Kenyon Observer - January 2012 by Gabriel Rom

the

Kenyon Observer January 2012

Who Was Anwar AlAulaqi? Gabriel Rom|page 8

Kenyonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine

the

Kenyon Observer January 2012

The Kenyon Observer January 2012

5 From the Editors Cover Story

gabriel rom

Who Was Anwar Al-Aulaqi?

letters to the editors

Professor Mood Responds to “Faculty

6 to Students: ‘Vote my way’” (December 2011) alexander variano

Fed Up With Peirce?

7 The Case for Liberalizing Kenyon’s Meal Plan tess waggoner

A State of Denial

10 Candidates, Consequences, and the Road to Peace jon green

12 An Independent Look at

Editors-in-Chief Jonathan Green and Gabriel Rom Featured Contributors Jacob Smith, Alexander Variano and Tess Waggoner Contributors Yoni Wilkenfeld, Tommy Brown, Richard Pera, Matt Hershey Layout/Design Will Ahrens Illustrator Nick Nazmi Faculty Advisor Pamela K. Jensen The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College. The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto- the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to Jon Green (greenj@kenyon.edu) or Gabriel Rom (romg@kenyon.edu).

Hazing on Campus

jacob smith

Health Insurance Reform and You

14 Students Stand to Benefit from Obamacare

Cover Art by Larry Miller Commons Liscense) Quotes from brainyquote.com Cover Art(Creative by Nick Nazmi Quotes from brainyquote.com All Images Used Under Creative Commons Liscenses All Images Used Under Creative Commons Liscenses

FROM THE EDITORS

Dear Prospective Reader, Following our first publication in over three years, The Kenyon Observer is pleased to give you our first issue of the new semester. Keeping with our mission to offer pan-ideological commentary on a variety of topics, this issue offers a variety of perspectives on the presidential campaign, domestic policy, foreign policy, and Kenyon’s own policies. Looking outward in this issue Tess Waggoner outlines problems with the Republican presidential candidates’ portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jacob Smith explains what the passage of Health Insurance Reform means for college students, and Gabriel Rom comments on the assassination of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Looking inward to Kenyon’s campus in this issue, Alexander Variano offers an idea for reforming the meal plan and Jon Green assesses students’ reactions to the college’s hazing policy. We invite our readers to agree, disagree, and engage with our contributors in this issue. It is our hope that the commentary provided here will provoke thought and conversation away from these pages. As always, we invite letters and full-length submissions either in response to content in this issue or on other topics of interest. The Kenyon Observer also notes that this is our first publication since the tragic passing of Kathryn Currier ’15. Our thoughts are with her friends and family. Your Editors, Gabriel Rom and Jonathan Green Editors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

“You can only be free if I am free.” Clarence Darrow

6 LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

To the Editors: Richard Pera wrote a piece, “Faculty to Students: ‘Vote my way’” in the last Kenyon Observer. As a political scientist, I am pleased that a student is engaged in the issues of rights, free speech, campaigning, elections and voting. As the Treasurer of the Political Action Committee in question, The Concerned MVCSD Citizens, I solicited involvement from the community using the voluntary online discussion and distribution lists, allemp and allstu. Mr. Pera questions this use, and raises some interesting issues with regards to power and influence imbalances between faculty and students, broadening his concerns to include a wide mix of pre-election faculty behavior he evaluated as problematic. While he and I may disagree in many ways, such student interest in community issues is welcome, particularly for such deserv-

ing and interesting topics. Perhaps the Center for the Study of American Democracy could be approached by interested students to help coordinate careful, balanced community consideration of such issues. With regards to Mr. Pera’s specific conclusion that my use of allstu was “unethical” and “egregious, if not an outright violation of school policy,” I would suggest that he contact LBIS with his concerns, as current guidelines permit such use. Michelle S. Mood Assistant Professor, Political Science and Asian Studies

Comments? Complaints? Differing Opinion? Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to the Editors or full-length article to TKO@kenyon.edu “Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” Upton Sinclair

