the
Kenyon Observer Kenyon Observer the
February 15, 2013
September 25, 2012
Sodexo, a Story:
Don’t Speak Too Soon The James French Intervention Neimeister| page 6in Mali
Phil Ayers | page 8
Kenyon’s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine
Kenyon Observer the
February 15, 2013
The Kenyon Observer February 15, 2013
5 From the Editors Cover Story
Editors-in-Chief Gabriel Rom and Jon Green
phil ayers
8 Don’t Speak Too Soon
Managing Editor Megan Shaw
The French Intervention in Mali ville lampi
Online Editor Yoni Wilkenfeld
6 Observations of a European in America In Response to ‘Murica and Other Fallacies gabriel brison-trezise
10 In Opposition to the Implementation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Featured Contributors Phil Ayers, Remy Bernstein, Gabriel Brison-Trezise, Tommy Brown, Jon Green and Ville Lampi Layout/Design Sofia Mandel
remy bernstein
12 Metropolitan Morals
A Reconsideration of Urban Studies tommy brown
14 Congressional Oversight
The Toll of Congressional Inaction on National Security Law jon green
16 On My Honor
Why Kenyon Should Tread Carefully Around an Honor Code ryan baker
An Open Letter From His Glorious Successor Kim Jong-Un to Beyoncé
Illustrations Nick Nazmi and Peter Falls Faculty Advisors Professor Fred Baumann and Professor Pamela 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 tko@kenyon.edu
Cover Art by Nick Nazmi
5
FROM THE EDITORS
Dear Prospective Reader, The Kenyon Observer is pleased to put forward a new issue, bringing together voices from across our campus. In our cover story, Phil Ayers outlines potential problems surrounding France’s decision to end its military intervention in Mali. In two responses to articles from past issues, Ville Lampi looks at Ryan Baker’s January 30th article, ‘Murica and Other Fallacies and Gabriel Brison-Trezise takes on Jacob Weiner’s January 16th article, In Defense of the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Drawing on his extensive research for his honors thesis in History, Remy Bernstein writes about housing and poverty in San Francisco and Jon Green warns against the potential dangers of a Kenyon honor code. And, as part of a new series covering the intellectual life on campus, Tommy Brown expounds on David Shipler’s recent lecture about civil liberties, arguing for increased congressional oversight of our military bureaucracy. We hope to continue this series in future issues and on our blog, kenyonobserver.com. Please contact us at tko@kenyon.edu if there is an event you are interested in covering. As always, we invite readers to engage with and respond to the content in our publication, through letters to the editor and full-length submissions. Your editors, Gabriel Rom and Jon Green
6
VILLE LAMPI
Observations of a European in America IN RESPONSE TO ‘MURICA AND OTHER FALLACIES “This particular individual, a relatively inebriated university student, was even more distracting than the words he was butchering. He held a Heineken in one hand, a loosely gripped cigarette in the other hand and wildly gestured with every syllable.” This image only lacks a lopsided beret and the stereotypical image of the French would be perfected. In his article, Murica and Other Fallacies, in the previous issue of the Observer, Ryan Baker seems to want to subvert the predominant stereotype of Americans. “The spirit of anti-Americanism in Europe is at odds with itself,” he notes, referring to conf lict between Europeans’ love for American cultural products and their disdain for, well, pretty much everything else. Surprisingly, Baker starts his observations with the cookie-cutter French image, which does not seem to be the most constructive way to dispel stereotypes. The student is depicted as “butchering” words as if it were not enough that he is communicating with a native speaker of English in their own language. This denigrating attitude makes me hope that Baker’s own French is impeccable and his pronunciation indistinguishable from the native Parisians’ way of speaking. While starting one’s article about why Europeans do not like Americans by showing a sense of superiority based on better command of English is problematic on its own, I was further frustrated by the image of America presented in the article. Baker seems to take the idea of freedom in American society as a given. The United States is supposedly a country in which “[you] can be who you want to be.” Appar-
ently, the ability to follow one’s dreams is the driving force behind the American media presence in Europe. “[The] freedom with which American society has evolved has created the beautiful monster that is our culture.” This attempt to prove the uniqueness of the American “you can be who you want to be” mentality - supposedly the cause of jealousy in Europe - is fundamentally frail, employing the rhetoric of freedom so common in American society without ever questioning it. The America in Baker’s article is a land where citizens “question tradition, root for the underdog and believe in the pursuit of individual happiness.” As France moves same-sex marriage legislation through its parliament while similar efforts in America are repeatedly put down over appeals to tradition, is Baker’s depiction of the Land of the Free a truly honest appraisal? Furthermore, Baker fails to make a reasonable comparison between the French (or European) and American societal structures, nor does he consider how the image of America differs between Europe and the United States. Instead, he seems to argue, see, you like to watch Jersey Shore, so you must like the society that produced it. There is no differentiation between the society and its products, which seems as valid as stating that if I enjoy Heineken over PBR, I must also be in favor of Dutch immigration policy. The American cultural products - TV series, fast food chain restaurants, pop music, etc. - are the products and stories of winners. Pop stars from meager backgrounds, coming from single-parent
“Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.” Arthur Schopenhauer
7
families and waiting tables, rising to global fame and making millions with their music, are presented as the incarnation of the American Dream. However, these cases that spread into the European consciousness are individual stories that ignore the systemic inequalities in American society. Europeans hardly ever see this side of American society, but it is arguably far more representative of reality. Before visiting downtown Detroit during my freshman year of college, I had never seen so much homelessness and poverty. Without talking with my friends about their public high schools or their choice of not attending one, I would have never understood the sheer size of some schools, nor would I have known how poorly-funded they were. These stories are hardly ever discussed within the United States; no wonder they are rarely heard outside of its borders. Those who wish to have a serious discussion about inequality in America are typically drowned out by a freedom, liberty and Founding Fathers mad lib. For example, during the debates about the Affordable Care Act, many of the loudest voices were questioning whether the act would take away the freedom to choose one’s health insurance provider, avoiding much discussion over how best to insure the tens of millions of Americans who lacked insurance in the first place. I wonder what a European would say if they were placed into the same niche of the American society that they occupy in their home country. The cleaning lady would find herself without union support, the unemployed auto worker would find himself with no monthly allowance to pay his rent and the mother or father of a newborn child would realize that they have no right to paid family leave. I believe that many Europeans would say that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been greatly diminished by their change in nationality. If the idea of America in Europe is as one-sided as the exposure to American films, music, food and TV shows, how can “the perception of Americans” be anything more constructive than “one part jealousy and one part disdain”? Personally, not having grown up surrounded by such rhetoric, I find the America’s focus on freedom strange. Many high schools do not have qualified teachers, some school districts cannot afford books and universal health insurance faces the threat of repeal. From my point of view, when a country is more worried about the freedom to choose a health insurance provider than it is about making sure that everyone has health insurance in the first place, it
has an unbalanced, unrealistic conception of freedom. When corporations and individuals making millions of dollars pay less in taxes than I have paid, America’s sense of freedom becomes twisted. When workers uniting in order to fight against said corpo-
“when a country is more wor ried about the freedom to choose a health insurance provider than it is about mak ing sure everyone has health insurance , it has an unbal anced ,
unrealistic
concept
of freedom rations can be banned by legislation, it has an unjust sense of freedom. America does, at times, appear to be a country where freedom is defined as being able to choose between Pepsi and Coke or McDonald’s and Wendy’s - freedom to choose based on the narrow field of options that someone else is handing to you. “America adopted values that ref lected more of our individual wants and less of our moderating traditions...So while these values may not be highminded, the reasons we have them in the first place are.” Baker sums up what his interactions with the French have taught him. I see nothing wrong with this statement; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the fundamental tenets of the American nation. However, I do see a problem when the examples of these tenets in action are presented as being able to enjoy watching “TV shows about people getting drunk and going to crazy parties, fighting with their exes or being sixteen and pregnant” instead of hearing about extensive action to provide affordable housing to homeless people, and other social justice causes. From an outsider’s perspective, the illusion of choice offered by the consumerist society - the amount of differently packaged products, the impressive number of TV channels and the everchanging list of hottest celebrities; all offered by a few companies maintaining a majority stake of the market - hides the fundamental framework in which freedom can exist: Free people are, indeed, people who can become who they want to be. But they must also have the means to do it.TKO
“You can only be free if I am free.” Clarence Darrow
8
PHIL AYERS
