Page 1

Volume VIII. Number 4

April / May 1995


"I am not trying to threaten Pipe Dream ... Oh, it's you, Carrie!"


t8t••O~<.tOSl··t •.t~~ .. . . , , •. "[ shalldonothmginlllalice;::whq~1m:n, dealing with is too important/or mali';' ciousilitent. " CO) QJ)

Micbii~'j.:·:r)ar# '. Editot in Chief


In a revealing editorial, Mike Darcy reads Gynegraph and lives to t~ll the tale

The SA, Pipe Dream, and a fired office'manager... sounds like the stufFBrian Taylor dreams about

Nathan Lewis Wurtzel

SeniorEiJ;tor ' ,




Amy L Gardner sees a public official and fluffy white stuff It's not Marion Bmy...

Grtipics·Et/.itor' ~


ExeCutive [)intctor

Mordechai Horowitz rails against antiSemitism and it's not Cara this time ' Can government actually help us develop our minds? Joe Martin thinks so...

Joshua 1rapani

Publishing Editor CantDoalOD



Aaron Scbeer's kind ofhero wears Birkenstocks and doesn't eat meat. Find out why...


CoPY.:FjIj,gr: "



Lee Markiewicz drives home a point in only 3 paragraphs? Read it and believe



Dr.AltioBematdo'. F,*ltj~4v/siJ;";

Does HIV cause AIDS? Ed Altabet reads a book and says "no." Nate Wurtzel disagrees



lAlUmlO!~ . '!~~_~I) . Bing;,OJptoh'RtfVi. · "


Lloyd Donders reviews a book and finds swprise- public universities are a mess

QjJ -

You too can fire people and hold show trials! Get the SA Toy Set


The BU Myn's Center wishes you a good summer. Look for Phallograph next year

'POBOx6000 Bingb8mt~;~13902~'/':' " ,'"

All·StibmisSi~:~;the ~,ot:tbe:·

Review. TheReVie,y reservestheri8ht~.edit ,: and print anysubmiSsion.: ..

Art Credits: Dawn Mc Kibbin, Joanna Pataki, Pegasus


Binghamton Review

April I May 1995

For those who have not seen the latest issue ofGynegraph, BinghamtonLJniversity's premier feminist literary journal, let me tell you: this is a must read. The journal begins with an ingenious attack on the underarm deodorant industry. ApparantJy the author has had enough of the male-dominated society that forces her to bathe, wear deodorant, and perform other humiliating acts of personal hygene. Remind me to avoid the Gynegraph office. But the writers of Gynegraph have bigger dragons to slay, and quickly move on to - you guessed it - George Pataki. "Pataki Lyric" is the work of"Min," who, from what I can tell, does not approve of the recent cuts to the state budget. The rage that Min feels is subtly expressed in the lines: "[we'll] use them as tables! drink margaritas off their bellies! do lines off their backs/shoot up their blood ..." The subtlety of the language grabs the reader and pulls him into Min 's world of discontent. The feminist guru "Ugly Feminist" next examines the "feminist desire to show their boogers." Hmmm, I think I saw Gloria Steinem and Anna Quindlan comparing greenies one night on Larry King Live. Larry was, of course, enthralled, but I could only marvel at the fact that the ugly feminist appeared to be right. And to think that I once considered her a poorly wrought caricature of radical feminism. Silly me. Next up are some great pick-up lines ready for use in the pub: "Hey babell've known you for three moon cycles/waxing and waning/full and empty," or for those a bit more daring, "Doesn't that feel so good baby, oh yes, yes, doesn't that feel good," and finally, "Like little Forrest, run real fast and you will be able to throw offthe shackles of your oppression." Hardly anyone is spared in the pages ofGynegraph, including our own Nate Wurtzel (see letters to the "Ugly Feminist") despite his fervent support of the right to freedom of expression - a right which the writers of Gynegraph are all too eager to exercise. This hypocracy resurfaces all throughout, and is endemic to the rants of all radical leftists. This includes those at Coup de Tete who recently included as part of an article a jibe at those who dine at the Old Country Buffet in the Town Square Mall. You see, the radical left despises the very bougousie values upon which their lives and ideas depend. The middle class people who read magazine ads and eat in the Old Country Buffet are the same people who work tirelessly to create the wealth that those at Gynegraph can't wait to redistribute. But those of the radical left don't concern themselves with these values - hypocrosy is much easier. The radical left's displeasure with middle class popular culture is no suprise. All radicals, left or right, find little to admire in those who Mchael Darcy. Edtor-ÂŁrTeitus as simply go about the business of life each day without concerning """" new readng ".nE<. themselves with ways in which to engineer society. And yet their ability to attend a publicly funded school and publish their drivel with student funding is made possible by those very people. This is why radical leftists such as those at Gynegraph will never gain anything but derision from those they wish to convert. April I May 1995


Michael Darcy

of last week. get:s lis jaDes with


Binghamton Review



Carrie On My Wayward Tom Br i a n T a ylor

~A. "'.,;dent


rsula Findikyan, the Student Associa tion office manager/secretary for the past eleven years, was fired by the SA Executive Board on February 17, 1995 . She was called into SA President Carrie Printz's office a few minutes before 5 p.m., handed a letter ofdismissal, and told to leave immediately. She had been given no prior warning, and was not told why she was fired - she still doesn't know. Printz and SA Financial Vice President Tom Majewski spoke with Pipe Dream reporter Mitchell Katz, who was researching an article on Findikyan' s firing. Printz implored him to drop his article because it may jeopardize the livelihood ofthe SA. Majewski told him that he would not allow the printing of his article and Pipe Dream would lose its SA funding if it did so. Neither Printz nor Majewski even asked to seeorread the article they felt so threatened by. The editors ofPipe Dream were convinced by Printz and Majewski to drop their story on Findikyan. Pipe Dream was not going to print anything on either Findikyan' s dismissal or the threat they received from Majewski, but they could no longer suppress the stories. Findikyan has filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Research Foundation, Findikyan's (former) employer, will coordinate the response to her Came Pri,rtz complaint. They have until May 15, and then an investigation will ensue. Overtwo months after the fact, Findikyan' s firing is still news- the story hasyet to betold.


Binghamton Review

The Opening Act Let's begin the tale on a blustery Friday afternoon, March 10, with Katz, Pipe Dream' s Art Beat editor. While researching an article he was writing on Findikyan' s sudden firing, he knew something was unusual. When Katz inquired as to her dismissal, members of the SA declined to comment on the advice of their attorney. Katz grew increasingly suspicious by their evasions and, like a good reporter, continued his investigation. On Saturday, March II, SA Executive Vice President Doug Boettner (possibly upset because he didn't receive Pipe Dream's endorsement for SA president) snapped at Katz's inquiry, saying "I don't know," when asked why Findikyan was fired. As Boettner was one of the signatories on her dismissal notice, this was odd. Either there was no justification for Findikyan' s firing or Katz was lied to. Boettner did not return my calls. Sunday evening, Printz and Majewski went to the Pipe Dr.eam office and found Katz. They asked to speak with him, then all three of them walked out the office, down the hall, and into a small room. Either Majewski or Printz, Katz doesn't remember, then shut the door. Majewski immediately told Katz that "freedom of the press is a myth," and that "there is no way that article [the one regarding Findikyan's firing] is going to run." Majewski said he would call the printer, and stop signing vouchers for Pipe Dream. He said, unequivocally, that he was not going to allow Pipe Dream to damage the Student Association, said Katz. Art Beat Assistant Editor Monica Bilson said she was standing April/May 1995

