DECEMBER 2014 THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE ON CAMPIUS
VOLUME XXXII ISSUE IV
The Cornell Review WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
CAMPUS
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
THE SKY’S THE LIMIT How Collegetown development will flourish following regulation repeals BENJAMIN RUTKOVSKY
A
s the natural enemy of a free market system, an overbearing government harms the well-being of society when it unnecessarily regulates the economy. Not only federal, but even local governments place enormous burdens on companies and individuals, decreasing the productivity of the economy and ultimately making everyone worse off. Case in point: for many years city regulations in Ithaca’s own College Town had prevented development of new housing for students. The most egregious regulation called for a certain number of parking spaces to be available for students living in apartment complexes—a bed-toparking-space ratio. I had the pleasure of speaking to Professor CONT. ON PAGE 4
rap music and conservatism: the lyrics of jayz, 50 cent, and drake
CAMPUS
An Assessment of Cornell’s Ebola Policy By Abhinav Saikia STAFF WRITER
I
to appeal for their specific cases, but overall seems to be a very conservative measure meant to keep them away from the danger zones in West Africa.
According to a new decree signed by Fredrik Logevall, Vice-Provost for
International, “Cornell students, faculty and staff may not travel for study abroad, research, internships, service, conferences, presentations, teaching, performances, recruiting or athletic competitions in the West African nations under CDC travel warnings”. This policy does leave Cornellians
Death
Frats
Coffee
Capitalism Backpacks
Jake Zhu examines the morality of “right-todie” policies
Should we continue to support Cornell’s Greek System? Andres Silletto responds
Christopher Nowacki exposes the hypocrisy of Gimme Coffee’s fracktivist protests
Casey Breznick explains the ridiculousness of anticapitalist arguments
laura gundersen PAGE 3
5
n the wake of the most widespread Ebola outbreak in history, paranoia and fear of an impending epidemic has gripped most of the watching world.
11
8
President David Skorton, in a recent interview with the Cornell Daily Sun, declared “One role we have
6
is to make sure that our employees, including but not limited to physicians, our students and our postgraduate trainees who are employees at the hospital … are cognizant of Ebola, how to discover it, how to diagnose it, how to support the patient and treat it … CONT. ON PAGE 8
JanSport, Bangladesh, and Skorton: Why the invisible hand wins again, by Shay Collins
9
The Cornell Review CULTURE
The Cornell Review NCAA WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
College Athletes: Common Sense and the Legalese of Unionizing
Pay to play: The College Salary Debate
By Alexis Cashman STAFF WRITER
T
his year has been one of victory for college athletes and a major loss for the NCAA. The debate over whether or not college athletes should be allowed to unionize or receive salaries from universities has culminated in several historic court cases that have weakened the NCAA while administering more rights to the individual athlete. Taking a quick glance at the two sides here: College athlete: Paying, paying, playing. Paying for tuition (sometimes in the absence of scholarships). Paying for meals. Housing. Medical bills (including those associated with athletic injury). Paying for gear. Attending classes. Eating. Sleeping. Socializing. Taking exams. Working. Participating in clubs, academic teams, or fraternities/sororities. All of this on top of extensive practice and game schedules. NCAA 2013: $913 million in total revenue. A surplus of $61 million. Net assets of $627 million. Of the $913 million in revenue, $681 million came from multimedia and marketing rights concerning college basketball alone. Only $25.1 million is allocated to the NCAA’s Academic Enhancement Fund, by the way. In comparing young teenagers with a multimillion dollar organization, one quickly realizes the two have very different needs. Unionization of the athletes who allow the NCAA to prosper came to the forefront of public opinion when the Northwestern University football team attempted to unionize this year. In March, the National Labor Relations Board regional director reasoned that college athletes are employees, and under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, are protected as such. Once defined as an employee (the FLSA definition is extremely broad), athletes can engage in “concerted activity” for “mutual aid and protection” under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Just as importantly, in August of this year, federal district court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that barring payments to college athletes is a violation of United States antitrust laws. The injunction she issued is against rules that prohibit athletes from earning profits off of the use of their names and/or likenesses in video games and television broadcasts. (Remember the $681 million in revenue from basketball multimedia and broadcasting?) Ed O’Bannon, a former college basketball player, saw his image in a video game years after graduation, and was disgruntled enough to sue the NCAA over using his face to make a profit without his consent, and without compensation. Bad press and legal pressure has caused the NCAA to terminate its contract with EA Sports, bringing an end to popular college football and basketball video games. It seems obvious that the NCAA is in trouble, and that college athletes are about to win a major victory that may change the face of college athletics as a whole, potentially allowing athletes to not only unionize, but to be salaried. However, there are definitely some details that would need to be hammered out, and as of now, opponents are right to voice some concerns: for example, players striking if they don’t get better dorms, later classes, shorter practice time, etc. However, it is essential to remember
College athletes shouldn’t be sacked by the NCAA. By Austen Rattray
The Cornell Review INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION WE DO NOTPUBLICATION APOLOGIZE AN INDEPENDENT | AN FOUNDED 1984, INCORP. 1986
PRESIDENT
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MANAGING EDITOR
Mark LaPointe
Casey Breznick
Laura Gundersen
TREASURER
ART DIRECTOR
FACULTY ADVISOR
Nathaniel Hunter
Steven Lai
William A. Jacobson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
STAFF WRITERS
FOUNDERS
Christopher DeCenzo Joseph E. Gehring Jr. Anthony Santelli Jr.