Don’t Speak Too Soon THE FRENCH INTERVENTION IN MALI
The French seem puzzlingly optimistic these days. After a recent visit to Timbuktu, where he was welcomed as a “liberator” by Malians happily holding signs that read “Vive la France,” President François Hollande announced that France will begin to pull its troops out of Mali in early March. This declaration implies a sense of accomplishment and completion of the job the French had set out to do: liberate Malian cities that had been overtaken by Islamist militants and to defend against the spread of any further acts of violence or terrorism brought on by these groups, including pockets of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM ), in the northern part of the country. It seems premature for Hollande to declare Mali as liberated. The intervention’s timeframe was far too short to combat these dangerous and elusive forces. Moreover, Hollande lacks the authority to make such a declaration at all. France first deployed troops on January 11, 2012,
making this a cursory eight-week campaign if the government does, in fact, begin pulling out early next month. But the French exit will leave lingering
F ighting
aside , the north -
ern half of marginalized
M ali for
has been a
long
time , which has created a schism
between
the
rural
north and the developed south — giving rise to the conflict we see today . and problematic questions. Hollande plans to hand over the military affairs to pan-African and Ma-
“Commitment is an act, not a word.” Jean-Paul Sartre
9
lian forces, forgetting that it was the inadequecies of these very armies that summoned French intervention in the first place. Though reports suggest
T he
conflict in
M ali
repre -
sents a new chapter of the war on terror , one that is a little bit closer to the
U nited S tates
and
E urope .
that most of the Islamist militants have retreated to mountainous northern Mali, they are still active, and many expect an impending revival of these groups when the French decide to pack up and go home. Prior to the French intervention, rebel forces had been strengthened by the heavy f low of weapons coming from Libya, moving through Algeria and entering into northern Mali. After the ouster of Libyan General Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011, this supply chain picked up speed as mercenaries capitalized on the surplus of arms and were able to send them to Mali. In addition, former US ambassador to Mali Vicki Huddleston recently accused Paris of having inadvertently reinforced the AQIM when, in 2010, they paid a ransom of approximately $17 million in order to free four French hostages. These two incidents stick out as military and monetary catalysts of the conf lict, and both are direct manifestations of French foreign policy. The Malian military forces were not adequately equipped to combat these powerful rebel groups as they overtook several northern cities and continued south towards larger cities, such as Bamako, the nation’s capital. It was only with the French intervention that the rebels were thwarted and
forced to retreat. Although the French have risen to the occasion to help Mali in a humanitarian and counter-terrorism mission, military intervention is not the be-all, end-all solution to the conf lict, which is not simply military in nature. Fighting aside, the northern half of Mali has been marginalized for a long time, creating a schism between the rural north and the developed south. Once the current violence subsides, bridging this divide will be critical to the peace and unity of the country. The African Union (AU) has contributed $50 million to the International Mission of Support in Mali ( MISM A), but how exactly this money will be used and how effectively it will buttress the Malian and pan-African forces remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is critical that neighboring countries offer support to Mali, particularly as the Islamic miltants move towards the fringes of the country, where they can easily cross borders. The Republic of Mali is nearly 5,000 miles awayfrom Gambier, OH, yet in the 21st century it is closer to us than ever beImage Courtesy of Creative Commons fore. The conf lict in Mali represents a new chapter of the war on terror. While most of the military aid has come from outside our country, the role of American support will likely increase in the upcoming weeks. That being said, it is doubtful that the conf lict will subside anytime soon, and now, with the Islamist militants hiding in the mountains, the conf lict will likely devolve into guerilla warfare.In addition, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, military intervention against Al-Qaeda can often exacerbate local conf lict. If the French hope to turn over the affair to Malian forces, Hollande will have to bite his tongue, refrain from any more speeches about liberation or victory and quit considering this affair some sort of sojourn.TKO
“Those whose kernels were cracked by benevolent spirit should not forget to be humble.� Achebe
10
GABRIEL BRISON-TREZISE