outside the door and heard Majewski shouting at Katz: "He sounded like he was trying to intimidate him," she said. Majewski conveyed the impression that Assistant Vice President for Finance / Controller Don Paukett "was backing him" when he made his threat to Katz, said Howard Unger, managing editor of Pipe Dream. Paukett denies this. "I've given no one the authority to cut anybody' s finances," he said, "IfTom threatened anyone, he did it all on his own." Paukett also said an examination ofthe SA Constitution would lead one to conclude no one person has the ability to cut funds; he or she must operate through proper SA channels. Judging by the SA resolution Printz recently authored - S95-RS "Pipe Dream Needs Corrections"- she has figured this out. The resolution, ostensibly intended to punish Pipe Dream for "censorship" of Printz's article (which she claims, for some reason, to call an "editorial"), and to demand that "SA Scoop" and "Just Kickin'It" [columns] beperrnanently restored to Pipedream [sic] - also calls for the elimination of23 stipended positions at Pipe Dream. The stipends range from $125 to $500 per semester, said Unger, and Pipe .Dream raises most of the money for their stipends through advertising. . Printz and co-conspirators Mark Samey and Ingrid Lemmey want to review and change Pipe Dream's constitution to their liking - they say so themselves: "The Student Assembly issue [sic] an official denunciation ofPipedream 's [sic] actions. Pipedream's [sic] constitution is immediptely reviewed and changed to prevent tbis type of censorship from taking place. The Student Assembly recommends to the Budget committee [sic] a reevaluation of p,ipedream's [sic] stipends and who gets them. .. (Taken from the Assembly agenda, April 18, 1995) Printz's behavior shocked Monica Luraschi, editor-in-chief ofPipe Dream: "1 am livid."

she said, "This resolution is a joke." Printz' s view ofthe First Amendment- that it requires a paper to print an articleverbatim-is untenable. Besides being too long, Luraschi said, Printz's piece needed polishing: "The grammar was horrible, and her spelling could use some work." Face it, said Luraschi, "the girl can't write." While she is motivated for personal reasons, an idea ought not be summarily dismissed simply because Printz stumbled upon it. It is time for the reevaluation of all stipended positions - including hers. Howaod '-'11", edt", of IfJe Ore."!, pose< Pipe Dream can exist without SA funding, and the student body can exist without the SA. Unger said Pipe Dream would have to publish less frequently, and have less pages, but they would survive. Pipe Dream receives a littIeunder one-fifth oftheir total budget from the SA, said Unger.

f", us.

The Plot Thickens

Printz said she was concerned about the many student groups who could be affected by a damaging lawsuit, said Katz. He felt her sentiments sincere. But atthetime, Katz didn't think his article posed a threatto the existence of student groups, and he still doesn't. Printz must have had another reason to object to the article, because if they had already been advised by their attorney not to comment on Findikyan' s dismissal, she must have already filed her complaint and wasn't waiting for a Please see Came. Page 18

April! May 1995

Binghamton Review


t was April 8th and there were five inches of snow on the ground. That wasn't going to be the only surprise for the day. Phones were ringing all over campus with the word that Governor Pataki was coming to visit that afternoon. Students complained that they hadn't known sooner and weren't able to prepare. Still, they flocked to the Union awaiting his arrival. The Union was awash in a sea of 9- to II-year-old students - hereto participate in Odyssey ofthe Mind, an exhibition for gifted children. Pataki was not coming here to speak to the Binghamton University students, but rather to watch his own daughter compete in the exhibition. Pataki did not receive a favorable first impression of the students here at Binghamton. He entered through a side door and was mobbed by abunch of ranting and raving protesters. A member of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Union (LGB U) was running through the hall with their flag chanting, "Hey Pataki, let Lorena do the cutting!" He entered UU 133 where the children were presenting their projects, and where his daughter was scheduled to present hers. Students waited outside the room, so he could be mobbed again when he left. Binghamton students clogged the halls, making difficult for the children to get through with their projects. Parents and teachers accompanying the children had to constantly yell at students to let the children through. Their day was further disrupted by the chants of students outside the presentation room. The students of Binghamton ruined these children's day to shine in the glory of their achievement. Children were crying. They were frightened by the mobs and the noise. The students did not


Amy L. Gardner

seem to care about the children. They were concerned with their own selfish goals. Students should be glad that Governor Pataki agreed to meet with any of them. It is not often that people get to direct their concerns directly to the Governor. They should also be shocked he agreed to meet with people displaying such rude and childish behavior. The main reason Pataki agreed to meet with the students is so that they wouldn't disrupt Odyssey of the Mind any further. As Pataki met with about 25 students in the OffCampus College office for nearly forty minutes, hundreds more awaited outside the office. They held some sense of decourum because Pataki said he would leave if the students did not remain quiet. I was among this mob. During that time, I was on the receiving end ofpersonal attacks because I happen to work for Senator Libous, a supporter of Pataki's budget cuts. For instance, I was asked how much I got paid. Because I get above minimun wage, I was told I should take a pay cut to help cut the budget (this, they said, would result in less cuts to education). Why should I have to take a pay cut? I work hard for the money I earn, and that money helps put me through school. I told my harrassers that. They were shocked; they had assumed my mommy and daddy were rich and put me through school. Just because I happen to support budget cuts does not mean I am rich. What many students fail to realize is that the budget must be cut. Taxes in New York are .the highest in the country. While other states are creating jobs, New York is losing them. The taxes here are stifling the economy. As Chief Justice John Marshall said, "The Pledse ~e SnowbilU. Polge 16


Binghamton Review

April/May 1995

here does anti-Semitism come from? If you think about that question for awhile, you begin to realize that hatred of Jews makes no logical sense whatsoever. What did the anti-Semite of color, who told radio personality Curtis Sliwa, a recent Jewish Student Union speaker, that he could keep on "kissing f.-ing Jewish ass," gain from her bigotry? At the time, Sliwa was complementing Jews on how they pulled themselves from the depths of poverty and succeeded as a group in this country, despite the discrimination they faced. Why would this bigot of color be offended by Sliwa's comments. How could the idea that people can succeed in the face of oppression be offensive to anyone? What is the worldview that unites these big,ots, with diverse personalities like Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan on the right and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan on the left? Sobran and Buchanan, with a sense offalse patriotism, view Jews as traitors to the country of their birth. The left-wing bigots of color who disrupted the Sliwa lecture justified the Crown Heights pogrom as a part of the war on capitalism. Different as these groups seem, they are united in their hatred of Jews. In The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek attempts to answer this question. In his seminal criticism of social planning, Hayek wrote that a planned society cannot succeed because it requires "the deliberate organization ofthe la,bors of society towards a social goal." The ~stablishment of such requires that the state enforce a "complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allocated their due place." Jews who are faithful to their heritage fol-


