark LaPointe cause of the events that took place the night of August 8. Careful analManaging Editor & President

J

ust over three weeks ago, the Ithaca community was flabbergasted to discover that a white police officer had drawn an assault pistol on four—no, two—minority teenagers. In a cloud of confusion, several reports of this case have come to conclusions about these “racially-charged” and “senseless” actions taken by the Ithaca Police Department. Coincidentally occurring on the same night of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri this case faces similar scrutiny and criticism.

According to the police report, around 11 pm on August 9, Ithaca Police responded to two reported vehicle arsons and a burglary in progress near Esty Street. Two off-duty officers were called as well, one arriving with his belted IPD badge. Another officer, after observing the same individuals repeatedly bike by the scene of one arson, requested the officers to investigate.

The report goes on to explain that after the suspects saw the emergency lights, they fled on their bicycles, and the police units on scene followed them.

The Investigations Sergeant then identified himself as a police officer and ordered the individuals to stop, and when they eventually did, the Sergeant unholstered his gun to the “low ready” position (apparently due to his lack of information of the individuals or their intentions) and told the suspects to lie down until other officers arrived on scene. Note that the gun was not pointed at the suspect, but taken out of its holster as a precautionary measure. After searching the teenagers’ backpacks, police released the suspects without charges.

Does racism and police brutality exist? Of course it does! But so does every other type of crime and injustice—I quote a part of the title of a book by physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw: “Everything that can happen does happen.” My point is not that we should dismiss the possibility of prejudice in this or any case, but that it is unwise and quite dangerous to make assumptions based on mere hunches, emotional distress, or events that took place 750 miles away. As students, staff, faculty, and supporting community members of an Ivy League institution, one would expect higher standards of critical thinking than those that caused the immediate reaction of this case—namely, the assumption that race is an underlying

ysis is required to fully understand potentially complex situations such as this one, and it requires patience, thought, and attention to detail— not impulsive conclusions based on personal feelings of victimization.

Race aside, there are many other factors that must (and have) been evaluated that led the police to pursue the teenagers on August 8. To start, the officers had probable cause as stated above—the suspects repeatedly passed the fires and fled at the sight of the police car’s lights.

The officer’s drawing of his gun also sparked an unnecessary abundance of controversy. People must bear in mind that police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs in society; every day, a police officer must worry about being able to come home to his family in the evening—all for the sake of protecting the public. The incidents that took place before the teenagers were pursued that hectic night and the events in Ferguson earlier in the day only increased the extra measures of precaution the police rightfully decided to take.

Due to the stressful nature of police work, mistakes are made. Unfortunately, when they are, the mistakes are costly and high-profile. In this case, a chaotic sequence of events in combination with an understaffed department led to actions that may have not been the wisest (such as sending the unmarked officer alone to pursue two of the three teenagers, even if for only a minute, according to Ithaca Times). However, I would have to defend the officers’ actions considering the circumstances of the case.

Common sense reports that the staffing issue would only benefit from a better economy.

It seems that even our educated populace is succumbing to the societal culture of victimization. Today’s society allows little room for reason before the emotional bandwagon begins to play a role. Our generation has been taught to question authority, question the traditional, and question what works in hopes of making things better, yet some are unable to question the new direction that society is headed.

Mark LaPointe is a junior in the College of Engineering and can be reached at mnl38@cornell.edu. Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu

11

Campus

CORNELL INSIDER

(blog.thecornellreview.com)

Students for Justice in Palestine at Cornell Stage Anti-Israel Protest

Posted by Casey Breznick and Andres Sellitto on August 29

A

ragtag group of students, faculty, and city locals associated with Cornell’s chapter of Students of Justice in Palestine (SJP) gathered in Cornell’s central campus Friday afternoon to stage a protest against Israel and Operation Protective Edge.

The protesters stood in a crescent formation in Ho Plaza, one of Cornell’s mostwalked intersections, as many hundreds of disinterested students walked by during the hour-long ordeal. At the peak, SJP’s numbers reached about 40. Occasionally, they were joined by either confused or gleeful students eager to chant for a minute or so before booking it to lunch or class.

Needless to say, the rhetoric of the several speakers using a bullhorn was as expected narrow-minded, reminiscent of Hamas’s propaganda talking points, and at times just bizarre.

Along with chants like “From river to sea Palestine will be free!” to “Resistance is justified when you’re occupied,” the major speech delivered by an unidentified student dressed in a black thawb (a traditional Middle Eastern ankle-length robe) included such memorable lines as “Palestinian resistance group” when referring to terrorist organization Hamas and “Israel was established militarily in 1948 as an exclusionary state based on Jewish ethnic supremacy.”