In Opposition to the Implementation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles In his piece in the Jan. 16 issue of the Observer, Ja- also recognize that we are uncertain of the identities cob Weiner argues in favor of the implementation of and intents of a great many of those we target in UAV unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). I will endeavor here attacks. If we let moral certainties guide our actions, to refute some of his arguments and discuss more we should immediately cease our use of “situation” broadly the grave flaws of American UAV use. strikes. American UAV use—ostensibly designed to disA “double-tap” strike signifies an attack on those mantle al-Qaeda and the Taliban through the targeted attending to the victims of an earlier attack, the rakilling of their leaders and members—is increasingly tionale being that terrorists will come to the aid of comprised of “situation” and “double-tap” strikes. In their fallen comrades. However, the number of civil“situation” strikes, the CIA targets individuals based ians killed in these attacks is, understandably, almost not on any hard evidence of oppositional militant ac- always higher than the number of suspected militivity, but on “signature” actants. The U.S. has also used high level militant tar UAVs to attack funerals that tivities and traits supposedly common to militants. Acthey believed enemy militants kets made up only a frac cording to the CIA, a militant might be attending. The pracis not necessarily someone tion under of the ca tices of “double-tap” strikes who has been painstakingly and attacking funerals are not and positively identified as sualties of american only callous and ineffective such; rather, he is merely any attacks in akistan the but also hypocritical and ilmilitary-aged male in a strike legal. The U.N. has classified zone, or anybody possessing rest being either civilians “double-tap” strikes as a war any of the other “signature” crime, and they have been or suspected low level characteristics. That means if aptly likened to bombing the I lived in Waziristan, for ex- militants Red Cross. Additionally, emample, the U.S. might target ploying “double-tap” strikes me for no other reasons than my particular age and sex. and bombing funerals delegitimizes the U.S.’s repeated I could be traveling in a car with some friends or tend- denunciations of Syria and al-Qaeda—a stated target ing to animals—I wouldn’t even need to be holding a of our UAV war—for doing exactly the same thing. gun or fraternizing with a known militant—when, out A great bulk of our UAV attacks are unjust, which of nowhere, two Hellfire missiles are trained on and Weiner might concede, but what if the U.S. decided to shot at me. Weiner holds that the moral uncertainty stop performing “situation” and “double-tap” strikes? of whether using UAVs now will cause us to use them Could UAV use be advisable then? unjustly later should not stop us from using them in Weiner suggests that employing UAVs has resulted the present. If we accept this as valid, though, we must in fewer civilian casualties than have ground opera-
“
-
(
2%) P
“
UAV
,
”
-
“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” George Bernard Shaw
11
tions; however, his is a misleading analysis. The data Weiner cites are of UAV attacks in Pakistan from 2004-2007, a period in which the U.S. carried out only 10 total strikes, compared to well over 300 since. Additionally, Weiner’s data rely on American and Pakistani media accounts, which are generally derived from government statistics. However, the U.S. government has systematically low-balled the number of civilians killed, even suggesting recently that the number since Obama assumed office was in the “single digits”. The governments of both Yemen and Pakistan have also misrepresented casualty statistics, and the Pakistani government refuses to let any journalists or foreigners into Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). This precludes the possibility of a thorough, independent casualty record. Researchers from Stanford and New York Universities, however, have made perhaps the best attempt to construct an accurate casualty record. They ventured to Pakistan and managed to interview 100-plus eyewitnesses and other knowledgeable individuals. They discovered that high-level militant targets made up only a minute fraction (under 2 percent) of the casualties of American UAV attacks in Pakistan, the rest being either civilians or “suspected” low-level militants, who may or may not pose a serious threat. These numbers are troubling but are not terribly surprising, given the U.S.’s proven tendency to target people based on scant evidence that they participated in military activities. A key component of Weiner’s argument is that UAV warfare yields minimal collateral damage; however, it appears that this is probably not the case. UAV warfare, especially in light of the associated collateral damage, is counterproductive. It turns local populations against the United States, which they perceive not as a benevolent force but as a terrorist one. One resident of Waziristan described to the university researchers what living under the threat of UAVs is like: “We can’t go to the markets. We can’t drive cars. … Some refuse to leave their houses. Funerals are sparsely attended. Friends no longer visit one another’s homes. Yet no one ever feels safe anyway.” This remark reflects the constant stress and fear under which tribal Pakistanis of all stripes live. UAVs are ubiquitous in the skies above FATA and inescapable for those below. Across the region, school enrollment has declined. American UAV attacks, which have hit Pakistan at a rate of one every four days over the last five years, have engendered widespread antiAmerican sentiment and increased both enlistment in and civilian support for al-Qaeda. Even Plaw and Fricker, whose data Weiner cites, recognize that the