7 ALEXANDER VARIANO

Fed Up With Peirce? THE CASE FOR LIBERALIZING KENYON’S MEAL PLAN Hopefully you enjoyed some good food over winter break, whether in the comforts of your mother’s kitchen or at a local favorite with some friends. If you partook in the latter, maybe your friends from other colleges talked about the culinary options offered by their school or its location. Even if they grumbled about the grub served in one college cafeteria, they likely enjoyed the option to eat in another dining hall or at an off-campus establishment. Almost all college students in America today are empowered to choose where, when and what they eat, and enjoy high standards of quality and variety as institutions of higher education devise inventive meal plans and nearby competitors offer compelling alternatives. But Kenyon students lack comparable freedom because the school remains committed to an antiquated meal plan that virtually eliminates individual choice when it comes to dining options, and therefore the incentive to produce appealing food, too. Comprehensive meal plan reform would fast improve the quality, variety and value of dining options for Kenyon students. An unusual characteristic of the meal plan is the student body’s requirement to buy it. For 20112012, all students must pay a $2,755 board charge per semester (unless they can sufficiently demonstrate a gluten allergy). In addition to mandating over $5,500 in costs to students, the college is further restrictive in offering Peirce Servery as the only location to eat. This makes Kenyon atypical of its peers: most schools do not require students to purchase the official meal plan, or perhaps if they do, they offer a variety of options that allow students more control over where, when and what they eat. For students living in apartments, it may be sensible to eschew a

meal plan and encourage their parents to pay them the equivalent value in cash, promising to buy groceries to cook at home (though maybe in reality running up the tab at the nearest bar). In other words, Kenyon is unique in forcing students to buy a meal plan for a single dining location that offers a lackluster selection. Even if you appreciate efforts to provide quality local granola and yogurt, or if the highlight of your week is the unexpected surprise of a burger blowout, Peirce food is seldom lauded for high quality. Unfortunate as this is, it is hardly surprising: with the food service provider secure in a multiyear contract (though renegotiation is currently pending for renewal of AVI Foodystems’ present contract) and the college awash in mandatory board fees, lack of competition for students’ food dollars is the obvious source of culinary malaise on this campus. If Kenyon simply stopped mandating that students pay board fees to eat in Pierce, the school would make the first great step in the journey towards freer dining in Gambier. Students could deposit cash on their KCards and simply swipe when they enter Peirce if they remain satisfied with the convenience and variety of AVI’s offerings; alternatively, they could enjoy a quarter-pound chuck at the Deli, or shop for groceries at the Market to cook for themselves in their apartments. It’s possible little would change if Kenyon students are truly happy with the current state of affairs, perhaps only marginally adjusting their behavior to indulge in an occasional ice latte at Middle Ground. But common sentiment about the quality of food on campus and simple consumer choice theory suggest that the freedom resulting from meal plan reform would only ameliorate the Kenyon dining experience. TKO

“Everything the government touches turns to crap.” Ringo Starr

GABRIEL ROM

Who Was Anwar Al-Aulaqi? The killing of U.S. citizens by their government is always a attacks was patchy.” Many experts on Yemen, Al-Qaeda and very serious event. And when such a killing is done without the international terrorism echo this skepticism. When probed, the exercise of the victim’s constitutionally guaranteed legal rights, Administration has used the State Secrets Privilege to justify its it is arguably the most extreme exercise of the powers delegated position that releasing evidence to strengthen the case against by the public to their elected officials. Aulaqi would put sources and civilian lives at risk, thereby efAnwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen and purported al- fectively excluding any legal adjudication on the attack. Qaeda leader, was killed in a U.S. drone attack more than six The government claims that Aulaqi’s case is extraordinary months ago, yet the legality of his killing still remains a vexing and that legal precedent does not take into account the global question. While the once ferocious debate has now died down, nature of his influence nor his prior communication and inand the media cycle has moved volvement with terrorist organion to the presidential race, this zations. Defenders of the attack he dministration has cite a number of cases in which issue deserves continued examination. The central question used the tate ecrets Aulaqi’s teachings acted as the inrivi in this debate is whether the spiration for terrorists to plot and President has the authority to lege to justify its position carry out attacks as well as evidence kill an American citizen withthat paints Aulaqi as an operational out due process, and whether figure in Al-Qaeda. They argue Aulaqi represented an exception to this Constitutional right. In that Aulaqi’s propaganda itself posed an imminent threat to the this article I will attempt to analyze both the arguments for and United States, in addition to his operational role. against the assassination of Aulaqi. Proponents of the attack also state that due process is not Who Anwar Al-Aulaqi really was, and what role, if any, he a constitutional guarantee: In scenarios where actors present a played in Al Qaeda remains a hotly debated topic. The Obama clear and imminent threat, force is permitted as a last resort. AcAdministration asserts that he played an active role in planning cording to terrorism scholar Benjamin Wittes, what is required and executing terrorist attacks against America and thus consti- of the government is “a strong preference for the capture...and tuted an ‘imminent threat’ that needed to be neutralized. Gov- the exhaustion of reasonable options for a conventional trial ernment officials have claimed that “Aulaqi is no mere messen- or for military detention with appropriate habeas review.” Is ger, but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities.” this scenario applicable to the Aulaqi case? Had all options been Yet, on the condition on anonymity, other officials within exhausted? Was his killing indeed a last resort? These questions the Administration have expressed skepticism about their hinge on what type of war the U.S. is engaged in against Al-Qaknowledge of Aulaqi’s role in Al Qaeda, admitting that “intel- eda. Are we facing a permanent threat of an imminent attack, ligence purporting to show Aulaqi’s hands-on role in plotting or do we only have the right to attack when we can produce evi-