Shay Collins Jonathan Furman Alexis Cashman Christopher Nowacki Roberto Matos Mitchell McBride Austen Rattray Benjamin Rutovsky Abhinav Saikia Andress Sellitto Jake Zhu
Jim Keller Jerome D. Pinn Anthony Santelli, Jr. Ann Coulter
STAFF WRITER
F
ollowing a recent court appeal, the University of Texas at Austin might start paying studentathletes a $10,000 annual salary. This unprecedented policy, though not yet officially implemented, has developed from the court case O'Bannon v. NCAA, which resulted in favor of student-athlete alumni. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that they should be given the right to financial
compensation if their colleges continued using their personal images after graduation. This decision has set a precedent for future cases that cover whether or not student-athletes should receive a wage. "Should college athletes be paid?" barely skims the surface of the debate. What should really be discussed is: "What is the main goal of a college sports program?" On one hand, one could argue that the main goal of a college sports program is
Contact: cornellreview@cornell.edu 162 Goldwin Smith Hall blog. thecornellreview.com thecornellreview.com
to earn profits, sort of like a corporation. On the other hand, the goal of a college sports program could be to allow athletes to continue playing on a competitive level in a sport that they have pursued for most of their lives. If the goal of the college sports program is to make money, then they should reward good players as companies reward good workers. Even though many
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
MISSION STATEMENT 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. Copyright © 2014 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Think rap music isn’t conservative? think again. 50 Cent, Jay-Z, Drake... and conservatism
CONT. ON PAGE 10
By Laura Gundersen MANAGING EDITOR
ANDREA BIONDI, '17, WATER POLO
"I actually don't think athletes should be paid by colleges, especially if that would be in addition to athletic scholarships... Whether it be club or varsity, and regardless of whether or not being an athlete is a student's priority, being an athlete is not the student's profession. Sure, it takes up A LOT of time, but it's not a job. It's a passion with a heavy commitment."
CONNOR SMITH, '18, FOOTBALL
"I think that it depends on what other kinds of benefits the athletes will be getting. If they are getting a free meal plan and things like that then I believe that $10,000 is excessive. Should athletes at major programs like UT's receive some type of compensation for the things they do for their school? Sure. Is the best way to do it through a wage? Maybe not."
CONT. ON PAGE 9
2
R
ap music and conservative values are not usually thought to go hand in hand. These genres of music are often connected with gang and drug culture, violence, and misogyny, among other issues of morality. For this reason, it may be hard for traditional conservative to imagine that, when delving further into the lyrics and culture of rap and hip-hop, there are surprising pro-capitalist, proindividualist, and anti-big government themes. It’s clear that, on the whole, some of the most popular rap music has been and remains exceptionally crude, with lyrics that glorify extreme violence, drug abuse, and abuse of women. Here’s a snippet of Kanye West’s lyrics from “New Slave” off his popular album Yeezus: “I’ll f*ck your Hampton spouse/Came on her Hampton blouse/And in her Hampton mouth.” Back in 1994, Organized Konfusion’s song “Stray Bullet” went: “Now it’s a flood of blood in circumference to her face/And an abundance of brains all over the street/Shame how we had to meet.” But in the depths of the outlandish, stylized lyrics, there are some lyrics, or even entire songs, that exemplify another set of morals and ethics that conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists take very seriously. Championing individualism, advocating for hard work, and praising capitalism are all themes rarely found in any other music genre or style than rap music. Take Drake’s “Started from the Bottom,” for example. The lyrics advocate individualism, selfreliance, and hard work. The entire song discusses the road to success and condemns dependency and any expectation of handouts or freebies. Verses such as “I was trying to get it on my own/ Working all night, traffic on the way home” followed by “Started from the bottom now we’re here” exemplify the essence of the American
dream. According to the song, late nights and hard work lead to all sorts of possibilities, and in Drake’s case, have led from very humble beginnings to fame and fortune. The artists behind the music promote and encourage (intentionally or not) selfdetermination, entrepreneurship, small government, and hard work. When pondering why this may be, one can look at the individual artists’ roads to success as a reference. Eminem, for example, came from a single parent household, was bullied throughout childhood, and struggled with drug addiction and financial problems; he barely made it past ninth grade, but his affinity for English and language in school allowed him to work toward the goal of becoming a rapper. In what has only been a twenty year career, Eminem The artists behind the music promote and encourage (intentionally or not) self-determination, entrepreneurship, small government, and hard work. has received numerous awards, produced ten number-one albums, and has sold 115 million album copies worldwide. Rolling Stone Magazine named Eminem “The King of Hip Hop,” and when considering this artist’s rise to stardom, it’s no wonder that he raps about how he got there. Another interesting artist is 50 Cent, who defies the growing obsession with atheism among young people by rapping about his faith in songs like “God Gave me Style” and “Many Men.” Considering 50 Cent’s mother, a crack dealer, was murdered when he was 12, and 50 Cent grew up selling crack himself, it may be surprising that religion has become a major part of his life and
3
music. In fine entrepreneurial style, 50 has also amassed great wealth from his music and his related business activities. “I’m creating a foundation that will be around for a long time, because fame can come and go or get lost in the lifestyle and the splurging,” Fifty said in an interview with Forbes. “I never got into it for the music. I got into it for the business.” Taylor Walters of Campus Reform quoted political pundit and Breitbart contributor Sonnie Johnson on this issue, who stated during a speech at George Washington University, “I have to convince two totally different groups—conservatives that hate hip-hop, and a black generation of hip-hoppers that hate conservatives—that we are actually saying the same thing.” Johnson, calling Jay-Z “the greatest philosopher, by pure definition, of this generation,” encouraged the use of these big names as role models. Johnson’s takeaway message was that we should not think of hip-hop to only be noise or entertainment for certain groups of people traditionally unaffiliated with conservatism, and that there is greater meaning behind some often overlooked aspects to these lyrics. “It is meant for me to take a conservative message into the black community,” she said, “and show them that there is a methodology to stopping the death in our community.” The poor reputation of rap and hip-hop may be justified when lyrics are hostile or morally questionable; however, many songs do not fit the stereotype. There is value in the music, applicable to any conservative, entrepreneur, or American who believes in one’s potential to succeed through effort, persistence, and, on occasion, free styling. Laura Gundersen is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.