Iowa value system that is separate from their non-Jewish neighbors. Historically, this has put Jews in great personal danger. In the Book ofEsther, Haman justifies his call to slaughter the Jews because they are "scattered among all the people...their laws are different from all other people." Because the Jews were different and had their own values and identity separate from the state, "it [was] of no benefit to the king to tolerate them." When personal identities and value systems are formed by the state, their is no room for minorities with a different value base. The First Amendment ofthe United States constitution

Is rn.hio.6.n&sm


Mordechai Horowitz

a haven fOf aoo-SerritislTi

should be viewed as a bulwark against those who believe in moral coercion. It does not Please see Statism Page 16

April! May 1995

Binghamton Review


( :ogl1iti\'C i:I1lP()\\Cl"lllt'llt: .\

I ); 11" (1 d i:~ III

Joe Martin

r() I"

S()C i (11


( : h(111 ~ e

"Somebody needs to have an idea. Somebody needs to come forward with a new way of doing business because you've got this very odd situation... A majority of Americans actually believe that they have achieved the American Dream or are very close to it. But when they talk about the future, there's this enormous pessimism - it's about children, it's about values, it's about this whole relationship of our institutions and how we bring kids into the future ... And there's an opportunity for new ideas here that crosses the (political) spectrum... There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." - William J. Bennell e primary task that challenges the post as social spending, adjusted for inflation, has baby-boomer generation is that offun more than quintupled during the same period. darnentally revising the political ideolo- We face the 21 st century with our heads lowgies of the past two generations which have ered, and there is no one to blame but "We authored a massive government bureaucracy the People." that finds it self burdening a new, dynamic, inBut we must keep our chins up, for a new formation intensive society it was not designed civilization - based on knowledge as the prito serve. In many cases, it perpetuates the very mary tool for generating wealth - is emergproblems it was meant to liberate us from. ing, and this presents us with an enormQus opThe correlation between societal decay and portunity for institutional renewal. The structhe rise ofthe welfare state is very clear, even ture and function of our instiMions must now to much ofthe left. Since \960, there has been foster this new order. This is Bill Bennett's a 550 percent increase in the violent crime rate, challenge. With humility in front ofthis enora tripling of teenage pregnancy an~ suicide mous task, I have postulated a new sociorates, and a 73 point drop in SAT scores. political framework for rising to Mr. Bennett's These social pathologies have remained im- challenge - a unique alliance between the pervious to federal social welfare programs, state, academicpsychology, and education.



Ty~ away


Before the principle that serves as the hub of this new framework is made explicit, three supporting insights, all connected with each other, will provide the reader with a better understanding ofthe new ideology. 1) The difference between conservative and liberal economic policies stem primarily fiom divergent views on the maximally proper and just distribution of responsibility between individual and state. 2) The divergent views on the maximally

in the ConpA:er pods..

Binghamton Review

April/May 1995

proper and just distribution of responsibility between individual and state stem primarily from differing accounts of how Jruman behavior is generated. Conservatives generally take a free will, or metaphysical stance, while liberals generally take a gena-environmental, or bia-behavioralistic stance. 3) In light of the recent development of cognitive science into a legitimate paradigm in the psychological community, both ofthese accounts are inadequate models to create a just distnbution ofresponsibility between individual and state. a modem, cognitive revision ofthe bio-behavioristic account of human behavior can provide us with a powerful framework to guide us to amore proper and just distribution ofresponsibility. Here is the basic principle that is supported by the above: The most proper andjust distribution of responsibility between individual and state lies ill (1) holding the individual primarily accountable for his own welfare, prosperity, and happiness, while (2) simultaneously holding the state accountable for providing the individllal with effective training in an empowering cognitive orientation so as to maximize the individual spotentialfor fulfilling this responsibility. Over the past 30 years or so, psychologists have shown that behavior is nof simply a function ofthe stimuli, but is a function ofhow the organism processes information about

the stimuli. Consequently, different behavior - including economic behavior- can result from the same stimulus ifthe organism's information-processing style is modulated. Sinee our politics - in essence our way of distributing responsibility between individual and state - depends on our conception ofhow human behavior is generated, our political institutions must respond to this paradigm shift. They haven't - aod hence our cultural decline should be no surprise to us.

Agenda Orienting a person's information processing style to make pro-adjustive, pro-social behavior more likely is the goal of a cognitive orientation program. Notice here a critical distinction: We are talking about haw to think, not what to think. Educating people how to think - irt other words, identifYing the optimum ways to process information about yourself and the environment - is the key to living a successful and happy life in the information age. Telling people what to think - in other words, brainwashing people with political propaganda - is the way back to Soviet-style totalitarianism and enslavement to the state. By cognitive orientation, I mean the array oftendencies and "The correlation beconstraints that are implicit in the neural tween societal decay architecture of our and the welfare state is minds which generate very clear, even to and modulate behavmuch of the left" ior. In other words, the " things in our minds" that tend to make us behave in certain ways. Some of these tendencies and constraints can be measured by reliable and valid psychological tests, and it is these we would address in a cognitive orientation program. These constructs could include: Hardiness, AttributionallExp1anatory Style, Locus of Control, Self-esteernlimage/efficacy, or Alienation and Estrangement (get out your Psych 101 texts and look these up, since I don't have room to define them here). The operational goals of a cognitive orientation program would be, fur example, to raise hardiness and self esteernlimage/efficacy scores, shift Locus of Control from external to internal scores, decrease scores on meaptease set! Olange. Page 15

April! May 1995

Binghamton Review


Aaron Scheer


he diversity meeting was about to be gin. The whole room echoed with murmuring and grumbling; the perennially indignant can't afford to have a moment of good humor. All the usual suspects were present, but today; an unexpected, uninvited guest participated as well. No one else knew the truth - to the untrained eye, he looked like any other campus radical. He had labored long and hard for that exact effect. His name was Charlie. Looking back, Charlie thought of the day's preparation. He remembered the work that went into this deception. Everything had to be perfect. A fellow freedom fighter had run down the checklist with him before he left for the meeting. "Birkenstocks?" "Check." " All black clothing?" "Check." "Blonde hair done up In bad dreadlocks?" "Check." "Smug self-righteousness?" "Check. " "Blatant self hatred?" "Check." "A well thought out, sober vision of freedom ... Just kidding!" Charlie was officially undercover. The meeting commenced as the Grand Leader strode out, and the crowd hushed. As


Binghamton Review

Grand Leader strode to the front ofthe room; the crowd was in awe. Grand Leader's "campus guerrilla" credentials were impeccable, as he had stood up to more spineless middle aged bureaucrat administrators than anyone else. He was a badass. "People, may I have your attention?" he called out. A Labrador retriever from B.A.R.C., sitting toward the back, objected to his people oriented language saying, "It's bourgeoise exclusionary rhetoric that reveals the hierarchical power roles in our elitist society. In addition, it only furthers the power ofthe homosapiens' hegemony!" "I apologize, my furry brother. I will attempt to use my language to include the powerless rather than to exclude." The Labrador retriever growled his approval and resumed licking himselfas the speech continued. Various groups formed, broke up, reformed as splinter groups. "We received a letter from Fidel Castro today. He states that we're wasting our time and should all join the School ofManagement. Dh yeah, he also says' send toilet paper and some Bic disposable razors'" "All right, it's work assignment collective time!" He motioned toward the crowd as he began picking out groups of people. "You, totheS.A. meeting." "You, write letters to Pipe Dream. Try to sound pissed offi" "How should we do that?" somebody inquired '路'Write it while you're on line at the Registrar," the Grand Leader replied. "Damn, this guy's good!" Charlie said to himself April/May 1995

