December 2008 - Binghamton Review

December 2008

Binghamton Review

What we got right Binghamton’s Conservative Moment how they tried to stop us Alumni relections Drinking with BR Plus: the VPma, Andre Massena, and More Truth and two staples Binghamton Review, April 2005

Binghamton Review Editors-in-Chief Adam Shamah Robert Edward Menje Associate Editor Rachel Gordon Copy Editor Yadin Herzel Business Manager Michael Lombardi Treasurer Daniel Rabinowitz Contributors Nehemia Stern, Alex Paolano, Samantha Mickle, Eugenio Campos, John Jensen, Theresa Juergens, Matthew Hassell, Stephen Herman, Ariel Levin Waldman, David Cribari Godfather of the Review Louis W. Leonini Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family The Powell Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family The Packer Family

Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press, in Chenango Bridge. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

Binghamton Review Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902

Editorial Founded 1987 o Volume XXII Number 4 o December 2008

In this issue...

6 8 10 12 20 22 26 27 29 31 34 36 37

More of the Same by Adam Shamah The Assembly fails to send VPMA to referendum The Case of Andre Massena by Adam Shamah And the University’s disregard for students’ rights Where’s the Diversity? by the Editors BR Investigates Professors’ voter registrations and the results are no surprise 21 Years of Truth and Two Staples: Alumni Reflect The Win Column by Adam Shamah A look at some of BR’s victories over the years Quiet! by Adam Shamah A look at some of the attempts to silence us How to Drink by Louis W. Leonini The Godfather’s Advice

My Take by Rod Alzmann Why we need rational tuition increases SUNY Social Justice by Rachel Gordon/Steve Herman BR takes on the hippie event The Great Prop 8 Debate by Alex Paolano Let democracy run its course

Illegal Immigration by Stephen Herman Whatever happened to American exceptionalism?

The Right of the People by Robert E. Menje Learn to love the second amendment Departments 3. Editorial

Foreign Aid by Aaron Sebag 4. Presswatch And the pains of it 5. Instigations 33. Letters 38. Flashbacks

Binghamton Review, December 2008

BU’s Conservative Moment

B

inghamton University has seen a lot change in the past twenty-one years. We’ve had a new university president, offices have been restructured, new departments have been created, and professors have come and gone. Obviously, students twenty-one years ago are not the same students who are here today.

What else has come and gone is the campus liberal movement. While Binghamton Review has endured, and now, in its 22nd year of publication, still stands for the same principles it did in 1987, there has been a left wing crack up. The Experimental Media Organization takes up a few causes each semester, but does not engage those in favor of a traditional university very often. There are no longer calls for “diversity” requirements, and while useless, divisive, and counterproductive, the VPMA is no longer the left wing bastion it used to be. Prospect Magazine remains the only left-wing publication on campus, and it is not even very liberal and not at all involved in on-campus politics. Even Pipe Dream’s editorial board focuses very little on campus politics. The Student Association is no longer made up of the e-board of EMO/SAC, and does not generally advance any ideological agenda.

But BR remains true to the same principles that our founders were dedicated to. These are principles that will never cease to be relevant or become extinct. We’ve used them to win countless battles with the administration and campus multiculturalists and to persist in the face of opposition. Read more about this in the following pages of this special anniversary edition.

Today, we are engaged on several fronts.

The City Housing Commission is set to issue its report any day now, and could recommend the suspension of the free market when it comes to off campus hous-

ing in Binghamton. This is an issue that we’ve covered for years, and specifically this semester since it has now again been brought up. When to commission’s report passes, it is then up to the City Council to decide whether to implement it. Last time zoning laws were being debated, the city council tried to make its decision while students were home on winter break. It is imperative that we do not allow them to do this again. Call the mayor’s office (607-772-7001) and tell him that we want our voices heard, and that we respectfully request that no decisions be made until we return from out break.

Student Affairs continues its disregard for student rights. Last year, it pushed for and implemented a ‘failure to cooperate’ policy that forces students to exit their residencies at the whims of an RA. While not all those on Judicial Affairs are out to get students, much of the system is designed to make things easier for the prosecution.

Cases like that of Andre Massena are only settled when outside organizations like F.I.R.E. get involved to point out to the university its own department’s violations (see page 8).

And we still have a VPMA, a source of divisiveness and racism on our Student Association. This is an issue that has been discussed for a long time, and will continue to be discussed for a long time. Check out page 6 for the start of that debate.

In sum, Binghamton Review has endured for 21 years; we’ve outlasted much of the opposition, but there is still work to be done. I raise my glass to what my predecessors have accomplished it the past, and look forward to the next 21 years of truth and two staples.

-Adam Shamah

Our Mission

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of con-

servative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education

expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent

perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer

an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus.

It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates

this university. We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond.

We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence,

and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of western civilization. Finally, we un-

derstand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We

strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Campus Presswatch

Campus Presswatch Pipe Dream November 18, 2008 Pipe Dream’s Sam Riedel is apparantely not only the freshman class’ resident socialist, he’s also its resident anti-Semite...

And obviously I know the threat Palestinian militants pose to Israel.

They have killed innocents with just as much ease as the Israeli military has.

It’s good to see someone equating the Israeli military with common terrorist thugs. What are they teaching over there in the English department Sam? Inside BU December 4, 2008

source Center, Affirmative Action Office, and the XCel Center. The University exists for academics. Faculty and Academic Departments are the last things that should lose funding.

Pipe Dream December 2, 2008 Pipe Dream’s editorial board apparently has a problem with the SA

Tunnel Vision:

The Vanishing Journalist in Campus Media How the Campus Press Covered the VPMA Debate Pipe Dream- 4 Stories

Lois explains in Pravda the university’s plan to deal with the budget cuts...