The Cornell Review NATIONAL WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The Cornell Review NATIONAL
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The Liberal Education Agenda: A Student’s Experience Exposing the fallacies of a postmodern education. By Robert Matos
E
uropean Studies experience:
Your jaw drops. You've just been informed that the objective of your Western history class is to deconstruct the “myth of Western civilization”, which is little more than a sorry tale of violent settler-colonialists bent on destroying the Utopian societies of Asia, Africa and pre-Columbian America. Your professor prefers to identify the West with genocides, colonialism and ethno-chauvinist depravity, not with the feats of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. What is more, the accomplishments of Aristotle, Cicero, Newton, Kant and Locke are the products of the “white male hubris” and are exaggerations, and celebrating their accomplishments is accommodation with the hegemonic Euro-centrist worldview. Whiteness, you learn, is a pathology which is to be totally dismantled and utterly defeated. Your professor strongly suggests that those who disagree with this view are either deluded, immoral, or self-serving members of the oppressive white power structure, not thoughtful dissidents. After reading A History of White People, by Irvin Painter, you learn that the West is but a construct, an oppressive state of mind. To say that Western institutions and traditions are both real and unique is to risk dismissal as an orientalist and exclusivist. For this deviation from orthodoxy, you are rewarded with a slate of "privilege"-shaming, and are promoted the class bigot. Needless to say, conservative historians and writers, like Bernard Lewis
STAFF WRITER
and Samuel Huntington, are assigned only to be mocked as cis-gendered, patriarchal “dead white men.” American History experience: In your American history class, non-victimization themes are either entirely swept aside, or are mocked as ideologically suspect. For lauding the entrepreneurial culture of American industrialists, the bravery of the pilgrims, and the wisdom of the Framers, you’re sneered at and given the distinction of class bigot. If you mention them too frequently during class “discussions”, you risk being accused of being “blind to the more fundamentally consequential” subjects of minority and women’s discrimination. Those students deviating from (routine) talking points – inequality, white privileged and institutionalized racism are those that are most likely to invite glares, unwelcome side glances, and outright condemnation due to their “insensitivity” to minorities and women. Denounced as a collaborator and participant in the oppressive white power structure, you learn that you’re a secret apologist for slavery, Jim Crow, and the displacement of Native Americans. Your classmates, perceiving themselves as victims of an all-encompassing white conspiracy to demean and degrade the “Other”, interpret your questioning as microaggressive and insensitive rather than necessary and reflective. Oddly, they insist on calling themselves “liberals”, even though they silence your views in decidedly illiberal fashion.
American literature experience: You promptly exit your American studies class in acute agitation, but not in surprise. The course syllabus outlines its all-out assault against dead white men. You recall, with considerable distaste, the political theatrics of your high school literature teacher who fancied herself a social justice activist. Her enthusiastic, obsessive, and frankly domineering habit of shoving historical victimization themes down your throat have reemerged in a more ideologically flagrant manner here at Cornell University. So, now, on the Hill, you’re compelled to interpret even the most politically neutral of novels through the interpretive prisms of race oppression and genderegalitarianism. You learn that America itself is but a manifestation of oppression and greed: an imperialistic, capitalist, outpost of hegemonic white males, with few redeeming values. By semester’s end, you've become a drone – a wellrehearsed wind-bag - on all questions dealing with historical victimization. Any – ANY passage that even hints at the nature of racial tensions, or gendered stereotypes, or the provocative tropes of America’s “checkered and contradictory” past, is examined at length and with considerable zeal. “No stone of oppression”, your crusading professor reminds you, “is to be left unturned”. With your grade looming over your head, you carry on like the other automatons. You've no choice. Roberto Matos is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@ cornell.edu.
4
Collegetown Regulation, continued Garrick Blalock, applied economics and management, who is a member of the Ithaca planning board, on different aspects of the harmful regulations. The minimum parking requirements were originally implemented with the intent to prevent students from parking in front of residential housing around Collegetown. This problem can be easily avoided by restricting parking in residential areas along with decreasing vacancy rates of public parking lots. The parking lot right behind the Cascadilla dorm is currently only at about 60% occupancy. This is unacceptable, as by forcing housing complexes to make their own parking spaces, they are decreasing occupancy of their own parking lots. Minimum parking requirements increased the cost of Collegetown apartments, because the cost of creating the parking spaces was compensated for in higher pricing of housing. Parking spaces could not be filled at their free market value, as there were too many parking spaces. Though it seems like a harmless regulation to most students, it has caused a shortage in housing, thus decreased the availability of affordable housing in Collegetown. The dearth of demand pushed the price of parking down, only to be subsidized by astronomically high apartment rents, at around $1200 a month per person to live in some of the nicer buildings in Collegetown. In Binghamton, as a site of comparison, rents are at $840 per month to live in high quality housing of University Lofts. Therefore, non-car owning apartment dßwellers were subsidizing the purchase of parking spaces for car drivers. Additionally, the parking spot regulation prevented development of new residential buildings for students in Collegetown. The requirement to build a parking garage or secure enough land for a parking lot presented developers with an insurmountable cost that disqualified Collegetown as an attractive investment opportunity despite the huge renting population. With the parking regulations done away with, local entrepreneur
Josh Lower is now moving forward with construction of a new student housing complex on 307 College Ave. In this complex, he will put a GreenStar grocery store, 103 beds, and a warm location for students to wait for the bus. As of now, Collegetown is in desperate need of a grocery store, as students must drive or take a bus to Wegmans to buy fresh produce. Also, the bus stop in College Town outside of Stellas is abysmal, as it is located on a crowded sidewalk with little shelter. This project will be a great addition to the community. The previously-mentioned plan was only greenlighted after the parking lot regulations were eliminated. In addition to Lower’s project, numerous other projects are now in the works or getting started to add more housing in Collegetown. This will lower the price of housing for everyone, as simple economics tells us, because an increase in supply of housing will lower its price. Also, it will increase employment by bringing construction jobs to Ithaca. It is no coincidence or sheer luck that when free markets are allowed to reign, more people are better off than when living under the oppressive, nonsensical mandates of government. The Cornell Daily Sun has published a few articles about the newly approved projects for building in Collegetown. However, in these articles they did not once mention the reason it took this long for these projects to be approved–the zoning regulations. As a leftleaning paper (though they claim to have no alignment), they wouldn’t dare bash government policies for creating inefficiencies in our local economy. This example of regulations in Ithaca is a microcosm of overbearing government regulations as a whole. At the national level, there are regulations—too many to count--that harm the economy, creating systemic problems like high unemployment, high levels of debt, and inflation. Benjamin Rutkovsky is a sophomore in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He can be reached at bmr88@ cornell.edu.