U.S.’s current strategy is “likely to increase resentment both locally and throughout Pakistan and in turn to strengthen the Pakistani Taliban and possibly increase local recruitment.” It makes no strategic sense to use UAVs when they will only turn the local populations against us and compromise whatever support we have built up in the region. Weiner asserts that, in a just war, using available UAV technology is morally both permissible and obligatory. He presents a scenario of just war in which the only choice is that of weaponry: UAVs or “boots on the ground.” Consider, though, that outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described UAVs as “the only game in town” to combat al-Qaeda, implying that the option is not between UAVs and “boots on the ground” but between UAVs and nothing (or more sparing UAV use). Thus, the choice Weiner presents is contrived and hypothetical and a relatively pointless one to ponder given the current nature of the U.S.’s UAV program. The injustice of current U.S. UAV use should not, says Weiner, factor in to a discussion of the morals of UAV use generally. But to separate America’s present use of UAVs from the theoretical morality of UAV use would be wrong. Is it merely coincidental that all of our half-dozen ongoing UAV wars—with another apparently imminent in Mali—are undeclared and, under humanitarian law and the just war theory, unjust? Can a war in which we rely largely or wholly on UAVs ever be just? Well, for it to be just, its perpetrator would first have to conduct it legally and transparently, actions the U.S. has unwaveringly forsaken. The CIA will not even acknowledge the existence of its UAV program, because if it did, it would be forced to reveal what we already know: that its killings are not “surgical” or just, and that it has systematically broken international law (and American law—President Ford barred American intelligence groups from performing any kind of assassination). Perhaps in the situation Weiner outlines I would favor UAV usage. If the U.S. military could kill Hitler with a UAV or send its just warfighters into World War II to achieve the same end, I would completely favor the former. But the choices the CIA are faced with are not nearly as cut and dry. Its UAV wars have not been approved by Congress, are carried out in utter secrecy, terrorize large numbers of innocent people and are far from certain to protect American lives and interests in the long run. Simply put, it’s both wrongheaded and counterproductive for us to continue our UAV program.TKO
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton
12
REMY BERNSTEIN
Metropolitan Morals A RECONSIDERATION OF URBAN STUDIES The Kenyon Observer is pleased to run the first of a series of features focusing on senior theses from various departments on our campus. Mr. Bernstein is writing his thesis on middle class identity in post-World War II San Francisco. I spent this past winter break in San Francisco, conducting archival research for my thesis and trying to remain as professional as possible throughout my two-week stay. Still, I couldn’t shake the feeling I was learning more watching two homeless men snort cocaine in the public library bathroom than from anything I found amongst all the boxes and documents and books up in the fifth-f loor archives. Those two weeks passed, and I lugged my pile of photocopied personal letters, government files, and newspaper clippings back to Gambier, wondering how I would sort through it all. And sure enough, as I began f lipping through the pages, my mind began to wander—in particular, to those two bald-headed, sewer-scented dudes with their Ziploc bag of illicit powder and my incredulity that such depraved activity could take place in a library, a sacred home of knowledge and history. Perhaps I should have expected the memory of this event to endure, as it represented a great
schism I believe too often appears between the incomplete, textual world presented by academia and, well, the real deal. The central library, with its proximity to the hard-luck Tenderloin District, is a well-established mecca for the city’s homeless, mentally incapacitated, and criminal populations— in large part due to its easily accessible restrooms. My research had alluded to the presence of these communities in San Francisco, but nothing had
“S till , I couldn ’ t shake the feeling I was learning more watching two homeless men snort cocaine in the pub lic library bathroom than from anything
I
found in
the fifth - floor archives .” prepared me for the visceral shock I was to receive upon entering that crowded, smelly, depraved excuse for a bathroom. What was the source of this
“For every talent that poverty has stimulated it has blighted a hundred.” John W. Gardner
13
disconnect? Were my professors to blame? My sources? Or was it my own lack of due diligence or intellectual curiosity that left me painfully uninformed? Was this even a case of disconnect, or merely a manifestation of the old adage, “You’ve got to see it to believe it”? I mulled it over.