"You," he gestured to Charlie and several :"others, "to the physical plant." 路 "Physi~1 PIQIlt'r' Charlie wondered. : .. H~ quickly joined up with the others in his i group. As they marched, some broke into song. Charlie caught a few words: "glorious ~e," "peasant and worker," "hammer and 路 sickle," "wheat," and "imperia1ist oppressor." 路Charlie got the gist ofit. However, he couldn't . help ask what they'd be doing at the physical . plant. "You didn't know? We got a contract with SUNY to help run the heating," the work leader replied somewhat testily. "Free enterprise?!! These guys? Something's really strange," Charlie nunnbled under his breath. "It's run as a collective with all profits distributed -to each according to their need I" another colleague added chirpily "Ofcourse!" Charlie assented, somewhat .relieved. They approached the plant. Charlie had never been there, so he was surprised to see how filthy it was. It was really run poorly, as ifcinema majors were put in charge ofcivil engineering (which was exactly the case). Charlie wondered what the hell was going on as they entered the boiler room. A heated debate from voices deep within the maze of conduits could be heard. "Kant is definitely what we need," someone argued. "You're out ofyour mind, what we want is some good Shakespeare, perhaps Othello," another voice retorted. Charlie was dumbstruck. Maybe he had these guys figured all wrong. Perhaps these radical Maoists could be reasonable. He fOWld himselfrushing through the pipes toward the voices. He wanted to meet these enlightened Marxists and bond with them over a good Classic or two. Meanwhile, th~ conve~tion continued. "Anyone with haifa brain knows that Mark I


April I May 1995

Twam's work is hot!" the first voice yelled. Charlie Was now within several yards ofthe voi~. Ashe ~ded the cor.ter, he wOndered wb8t his &voriie book would be. Then, he saw them. The people whose voices he heard were busy reaching into crates and stoking a fire. As he looked closer, he noticed the crates were marked ENGLISH DEPARTMENT. "Wow, Daniel Dafoe really bums!" another yened.



Binghamton Review


Ed Altabet

Recently, I had the·pleasure ofmeeting a very interesting author ofa more than interesting book. 10hn Lauritsen is the author ofa book called The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex. In it Mr. Lauritsen makes some very controversial claims. First, and perhaps most controversial, is that mv does not cause AIDS and that there is no such disease as AIDS·: Second, AZT, the drug ·many AIDS patients take, is in fact toxic and is being used to poison and kiD people. Third, the FDNs approval of AZT was based on fraudulent research. And finally, what Lauritsen calls the AIDS establishment seeks to censor and prevent the truth from coming out.

The AIDS War Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex

John'Lauritsen Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story Author of


AIDS is a phony construct. According to Mr. Laurit~ it is a new name for old diseases. He believes that, "It is.. .reasonable to infer that some particular lifestyle, genetic or environmental factor orf8ctors are causing - Or at least predis-· posing - the high risk groups to develop AIDS." What ever the cause, people's immune systems are being damaged ·and if HIV is present, it is considered AIDS. Mr. Lauritsen, however, does not believe that

Binghamton Review

HIV has any connection whatsoever to developing these diseases or becoming immunosuppresive. His evidence is very convincing. He had two major sources for his claims. The first is Koch's Postulates, a series ofthree tests perfonned on a microorganism to deterinine whether or not it is the cause of a disease. Mr. Lauritsen says, "So far, the so-called ,AIDS virus' , has ignominiously failed to· fulfill even one ofthe bacteriologist Robert Koch's three laws for "establishing the. specificity ofa pathogenic microorganism." . His second source and more convincing is his interview with molecular biologist Peter Duesberg. Duesberg begins his critique ofthe mv hypothesis by first noting that the mv is biochemically inactive. In order forth~virus to hurt someone or be pathogenic, he says the virus has to do something. In fact, when the virus enters an organism, it does nothing. The rate of infection of cells is 1 in 100,000. In order to do something the virus must make proteins, it must make DNA and RNA, but in fact the nature of the virus is not to do this. mv is what is known as a retrovirus. The nature ofretroviruses is that they don't kill the cells that they infect. They need the cells alive in order to survive. Finally, Mr. Duesberg disputes the notion that mv is killing T-cells. He notes that it is the very nature ofretroviruses which prevents them from killing T-cells. "The claim is that the AIDS virus works by killingtbe T-cells as one ofthe hallmarks oftbe disease-that the T-cells are reduced in numbers or depleted. And· that again is a difficult one to reconcile with the viral characteristics. [It is not posSIble] with the llinited genetic infonnation that viruses act on." Duesburg continues by notApril I May 1995

ing that it is inconceivable that HIV could first allow mitosis in order to exist, and then kill that cell after that has occurred, which as Duesburg states " ...would in fact be suicidal for the retrovirus. Most other viruses do that. They kill cells, and live by producing large numbers ofoffspring and killing more cells, or by becoming latent and not doing anything. But retroviruses are different. They need dividing cells." And ifretroviruses need dividing ceiIs, that means that they do not kill cells and are not dangerous to individuals. Mr.: Lauritsen claims that there are other things fit causeitmnunosuppression and critical to:h,iS theory is the use of drugs and unhealthY.:~le choices. So, )tow do gay men develop AIDS, one might ~k? Mr. Lauritsen says that gay men comprise 63% of all reported AIDS cases, but as awhole they are not at risk ofdevelop-: ing AIDS. He says, "Across America are tens ofmill~~~ of males who have sex with each other ail4.who remain healthy. Ifanything is sick, it is the proluDition ofsex between males - a tabO'o formulated 2500 years ago by the Levites, the priestly class ofthe tnDe ofJudah as part oftheir. Holiness Code." Only~,small percet:ttage ofgay men are a~ risk. There are three reasons that Mr. Laurit~outIines. The first is the use of''recreational drugs," the second is from venereal diseases and antibiotics, and the last is psychological factors. In the case ofhemophiliacs, who represent only 1% of the total AIDS cases, Mr. Lauritsen says that most people who are hemophiliacs and get AIDS do not die from AIDS related diseases, but ofhemophilia. The use ofthe blood clotting agent Factor vm is itmnunosuppressive and before the use ofFactor vm, hemophiliacs were often not expected to live past the age of 13. Mr. Lamitsen's most important explanation ofwhy people get sick and die is from the use ofAZT. AZT is the drug that is aurentJy given to those people with A1DS. .and is also advoApril I May 1995