A S

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” Charles de Gaulle

dence that Al-Qaeda, and specifically Anwar Aulaqi, are actively planning an operation? Aulaqi inspired or communicated directly with more than ten separate individuals convicted on terrorism charges since July 2009. Notable among these are the Ford Hood Shooter Nidal Malik Hassan, The Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shazad, and numerous others. There is also evidence that Aulaqi gave his personal blessings to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underpants Bomber, who if successful, would have blown up a packed Boeing 747. In May 2010, Roshonara Choudhry a former student at King’s College, London stabbed British Labour MP Stephen Timms. In subsequent interviews she referred to Aulaqi as her ‘main inspiration’. At the time that the White House released the information that Aulaqi was on the U.S. kill list there was evidence connecting Aulaqi with Abdulmutallab in the planning of a bomb plot. In emails between Abdulmutallab’s brother Karim and a figure named the ‘Prof’, who is suspected of being Aulaqi, the two discussed the plot: ‘‘Our highest priority is the US. Anything there...So the question is: with the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?” There is no corroborating evidence that the Prof is Aulaqi, but this what the government claims. Besides this dubious email, there is no evidence in the public domain that Aulaqi was operational in Al Qaeda. The government also asserts that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had pledged an oath of loyalty to AQAP emir Nasir al-Wahishi and had facilitated training camps in Yemen. The government has never provided credible evidence for this claim, nor has it ever made its case in court. While there are several strong arguments to support the government’s action against Aulaqi, its continued refusal to release any evidence leads to a strong suspicion that their arguments are predicated on assumptions rather than facts. In a case as important as this, does the public not have a right to know how and why the American government killed one of its own citizens? While there is no doubt that Aulaqi was a threat, the central, unanswered question remains: Was he a mere propagandist or an active warrior? This distinction is hugely important and the proper place for its resolution is a court of law. Yet in the Aulaqi case the Obama Administration has uniformly refused any adjudication of their actions by invoking the state secrets privilege that has effectively closed any and all public discussion on the legality of the Aulaqi assassination. Consequently, in view of the government’s continued refusal to release even redacted information to substantiate their action it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are either lying about his role in Al-Qaeda and killed him for his propagandizing, or they are truly sitting on a trove of damning evidence.