Another off the wall remarke included something along the lines of “Israel’s occupation of Palestine is the number one cause of anti-Semitism in the world.”

However, surely topping it all off was this rallying cry: “… the general opinion in Israel and the United States that the life of a Palestinian Arab is worth jackshit next to the life of an Israeli Jew.” One figure in the audience, Cornell researcher Don Barry, astronomy, was handing out flyers advertising the World Socialist Web Site and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality.

Another older man, who refused to identify himself, was quoted in a Cornell Review interview saying, “In a world without capitalism Israel has no place.”

In the midst of the protest, an unidentified graduate student approached a Review staff member asking him to stop filming the event (see video for confrontation). The protester challenging the Review’s freedom of the press eventually walked away before the situation got out of hand.

SJP and its student and faculty acolytes protested against Israel in Ho Plaza for about an hour during the afternoon of Friday, August 29.

Rounding out the speakers’ anti-Israel talking points were the attempts to implicate Cornell and all of its students and faculty for the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. Because Cornell’s endowment is partially invested in Israeli companies like SodaStream and companies that do significant business in Israel like Raytheon, the protesters concluded that anyone paying tuition to or working for Cornell is funding Israel’s military.

About twenty feet down the plaza from where the protesters were gathered stood a few Jewish students from Challah for Hunger selling challah bread to raise money for poor families in Israel and the United States.

The Students for Justice in Palestine were not seen fundraising for the children and families of Gaza.

Congressional Budget Director to Speak on Campus on “Shifting Priorities in the Federal Budget” Information Courtesy of the College of Human Ecology’s Department of Policy Analysis and Management (PAM): Time & Location: Thursday, September 11th, 7:30 pm in Warren B25 Lecture Topic: “Shifting Priorities in the Federal Budget”

If current laws remained generally unchanged, federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2039 and would be on an upward path lative to the size of the economy—a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Speaker Bio: Douglas W. Elmendorf is the eighth Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Before he came to CBO, Doug Elmendorf was a senior fellow and the Edward M. Bernstein Scholar in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution. He was previously an assistant professor at Harvard University, a principal analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, a senior economist at the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, a deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department, and an assistant director of the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board.

He earned his Ph.D. and A.M. in economics from Harvard University, where he was a National Science Foundation graduate fellow, and his A.B. summa cum laude from Princeton University.

Doug Elemdorf presenting. (Photo courtesy of the College of Human Ecology’s Department of Policy Analysis and Management.)

12

Wisemen & Fools Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.

Frederic Bastiat

Israel, they mean all of us.

Malcolm Hoelein, Executive VP, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations I’ve voted Republican and I’ve voted Democrat. I have vowed I will never vote for a Democrat again. I don’t give a [expletive] – no matter who they are. I don’t care if God becomes a Democrat.

Howard Stern

If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care, and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders.

Nelson Mandela

We know that no one person can succeed unless everybody else succeeds.

Howard Dean

Number of Americans who died fighting for ISIS.

served by an America that is engaged in the world. And the values we hold dear are best defended when Britain How do you tell a communist? and the United States, and Well, it’s someone who’s read the United States and Europe, Marx and Lenin. How do you stand together.

David Cameron tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Yet the basic fact remains: Marx and every regulation represents Lenin. a restriction of liberty, every Ronald regulation has a cost. That Reagan is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book’s words), regulation should not ‘be Every week we don’t pass a stimulus package, 500 million enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or Americans lose their jobs. wantonly.’

Nancy Pelosi Margaret Thatcher

It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change: he is changing the political You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or climate in the country back to Republican. a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.

Tim Pawlenty Joe Biden My view is clear: the cause of peace and progress is best Whenever you find yourself

BDS is the 21st century form of 20th century antiSemitism. It is the same manifestation, except that now they’re attacking the collective Jew--Israel--rather than the individual Jew, as they did 70 years ago. We recognize that when they say

2

on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

Mark Twain

The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an American.

And the title of ‘U.S. soldier’ is just the lie of fools.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Change change change change change change change change change Barack Obama

Just the Numbers 0 3 8% Number of White House officials that attended the funeral of Major General Harold Greene.

Number of White House officials that attended the funeral of Michael Brown.

Percent gain in the S&P 500 so far this year.

$17,685,152,500,000 U.S. National Debt

1,000

14%

Acceptance rate for Cornell Class of 2018

Number of Russian soldiers fighting against Ukraine.

Number of countries officially not at war.

11

$1,920

Cornell’s tuition increase for this school year.

Join the Review.

Send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu.

Join us at 162 Goldwinsmith on Tuesdays at 5pm.