cated as an early intervention measure ifpeople are diagnosed as HIV positive. According to Mr. Lauritsen, AZT is a very toxic drug, so toxic that many people who begin taking it must be taken ~ffAZT therapy because they can't tolerate it. AZT is also cytotoxic, which means it kills healthy cells. AZT also attacks DNA synthesis. IfDNA synthesis is blocked, new cells cannot be formed, in effect "halting the life process". Mr. Lauritsen also contends that the Phase II study upon which the FDA based its approval for AZT was fraudulent and has the documents to back these statements up in his book. Mr. Lauritsen believes that AZT is the reason why people die ofAIDS. When they get the results of their blood test back and it is mv positive, they start taking AZT, which is what kills them. Mr. Lauritsen explains that this is how Kimberly Bergalis and Ryan White died. Finally, Mr. Lauritsen claims that the use of AZT amounts to nothing less then "iatrogenic genocide" against gay men. He says that gay men are being poisoned by AZT and that no one is warning them ofthe dangers involved. It is Mr. Lauritsen's sincere beliefthat the promotion of AZT. by its manufacturer Burroughs-Wellcome is genocide, because it is a toxic chemical. Mr. Lauritsen declares, ''Everything about [the1suggestion is wrong, unless one believes it is a good thing to kill gay men. It's time for us to wake up. We, healthy gay men, are being targeted for genocide." So, why is it that nobody has ever heard of these other views on AIDS? Even if Mr. Lauritsen is wrong, you would think that there would be some news reports about dissenting views on the topic of AIDS. Mr. Lauritsen says that the reason is the "AIDS Establislnnents" use ofcensorship on all other views and that there are many well-respected scientists who agreewitb him. However, these views have never been given any time in the American media. Mr. Lauritsen concludes his book by callBinghamton Review


ing for the lies, the censorship, and the killing to stop so that the truth may come out. "The important thing now," he says, "is to 路get put the truth. We must save lives, stop the squandering of our national resources, and rescue the good name of Science." Mr. Lauritsen self published his book because he believed that this censorship which as he says, " .. .is unofficial, but all-pervasive," might have forced him to confonn to political correctness or stylebook punctuation and preferred to be his own master. The book is clearly worth reading. The truth ofthe matter is that he makes some very good points, and as far as I know ot: have not been refuted to a great enough extent to justifY blindly accepting the IflV hypothesis.

Another View: HIV Causes AIDS Nathan Wurtzel


John Lauritsen is a talented historical writer, but there is no substitute for scientific tr:aining when it comes to the complicated and rapidly developing fields ofepidemiology and immunology. Evidence gathered from research conducted during the past ten years overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that the human immunodeficiency virus (IllY) leads to the progressively crippling inununodeficiency syndrome we know as AIDS. The virus contains a protein, gp 120, which binds with CD4, a protein found on the surface membrane of two cells of the immune system, T-helper cells and macrophages. The viral,and cell membranes then fuse, drawing the viral genes into the cell. Research has demonstrated at least three mechanisms ofT-helper cell death due to mv infection. In a normally functioning innnune system, the T-helper cells "alert" other cells when an infection occurs. Infected macrophages, which normally "eat" infectious agents Binghamton Review

using a process called phagocytosis, do not appear to die, but their effectiVeness is severely impaired. Another class ofimnnmeceDs, natural killer cells, also appear to be functionally impaired in infected individuals. In combination, these impainnents, which grow progressively more profound over time, lead to collapse ofthe immune system. AIDS is characterized by an immune deficiency which leads to rare opportunistic diseases, not by the diseases themselves. Immune systems can also be compromised by autoimmune, congenital, and non-HIV acquired immunodeficiency disorders. The same diseases observed in individuals diagnosed with AIDS are also quite likely to occur in patients diagnosed with other immune disorders. It is also very likely that several immunodeficiencies are yet to be characterized. Diagnosis of AIDS in IDV-negative individuals comprises a small fiaction oftotal cases while over 95% oflllV-infected individuals develop clinical AIDS within 12 years following initial infection It is not swprisingtbat.some individuals have not developed clinical AIDS; the wide diversity ofthe gene pool in humans has undoubtedly resulted in mv-resistant and evenHIV-immune individuals. In addition, over 95% ofHIV-infected infants develop clinical AIDS by age six while theiruninfected siblings never develop the syndrome. While it cannot ever be conclusively proven that HIV causes AIDS (you can't prove a positive in science), the above evidence strongly suggests that it is extrem~fooHsh to believe otherwise. Individuals who heed Lauritsen's message and do not protect themselves from I-DV transmissionare~ risking their lives. The AIDS establishment has made many mistakes in the 14 years since the syndrome was named, but identifying mv as the primary culprit is not one ofthem.路

April I May 1996

Recently, I have had to endure complaints from people on this campus regarding how their education is being taken away from them. They point to the Cuts ofPataki and Congress as the reason the university system in this country is declining. But they are throwing snowballs at the wrong people. The Fall of the Ivory Tower by George Roche addresses the issue of waste on the university level. Many are upset with the reform of student loans. However, as Roche points out, it is long overdue. Loan mismanagement has been running rampant over the past two decades. The defuuh rate on Perkins . Loans is in the double digits. Default rates on Stafford loans have grown more than 300% in the last decade and is currently at about 16% of aU loans. But the real crime is in the fact that between 1990 and 1992 the Department of Education estimates that more than $500 million in Stafford Loans were paid to previous defaulters! In 1991, taxpayers paid $3 .6 billion to cover defaults on student loans. How dare those nasty Republicans try to change this perfectly efficient system! Where do your tax dollars go? Well, the Department of Agriculture(DOA) spent $437,000 on research of Russian wheat aphids. Money well spent? When was the last time you ate Russian wheat? How about the DOA spending $3 million of taxpayer money on the University of Arkansas Poultry Center of Excellence? Remember that the next time you buy something from Tyson. Let us now look to the decreasing standards of our illustrious university system. The phrase "you get what you pay for" comes to mind when looking at America's elite schools. In an attempt to shield students from fuilure, many Ivy League schools allow'students to drop April! May 1995

classes and change grading options even up until the final. Have you ever wondered why these students have such high GPA's? You would too if you went to Brown where "D"s were abolished and "F's are not recorded on transcripts! Grade inflation is running rampant on campuses today. At Princeton, 70010 of aU grades are " A"s or "B"s. At Stanford; the average grade is an A-! And my fuvorite; In 1978, 78% of the student body at Harvard made it on the dean's list. 1148. This is the score Binghamton University claims is the average SlIT of its students . However, Roche points to the common practice of institutions citing the figures of students ACCEPTED rather than actually enrolled. Thomas Sowell illustrates this with an example: If a student with a 1400 applies to 5 schools, all 5 count his scores on official reports . Furthermore, up to one quarter of all students are categorized as "special" or "provisional" and their scores do not need to be counted at all . Strangely enough, -it seems that students with the poorest grades seem to make up a disproportionate share ofthis category. Where do we start cutting waste? Roche Binghamton Review

Lloyd Donders


points to a Wall Street Journal article entitled "What Me Teach? I'm a Professor." At the University of Michigan, some professors taught so little that it was estimated that they were paid nearly $1000 an hour for actual contact with students. In 1992, 75% of all U.S. freshman and sophomore classes were taught by graduate students. In 1990-91, Cornell gave one of its medical professors a package valued at $1. 7 million. Yet, it's somehow still Pataki's fault for the escalating college tuitions. In the early '90's, a full professor at a top university made over $80,000 a year. The average salary for all public and private university full professors is $56,000 a year. Not bad, considering the all the summer and winter breaks as well as all the holidays. Assistant professors were taking in excess of $40,000 a year. One business school professor taught for four hours a week for only one semester. He walked away with $66,300. Roche points to need for a restoration of leadership values, ofmarketplace values, and of academic and moral values to prevent the further collapse ofAmerica's universities. The Fall of the Ivory Tower is a book every antiPataki student on campus should read. It points out the real causes ofthe problems with our universities. This is not a book to be read all at once. But rather it should be read a chapter at a time. As you read along try not to laugh too much, for it is all true.