In response to the government’s claims Aulaqi’s defenders assert that as an American citizen, his speech, no matter how despicable and hateful it might be, is protected under the Constitution. If the government has no actual evidence of Aulaqi’s operational role in Al-Qaeda and killed him simply because of his propaganda then this raises serious first amendment issues. Voltaire’s famous quote in which he states ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’ is more than a pithy slogan, it is an American ideal that our nation is supposed to honor in both word and deed. The Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader calling for the deaths of public officials. This case makes a strong legal argument that Aulaqi’s speech, while demagogic, is still protected. In another case, Clairborne v. NCCAP, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that those who give fiery speeches are not held liable for any criminal acts inspired by their speech. Is rhetorical support for terrorism protected speech? If so, is that only what Aulaqi was guilty of? Does Aulaqi’s case constitute an exception to this right? A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Aulaqi’s father attempted to address these thorny questions. Yet the court rejected the lawsuit not based on any legal argument but on the fact that they did not have the authority to rule on the legality of the assassination. In an example of logic so circular that it could only be thought up by the government, the Obama Administration states that the lawsuit must be dismissed because the evidence needed to make a case against it is and will remain classified. Thus, in the final analysis, the relevant claims hinge on the public’s trust in the government. As citizens, many of whom are pleased that Aulaqi is gone, we ache to see evidence that can assuage our fears of a government seriously abusing its powers. Why such insistence on secrecy? Is there a political motive behind the Obama Administration’s repeated invocations of the state secrets privilege? Is it to boost his foreign policy credentials, legality and due process be damned? In the American legal system the onus of responsibility is put on the accuser not the accused. The case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi is a bastardization of the American legal process because there was never even the pretense of a process to begin with. TKO 1

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/revelations-from-the-underwear-bomber-trial/

2 http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/today-today_

news/t/secret-panel-can-put-americans-kill-list/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/on-due-process-and-targeting-citizens/ 4 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845982-labour-mp-knifer-inspired-by-al-qaeda-bomb-plot-cleric 3

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8880903.Excerpts_ from_Rajib_Karim_terror_plot_messages/?ref=rss

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao Zedong

TESS WAGGONER

A State of Denial CANDIDATES, CONSEQUENCES, AND THE ROAD TO PEACE

In an interview with The Jewish Channel last several cultural mediums including food, dance, mumonth, Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gin- sic, embroidery, jewelry, and more. The preservation grich described the Palestinian people as “invent- and documentation of Palestinian identity, notably ed.” When questioned during a presidential debate through photography collections, Traditional Palesa few days later, Gingrich continued to make mis- tinian Costume: Origins and Evolution by Hanan leading remarks, including “The word ‘Palestinian’ Karaman Munayyer, and the work of cultural ordid not become a common ganizations authenticate term until after 1977,” inPalestinian claims to auhese statements are un sinuating that Palestinian tonomy and identity. Legal schools foster terrorism. documentation, including tenable and reflect long These statements are pre-Ottoman land deeds, untenable and reflect long- standing falsehoods propa further demonstrates this standing falsehoods propagated since the founding reality. The Balfour Decgated since the founding laration itself, a 1917 letof the state of Israel. In of the state of srael ter which paved the way the early twentieth century, for the formation of the approximately 93% of the modern-day state of Israel, land that makes up modern day Israel was inhab- acknowledges “existing non-Jewish communities ited by Palestinian Arabs. In fact, when a delegation in Palestine.” However, since the late 19th century of Viennese rabbis were sent to Palestine to inves- there has been consistent and indefensible rhetoric tigate the possibility of establishing a Jewish state suggesting otherwise. there, they wrote back to Theodore Herzl, saying, Gingrich is not alone in providing a bevy of “the bride is beautiful but she is married to another antagonistic comments on the Israeli-Palestinian man.” Since then, the bride has been involved in a issue. The day before the Iowa caucuses, former dangerous affair with the United States failing in Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum echoed Gintheir self-appointed role as marriage counselor. grich, telling a young voter that “there is no ‘PalesThe distinction between Palestinians and other tinian,’” saying that the residents of the Occupied Arabs of the Levant region is demonstrable through West Bank are in fact Israeli. Ironically, if this were