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
Protect the right to die By Jake Zhu STAFF WRITER
B
rittany Maynard, diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor earlier this year, sent shockwaves through the U.S. and revived the highly divisive issue of assisted suicide, when she ended her life on Nov. 1. In the time leading up to her predetermined death, Maynard became a vocal proponent of legalizing assisted suicide, the practice of a physician giving the patient the means to end his or her life to escape suffering from terminal illness. Since Maynard did not have access to her right to die as a Californian, she moved to Oregon to take advantage of its Death with Dignity Act, which permits terminally-ill patients to request that their physicians inject them with lethal medication. Her decision faced severe backlash and criticism from opponents of the “right-to-die” movement. Socially-conservative politicians like Chris Christie and right-wing Christian organizations such as the American Life League have condemned physician-assisted suicide as reprehensible, and declared that suicide is never the answer regardless of the situation one faces. They contend that it is not only inhumane but also cheapens human life by taking away one’s right to life. Unfortunately, these critics’ misguided sense of righteousness supersedes a greater and more important moral issue—the right of an individual to freely chose his or her own fate. In concurrence with Thomas Jefferson’s declaration of the people’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, individuals also have the right to self-determination. Terminally-ill individuals by exercise of their free will, choose to end their life and the state should respect the decision even if it morally disagrees. Also, it is fallacious to argue that euthanasia violates one’s right to life because an individual who has the option of considering suicide will already be slowly dying and suffering from immense pain. Thus, what interest does the state have in mandating the extension of a life that is essentially ended? By prolonging the continuation of unbearable agony, the government denies the
two other unalienable rights without altering the inevitable end result of death. There is no plausible reason with regard to public safety that would compel the state to deny a mentallycompetent person the private right to determine his or her own existence. Furthermore, critics of assisted suicide erroneously contend that the practice impairs the quality of palliative/hospice care, which is medical care that patients receive to relieve their pain and stress. They proclaim that since medicine used in assisted suicide is much cheaper than expensive professional care, suicide would replace normal hospice care as the preferred alternative. They fear that the standardization and widespread availability of assisted suicide will incentivize
You can’t tell people how to live, so why tell people they can’t die? If you dislike assisted suicide, you don’t have to pursue such an option, but you shouldn’t prevent others from ending their anguish. hospitals to drop the cost-inefficient option of palliative care. Although this may not sound farfetched in theory, it is absolutely ungrounded in reality. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, perhaps the most prominent example of legalized assisted suicide in the United States, actually increased people’s access to palliative care. Barbara Lee, president of the patients’ rights group Compassion and Choices, stated in a PBS interview, “We’ve seen a great resurgence of interest in the medical community in palliative care. Hospice referrals have increased by 20 percent and now Oregon leads the nation in prescription of morphine.” Since doctors must
provide all available medical options to patients, there is little doubt that beneficial palliative care is compatible with access to assisted suicide. Perhaps the most baffling claim of all against assisted suicide is that it will pave the road to legalized murder. In his article on assisted suicide, Professor Robert Walker of South Florida University asserted that its future practices will be “based not on patient choice, but on the choice of others.” The reasoning goes: If people view the termination of life as a beneficial practice, then why should assisted suicide only be restricted to patients who give consent? Opponents of assisted suicide insist that the only way to avoid these negative future implications is to not legalize the act in the first place. This slippery slope argument evokes images of conspiracy lunatics, who use fear mongering to condemn all national security acts as inciting “Orwellian Fascism.” Such an implausible assertion is psychologically rooted in paranoia and offers no evidence outside of pure speculation. Much like the historical claims that legalizing abortion will cause people to use it as an instrument of genocide, the slippery slope horrors of assisted suicide will never materialize. Although many on the right are able to argue logically against matters like the expansion of the welfare state on the basis of personal accountability, they fail to apply the same logic on the assisted suicide controversy. There is no disagreement that people are responsible for their own actions. You can’t tell people how to live, so why tell people they can’t die? If you dislike assisted suicide, you don’t have to pursue such an option, but you shouldn’t prevent others from ending their anguish. All individuals should have the freedom to determine their own course of action no matter how morally reprehensible the outcome may appear to society. After all, the state has no business in defining morality when it conflicts with one’s fundamental liberty. Jake Zhu is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jjz43@cornell.edu.
Examining Congressional Acronyms Functional, or marketing gimmick? By Mitchell McBride STAFF WRITER
T
he USA PATRIOT Act, the REPEAL ACT, the DREAM Act – all marketing acronyms with the purpose of advancing legislation through a Congress dominated by gridlock. For most of history of the United States, names of bills have been non-partisan identifiers for the general purpose of the specific pieces of legislation–such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Otherwise, references to the bills were simply characterized by their codes, such as HR 125 or SB 1860. Today, when we hear of legislation in the news, it increasingly seems to have a captivating acronym. Congressional acronym use and partisan bill-naming started in the late ‘80s and has skyrocketed since. Lawmakers argue that this usage of partisan naming is justified because it gives bills
5
identification among the thousands of proposed bills. Legislators need something to give their legislation an edge, something that will make it stick in the memories of legislators, interest groups, the media, and the people. According to the Wall Street Journal, Senate historian Donald Ritchie says, “It’s a matter of scrambling for attention, given the fact that there are thousands CONT. ON PAGE 10
H
The Cornell Review CAMPUS WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
DISSECTING THE CAMPUS ANTICAPITALIST
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
smart phones and espressos, they snarl at the detestable 1% and lament the pernicious flow and concentration of capital. As copies of Das Kapital jostles alongside iPads in their name-brand backpacks, their conversations alternate between what fraternities are throwing parties that night to the dastardly deeds of the bespectacled robber barons of Wall Street. In class, they ignore lecture and shop online, and intermittently make ow do you spell “hypocrite”? A-n- posts on Facebook and Twitter about how much they loathe t-i-c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-t. mindless consumerism. Their The opinion of capitalism as online audience, however, is too the greatest evil known to man engrossed in their own online is not only the dominant view shopping and gaming to take at Cornell and other college notice. campuses; rather, it is the How often do we witness such irrefutable dogma of the mindless grotesque hypocrisy on this droves of the overwhelming campus, and, undoubtedly, at majority of faculty and students. college campuses across the They look at the injustices in the world, at the inequities, and to the nation? We see almost constantly that, ill-fated, and assume capitalism though they hate the idea of is to blame. It’s an assumption of guilt before innocence in order to having to earn money, they love make capitalism—a simple system to spend it; though they hate of private property, free enterprise, corporations, they love to buy their products and services; and free exchange—into a though they hate wealthy