“We are achieving savings through a hiring freeze, energy efficiencies and a reduction of purchases,” DeFleur said. “We continue to control vacancies and will eliminate some temporary positions...”

So in other words, as the university loses more and more departments and professors, the administration’s plan is to continue cutting faculty? Why not instead cut useless offices like The Center for Quality (what the hell does that do?) or the Educational Communications Center. Also on our chopping block would be the Multicultural Re-

Mentions that the amendment’s author is Editor of the Review: 5 (Near) mentions that the amendment’s author is an assembly rep: 1

ceding some of its power back to the students…

Several Assembly members spoke yesterday in favor of allowing democracy to take its course, to push the amendment through and bring it to a vote of the undergrads. Those Assembly members should dismount their high horses — there is no political valiance to be found in passing this decision on to a campus-wide vote. It’s the Assembly’s

4

job to represent the voice of the people and follow bylaws, but to also be decisive and prudent.

Yet, a couple of months ago, October 7th to be exact, Pipe Dream editors suggested something quite different. I guess things change when we’re talking about giving the students the power to remove the VPMA….

But at some point, the SA might have to consider that there’s something deeper, something ingrained in its structure that makes it such a niche, and perhaps to some students, a cryptic endeavor … If it’s the average Bearcat [the SA] seeks to reach, then the system should be tailored for the average Bearcat, not patched up here and there.

Pipe Dream December 5, 2008 You know you’re doing something right when ad-hominem attacks made against you become newsworthy…

“Although Adam Shamah is saying that he’s promoting democracy, what he’s doing is not compatible with democracy,” said Abid Hossain, treasurer of the Muslim Student Association and a member of MCC. “A big part of democracy is having some sort of protection for minorities. By attacking multicultural positions, that’s an attack on democracy.”

Allowing all students to vote on how their Student Association is run is an attack on democracy? Just like reading a textbook is an attack on studying…

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Instigations

Multicultural Resource Center Says “No”

O

nce again, the Multicultural Resource Center (MRC) is proving why it is should be the University’s first target during the impending budget cuts and that it is a source of division rather than unity when it comes to race relations on this campus. The office’s latest folly is refusing to allow a student on its listserv because of his ideological views.

Last month, when the VPMA issue was first brought up, Maryam Belly, the VPMA, was given the opportunity to use the MRC’s listserv to advertise a meeting she was holding to mobilize her troops. After getting a copy of the email forwarded to him, amendment author Adam Shamah emailed the MRC to clear up some factual errors that were present in the email, and to request that his side of the story be sent to the students of the listserv. His request was denied.

Diane Harrison, the MRC’s secretary, said that members of the listserv could send emails back and forth, but “to be added to the listserv you have to be a current, active member of one of our cultural ps [sic] student association chartered groups.”

Fine. The thing is, Adam is an E-BOARD member of an SA chartered cultural group: BUZO, the Binghamton University Zionist Organization. BUZO was chartered last year by the Student Association, deemed a cultural group by the Rules Committee, and granted a seat on the Intercultural Awareness Committee. After informing Harrison of this, she responded with, “Although your group is listed by the SA as a cultural group, your stated purpose appears to be more political/religious in nature, which is indicated by the group name. The cultural groups that our

Instigations Bingh amton Review - December 2008 office traditionally works with are made up of minority, typically under-represented, students of color and different ethnicities.” So, despite indicating earlier that the only requirement was to be recognized by the SA as a cultural group, BUZO was not acceptable because it does not represent the typical students that work with the MRC—minority students of color.

The following appears on the main page of the MRC website: “The Multicultural Resource Center was created to offer all Binghamton University students the opportunity to develop their awareness about cultures different than their own, as well as to truly explore their own personal cultural identity.” What a load of BS. The MRC is not interested in bringing everyone together for discussion; Shamah was kept off this list because his views (and skin color, apparently) are not in line with those of the multiculturalists. We should be striving for a color-blind campus, not one where people are grouped and excluded by race. The MRC is an abomination and the epitome of modern racism.

Happy Holidays

T

he Graduate Vice President for Multicultural Affairs, of the GSO, is sponsoring a letter-writing event in anticipation of the holidays. Who does she want to send these letters to?

Prison inmates. Prison inmates serving life sentences. A good use of stu-

dent funds, don’t you think?

Yes We Can!...Choose a Different University

“O

-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! YES WE CAN!’ Well, yes we did. This night has been one I will remember forever.

I will tell my children, grandchildren, and entire family about this historic event in the country that I can proudly say I love: the United States of America. This is a country that has just elected our first black president, a country officially ready for change.

It is hard to put this event into words, as the feeling is so amazing that no amount of words will ever describe how I felt when Obama took the podium to give his acceptance speech.”

Where did this appear on election night? The Daily Kos? The Huffington Post? No—the BU Admissions blog, a blog meant for prospective students looking for student opinion of Binghamton University.

Totally appropriate right? I mean, it doesn’t look out of place at all next to posts about whether or not BU offers a pre-dental program and questions about the food in Binghamton.

Obama’s election had nothing to do with life on our campus, and including an ode to it on an admissions site shows what this school thinks about making political statements in inappropriate places.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

VPMA

More of the Same

Democracy loses as Assembly votes to keep VPMA referendum from the students

by Adam Shamah ‘11

O

n Monday night, the Student Assembly debated something that has not been brought up formally in a long time: the Vice President for Multicultural Affairs. On the floor was a constitutional amendment, authored by myself, that if passed by the Assembly would put the VPMA up for a referendum, a vote of the entire undergraduate body.