“S o my
feel free to disregard potentially
foolish
challenge to the academic establishment , but as grad uation
approaches ,
I
re -
fuse to discount the feel ing that its ways and means have left me unfulfilled .” Several more weeks have passed, and as I enumerate here the laundry list of my insecurities in writing a Senior thesis, one in particular continues to linger: I don’t believe I’m writing a morally sound paper. But what does that mean? For one, so far I’ve found that my paper lacks the compassion that comes with a true encapsulation of the body politic. I have strived to present San Francisco as a microcosm of urban evolution, and specifically, show how it has perpetuated the development of a uniquely anti-suburban middle-class identity throughout the second half of the twentieth century. To achieve this goal in an academically sufficient manner, I have done my best to follow the guidelines laid out by the History Department, the examples supplied by published historical texts, and the wisdom of my Kenyon professors. The principles I have formulated largely center on succinctly presenting crucial historical trends and original arguments grounded in the analysis of primary sources. That sounds like a mouthful, but on the contrary, I’d argue it’s symptomatic of an oversimplified and inelastic rubric that has become so indoctrinated in our standards of learning that such encounters as my library bathroom experience are thrown aside as diverting anecdotes to share in passing. This is not to criticize of our professors here at Kenyon. They are experts in their craft, and both their instruction and commitment to facilitating my progress have been instrumental to the work
I have accomplished thus far. But I believe what happened to me in that bathroom should inform the way I think about the city of San Francisco in a profound way — that what I actually see and hear and even smell should tell me more about the essence of an entity even as large and complex as an entire city than anything in the written word. So feel free to disregard my potentially foolish challenge to the academic establishment, but as graduation approaches, I refuse to discount the feeling that its ways and means have left me unfulfilled. How are we to reconcile the disparity between conventional and experiential styles of learning? Our studies are grounded in events, places, and other phenomena from around the globe. Are students taking a course realistically expected to visit the locale at issue each semester? Of course not, and that’s why there is no easy answer to this question. However, as I spend the remainder of this semester attempting to define San Francisco not only as a backdrop for a particular historical progression, but as a multifaceted organism marked by diversity and structural evolution, I hope I can slip in a mention of that public library. If I do, it won’t have been for the story, but because I think our work as students is a personalized endeavor, one that requires us to step outside the classroom, the library, and the courses themselves, and think about the imprint we, as original thinkers, are leaving on the work we produce.TKO
Illustration by Peter Falls
“A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.” Baltasar Gracian
14
TOMMY BROWN
Congressional Oversight THE TOLL OF CONGRESSIONAL INACTION ON NATIONAL SECURITY LAW Last week the Center for the Study of American Democracy hosted former New York Times correspondent David Shipler on campus to discuss his new book, Rights at Risk. His lecture focused on the balance between liberty and security in a post-9/11 world. This conversation on rights in a new era of conf lict is a vital one to have, however late we are to have it. Mr. Shipler’s concern about the erosion of our rights transcends political parties, and certainly goes beyond the War on Terror. Over the past decade, there has been a constant rumbling in certain corners of the media about the impact our approach to terrorism has had on our own civil liberties, but we have not come close to having the national conversation the situation requires. Without any such dialogue, Congress’ approach to civil liberties will remain the same as it has been the past decade: delegate what it can to the courts, give the Executive branch the ambiguity it asks for, and fail to enact legislative structure to outline limits of governmental actions. Until Congress can muster the political wherewithal to pass legislation providing some sort
of legal framework and structure, the President’s actions will live in the murky realm of prerogative power. To be sure, this is not to say that Congress has done exactly nothing. Congress has passed various legislation defining the nature and use of American power, both before and after 9/11. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in the late 1970s, to the recent Patriot Act and various iterations of the Military Commissions Act, such legislation does indeed exist. However, while Congress can certainly be credited with attempting such a legal framework, its legislation has been woefully inadequate. Boumediene v. Bush found the 2006 Military Commissions Act unconstitutional; the Bush administration demonstrated the ease with which it could circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and FISA courts. The increased use by the Obama administration of targeted drone strikes also works to undermine even the limits the executive branch has placed on itself. In the absence of pertinent legislation, Executive Order 11905 and 1603 were issued in 1976 and 1978, respectively, remaining in place as