scapegoat for them to explain entrepreneurs, financiers, etc., away their own insecurities, selfthey love Hollywood celebrities loathing, and inability to accept and pro athletes. the world as it is. The reason the campus antiAnti-capitalists on campus can capitalists prosper is because roughly be divided into two no one calls them out for their groups: the activists and the hypocrisy--a hypocrisy so rampant academics. that it surely would cripple any The screaming and hollering other type of person. Almost activists feel sorry for themselves always, the most virulently antibecause capitalism does not capitalist sorts happen to also be reward their invaluable skill-set the most eager and enthusiastic to of marching, poster-making, and engage in the capitalist system. If spoken-word poetry. Instead of they are challenged, they quickly obtaining the education and point out the near impossibility skills that markets demand, they attempt to use force, intimidation, of living in the developed without engaging in the (marginally) free and sheer numbers to get what market system. Even if their hearts they want. They are motivated by are not in it, they can only acquire a deep-seated, unrelenting sense basic goods and services by aiding of entitlement. The academics closet themselves and abetting capitalist system. Do not fall for such scrupulous from reality with a vain pursuit claims. A true "revolutionary" of theoretical perfection. To them, rejects that which he deems evilevery little imperfection is a call -he does not invent lame excuses to arms (and another paper on to justify his flirtation or fully the road to tenure). They, along engaged involvement with such with the activists, forget that evil. A true anti-capitalist would capitalism is exclusively to credit for bringing man out of mud and do all in his power to avoid the caves to interstellar capsules, from capitalist system by becoming, for example, a self-sustaining hermit. sticks and rocks to 3D-prinitng In close, I would suggest to all devices, and from scavenging for those at Cornell and beyond who grass and weeds to a world of leisure and entertainment at one’s fancy themselves as anti-capitalists to imagine their neat, comfortable fingertips. It is the student activists, though, lives without capitalism: shivering naked in a muddy hovel furiously that are particularly egregious twisting damp twigs to spark a in their hypocrisy. (At least the fire to warm some dirty water in academics try to justify their anathema towards capitalism with order to make an espresso. their research and writing.) Dressed in designer clothes and shoes and clutching their
The Cornell Review CAMPUS WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
PORTRAIT OF THE ANTI-CAPITALIST as a cOLLEGE STUDENT* F**K The System
capitalism sucks
Special Hair Cut
Ray!Ban Authentic Sunglasses
$25
$75
L.L. Bean Down Vest
Kanye West Hip Hop Shirt
$80
iPhone 6
$120
$625
Trojan Condoms
$4
Victorias Secret Yoga Pants
True Religion Jeans
$40
$147
Authentic Ugg Boots
$140
Sperry Boat Shoes
$99
TEXT: Casey Breznick ILLUSTRATIONS: Steven Lai Every college student’s favorite tech company, Apple:
1 2 3 6
Apple is second-most profitable company in the world, behind only the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, with FY 2014 revenue of $182.8 billion and profits of $39.5 billion. Over a third of Apple's revenues come from US domestic sales. (Apple 10-K report).
*all material goods shown are products of capitalism
1.5 $1092 The average American worker spends
Avg. hours each day Netflix subscribers spends watching Netflix. (24/7 Wall St.)
a year on coffee
- (2012-13) Median Cornell Full Professor salary (Chronicles of Higher Education) compared to median US household income of $51,371 (Census)
In 2013, Apple users spent $10 billion on apps alone (Businessweek). This is more than the GDPs of 20 African countries. 2010 survey by Global Equities Research found that 70% of incoming college freshmen had MacBooks. 2014 avg price of a Macbook was $1300. (Apple Insider)
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
(Consumer Reports)
7
$159,800
Do YOU contribute to the profits of some of the most profitable companies in the world? The answer is "Yes" if you: Own any products made by Apple (2nd most profitable company in the world), Samsung (6th) or Microsoft (10th) Buy gasoline (4th) from Exxon Mobil (4th), BP (9th), or Chevron (12th) Drink Coke, eat Heinz KEtchup, eat Dairy Queens, use Duracell batteries, wear Fruit of the Looms--all owned or partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway (15th) Have a data plan with AT&T (16th) Drive a Toyota (17th) ( courtesy of 24/7 Wall St.)
The Cornell Review CAMPUS WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The Cornell Review CAMPUS
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
Could I get a cup of Leftist with a double shot of Fracktivist? The hypocrisy of “fair trade” claims By Christopher Nowacki STAFF WRITER
C
offee is a staple of the modern collegiate experience. It’s nearly impossible to envision the quintessential academic setting without it. And at an institution as rigorous as Cornell, one might find themself reaching for that next cup more frequently that what the doctor ordered. The good news is, for those of us whom seem to ‘live by the cup’, we can now engage in social change without having to compromise valuable study time. The next time you find yourself in Mann Library’s Manndible Café or in Goldwin Smith’s Temple of Zeus, make sure to check out either the Leftist or Fracktivist coffee blends. Buy one of these, and you can rest assured that although you are allocating precious time which could be directed towards saving the planet to study, purchasing a progressively-titled coffee in Upstate New York is counter-balancing that opportunity cost. Setting all jokes aside—and whether or not it’s ethical for a Cornell University dining facility (Temple of Zeus in this case) to sell a blend of coffee advertising a particular political stance and policy— what matters the most is the actual integrity of the brand itself. Both blends are manufactured by Gimme! Coffee, a coffee roaster headquartered in Ithaca, New York with espresso bars located in Ithaca, Trumansburg,
and Brooklyn. According to the company’s website, they pay “better than fair-trade prices” to growers and that “sustainability runs through [their] core.” Not to assume the company is insincere in its progressive promulgations, but if you go to the company’s website in an attempt to obtain information on the brand’s “sustainable” measures you run into a bit of brick wall. In fact, even its respective Wikipedia page (pulling from the shortlist of articles citing Gimme!), fails to provide any insights on how this brand is any more socially responsible than nation-wide brands. Upon further research, I was able to determine that the Fracktivist blend does raise a certain percentage of funding towards anti-fracking movements around New York State—mainly for an organization called Toxics Targeting. This is great because so long as Gimme! is subsidizing a service to check my property’s fracking deposits, the price of ordering such an invaluable service becomes that much more affordable. What Gimme! seems to neglect to address is the fact that they’re in the coffee industry. Go to the company’s Wikipedia page again, and you’ll notice that their coffee comes from a specific kind of plant called café arabica. Click on the blue hyperlink associated with this plant, and you might notice that the plant mainly (only) grows in Indonesia, East Africa, and Central America. This means, either
Gimme! Coffee is using whales and dolphins to transport its inputs across the world, or it is funding the consumption of dangerous fossil fuels. Whether or not Gimme!’s intentions to incorporate more sustainable measures into its production are altruistic or strategic, investing in new, sustainable technology is inherently costcutting in the long-term. It is for fiscal decisions like this that the company may pay “better than fairtrade” prices on its inputs and give away an atrocious amount of potential revenue to “stop fracking now.” The reality is, the brand is a beneficiary of the current progressive trend of linking first world guilt with consumption habits. This business model would not be profitable under any other economic system. Last time I checked, Gimme! Coffee isn’t run by the state, nor is it constrained in any way in its potential to grow other than by existing economic barriers. It is by the grace of the free market this local favorite is now, according to Roast Magazine, “firmly established as one of New York’s premier roasters and coffee bars.” Christopher Nowacki is a sophomore in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at cmn63@ cornell.edu.