The VPMA is an issue that has been debated for years, whether in Review, on the editorial page of Pipe Dream, within the SA itself, or most importantly, between regular students.

The spirit of the amendment was to settle this issue, once and for all, by allowing all students to vote on it. If two-thirds of the student body voted against the position, then it would be gone, and who would we be to tell them that this isn’t the way things should be done? If the referendum failed, and students came out in support of the VPMA, then the legitimacy question will have been addressed and the position will have been strengthened. Unfortunately, that is not how certain members of the SA felt. While a majority did support sending it to the students, not enough did to get the two-thirds needed.

The level of discussion, at times, during debate and public comment, was disgusting. Personal attacks being thrown, almost solely by the con side, left and right. I heard more racism during public comment than in American History X. A public commenter, who came out to speak against the position, was jeered by the crowd when she tried to make clear that being against the VPMA and being racist are two separate and independent things.

One commenter said, to grand applause, that the VPMA is here to spearhead the “anti-crackering” (making less white…I think. Could you imagine if someone has said that of another race?) of Binghamton University. VPMA Maryam Belly said that someone racist was hiding behind the veil of democracy (she refused to specify who) and that because of the amendment; she herself is a victim of a racist attack.

The truth is that if the VPMA wants to talk about racism, perhaps she should check her own house. The position does nothing but divide us and hold certain groups above or below other groups. With the existence of a VPMA, the SA’s position, for all intents and purposes, is “all student groups are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Cultural students who spoke

during public comment were not asking for representation, they were asking for extra representation. One in particular said that withholding from them a position whose sole purpose is to protect the views of minorities is in and of itself an attack on democracy.

The absurdity in that statement does not need to be explained. The sooner we get beyond race, and stop giving less representation to those of certain backgrounds, the sooner we can get to a real “multicultural” society.

We conservatives celebrate diversity. Diversity of thought, but also diversity of culture, race, religion, and ethnicity. The cultural groups do great good on this campus when they hold multicultural dinners and forums designed to educate students about their culture’s background. We support that.

But that does not mean we have to retreat from the VPMA debate. The VPMA does nothing to further cultural understanding and together on this campus; it impedes it.

The 22 ICA groups are partitioned off from the other 140 student groups, and thus collaboration and even interaction between cultural and non-cultural groups is rare and, at times, functionally impossible. The VPMA forces us to focus on our differences, when what we should be looking Binghamton Review, December 2008

6

VPMA

at is what makes us alike.

The most disgraceful part of Monday night occurred when Vice President for Student Affairs (of the administration, not the SA) Brian Rose came to speak during public comment.

He said, as quoted by WHRW news, that “to hold the referendum signifies your willingness to imperil the position of the VPMA. A vote to imperil the VPMA is a step backwards towards this campus’ attitude towards diversity and inclusivity.”

The SA is the Student Association at Binghamton University, not the Student Association of Binghamton University. It is totally independent of the university and the administration.

It is not the administration’s place to get involved in an internal debate that is clearly contentious and ideological.

This is just another example of how disgustingly partisan and biased some administrators might be. It is not surprising though, that Brian Rose and his fellow administrators are against allowing students to vote on this. They have made their decisions in the past from the ivory tower of Couper without allowing for student input. Perhaps they think the SA should be run the same way. The VPMA is good for the university’s “diversity” image. It doesn’t matter that the arguments for it are irrational and that it is unknown whether the student body supports it. We shouldn’t even allow the student body to vote because we’d be taking the chance that they will tell us, “no that’s not how we want our Student Association to be run, we don’t think there should be a VPMA.”

No matter what the high lords of the SA and the meddling university administration have to say, this debate is not over. We will continue to stand for a colorblind campus in which members of all backgrounds are treated equally. The VPMA has to go.

-Adam Shamah is a sophomore at Binghamton University and is Editorin-Chief of the Review.

Sorry, we’re from

Binghamton Review.

We didn’t know logic isn’t part of the gen-ed curriculum.

Truth and Two Staples since 1987 We’re still looking for writers.

Email editor@binghamtonreview.com or come to a meeting to get involved.

Meetings every Thursday at 7:30pm in the BR office (WB05).

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Massena

8

Lighting a F.I.R.E. Under the Social Work Department The Case of Andre Massena Led Individual Rights in Education

Foundation for Get Involved

the to

by Adam Shamah ‘11

P

olitical dissent. Our founders built a country around it. It’s supposed to be protected, right?

Wrong. Not at Binghamton University, or at least, not in Binghamton University’s Master in Social Work (MSW) program.

Just ask Andre Massena, a social work masters student who was nearly suspended and, if it were up to certain members of the department, could have been expelled for denouncing the department’s hiring of David Tanenhaus, the Executive Director of the Binghamton Housing Authority.

Andre was an intern at Opportunities for Broome. In August, one of his clients was evicted from public housing by the BHA, headed by David Tanenhaus. Later that month, Massena began posting flyers on campus and in the community under the pseudonym “Justicespeaks.” The poster displayed photos of the evicted family, explained the situation, and asked people to “call the Social Work department at the university to let them know what you think.”

One week after putting up the posters, Andre received a document called the “Written Plan for Andre Massena” (could they think of a more Soviet sounding title?), which outlined a series of actions the department demanded Andre take. One, he would have to immediately withdraw from all of his courses with no guarantee of reinstatement. “The satisfactory completion of this written plan does not guarantee his continuance

in the program in the future, but, rather, makes it possible for him to be eligible for continuance [with departmental approval].”