Change (continued from page


sure ofalienation, etc. A positive shift in these scores would be correlated with more proadjustive and pro-social behavior. It would make it more likely that people would engage


Binghamton Review

in projects that are productive for themselves and their fellow man, and they would be more vigorous in their pursuit ofthese projects. The forfeit of individual rights in this context is still wholly unacceptable. There must not be any mandate for becoming trained and educated in empowering cognitive orientation past a certain age (possibly 18), though I passionately argue that it must be a mandatory part of our primary and secondary educational system. We can encourage adults to become trained and educated with tax incentives and the like, but coercion must be considered unlawful. Conclusion

Contrary to Johnson Administration rhetoric, it has become increasingly clear that great bureaucracies do not generate great societies. Great individuals generate great societies. The noble endeavor of taking care of people who can~t seem to take care of themselves has backfired, creating even more people who can't take care ofthemselves. Encouraging individuals to take care of themselves seems to be a better option in all its aspects: it encourages independence, it saves the taxpayer's money, and it generates a better ratio of productive members of society to non-productive members. Cockeyed pseudo-Marxist arguments about the scarcity of opportunities due to the hierarchical nature of capitalism no longer hold water in light of the massive decentralization of the corporate structure as well as the abundance of capital available in the information age. The individual is now truly left to his own ambition and ability. We must now empower the individual to engage effuctive1y in this new environment. This entails dismantling the welfure state while simultaneously revising the state's laissez-faire attitude towards the psychological health of its citizens. Each individual can be, should be, and deep down, wants to be responsible for

April! May' 1995

his own life. It is now apparent, in light ofthe newer cognitive account of human behavior, that the state must guarantee the opportunity for the individual to do so. This is the most proper and just distribution of responsibility between individual and state, the benefits of which we can not begin to fathom.

Statism (continued from page


assert that all belief systems are morally equivalent, but rather the state has no right to enforce a moral orthodoxy upon individuals. What bigots ofthe right and left have in COITh mon is their beliefthat individual values should be subverted to those ofthe community. Furthermore, they believe that the state should enforce a common value system for the entire populace. There is no room for dissenting belief systems in their totalitarian worldview. Right and left wing social planners may differ in what set of values the state should enforce. The right often promotes false patriotism and the left often promotes socialism. Each group dehumanizes those who dissent from their belief system. The sides are united in their belief that the state should force everyone to follow their worldview. Judaism preaches that God is the source of values and morality. As such, Jews are a threat to those who religiously seek to establish the state as the ultimate moral authority. Hitler's and Marx's hostilities to the Jewish people stemmed from their desire to establish, by force, a state value system to replace religious morality. This explains the anti-Semitism that may accompany these ideologies. Judaism is itself a complete and encompassing value system.

April! May 1995

Much to the distress of political activists, such as myself, it cannot be pigeonholed into any secular value system. Therefore, ifJews are to remain Jews, they will be the enemy ofthose who wish to use the state as a moral enforcer. Bigotry's source is the beliefthat we should deny the right of individuals to choose their own identities and values. A free society does not require that we agree with the moral choices of others, but rather allows those choices to be made, free from state intervention, even when we disagree with them.

Snowball (continued from page


power to tax is the power to destroy." Well, taxes are destroying New York. Many students also fuiled to keep up to date with the budget situation. (fthey had bothered to pick up the paper a few days earlier, they would have known $115 mi1Iion ofthe SUNY budget had already been restored. EOP and TAP were restored, not fully, but it is better than being cut all together. The rumored increase in tuition of over $1 000 dollars, has been cut to around $500. Even with that increase, SUNY remains one ofthe best buys in education. Also remember that the tuition increase is not decided by the governor, but by the SUNY Board of Trustees. Pataki does not want to hurt education. As he said himself, he wants to see the cuts in the administration. There is a lot ofwaste in the administration. He questions the purpose of SUNY-Central. He doesn't want to see true educational programs destroyed, but is determined to cut the fat out ofthe system. As Pataki left the meeting, there was one simple request made, that a pathway be cleared so be could get through the mob. Most

Binghamton Review


students obliged willingly. One girl took the bullhorn and instructed students who were not going to get out of the way to go limp so they couldn't be charged with resisiting arrest ifthey were detained. Governor Pataki managed to make it through the crowd without too much trouble. Students took up the by now passe, "htly, hey, ho, ho ... " chants as Pataki left the building. As Pataki made his way to his car, students started to throw snowballs at him. They tried to prevent his car from leaving. They showed no respect for the man who was nice enough to take time out of his busy schedule to meet with students to hear their concerns personally_Rodger Sumners, one ofour administrators, called the Student Association office requesting that a letter of apology be written to GOvernor Pataki for the ugly incident. As of this writing, there has been no response from the SA. The students of Binghamton showed little to no respect for the governor. There was, however, a small group oftrusty supporters letting Governor Pataki know they approved of what he was doing. After seeing the display put on by most of the students here, it wouldn't be surprising if many people aren't writing the governor telling him to cut the SUNY budget further. From the antics seen here, these students don't deserve the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

Carrie (continued from page


Pipe Dream article to encourage her.

And the strange thing is, said Katz, while they both wanted to prevent the publication of his article and were so afraid it could damage the SA, they never asked to see or read it. When I spoke to Majewski, he did not deny threatening Katz. He said, in an unfaltering and well-rehearsed manner, that he "will do


Binghamton Review

whatever needs to be done" to ensure that no SA chartered group behaves in a manner that will endanger the SA as a whole. And, according to Printz in her whiny April 11 perspective, she admitted telling Katz: "Do you want to put the 140 student groups and all the students' money at risk?" On Monday afternoon, Printz and Majewski met with Luraschi, Unger, and Pipe Dream Business Manager Deborah Walman to explain and apologize for their actions. According to Unger, they said they feared a lawsuit from Findikyan and overreacted. They were sorry. The SA wanted to keep information regarding Findikyan' s firing from the public because they felt it would aid Findikyan's complaint for wrongful dismissal, said Unger. Printz and Majewski were able to work their black magic behind closed doors. After their meeting with Luraschi, Unger, and Walman, it appeared as ifKatz' s article and any mention of their threats would be ignored. It almost was. The SA E-board is not required to tell Findikyan why she was fired, said Unger, and they didn't. Findikyan received no warning or explanation. Her dismissal notice rea~ as follows: "Due to unacceptable performance, we regret to inform you that your services to the Association are no longer requested. Please remove all personal belongings from the office and leave the office immediately. You will be paid for a full day today." How can the E-Board justifY firing an employee ofeleven years with no prior notice, despite the fact she had never once received a performance review or- job evaluation suggesting her performance was inadequate? In fact, she had never been reviewed in her eleven years, and was not told anything about "unacceptable performance" until the day she was fired. Having recently undergone a cancer operation, Findikyan couldn't have relished having her health insurance canceled, but at least the SA was gracious enough to pay for

April! May 1995

that full day on February 17, as she did work her entire shift. Findikyan's dismissal " memo," as it was labelled, was signed by the members ofthe EBoard and vice president for multicultural affuirs Yusemaughtrey. Michelle Rozoff, SA activities coordinator, was asked to sign, yet refused. ldon' tknowwhy-shedidn'tretum my calls. On Friday, March 17, Pipe Dream printed a "Letter from the Editor: To the Binghamton University Community" that detailed a cleansed version of the FindikyaniSA imbroglio. They could have printed something earlier (in their Tuesday issue}-and they almost printed nothing at all.