Ebola Policy, Continued and how to prevent it.” The best way to understand and control the Ebola epidemic is to confront it head on in areas where it is rampant; to treat those who are sick and to prevent its spread. Countless brave doctors, nurses and researchers have risked their lives by heading into these regions, in the hopes of finding a cure.
Cornellians should be allowed to have the choice as well; they should not be restricted by university policies which can stifle their passion or impetus to help solve a potentially global crisis. Though this decree is an admirable effort to prevent the potential situation of having Ebola on our campus, it should be within the right of every individual to decide whether they want to positively impact the
8
current situation and whether they want to travel to these zones in West Africa. Abhinav Saikia is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at as2586@ cornell.edu.
NCAA Unionization, Continued
that unions operate under a collective bargaining agreement, which can hash out details concerning strikes, and whether or not they would be protected or considered unfair labor practices. Breaches of contract are not protected under NLRA § 7/8; the belief that you can strike without retaliation of any sort is a myth. Some of the concerns that will take some time to sort out deal with how to define an athlete or athletic team as an employee of the university or the NCAA. While overall, the NLRB regional director has stated that athletes are employees, this definition does not apply to all athletes (like those not under contract, who play club or intramural sports, etc.). A rule of thumb as to how to define an employee hinges on who primarily benefits from the action or work being done. This precedent was established in the 1990 Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., decided by the Federal U.S. Court of Appeals (5th District), and upheld in the 1998 Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh decision. So who benefits the most? I think that by looking at the numbers, college athletes, the NCAA, and the individual university that profits from merchandise, ticket sales, multimedia broadcasting agreements, etc., the answer is obvious. But what about non-revenue generating athletic teams and clubs? What if the university-specific team or sport brings in very little revenue (let’s just think about how many people show up for any given football game on this campus- who’s not a free student)? What about salaries? What sort of benefits would athletes be entitled to, and when would they receive them? What infractions or circumstances would be considered a breach of contract? These questions need answers, but they need to be answered with an in-depth analysis by the National Labor Relations Board. A standard needs
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
“Right” On the Money
Cornell Store ends contract with Jansport over labor practice dispute By Shay Collins
T
he invisible hand of the free market got it right once again. According to an Oct. 20 Cornell Daily Sun article by Anushka Mehoratra, President David Skorton ended Cornell’s partnership with the VF Corporation, apparel-maker JanSport’s parent corporation, because of its refusal to sign a worker-safety pledge for its factories located in Bangladesh. President Skorton’s decision is typical of the ever-more-prevalent application of free-market forces to regulate industries. Consumers who desire organic, cruelty-free, fair-trade, or otherwise conscientiously-produced products are increasingly asserting their will through the free market, not governmental regulation. President Skorton’s decision follows community members’ protests regarding JanSport and the VF Corporation’s usage of exploitative, unsafe labor environments in Bangladesh. In April, a coalition of student groups including the Cornell Organization for Labor Action, Cornell Students Against Sweatshops, and KyotoNOW! protested Cornell’s business partnership with corporations that use sweatshop labor One such affiliation was with JanSport, which supplied clothing to the Cornell Store. The student groups specifically targeted JanSport after the VF Corporation failed to sign the Accord on Building and Fire Safety in Bangladesh. The Accord is “a legally binding agreement between international trade unions IndustriALL and UNI Global, Bangladesh trade unions, and international brands and retailers,” according to a website dedicated to the matter. Importantly, the Accord was not drafted nor signed by any governmental offices, demonstrating the plausibility of the private sector regulating itself. In April, President Skorton stated, “JanSport does not do business in Bangladesh, therefore we will not end our licensing relationship. We consider JanSport’s relationship with VF entirely separate from its relationship with Cornell.” However, the university
to be set that schools can use as a guideline for preventing or allowing athletic teams to organize; otherwise, far too much is up in the air, and my personal qualms concerning the power of unions would arise. As a general rule, I believe that unions are riddled with corruption and able to take advantage of employees as well as employers, but I think that in this case, athletes are being taken advantage by huge corporations and their home universities. Academic
STAFF WRITER
later stated in May that it would sever its partnership with JanSport if, by September 30, the VF Corporation did not sign the Accord. On Oct. 17, President Skorton upheld the prior promise, officially ending ties with the VF Corporation in a letter to its CEO, Eric Wiseman. According to Mehoratra’s article,
“Skorton said that Cornell would be ‘happy’ to renew its partnership with JanSport in the future if the company decides to sign the worker safety agreement.” An Oct. 28 Cornell Daily Sun editorial noted that “Fourteen other universities have also ended relations with VF Corporation; BusinessWeek estimates that these lost deals have cost the company $4 million already, about .33 percent of its net income.” Anti-capitalists criticize corporations for fixating solely on revenue and profit margins, yet consumers can utilize this money-focused feature to their advantage. Corporations are far more likely to seriously alter their practices in response to a decrease in consumer demand than to a governmental regulation. Whereas corporations respond to governmental regulation simply to the point of compliance – meeting whatever benchmarks a regulatory body has set – companies often aggressively promote new product standards when appealing to consumer interest. For example, Wal-Mart’s recent expansion of the Wild Oats organics label resulted from an increased market demand for organic products. According to a New York Times article and career goals, work experience, and leadership involvement all fall by the wayside for far too many athletes, and injuries sustained during their college career may last for a lifetime- at the profit of the university and the NCAA. The right thing seems obvious to me. The idea that young students are committing so much of themselves to a sport that they love, at the profit of third parties, without any sort of compensation, is appalling. The fact that your face could be used in a video
9
by Elizabeth A. Harris and Stephanie Strom, Walmart sought to increase its standing in “the organic market, in which an increasing number of food companies and retailers are seeking a toehold.” Walmart’s decision benefits consumers and farmers alike. Harris and Strom’s article noted that Walmart plans on “offering the label at prices that will undercut brandname organic competitors by at least 25 percent.” Such a decrease should further destabilize the claim that organic products are too expensive for the average American consumer. Furthermore, Harris and Strom report that grain farmers have begun to plant more organic grains in response to market demand. Thus, incentives in the private market caused producers to re-allocate their production to a more environmentally sustainable product. Yet, the food industry is not the only sphere in which business seek to accomplish ethical goals through the private market. Toms, a for-profit company, has “delivered eye care to care to more than 150,000 people,” and recently given away its 10 millionth pair of shoes, according to a Fast Company article by Jeff Chu. Toms executes a simple business strategy: donate a pair of shoes whenever a customer purchases a pair, thus tying consumption to charity and appealing to consumers with an activist-bent. Toms’ success – Chu estimates its 2013 revenue to be about $250 million – is a testament to the viability of simultaneously ethical and profitable business practices. In the globalized economy, the consumer dollar reigns supreme. Like the VF Corporation, companies that wish to evade governmental regulations can simply export their production overseas. Conversely, corporations cannot afford to ignore trends in market demand and, recently, the trends have largely been favoring ethically-produced products. Shay Collins is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at smc377@cornell.edu.