In addition to being suspended, Andre would be required to do several other things in accordance with the “written plan.” The plan demanded that he write a formal apology to all parties concerned. Who would decide who these parties are? “Dr. Bronstein [the chair of the department] and Dr. Wiener [the author of the written plan] will discuss this ‘list’ with Mr. Massena to be sure it is comprehensive.” He would also be forced to write a written retraction and “will acknowledge verbally to Dr. Bronstein and Dr. Wiener that he understands that he is entitled to his opinions, and that taking responsibility for the harm that his actions have and may have caused is not the same as having these opinions.”

In plain English, as FIRE so eloquently put, “While we can’t actually force you to think the way we want, we can certainly force you to pretend that you do and

to act accordingly.”

The plan also mandated that Andre make “every effort possible and will inform Profs. Bronstein and Wiener of his efforts to end the process whereby students, service providers and community members approach the Dept. of Social Work in an effort to alleviate ‘wrong’ they may see as occurring at the Bing-

Binghamton Review, December 2008

hamton Housing Authority.” Not only would did the department try to squash Andre’s resistance, they tried to use him to squash the voices of the people Andre was allied with. Freedom of conscience is just as important a right as freedom of speech. Being compelled to act against your political beliefs by a university department is deplorable, and a violation of Andre’s constitutional rights.

The plan contained no specific charges. Though the department claimed that Andre was being prosecuted because he failed to identify himself as the author of the poster to both UPD and Bronstein, the punishments outlined in the written plan revolved around the content of the flyers, not Andre’s actions. As FIRE reported, “According to Massena, the Advancement Committee had focused on Massena’s placing of the flyer inside one building in particular, the University Downtown Center. According to Massena, it was alleged that he entered the building under false pretenses and lied to University Police officer Matthew Rossie and others about having posted the flyer. Even after the evidence showed that Massena was not guilty of these alleged offenses, Massena was alleged to be guilty of ‘lying by omission’ for not spontaneously revealing to the police that he had posted the flyer in the building.” Anonymous speech is in no way outlawed, in fact, it is a fundamental right.

Andre appealed, and on September 23rd was informed that the suspension had been upheld. He appealed once more, this time in a grievance against Laura Bronstein, the chair of the Social Work department. Bronstein responded with a 50 page memorandum detailing a new set of allegations against Andre, many of which dealt specifically with Andre’s political opposition to the Binghamton Housing Authority of which Professor Tanenhaus directs, and recommending his expulsion from the program.

On November 13th, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) made the case public by issuing a detailed press release. This is over two weeks after they wrote President DeFleur

to express their dismay with the department’s behavior. The very next day, the case was dropped. “Due to procedural misunderstandings, the case pertaining to you is no longer being pursued,” read the one sentence email sent to Andre by Laura Bronstein. No elaboration, no nothing. The Review contacted Gail Glover, the University’s Director of Media Relations and official spokeswoman on the case, who would not elaborate much further, saying that “there were a number of issues relating to the appeals process and in the interest of fairness, the faculty of social work decided not to pursue the case further” and that the “process to review the recommendations began before the interest from FIRE.” We attempted to contact Laura Bronstein, but received no response.

When it came down to it, the university provided no defense for Andre; organizations like FIRE and the Graduate Student Organization (and now BR) were the only ones to advocate for him.

According to Andre, he tried to seek help from Valerie Hampton, of the Affirmative Action office, and Francine Montemurro, the University Ombudsman, but received no response. Laura Bronstein is still chair of the department, and it’s clear that she has no regard for students’ rights. When asked to comment on the outcome of the case, Andre said, “My hope is that some good come out of this situation as we learn from it and move forward. I’m optimistic that the social work department as well as President DeFluer will respond to this situation and take the initiative to make sure policies are set in place so that student’s right are protected on this campus.” We’re glad that the University dropped its case against Mr. Massena, but it still has a lot of work to do if it wishes to show that it is serious about protecting its students.

-Adam Shamah is a sophomore majoring in Management and is Editorin-Chief of the Review. Laura Bronstein will soon deliver him a “written plan” of his own.

Binghamton Review and the Campus Left

by Adam Shamah

Binghamton Review, for obvious reasons, is often at odds with the campus left. Last year, we disagreed on almost every issue. When UPD was armed with tasers, BR defended them as the leftists declared Binghamton University a “fascist police state.” We sparred on issues like “Killer Coke” and NYPIRG funding. We brought speakers like Daniel Pipes and Dinesh D’Souza and were met with protests and attacks from the left.

But this semester, so far, things have been different. The Experimental Media Organization and various students with ties to the campus left have been some of the Review’s greatest supporters on the housing issue. The GSO, EMO, and BR are some of the only organizations that have defended Andre Massena. In private, we’ve discussed problems with the Judicial Affairs, another issue in which we are in agreement.

We’ve shown that we are willing to work together when we have a common goal.

Then, the issue of the VPMA came up. Immediately, Andrew Epstein, the former president of EMO, and other campus lefties began attacking the perceived motivations behind me advocating for its removal. The Review was brought up and denounced as “racist” garbage with a history of attacking diversity and student rights. Past articles we’ve printed and events we’ve held were brought up with the intention to prove that nothing that comes from the Review should be taken seriously. We were no longer the same organization that defended student housing and Andre Massena, but rather a racist fascist faction that had to be stopped. This is how the campus left works. An ally becomes a “racist” as soon as he disagrees with them. This is because their arguments are so weak they are forced to use smear tactics to win over the undecided. Listen to the arguments, not the attacks please.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

All Democrats?

11

10

Where’s the Diversity?