“When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.” Friedrich Hayek

true, it would reflect what is known as the one-state our security and stability as a nation. solution, in which the Occupied Territories are abThe effects of xenophobic, anti-Islamic, and blind sorbed into the State of Israel and residents are pro-Israeli campaign messaging and legislation are given equal voting rights. Such an act would funda- felt domestically as well. In a December 16 Boston mentally restructure the Israeli “democracy,” almost Globe editorial, former Senator John E. Sununu (Rcertainly not in the way Santorum envisions. Texas NH) described Gingrich’s remarks: “His comments Governor Rick Perry and House Resolution 1006 were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slanhave argued that Jerusalem should be the sole capital der, designed to curry favor with a constituency of Israel. Front-runner Mitt Romney has threatened for which he cares by insulting one for which he to end aid to Palestinians if they pursue statehood does not.” This theme is reflected in public outcry via the United Nations, similar to House Resolu- over the Park 51 project in Manhattan, (known in tions 2457, 1501, 2261 and the media as “the Ground 1475. Before withdrawing he alignment of many Zero mosque”) and more from the race, candidates recently was demonstrated candidates through major companies Herman Cain and Michele current Bachmann, made news for pulling their advertising, en with such revisionist his offensive comments about masse, from TLC’s reality the Islamic faith, the legal tory dangerously damag show “All American Musstatus of Jerusalem, and lim” in response to pressure merica from hate groups. To me, right of return (or lack es perceptions of thereof) for Palestinians, abroad and inhibits its abil the most troubling conclurespectively. sion one may draw from the id The alignment of many ity to negotiate for flurry of misinformation current GOP candidates propagated by politicians dle ast peace with such revisionist hisis this: the comments not tory dangerously damages a reflection of candidates’ perceptions of America abroad and inhibits its individual views, but rather are deliberate attempts ability to negotiate for Middle East peace. Many in to connect with voters. Pandering to constituencies the international community already disregard the is inevitable, but it is irresponsible when it coordiUnited States as an impartial arbiter of the conflict, nated bigotry of this ilk contributes to a climate of and the 23 standing ovations Israeli Prime Minister fear and suspicion of American citizens. Just last Binyamin Netanyahu received during an address to month, a University of Illinois law professor of the U.S. Congress last May leave little doubt as to Sri Lankan descent was brutally attacked in a bus why. In an “Arab Attitudes” poll conducted by the station. His attacker mistakenly believed his victim Arab American Institute in 2011, Arabs in Morocco, was “Middle Eastern,” reportedly yelling, “this is Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Lebanon my country” before jumping the victim and slashing ranked “occupation of Palestinian lands” as one of his throat. their top two obstacles when asked to identify “the In a land built on religious freedom, tolerance, greatest [one] to peace and stability in the Middle and plurality, GOP presidential candidates seem East.” The Obama Administration’s cow-towing to instead to be adopting a deeply un-American camIsraeli demands likely contributed to overwhelming paign strategy: discrimination and fear-mongering. Arab dissatisfaction with their “handling of the Pal- Such a tactic will not lead to peace and security at estinian issue,” yet it ranked as the most important home or in the Holy Land. Instead of embracing issue through which Americans could improve their the status quo and digging heels into a process that relations with the Arab World. Continuous denial continuously falters, GOP candidates and lawmakof Palestinian agency, as reflected in recent cam- ers alike should consider a wholly new approach: paign remarks, damages the United States image one that favors tolerance, relies on historical fact, and role in the international community, affecting and seeks to build trust, rather than sow fear. TKO

GOP

M -

Any president that lies to the American people should have to resign. – Bill Clinton

JON GREEN

An Independent Look at Hazing on Campus The discussion of hazing at Kenyon has broken down into two camps: students who pine for the College to treat them like adults by respecting their freedom to do as they please within their organization and administrators who prioritize students’ safety and the College’s protection from liability over such concerns. The result is an official zero-tolerance policy that is for the most part ignored by student organizations “because, I mean, come ON bro, seriously?” If the students were willing to admit that their first-years did not knowingly sign up for some of the more dangerous “value-imparting activities” that they are pressured into taking part in, then the administrators may be able to admit that banning capes and haircuts does not make us any safer. Before this discussion can go any further we students must realize that “being an adult” does not mean having free reign to make dangerously stupid or negligent decisions; it means having the common sense to not make those stupid or negligent decisions in the first place. Moreover, when adults make similar stupid decisions they are blamed for “acting like children.” In this regard, it is unreasonable to expect the College to sit back and watch as pledges are pressured into binge drinking or forced to walk on broken glass. By the same token, administrators must realize that by defining everything as hazing

they are defining nothing as hazing. If wearing capes is equated to forced binge drinking then how can anyone expect an organization to cease doing either? To rephrase, what does not qualify as hazing? Every time the administration punishes an organization for making their pledges wear yellow suits or dance in the Great Hall they are diminishing their policy’s legitimacy and discouraging students from reporting the hazing that can actually result in serious harm being inflicted upon a student. The administration is faced with a difficult task when it is charged with regulating hazing; the activities that actually need to be regulated occur in secret and the activities that occur in the open are not all that dangerous. The administration relies on a system of reporting to be able police organizations that are hazing outside the administration’s monitoring jurisdiction. To this point, the administration must be able to create a policy conducive to student reporting if it hopes to be able to regulate hazing that does not occur out in the open. Currently, very little student reporting takes place, and it is not so hard to imagine why. The broader a definition the administration takes with regards to hazing, the more difficult it becomes for students to discern where exactly the lines are. Just about anything can be called hazing if it is de-