(determined at both the Monday and Wednesday editorial meetings) not to run a story on either Findikyan' s firing (because he felt it was 'Justified" ) or the threat (because, he asserted, Pipe Dream " couldn't objectively report on it," as it concerned them directly). Unger said this in a journalism class, of which he, Pipe Dream News Editor Alyson Heegan, and I are enrolled. It was here where the class attempted to shame Unger and Heegan into printing a story, especially about the actions of Printz and Majewski, which Heegan did not feel newsworthy as ." it was ' only a threat. " Eventually, Heegan was convinced to leave class and call Luraschi, asking her to leave room in the paper (which was being assembled that evening) lest they decide to run something To Publish Or Not To Publish about the incident. She came back desponUnger said the issue was "hashed out" dent, however, and said Luraschi wasn't during their Monday and Wednesday editorial going to run anything as the issue had been meetings: " ... some people thought we should resolved at their previous editorial meetings. give the matterno coverage, and some wanted Obviously, she had changed her mind. Upon speaking with Luraschi, she conto put it on the front page." StaffWriter Joey Kusnick said Monday's firmed that Pipe Dream preferred to keep meeting was quiet, with little discourse. For both Findikyan' s firing and the SA duo's some reason, everyone seemed to be in silent threats concealed from the public. In surprising candor, she admitted that Pipe Dream only agreement not to run the story, he said. Wednesday's meeting was more heated, he printed their " editorial" because they could no ' said, but Unger and Luraschi just wanted to longer keep the stories quiet. convince people they shouldn't print anything Let the Lies Begin - they weren't interested in other views. The Friday editorial appeared because they Back to the story .. .Pipe Dream' s apology couldn't keep the story quiet, said Katz, Kusnick, Bilson, and Art Beat Associate stated: " However, we decided that if they [Printz and Majewski] had been intent on Editor Jotharn Schwartz in agreement. Unger, not surprisingly, disagreed. Even if carrying out the threat, they would have Pipe Dream could have suppressed the spoken to Unger or Luraschi directly incident, he said, we would have written people who had the power to stop the article something about it: "I'm not going to spend from going in." But, according to Katz, seven hours in meetings and not write "Majewski said the only reason he grabbed just me was because Howie and Monica were anything," said Unger. On March 16, however- one day prior to not there." They certainly intended on my Pipe Dream's token support ofjournalistic conveying the threat back to them, he added; integrity - Unger had views to the contrary. they were threatening Pipe Dream, not me. Unger stood by Pipe Qream's position Printz, in her April II Pipe Dream

April I May 1995

Binghamton Review


perspective, agreed with Katis assessment: " I also asked Katz to convey my concerns to Luraschi and Unger." Schwartz was dismayed by the tone in the Pipe Dream's March 17 editorial, especially where it stated: "Pipe Dream did not perceive the threat as real or in earnest." " They were certainly prepared to act as if the threat was real," said Schwartz, "Howie told Tom that they were capable of existing without SA funding." Unger admitted, " Yes it's true, 1 told Majewski Pipe Dream was prepared to exist without SA funding." Unger said he also called their printer and told him to ignore Majewski should he call. Unger stands by the editorial, however, when they said the threat wasn't taken seriously: " I wanted him [Majewski] to think 1 was taking it seriously," said Unger, ''but I really wasn't." While Pipe Dream's editorial was deceiving, it was more honest than the first version. Katz asked Luraschi to call him at home and read him the editorial Thursday night prior to Friday's publication, as it directly concerned him. She agreed. The first editorial, said Katz, ended with a "complete and utter lie," stating that Pipe Dream was printing the editorial because they "wanted you [the students] to know" what had occurred. The editorial continued to say the university community had a right to know what its officials were doing, despite the fact Pipe Dream had decided at both editorial meetings not to run anything. Luraschi agreed to change it - the printed version was less blatant in its distortion ofthe truth. A Plague of AU Coward s, I Say When I spoke to Luraschi, she confirmed Katz' s description ofthe events. Seemingly cowed into obeisance by SA threats, Luraschi told me that's not what happened. " I did not give in to the SA," she said, or allow them to dictate our decisions. She said she was


Binghamton Review

thinking ofPipe Dream when she chose not to print anything on Findikyan' s firing or " the threat." Katz, Schwartz, Kusnick, and Bilson sided with her. While they disagreed with her previous decision, none ofthem felt Luraschi was a "tool" ofthe SA, or that she was easily intimidated. They all thought Luraschi was doing as she thought best, but was misguided. And that the Pipe Dream would even ask, "was the threat real?" is farcical. The threat was made, period. And that, because of the position ofthose making the threat, was more newsworthy than most articles ever printed in the history ofPipe Dream. When, without fail, ritualistic annual absurdities like passing of vegetables, and stepping on coats receive much attention, one must wonder about Pipe Dream' s priorities. Perhaps SA presidents and financial vice presidents have threatened Pipe Dream in the past, so the action was no longer novel. If previous editors shared the sentiments ofthe current lot, I guess we'd never know, because they wouldn't have found it "newsworthy" either. Luraschi, following the introduction of Printz' s SA resolution, acknowledged that: " had I known then what I know now, we would have printed something sooner about their threat." Luraschi called herselfnaive and idealistic. She was willing to dismiss Majewski's threats as empty expressions of anger, and didn' t believe he intended to carry them out. With the "Pipe Dream resolution," however, Luraschi is now convinced the threats were genuine. She faults her "beliefin human decency" for granting deference to Printz and Majewski earlier. Does Pipe Dream see no problem as their role of "extension [their words] ofthe SA"? Would the New York Times fare well as an " extension of the state government?" Sure, Pipe Dream is only a campus paper, but it could use its independence, as could other campus publications. Remember the recent and continued harassment of the Cmlp de

April / May 1995

Tete by the SA? Or did Pipe Dream decide that wasn't "newsworthy" either? Majewski, the de facto SA censor, decided that Coup de Tete violated copyright laws by reproducing a defaced American Express flier. As Coup de Tete writer Jennifer H. Johnson stated in their March 1995 issue, that charge was unfounded. Copyrighted material may be reproduced forthe purposes ofcritical review. COIIpde Tete must now submit their publication to the censorious SA President's Organizational Review Board (pORB) prior to publication to receive their funds- a gross indignity and violation that should not be pennitted to continue. Besides refusing to run Katz's story, Pipe Dream also decided against filing a grievance based on the behaviorofPrintz and Majewski. While Katz wasn't urging them to file one, he wanted to inform the community of the situation somehow. And according to Schwartz, Katz couldn't explain the situation in an Editor's Voice column [a "perspective" written by a Pipe Dream editor1 because Luraschi had an unofficial policy prohibiting Pipe Dream stafffrom writing articles critical ofthe paper. While Unger assured methere was no such policy, he wa.s, once again, wrong. Lu~aschi told me that, yes, she does have such an unofficial policy - unofficial because it is not absolute. While she doesn't have a policy against critical articles per se, she does not encourage them: "It looks bad for a staffwriter or editor to criticize Pipe Dream, because they are a representative," she said, "1 don't like airing dirty laundry." Now that Pipe Dream went public, Printz and Majewski felt compelled to respond. In their March 31 letter to Pipe Dream, the formerly apologetic duo expressed not a hint ofremorse: "Ourjob as officers ofthe SA is to protect the best interest ofthe SA, regardless of the personal and political ramifications thereof .. Had we disregarded the possibility of such a reoccurrence [a lawsuit "caused" by