game without your knowledge is infuriating. Whether or not you agree with unions as a whole, it’s hard to argue that these student athletes should not be allowed to ask for something in return for what is, in many ways, a job. No one likes to work for free, even if that compensation is something other than a direct wage. Alexis Cashman is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at arc269@cornell.edu.
The Cornell Review CAMPUS WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The Cornell Review CAMPUS
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
Athlete Payment, Continued
sports commentators and analysts have argued that paying student-athletes would decrease the revenue colleges earn from cable providers-because viewers would be alienated by the thought of paid college athletes-- the increase in wages would only result in better sporting results and, thus, an increase in profit. For a large football school like UT, this policy would imply paying its football players more than their other programs. While UT wants to pay all athletes $10,000 annually, they should reconsider this decision. Like any corporation, it is smart for college sports programs that want to maximize profit to specialize in their successful sports. At the most basic level, athletes should be given a salary if college sports programs want to make the most bang out of their buck. In contrast, if programs support the belief that athletes should play what they want to play at a collegiate level of competition, then colleges should either pay athletes the same amount or not pay athletes at all. Advocates of the former believe that varsity players should receive more compensation than what they are already given. Currently, the NCAA gives out full ride athletic scholarships to athletes in six sports: men’s football, men and women’s basketball, women’s tennis, gymnastics, and volleyball. For all other sports, colleges decide individually how to portion out a fixed amount of scholarship money to each program. The additional wage would allow these athletes to cover costs not included in their scholarships and help support families that might
need financial aid. Believers of the latter, college sports purists, demand that college athletes remain uninfluenced by corporations and sponsorships. While their desire would keep college sports the most simple out of all of these options, it ignores the fact that these athletes should be rewarded for their results. Both sides, however, have flaws that make their desired results unfeasible. Paying athletes at different levels based on success creates a complicated system. For example, how would a sports program judge how much to pay one team over the other? Furthermore, at what point would a program decide to cut a team? These issues only cover inter-team conflict. What then of intra-team salaries? Should the starting quarterback be paid more than the offensive lineman? Why? What about one wide receiver over another? Clearly, paying athletes based on success confuses the system too much. Moreover, most college sports programs are horrible corporations. Only powerhouses like UT football earn any profit for their respective schools. In fact, nearly all colleges subsidize a vast majority of their teams. Paying athletes the same amount, however, is not a logical solution either. First, some athletes do not need the yearly salary. Only athletes who need to support their families should receive additional wages. On a more important note, providing money for players that do not play at all disincentivizes starters to play well. UT's idea of paying every athlete $10,000 a year is essentially Communism at heart. Athletes should, however, receive some form of monetary compensation
for their work as a reward system. For Cornell athletes, an annual salary would only result in more harm than good. Cornell sports already lose the university money; paying every athlete $10,000, which costs a college on average about $6 million a year, would result in the underfunding of many sports teams on campus. Even though athletes might be incentivized to perform better with a $10,000 salary, the underfunding of sports programs would make this result near impossible. Therefore, for colleges that do not make money on sports, like Cornell and the vast majority of America's higher education institutions, the idea of an annual salary does not make sense. Despite all of these critiques, there is a rational, feasible policy to undertake that would benefit both colleges and student-athletes. Instead of paying athletes an annual salary, allow them to make money from sponsorships and personal merchandise. Signing autographs and wearing a brand name does not cost the college anything and earns the athlete extra money that can go toward supporting personal needs, especially family. Also, allowing athletes to be sponsored encourages them to perform at their best ability in order to attract companies. With this policy athletes not only reap the rewards of their hard work but also avoid the fear of being disincentivized to play or, even worse, the fear of not playing on a college team at all. Austen Rattray is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at ar547@cornell.edu.
ANNA HUANG, '18, GYMNASTICS
“I just feel like college should be a place where academics should come first before athletics. At the Ivy Leagues, we’re students who happen to be athletes, athletes who happen to be students.”
10
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
Acronyms, Continued Even though Congress seems to be alone in this marketing method and even though passage of legislation might not be assisted by this technique, it does provide another means of communication for lawmakers.