“If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.” Donald H. Rumsfeld
15
a ban on assassination by anyone “employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government,” yet the Obama administration has been allowed to merely work around the definition of assassination. Another example has been Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta categorizing an attack on our cyber-infrastructure as potentially catastrophic should Congress continue to fail to draft relevant legislation. Mr. Shipler raised many valid points in his lecture on the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security. However, he failed to direct his audience towards a root cause for this diminishment, other than pointing out that such an imbalance exists. Obviously the American people want to be secure and safe from the threat of violent terrorism; an easy answer to an easy question. Everyone can agree that we all want solutions that will keep the American people safe from harm, protect our civil liberties at home and work towards an effective strategy abroad. And, as any mildly engaged individual can point out, there is not one single solution, opinion or ideological approach
that serves as a panacea to this complex problem. However, until Congress begins to discuss these varying approaches with any level of seriousness, we will not see any such national conversation, nor any substantive legislation. My own feelings of what such legislation should be aside, without such legislative framework Congress diminishes its necessary place in the balance and separation of powers. The courts are left with interpreting antiquated legislation in an age of changing conf lict. The executive branch, perhaps more worrisome, is only left with the option of prerogative power, embarking deep into legally murky territory. Whether Congress is avoiding the problem due to low political capital or wide ideological divide, there comes a point in the legislative process where necessity overrides such feeble concerns. Congress can stall on such action for the foreseeable future, but we can only stay in this state of legislative ambiguity for so long. The longer Congress remains substantively silent, the more power it delegates to the two other branches of government.TKO
Nite Bites Café
Peirce Pub Sunday - Thursday 10pm-1am Delivery: 740-427-6300 Menu: facebook.com/nitebitescafe “Nite Bites ... A little Taste of Kenyon” Advertisement
“I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
16
JON GREEN
On My Honor WHY KENYON SHOULD TREAD CAREFULLY AROUND AN HONOR CODE
“On my honor, I pledge that I have neither given nor received help on this assignment.” On the night of November 12, 1840, a student at the University of Virginia shot and killed professor John A. G. Davis. It is rumored that, on his deathbed, the professor claimed to know who his attacker was but refused to identify him, saying a truly honorable man would step forward on his own. In the wake of the tragedy, University students established an honor code governing both academic and social conduct, the first of its kind on a college campus. It remains one of the only honor codes in the country to be completely student-run. In addition to appending the above quote to tests, papers and other individual assignments, students must also agree not to lie, cheat or steal while in the city of Charlottesville, the surrounding county of Albemarle or any where else where they are representing the University. During exams, professors typically leave the room, and students are presumed honorable until proven other-
wise. The University takes great pride in its honor code, warning that prospective students who are not prepared to accept such responsibility should not bother applying. “Accompanying this individual commitment to abide by the Honor System is an even more demanding commitment, a responsibility to ask those who violate our standard of honor to leave the University.” There is only one enforcement mechanism for UVA’s honor code: expulsion. Despite its honorable intentions, this creates a cycle of perverse incentives that lead the honor code to cause more harm than good in many cases. Since successfully prosecuting an honor case effectively ends a student’s academic career, most cases are quietly excused. After all, how much sense does it make to expel someone over a five-point quiz? Under the honor code’s blind eye, students cheat more, not less, knowing that failing the given assignment or class is not a possibility. As one UVA professor re-
“Be sure your wisest words are those you do not say.” Robert Service
17