BU’s faculty is not diverse when it comes to political affiliation

O

ver the years, the BU administration has been adamant about diversity on this campus. The Latin and Caribbean Areas Studies program (LACAS) and the EOP projects are just two examples. We also maintain an Affirmative Action Office and a Multicultural Resource Center on campus which works with “minority, typically under-represented, students of color and different ethnicities.”

The point of this list being that is seems that diversity is an aim of this campus. It seems that having all of the colors of the rainbow shown in our student population is the means by which we achieve this diversity.

A university’s diversity is supposed to be an accumulation of all people from all different walks of life and the opinions thereof. What happens, however, when everyone thinks the same way? What happens when one form of political dogma rises up on campus unchallenged by others?

What results is indoctrination instead of education. Indoctrination is when one side of an argument dominates all of the forms of education and the students are then compelled to listen to and regurgitate certain “correct” answers; independent thought is neither wanted nor warranted. Education is when a multitude of points of view are presented and the student is forced to think critically to arrive at an answer. We all came to Binghamton for the education. We certainly didn’t come for the sunny weather or the classy, upscale downtown atmosphere.

Department Democrat Republican Other History Political Science

18

1

3

6

3

2

English

27

1

1

Economics

7

5

6

Philosophy

7

1

0

Anthropology

18

4

6

Sociology

2

0

8

Binghamton Review decided, after having to fulfill our requirements in Humanities (Sociology 439: North Iranian/West Palestinian Anti-Prison-Industrial-Compex Ecologically Sustainable Chomskyian Post-Modern anti-Mcdonaldizationism Fair Trade Alternative Feng Shui and You) and Global Interdependencies (Anthropology 118: Ethical Issues Surrounding Cultural Scuba Diving on the Saharan Grasslands), to examine what kind of education we are getting and whether or not all sides are being presented. We concluded that the fairest way to do this was examine public voter registration records for the faculty in departments whose classes are likely to touch upon

political material.

The results were no surprise (see chart). The History Department has but one Republican, as does the English Department. The Economics department was the only one with an almost even ratio of Democrats to Republicans. None of this is to say that every leftist teacher attempts to indoctrinate their students in ridiculous liberal doctrines; many professors teach fairly unbiased classes.

Some examples are Professor Burns in Africana Studies, Professor Molina in Philosophy, and Professor Blake in the English Department. However, there are some wackos like William “CIA+KGB=AIDS” Martin and Charise “Only White People Can be

Binghamton Review, December 2008

by the Editors

Racist” Cheney. It is professors like this that worry us.

Imagine for a moment that a specific race was as absent from the faculty as Republicans are. There would be cries of discrimination and racism, and accusations that the university does not care about diversity.

There would be calls for an Affirmative Action program to hire more professors of whatever color is underrepresented.

Diversity on a college campus should not be measured by the color of the students’ and faculty’s skin.

It should be measured by the multitude of different ideas and perspectives that are expressed and debated between members of the university

community. We don’t have this at Binghamton University. No Affirmative Action program, multicultural roundtable, or Intercultural Awareness Committee will change that. As is evident with the Multicultural Resource Center’s rejection of a student because he did not match the “typically underrepresented student of color” profile that the office usually works with, Binghamton University administrators are not interested in true diversity. Only the kind of diversity that fulfills their politically correct view of the world, not the kind that enhances the university learning experience.

Binghamton Review is here to try to change that, to serve as a coun-

terweight to the viewpoints espoused by almost everyone else at BU with a platform to promote their ideas. As the SA debates the Vice President for Multicultural Affairs, and supporters of the position inevitably declare that it is needed to represent those without a voice, those who are in the direst need of representation, ask yourself, who on this campus is really underrepresented?

-Adam Shamah, Samantha Mickle, and Rachel Gordon contributed to this article.

Words of Wisdom:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop

discriminating on the basis of race.”

-Chief Justice John Roberts Binghamton Review, December 2008

BR Legends Return

21 Years

Alumni Reflect

Alexander Lanzman ‘88: I want to congratulate the

of Truth and Two Staples

editor and the entire staff of the Binghamton Review on your great efforts and may I say that since the time of the first issue – it has certainly come a long way!

As far as the history of the organization is concerned, it was a brainchild of three key individuals: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, and myself. The reasons for the idea of publishing a paper with a conservative viewpoint on campus should be very recognizable.

Virtually all student groups, publications, and professors were of the liberal to hard left variety. This monopoly had to be broken. I lived under Soviet socialism as a child, so disinformation and propaganda were instantly recognizable.

During our initial debates as to what the focus of the Review should be, it became clear that our chief editor wanted to focus more on social issues, while I decided to engage the Left on foreign affairs. The Soviet Union, at the time of the Review’s founding, was beginning its death spiral and I wanted to illustrate the brutality of this regime and how, through the policies of Ronald Reagan, the West was nudging this monster to the edge of the cliff.

It is a bit surreal to think that some twenty-one years have passed since those days. I am certain that the vast majority of the current members of the Review’s staff and readers were not even alive at that time, and yet the publication is going strong. I would be negligent if I did not remind all of you that during those days our efforts were underway without the benefit of conservative talk radio, the internet, and email.

However, the issues that bore relevance then are exactly the same today.

Freedom and individual liberty are the values that comprise the core of what makes the United States unique in the experience of human history. To this day, we are still the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet, and therefore highly envied. During the twentieth century, the evil twins of Nazism and Communism pursued annihilation

Binghamton Review, December 2008

12

13 of humanity and the suppression of human nature with the type of brutality yet unseen in the annals of history. It took a Herculean effort on our part to defeat these vile regimes both militarily and philosophically. Today we and other nations that espouse Western values face a challenge from radical Islam, an evil that is imbued with the same familiar traits that were inherent in Nazism and Communism. It too espouses a universal utopian dream of world domination that can only come about when Western values are destroyed. And, not unlike the previous totalitarian structures, it has its enablers and fellow travelers among us. They too resort to monopolizing academic departments of most colleges and universities and editorial boards of media outlets. It is incumbent upon those of us who recognize their agenda to make sure they do not succeed.