April/May 1995

Pipe Dreamland jeopardize [sic1all 140 SA groups, we would not have done our jobs." No mention (or denial) oftheir inexcusable behavior, and no apology. And, as previously mentioned, Findikyan was not waiting for an article by Pipe Dream before submitting a complaint. Perhaps Printz simply wished to avoid more unfavorable publicity, as she appears acutely sensitive to criticism. In her most recent diatribe (Pipe Dream perspective, April 11), Printz valiantly stands up for her man: "Majewski' s words to Katz were out of concern for students' moneyyour money!" As long as the end is laudable (which is dubious), any means are acceptable? And if it's our money why can't we have it back? And why was it taken from us? An optional student activity fee is not a bad idea.

Whither Go Ursula? So why was Findikyan fired? I still don't know. Academic vice-president Dhiren Thaveri told Katz, "Carrie's relationship with Ursula wasn't too hot - about as good as my relationship with Carrie. "Those who recall the bickering chronicled in Pipe Dream and The Alternative realize relations between the two are not stellar. Thaveri later told me Findikyan " did something really bad, "but wouldn't elaborate. While unsubstantiated, I have heard a few compelling reasons that warranted such a firm and decisive action: Findikyan supposedly enjoyed watching the O.J. Simpson trial, and did not recycle properly. Iftrue, it's surprising she wasn't terminated earlier, having committed such egregious offenses. Unger, convinced that Printz and Majewski "leveled" with bini, Luraschi, and Walman, said Findikyan "violated a trust," and deserved to be fired. Maybe she did. Former SA president Seth Schachter ('93'94) has heard the "allegations" against Findikyan, but said, even if true, they don't

Binghamton Review


necessitate her firing. If the SA had an established forum for ex!')ressing grievances and differences, this might have been avoided, he said. The SA office manager is a unique position, said Schachter, in that it employs someone 20 or 30 years older than most students. "And to be fired on the spot, with five minutes notice," he said, "is a mockery." Jonathan Gottlieb, another former SA president (' 92-'93), said Findikyan gave the SA an important sense ofcontinuity and was instrumental in training SA members year after year. Gottlieb said she shouldn' t have to endure the behavior of " stupid college students, mostly 20 or 21, yelling and telling her whatto do." It' s unfortunate, after all she has given the SA over her eleven years, said Gottlieb, that she was dealt with so summariJy. Schachter sent letters to President Lois DeFleur, Vice President for Student Affairs Rodger Summers and Paul Parker at the Research Foundation expressing his dismay over Findikyan's dismissal. Summers and DeFleur did receive his letter, said Associate Director for Media Relations Katie Ellis, but would not comment because it was a personnel matter and therefore outside their jurisdiction. Parker, whose office is coordinating the response to Findikyan's complaint, would not acknowledge the receipt of Schachter's letter, but said they are taking Findikyan's complaint seriously. Sandy Carlin at the State Division of Human Rights acknowledged that a complaint had been dual-filed by Findikyan-with her agency and the EEOC. Typically, she said, the human rights division will first investigate Findikyan' s claim, then the EEOC. Either agency may appeal the findings ofthe other one, she added While Findikyan was a Research Foundation employee, her replacement, Riva Rittberg, is not. I have heard that foundation employees are classified as 'Job-at-will," meaning they belong to no union and work without a contract, but Parker would not


Binghamton Review

comment. As a private entity, the Research Foundation is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, he said. Rittbergtold me she was an employee of the SA and declined to comment on Findikyan' s firing. When I contacted Findikyan for this article, she only had this to say: "I was fired without any reason given, and received no prior indication ofpoor work performance." Not surprisingly, ~hewarm and accessible Printz refused to be interviewed. When I called her "unpublished" number, her only retort to my questioning was "How did you get my number?!? .. How did you get my number?!? ..How did you get my number?!? .. " When I refused to disclose my source, she hung up. Epilogue

Did Pipe Dream's editors learn anything about the virtues of free speech, principles, integrity, and standing up to government officials? Not at all, said Katz, Schwartz, Kusnick, and Bilson in unison. They wouldn't have printed the editorial ifthey thought they could have kept the story quiet. In their attempt to save face, the editors lost their souls. But all is not lost; while Luraschi was admittedly naive at first, she now realizes how inimicable even a student-run govemment can be to a free press and plans to appease them no more. Where will the future carry Printz and Majewski after graduation? I' m not certainbut hopefully far away from here. Perhaps they'll enter pubic office somewhere, look back at their college escapades, and do what most politicians do after a public scandalvote themselves a raise.

April I May 1995




Includes: ·1 Whiny President ·1 lllegally"Elected" VPMA ·1 Foul-Mouthed Ombudsperson ·1 Equally FoulMouthed AVP ·1 Inquisitive Pipe Dream reporter ·1 Censorious, Power-Hungry FVP ·4 Clueless Pipe Dream Editors ·1 Pipe Dream reviewer mocking Sam Adams Band ·1 Mason Ulyiss Replying Indignantly ·2 Paranoid Postmodern Drag Queens ·9 Poseable J-Board Members ·4 FAC Members (Bonus Tape Recorder!) ·7 Embittered Anti-Semitic Multiculturalists ·1 Dante (Use Sparingly) ·1 0 Snowball-Throwing EOP Students ·3 Brainless Election Officials

·1 Brown-Nosing Public Relations Rep ·1 Invisible University President ·1 Jesse Benjamin (Head Sold Separately) ·8 Womyn Reciting Bad Poetry ·3 Women AvoidingWomyn ·1 Brian Taylor (With Goosestepping Merry Band Of Twits) ·1 Anthony Benardello AND ·1 Mordechai Horowitz (perspectives Not Included) ·1 Mulatto ·1 Albino r----------------, 1 YES! Send my SA Toy Set today. I enclose 1 ·1 Mos1 my student activity fees and a receipt from 1 quito 1 TIcketron. 1 ·1 Libido 1 Name 1 I Address I 1 Phone

P.O.rz.B. API'rzOVED ® April! May 1995

Number (



1Wm a surprise gift!


ILGuess Josh Watterston's IQ _ _


Binghamton Review



BU Myn's Center Summer Program in Myn's St~dies CHEM 355: Homebrewing HIST 414: The Bikini -A Comparative Study

PSYC 256: The Toilet Seat ~. We Like it Up PLSC 317: The Aq.gry Whi~~Malei짜oter ..









ENGL 225: HoW to Write Real Good ..



.. ;


SPAN 111: Don Juatt-Hero ANTH 205: Neanderthals -

Our Happy Ancestots

PHIL 350: Male Thought from Khan to Kato BIOL 200: A Visit From Your Early Morning Friend

Brought to you by the Myn's Center "Putting the myn back in womyn"

April / May 1995 - Binghamton Review  


Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you