“I never hurt nobody but myself and that’s nobody’s business but my own.” Billie Holiday

fined as “any action or situation, regardless of intent, that results in or has the potential of resulting in physical, mental, or emotional harm, discomfort, or distress to a group’s members or prospective members,” (Student Handbook, pg. 9). Sitting too long in one place has the potential to give me discomfort, but am I being hazed when I take my finals? Of course not. The danger in this is that when students are so readily able to reject the College’s definition of hazing they are left with no established or objective standard that they can rely on. When we do not know for sure what hazing is not then we will have a harder time determining what hazing is. If the administration is serious about creating an environment in which students feel comfortable reporting incidents in which they or others were put in harm’s way then it needs to whittle its definition of hazing down to something that does not include nearly all of the events in Freshman Orientation. I struggle with this issue because while on the one hand when someone signs up for a pledging process it is reasonable to expect that they have some idea of what they are getting themselves into, 20-somethings (myself included) generally have a distorted perception of hazard. We drive fast, we jump off

of tall things, we forget to get our flu shots, and when something goes wrong we are generally pretty good at realizing that we had it coming and accepting the consequences. However, just because we are willing to say, “whoops, I was wrong” does not mean that the administration can morally or legally abdicate their responsibility to attempt to prevent these hazards from occurring. This is especially true when our actions affect not only our classmates, but also the school as a whole. It is unreasonable to assume that students have no control over their situations in the pledging process, but it is also unreasonable to assume that they are fully competent evaluators of both their own and others’ risk and should be left free of administrative oversight. Until both students and administrators concede that their current stances are establishing black and white arguments regarding an issue that is undoubtedly gray this campus will continue to struggle with hazing. Reaching a coherent solution is going to be difficult, but easier than students attempting to convince administrators to leave them alone and much easier than the administration attempting to convince the student body that their all-encompassing definition of hazing is correct. TKO

Nite Bites Café Don’t Study on an Empty Stomach! Smoothies! Coffee! Paninis!

Nothing more expensive than $3.50!

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” George Bernard Shaw

JACOB SMITH

Health Insurance Reform and You STUDENTS STAND TO BENEFIT FROM OBAMACARE

The 2012 election will deeply affect the ability of many of these required that students remain in school every Kenyon student (and indeed every American) in order to be covered. Any lapse in full-time college to have access to quality, affordable health care. From attendance (even due to sickness) would be shortly folrules allowing young people to stay on the parents insur- lowed by a termination of health insurance. The ACA ance, to the future of covering allows young people to have preexisting conditions, nearly the peace of mind that they t is the responsibility of will keep health insurance every issue related to health care is at stake in this election. every enyon student to until age 26, assuming their Therefore, it is the responsibilparents remain employed. ity of every Kenyon student to understand this issue and Indeed, students can now understand this issue and exfocus on achieving longexamine the real life im amine the real-life impact of term goals after graduation the health care plan (or lack pact of the health care that may not come with imthereof) of both parties. It is mediate employer-provided apparent that the 2010 Patient plan or lack thereof of health insurance without Protection and Affordable both parties the worry that they will lose Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) their health insurance upon presents the best and only real graduation should they not alternative to the problems of the current health system. find work or not continue with their schooling. Before the passage of the ACA, employers differed Perhaps the best measure of the success of this reggreatly in how long young people were allowed to stay on ulation is the increase in the number of young people their parents’ plans. While some plans allowed students ages 18-25 who have health insurance. According to a to remain covered for several years after turning 18, recent report, 2.5 million additional young people in this

(

)