In conclusion I would like to wish all of you courage and strength in your convictions and continued success to the Binghamton Review.

-Alexander Lanzman is one of the “Russian expatriates” you so often hear us refer to. He, along with two others, founded the Review in the fall of 1987.

Nathan Wurtzel ‘96: Agreeing to take the helm of

Binghamton Review in 1995 was no small decision, but I have been forever satisfied that I made the right choice. The newspaper was close to dying, and with the help of a dedicated staff and a campus yearning for political balance, the Review quickly made a real impact on students’ lives.

We fought for and ultimately helped win full police status for what was then a largely powerless “public safety” department. With campus crime skyrocketing and students’ personal safety in question, this non-ideological achievement

remains my most satisfying – Binghamton University is safer today because of Binghamton Review.

We strenuously opposed, and ultimately helped defeat an awful academic requirement, which would have forced you to be taken hostage in at least two classes teaching an extremist Western critique of Western culture. It was called a “diversity requirement,” but the real agenda was to provide job security for far-left professors who wanted to impose their twisted ideas on you.

Binghamton Review led the charge on these and other issues because our mission in addition to producing an interesting and entertaining newspaper is to serve as a tool for student liberty.

In reading recent issues of the Review, it is with no small sense of pride I note our little newspaper is leading the charge in fighting what appears to be an unholy collusion of local government and connected business interests in restricting and ultimately price-fixing student housing on Binghamton’s West Side. It is without surprise I note Binghamton’s administration appears uninterested in protecting their students and the supposed student newspaper of record is equally dispassionate. Things haven’t changed all that much over twelve years: to the point where there is yet another Landau trying to run the student government. Perhaps this is some sort of requirement I am unaware of?

It has never failed to amaze me that the Left has yet to grasp the point that if governments are allowed to become strong enough that they can dictate the terms of private contracts, such as which and how many individuals property owners can rent to, they will proceed to act upon that power.

This is precisely why Binghamton Review fights for small government at all levels – forget the old Republican canard that local government is somehow better – it should exist to

Binghamton Review, December 2008

14 protect individuals from encroachment upon their natural rights, not serve as the encroaching agency.

A small, competent government protects the boundaries of the ownership society that President Bush preached, but never practiced. Americans should demand ownership of their education, employment, health care, retirement, and personal associations, with the government providing national security, infrastructure, legal protection of individual rights, and a true safety net of last resort. This would be a truly empowered America; one that your generation is better prepared to achieve than any that has come before. Sadly, the choices in the recent election were more or less the same as those of the past twenty years: Republicans insist upon maintaining a large, ineffective government, and Democrats insist on making it bigger, more expensive, and more belligerent.

It remains to be seen where this supposedly postpolitical Obama Administration leads us – as of this writing it appears to be stocking itself with Clinton Administration retreads and gearing up for an all-out assault on private ownership of health care, equities, and denying workers a secret ballot in the formation of labor unions. If you are wondering how this affects you, think of it as the West Side housing crisis on a larger scale; as you assert your right to decide to live where you can afford and with whom you please, so should you look ahead and reserve for yourself the tools to lead an independent and prosperous life after graduation.

It is upon these principles that Binghamton Review was founded in 1987, and throughout the years our news-

15

paper has fought for individual rights, free expression, and a safe campus, and against big government, political correctness, and administrative bungling. I am proud to have played my small part in this grand endeavor and I look forward to writing another laudatory article on the occasion of our 42nd anniversary, quite possibly to warn your children of the perils of the newly elected Miley Cyrus-Landau Administration.

Congratulations to all the young leaders fighting on behalf of Binghamton University students by producing this 22nd year of Binghamton Review. As long as there is a Binghamton Review, there are defenders of liberty on campus.

- Nathan L. Wurtzel was Editor-in-Chief in 19951996. He is a founding partner of The Catalyst Group and lives in Northern Virginia.

Jason Kovacs ‘00: May 1997. The British Tories had

just been dispatched into a wilderness from which they have yet to recover. I was a freshman who thought he knew everything. In one semester, Binghamton Review and its conservative allies had done more than any right wing faction should ever dream of doing at a SUNY campus. At one of its last staff meetings of the academic year, attended by a few sympathetic student-government types, the Review editors had again systematically demolished the liberal arguments du jour.

Exasperated by these philosophical victories, the perhaps more realistic and world-weary student leaders coughed up one final gasp directed at the Review. “Look, even if you guys are right, ninety percent of the campus still disagrees with you.”

That phrase would not quietly slip by the Review editors. One senior editor raised his voice. “First of all, you’re wrong. Ninety percent of the campus does not disagree with us. And second, even if you are right, we’d still be aiming for that ten percent.”

Simple words, but powerful. For a freshman who still clung to his belief that Bob Dole was conservatism, they had a dramatic effect. I realized then and there that Binghamton Review did not exist to win Student Association elections, or pad future lawyers’ resumes. We had a higher purpose.

In an age of liberalism where every educational, religious, and social institution has been tainted, Binghamton Review exists to provide an alternative. As the only right-ofcenter entity on a liberal campus, in a liberal state, Binghamton Review is extremely powerful precisely because it rejects the status quo.