of bills proposed and only 3% will pass.” Most members of Congress find that, today, in an especially gridlocked Congress, media attention is simply essential for consideration and passage of legislation. Creative titles which garner this media concentration, thus, are invaluable. An increase in representation and accountability arises with this creative naming of bills. Voters and interest groups can easily identify bills in which they support and encourage passage. Those members who vote against these bills can be held accountable at the next election. Members of Congress who do not favor legislation that sounds extremely beneficial to certain groups are required to have strong reasons for voting against the legislation, and, if not, then electoral opponents can use this to their advantage. Most legislative analysts believe that, most of the time, creative naming is unlikely to make a difference in the final tally of votes. For example, consider the DREAM Act. Republicans were not inclined to support this simply because of the catchy name. Arguably the best creatively-named bill – the USA PATRIOT Act – still was able to yield 66 Nay votes in the House, indicating that names do not mean everything. Yet, those opposed to creatively naming bills argue that sometimes the name of bills can indeed affect the final vote. Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R, Tenn.) said to the Wall Street Journal, “Legislators use loaded language that raises the stakes for voting no.” Voting against the USA PATRIOT Act can
make a lawmaker seem unpatriotic; opposing the Cut the Waste Act of 2013 makes it seem like a legislator supports frivolous spending; and voting against the Sanctity of Human Life Act can make a member of Congress seem immoral. Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) says, “[It’s] an abuse of the English language,” and titles of bills should not be “an argument for the bill… it ought to be neutral.” In spite of these words, Rep. Frank, when he was Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, banned the use of acronyms in the names of the committee’s bills, he has used this naming in his RISE Act (Removing Impediments to Students Education Act). Many members seem to take part in this style of propaganda. Almost every legislator seems to do this, according to journalist Noah Veltman. Specifically, Senate Democrats seem to use this technique more than others. Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY), for example, has sponsored 42 bills with creativelyacronymed titles. Although many European Parliaments and U.S. state legislatures refrain from exaggerated bill titles, Congress seems to be increasing its adoption of partisan bill naming. Even though Congress seems to be alone in this marketing method and even though passage of legislation might not be assisted by this technique, it does provide another means of communication for lawmakers. Mitchell McBride is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at mlm428@ cornell.edu.
Should We End Cornell’s Greek System? As the Greek system comes under attack nationwide, what course of action should Cornellians take? By Andres Sellitto STAFF WRITER
T
he Greek system is under attack nationwide. Recently, college officials and journalists across the country have been inquiring about the inner workings of collegiate fraternities and sororities, as shown in an article published by The New York Times with the title “Greek Letters at a Price”. This article, in a slightly revamped fashion, was rehashed by our colleagues at the Cornell Daily Sun, applying most of its analysis to the Cornell Greek system in general. Entitled “The Costs of Sisterhood at Cornell,” the article exposed the strict penalty fees to which houses (both sororities and fraternities) and its members are subject in case of violation of the guidelines of the Cornell Panhellenic Council. Now, you might be wondering, where has all this sudden inquiring and condemning come from? On Sep. 22, Wesleyan University, a coeducational university in Connecticut, ordered all its on-campus fraternities to admit women by 2017, or else they would be forced to shut down. This decision was made in hopes of reducing sexual assault on campus, and was praised by many around the nation and on campus, such as Wesleyan professor Ulrich Pass, as “an important step in the right direction.” This decision has prompted a larger debate on the nature and viability of fraternities and sororities across the country’s college campuses. The question is now whether they should be even allowed on colleges anymore. : In other words, the question is whether Cornell should end its Greek system as we know it.
The answer is definitely no. People who want to destroy the Greek system have several motivations. One of them is to protect the female population from sexual assault. If you are liberal, and think of fraternities as “rape factories” (as a student involved in a rape case in Wesleyan described their chapter of Beta Theta Pi), then consider the following. Suggesting that since some members of a self-segregated subpopulation (i.e., men drawn to frat life) behave in an uncivilized manner at times, this means that all men who live in frats have that tendency, is similar to saying since some black men in the inner city are gang-bangers, those folks see all black men as potential gang-bangers and thus dangerous. The people who have joined fraternities or sororities have done so because they wanted to and not because they were forced by some kind of social pressure.. This also implies that whoever participates at their events simultaneously condones their system, or at least their very existence. In fact, I do not believe that many of the people who enjoy criticizing the Greek system would really want to shut it down, considering it is essential to their social lives. While sororities do sometimes overwhelm their members with hidden dues and unreachable expectations, what they get in return, as well as what fraternity members also get, is what makes the college experience worth it: life-long friendships, great alumni connections, and great social life. But now, weighing in specifically in Cornell's case, what could possibly be the argument against our current Greek system? There is one: the liberal argument.
11
We know that there are more than a few people who would be delighted to see the Greek system come to an end. It is those extreme liberals, the same ones who engage in perennial and quixotic protests against their own subconscious all the time, for whom ending the Greek societies would only benefit their agenda of finishing with tradition, patriarchy, and female hygiene. We know who they are, those same ones who protest a never-ending amount of inane causes, soiling Ho Plaza in a regular basis with their hateful speech against dissenters. They will not stop pushing their ridiculous campaigns, forever protected by the Cornell administration, until they finally succeed in taking away the little things that conservatives can still enjoy in this campus, such as the Greek system. Do not forget this: the man who forced gender integration at Wesleyan, President Michael Roth, had previously been the president of Wesleyan’s Alpha Delta Phi's chapter. It is you guessed it right--the only coed fraternity on that campus. Liberals will push their agendas on everything and everyone, especially the extreme ones like Roth and the ones we all know on our campus. .A clear message was sent to these groups on November 4, where we showed them how the overwhelming majority of the people repudiate what they represent. They are coming for more, though, which is why we have to stand strong and protect our Greek system if in the near future, as I surely believe, liberal eyes start turning towards it. Andres Sellitto is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at as2747@cornell.edu.
The Cornell Review QUOTES AND STATISTICS WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION
WISEMEN AND FOOLS BARACK OBAMA
WENDELL BERRY on LIMITED GOVERNMENT
Novelist, poet, environmentalist, farmer. Winner of the National Humanities Medal and a proponent of limited government: “It is certain, I think, that the best government is the one that governs the least. But there is a muchneglected corollary: the best citizen is the one who least needs governing.”
Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change
BERTRAND RUSSELL on POLITICAL SYSTEMS
“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame.”
NICK OFFERMAN on CONSERVATIVE VALUES “I would like Americans to make things with their hands. Thomas Jefferson and I feel that makes for a much stronger nation.”
IMAGE COURTESY OF HUFFINGTONPOST.COM
JUST THE NUMBERS
$0
Amount of money Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have donated to businesses destroyed by protests in Ferguson Drop in Black Friday sales this year compared to last
11%
Number of votes a Senate push to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline failed by
5,000,000 Approximate number of illegal immigrants President Obama’s executive amnesty will prevent from getting deported
$18,002,000,000 Our Increasing National Debt
1 $445
Billions of dollars the global economy loses out on each year due to cybercrime, according to a McAfee research report
Approximate number of ISIS fighters killed by US airstrikes in Syria
4
Number of states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use
2
Number of nonstudent professional protesters at a Ho Plaza pro-Palestinian rally on Nov. 17
785
JOIN THE REVIEW. Send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu Join us at 162 Goldwinsmith on Tuesdays at 5pm.