“What does an actor know about politics?” Ronald Reagan

age bracket gained health insurance as a result of this up to a point, costs increase after the number of insurrule. This is not just good for young people, however, as ers grows too large due to the diminished size of each it prevents greater health costs in the long company’s pool. run. Many of these young people would eieaving health insurance The free market ther choose not to purchase health insuralso makes it ance or be unable to afford health insurance to the free market alone difficult to inwithout this rule. As a result, many of them guarantees that some peo sure those who would only show up in emergency rooms need insurance after they get really sick, passing costs on to ple will not have access to most: the sick. everyone else in the form of higher premi- health care The free market ums because they are unable to afford the operates on the out-of-pocket cost of these surgeries. idea that there Also at stake in the next election is how preexisting will be “winners” and losers,” which is more acceptable conditions are handled. Under the ACA, pre-existing in other areas of the economy. For example, one who conditions must be covered for all adults starting in the cannot afford an expensive new car can buy a used car or year 2014. Pre-existing conditions must already be cov- use a different, substitute mode of transportation. But ered for all children and adults with these can get current- what substitute exists for a heart or a liver? Quite simply, ly obtain coverage through state-based high risk pools. leaving health insurance to the free market alone guaranPre-existing conditions may not be on the mind of most tees that some people will not have access to health care. Americans, but chances are pretty good that either you or While some might not be convinced by this plea to someone you know has one. Indeed, a recent report sug- justice, perhaps the monetary costs of health care speak gests that half of all Americans have pre-existing condi- louder. With health premiums rising every year, the ACA tions, including 129 million people under the age of 65. finally tackled the issue of cost. Repealing the law, acIf the health care law were to be repealed, millions of cording to the non-partisan Congressional Budget OfAmericans with conditions ranging from asthma to can- fice, would increase the national debt by 210 billion cer could dollars over the decade. No other plan comes be denied illions of mericans with close in either increasing coverage or reducing or dropped costs. ranging from from health conditions As it is the only real reform effort on the tainsurance ble, the ACA must be defended and fully impleasthma to cancer could mented. It is clear that millions of Americans, right when they need it be denied or dropped from including most if not all Kenyon students, will most. see significant benefits from this law. Republiinsurance right cans in Congress claimed that they would “reSome ar- health gue that the when they need it most place” the ACA with something better, should free market they repeal the law. Americans should question will natuwhether this will actually happen, however, as rally solve all problems related to health care, but this is no plan has been offered since every House Republican simply not the case. The free market can potentially re- voted for repeal one year ago. In the face of decades of duce some health costs by introducing efficiency, but this inaction, the ACA offers hope to millions of Americans effect is limited due to the unique nature of health insur- and will improve American health care. TKO ance. For example, competition is good in most areas of the economy and helps reduce costs. In health care, however, the more insurers there are the smaller each 1 http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1215/Health-insurance-2.5million-young-people-added-to-rolls company’s pool of insured persons will be; in health care 2 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health_Care/health-care-millions-americans-pre-existingthe size of the insurance pool is negatively correlated health-conditions/story?id=12638910 3 with cost. While increased competition may reduce costs 4 http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/06/news/economy/health_care_repeal_cost/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/health/policy/20cong.html

“One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.” Robert Kennedy

TKO’s

Twelve Bold Predictions for

2012 As the new year kicks off we peer inside the Kenyon Observer’s crystal ball and tell the reader which unexpected events to expect in the coming twelve months. January Mitt Romney secures a win in the South Carolina Primary by asserting that corporations should be considered 3/5ths of a person.

Carl Paladino smiles.

February Rick Perry decides to end his presidential campaign but forgets to announce it.

June Marco Rubio intentionally commits a major gaffe so as to avoid being asked to run for Vice President.

October The Chicago Cubs win the World Series.*

March

July Donald Trump announces that he is running for President as an Independent and documenting his campaign in a new reality TV show.

November Jimmy McMillan’s Rent is Too Damn High Party gets ten percent of the national popular vote.

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un bowls four 300 games in a row the day before guiding the country’s soccer team to a resounding 12-0 exhibition win over Brazil.

April

Citing frustration with the current slate of candidates, Sarah Palin announces that she will run for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.

May

August Donald Trump ends his presidential campaign, keeps his reality TV show.

September Iranian scientists develop cold fusion technology and win Nobel Prize.

December The Rapture occurs on the 21st.