We Review staffers voted back home by absentee ballot, where we knew the candidates by their first names. Instead of post-colonialism or oppression studies, we chose our western canon. Instead of identity politics, we chose individualism. Instead of drunken hookups, we chose friendships that continue to this day. Instead of nihilism, we chose life.

For me, the Review was auspicium melioris ævi; it was a throwback to the college that Glenn Bartle founded in 1946. Much has changed in the Town of Vestal since that

Binghamton Review, December 2008

time, but the chance for a classical liberal education still exists in Broome County as long as the Review publishes and informs students of the college that once was, and could still be.

The Review gave me the knowledge and the courage to learn more about conservatism than just who was on the GOP ballot line in November. It’s safe to say that I would not have completed the journey to Rome, or made my way through law school, without the foundation that Binghamton Review gave me.

The late 1990s are a long way from 2008. To the Review staff, I wish you all the best, and I join you in celebrating 21 years of standing up for traditional values at SUNY Binghamton.

-Jason J. Kovacs was Editor-in-Chief in 1998-99. He is a 2003 graduate of Syracuse University College of Law.

Michael O’Connell ‘03:

When I first heard that Binghamton Review was turning 21, I thought, “Wow, BR and I have been partying together all these years before it turned 21; imagine what we can get into now!”

I’m happy to say that my association with Binghamton Review did not end the day that I graduated or the day that I handed over the reins as editor. The friendships and working relationships that I made at the Review have been much stronger and lasted much longer than those that I made with anyone outside the magazine. I can’t think of more than one or two people that I still talk to that I met in

classrooms or dormitories, yet I can easily think of a dozen or more former or current BR staffers that I talk to frequently.

Some of them are my closest friends.

I used to run an ad when I was editor that read: “You’ll get your degree from Binghamton University, but your education from Binghamton Review.” Nothing has been truer for me. I learned much more within the confines of our cozy office than I ever did in any academic classroom. I got my education from reading the books on our shelves: Friedman, Hayek, and Buckley; and the magazines in our archives: articles by Kovacs, Torres, and Zoch. I learned a lot more from conversations with Lamb, Leonini, and Amberger than I ever did with any advisors or deans. Of course, there was no degree conferred from Binghamton Review. No classrooms and no graduates, for there is no end to the study. Learning at BR really is a life-long process, and I’m happy to say that it continues for me.

Binghamton Review was founded to provide a forum for intellectual discussion: a choice, not an echo. Right-wing students were able to express themselves in print beyond the occasional op-ed in the campus daily. The development of various “reviews” in universities around the country showed that college students were not all angry leftist protesters from our parents’ generation. And when those from that aforementioned angry generation became the teachers and administrators in the following decades, the need for right-wing expression became even greater.

I am not the first author to note in these pages that, although universities today tout “diversity” of culture and makeup, few in academia are interested in diversity of thought. This is true diversity, and should be celebrated on college campuses. The monolithic culture of most universities stifles discussion and breeds not academic achievement but intellectual programming. I think Binghamton Review and its sister publications on other campuses have been great driving forces against this tide.

During my tenure as writer, editor, and semi-retired contributor, I saw many changes at Binghamton University, from the addition of new buildings and programs to what I saw as a drop in academic standards. Binghamton Review has remained an outlet for conservative and libertarian thought.

It is important to remember that there is no defined ideology of Binghamton Review; the opinions expressed are those of the writers and editors. Sometimes editorials have been more conservative, at other times they have been more classically liberal or libertarian. One thing that BR has always stood for is individual freedom, free choice, and a free exchange of ideas. I am pleased to see that BR’s editors have again taken up the cause of liberty, the free market, and student interests in the on-again, off-again, now on-again debate at Binghamton City Hall regarding the number of occupants in homes classified as “single family.” Though students come and go (and perhaps city officials see the “transient” population as one that can be fooled once every four years), student interests never graduate. Binghamton Review will never graduate,

Binghamton Review, December 2008

16 and the ideas championed in 1987 will be championed in 2008 and beyond. The names and faces change but the cause of liberty does not.

Congrats on 21 years, BR, and here’s to another 21, and another, and another. I’m sure that we’ll have much to discuss.

were freshmen or sophomores who I thought were ready to declare war on any form of academic or social control. But after a general meeting at which I expressed my position that a concilatory rather than an adversarial attitude was preferable at the start of a new student publication, I was surprised to see the editorial board generally agree with my position.

After that, the Review gained increasing acceptance by the student body, and the first conservative student publication was officially born.

Over time the editors and writers went on to rich careers in various fields. Some examples: John Guardiano became a mainstay of Reason Magazine; Adam Bromberg worked closely with Dr. Herbert London in his gubernatorial campaign; and Bernadette Malone became a columnist for the Manchester (NH) Union Leader, book editor at Regnery Press and has appeared in National Review, the O’Reilly Factor and the CBS Early Show; Nate Wurtzel became a political consultant in Washington.

The Review’s decision to distance itself from Student Activity funds finally established it on a sound basis, and it continues to exert a healthy conservative presence on campus. It was a pleasure to work with such reasonable and talented students.

-Michael O’Connell was Editor of Binghamton Review during the 2003-04 academic year. He graduated from Binghamton University in 2003 and got his MPA from BU in 2005.

Jesse Sabatini ‘04: I came to Binghamton University

in the fall of 2000, holding this initial belief that everything taught by university professors was correct, and that there was no arguing their “vast wealth” of knowledge. In short, I had initially believed that the teachings of a professor would be fair and balanced.