cently remarked in appraisal of the code’s success, “There is no honor code at UVA.” So as the Kenyon community deliberates whether or not to enact an honor code of our own, we would do well to choose carefully when picking a model. We could follow UVA’s example and set a rigid standard with a punitive enforcement mechanism. Or we could take a more symbolic approach, merely making students sign a document that amounts to a “terms of use” agreement to go with our existing Student Handbook (this would be a model more closely resembling Colorado College’s honor system, a comparison that was f loated in the Collegian last week). If Kenyon’s honor code were to extend beyond academic infractions and included theft, vandalism or, as was discussed in Student Council on January 27th, out of control allstus, it would seem that a separate student body would need to be established to implement and enforce such a code. Student Council President Faith McDuffie ’13 was quoted in yesterday’s Collegian as saying that this would not be the case. She stated that no new regulations would be enacted as part of any honor code; it would just be a piece of paper that we sign at the beginning of the year. But, lacking any new way to enforce our agreed-upon values, would this academic equivalent of a promise ring serve any functional purpose? If we are serious about up-
“T he
professor claimed to
know who his attacker was but refused to identify him , saying
a
truly
honorable
man would step forward on his own .” holding Kenyon’s values, shouldn’t we give them some teeth? Perhaps the symbolism of signing a document affirming that we won’t vandalize school property or glance at someone else’s test paper will make us less likely to do so. Then again, perhaps the lack of consequences for dishonorable behavior will, as it
has at UVA, make us more likely to engage in it. If we refuse to back our values up with the credible threat of consequences for violating them, can we really call them “our” values, elevated to a status
“W e
find it necessary to
tell aren ’ t
ourselves bad
ourselves
that
we
we
set
from
the
kids ;
apart
cheaters and vandals by af firming our own righteous ness .”
higher than mere rules? Calls for an honor code have been a natural response to a spike in academic and social misconduct on our campus. As any community must, we validate ourselves by rewarding in-group behavior and ostracizing out-group behavior. We find it necessary to tell ourselves that we aren’t bad kids; we set ourselves apart from the cheaters and vandals by affirming our own righteousness. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it says a lot about our ability to organize ourselves collectively. Elevating bad behavior from mere rule breaking to out-and-out dishonor carries with it great potential and great risk. If, upon enacting an honor code, our academic and social ills fade and our community embraces a culture of honor in which we hold each other accountable in ways previously unseen, it would show that we do not avoid dishonorable behavior simply because it is dishonorable; we avoid it because we are at Kenyon and it is dishonorable. Should cheating and vandalism persist or continue to rise, it would show that our community is no different from any other; that we no longer consider our community here at Kenyon as something to be revered. This would not only be a blow to Kenyon’s honor, this would be a blow to Kenyon’s sanctity. So will we, in the spirit of John A. G. Davis, call on Kenyon’s truly honorable men and women to step forward? As attractive as it may seem, we may not like what we find if and when we do.TKO
“O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.” Saint Augustine
A n O pen V alentine from H is G lorious S uccessor , K im J ong -U n , to B eyoncé . Dearest Love, For years I have watched you from afar, loving you and knowing that you would be mine. I would obsessively listen to your music and watch your shows during the youth I spent incognito in various European international prep schools. My bodyguards would hold my extra CDs for me; this was before my Glorious Father invented the iPod and ear-buds. Once he invented the MacBook I would watch YouTube videos of you during the hearings of the Workers’ Party of North Korea. I still do not understand why we had hearings. I was the head of the party. What did I need to hear? Only Beyoncé. Your beautiful smile haunted my dreams, and the video of “Naughty Girl” was a constant torment in my head. However, I am no longer simply the Glorious Successor; I am now Supreme Leader! And I cannot be distracted by your absent love any longer. Yet neither can I not love you. Therefore I propose another option. Come to me, Beyoncé. And together, we will rule the world. I do not understand why you have not already done this. I can make you Supreme Queen of Love and Compassion of North Korea! You will not even have to listen to pesky Workers’ Party of North Korea meetings. I can build you a lavish palace filled with servants and beautiful cars. I even have purchased the wine glass you danced in in the “Naughty Girl” video; you may sleep in it! This is clearly the best solution for all. I must remain focused on making North Korea the most successful Glorious Empire the world has ever seen. And with you by my side, nothing can stop us. Somebody once asked me if a great leader is loved or feared. I had him mortared. But with you by my side I am both! North Koreans may love me, but the rest of the world is enamored with you; together we can be the force that rules the galaxy… I mean, world. I eagerly await your response. Mail comes very fast here. With Much Glorious Love,
Kim Jong-Un By Ryan Baker