Half a semester into my undergraduate career, I began to realize that I had been mistaken. I began questioning the slanted teachings of professors, particularly in the humanities departments. I often wondered where the diversity of opinion was on the Binghamton campus. I always believed in a strong national defense, and believed that the United States of America was the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. Patriotic blood had always run through my veins, and I was disgusted to see how many professors tried painting the USA as an evil nation. I needed an outlet to express my views.

Binghamton Review provided that outlet for me.

The Review is one of the few sources of conservatism on an otherwise very liberal campus. While some of their articles have been controversial, and while I did not agree with the content of every article, the Review never shied away from letting all views to be expressed within their publication. During my time at Binghamton, the Review stood for true political diversity, and this is to be commended. I owe the Review for opening my eyes to political conservatism.

Because of their publication, I began examining the counterarguments that were largely absent on the liberal Binghamton campus. I began reading not only what was assigned, but took it upon myself to read what was not assigned. This prevented me from being brainwashed into embracing one particular political ideology. I’ve grown considerably more conservative as I’ve grown older, and I owe this, in part, to the Review. I urge every one At Binghamton University today to stand up to your professors, and stand up for your principles and values. Challenge them on their ideology, and do not let the fear of being marked down a grade or two in class prevent you from being exposed to both sides of the political spectrum.

Without a doubt, the memory that stands out most in my mind during my time with the Review was the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks. I was a sophomore at the time, and I will never forget that day.

Those reading my articles in the Review since September

17

-Aldo Bernardo was the faculty advisor of Binghamton Review from 1987 to 2004.

Louis W. Leonini ‘05: This is an edited version of an ar11th, 2001 will find a special emphasis placed on patriotism.

I am forever thankful to the Review for letting me express my views in the wake of such a national tragedy. Over seven years has passed since that horrible day, but I have not forgotten, and I never will. Unfortunately, I feel that most Americans, especially those on a college campus, have gone back to sleep, and professors have continued to exploit these horrible acts to advance their own political agendas in an effort to paint the USA as “the bad guys.” I am hopeful that the Review will continue to be a voice for conservatism, and will make sure that the outlandish teachings of university professors do not go unnoticed.

-Jesse J. Sabatini was the Review’s “Sergeant-in-Arms” and graduated from Binghamton University in May 2004 with a B.S. degree in Biological Sciences and a minor in Chemistry.

He holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Virginia.

Aldo Bernardo: When I was asked to be faculty advisor

to the Review, it had already listed Prof. Herbert London and Ronald Reagan as (honorary) advisors. It was clear from the start that my role would be limited to an occasional observation on viewpoints or criticism of some controversial article.

At first I had hesitated to accept the invitation, but after noting how restrained the views of the editorial board were I decided to give it a try. Most writers and staff members

Binghamton Review, December 2008

ticle first published in our 20th Anniversary issue. It is reprinted with the permission of the author. Actually, he made us an offer.

We didn’t refuse.

A University campus is a study in contradiction.

There seems to be a plethora of freedom, but a dearth of responsibility. There is much to be said for studying and learning, and yet the beer pong leagues are never short of teams. It shows that in college, whenever one aspect of life gets too overwhelming, there is always a counterweight that attempts to bring things into balance. The best way to understand Binghamton Review is to think of it as exactly that--a counterweight.

I first joined this unique paper in my sophomore year. I was late. Many writers begin during their freshman year because they are absolutely sure of their ideological roots. I was not. They come early, and stay as long as their ego allows. I didn’t much have the writer’s ego. Writers and opinion nerds always annoyed me, actually. They seemed to care about commas, “voice,” and the split infinitive more than most normal people. They seemed arrogant, and mostly introverted. You never saw them downtown. What sniveling people! And yet, I joined the ranks. Why? I joined mostly because Binghamton Review was the only sensible organization on campus. Meetings were wonderfully engaging.

Debate was raging at all times, and you had no choice but to be articulate. It was the first (and only) place on campus I had gone where this was the case. It was funny to me that the

last vestige of a “liberal” education was a conservative opinion journal. I quickly realized the new liberals of our time were at home in the right-wing of thought, not the left. I realized BR stood as a counterweight to the leftist chicanery of my professors. I looked forward to contributing my first article.

Particularly influential to my early time at the Review was then-editor Mathew Pecorino and his predecessor Robert Zoch, who attempted to develop my talents and expose me to the history of the organization. In addition, there was Gideon Lamb who was a libertarian with a sharp intellect and a penchant for endless political and philosophical discussion.

They all gave me a taste of the “behind-the-scenes” action.

I often hung out in Matthew’s apartment with all of them talking about the victories of years past—things such as the “diversity requirement” (a requirement that students take classes that amounted to left-wing bias) being voted down by Harpur College, or how Nathan Wurtzel turned the paper away from its decline after our loss of funding in 1992. In addition, we were a force to be reckoned with in the big debates of the mid-nineties when we argued, and the school eventually agreed, that campus police should be armed. There are so many others I can’t begin to discuss now, but we also talked about the periods when the paper suffered from internal and external strife. The worst of which might have been the late nineties when, for the second time in our history, the SA vengefully tried to shut us down.

I listened intently to the old guard speak of the past, and imagined my own editorship. This came closer to reality when Matthew Pecorino tapped me for the managing editor

Binghamton Review, December 2008

18 position. I gladly accepted. With the new editor-in-chief, Mike O’Connell, I worked hard at keeping the magazine thoughtful and engaging. Our attendance at meetings reached new highs, and we were more cohesive. We jokingly called ourselves “the cabal” and constantly mocked each other. It was good times.

With all of this, we remained haunted. Whenever I would propose that we take a more active role in student government to try and enact positive changes, I was vilified. Many Review members remembered the days when we actually were targeted by past presidents and committees of the Assembly, and so they had accepted a self-defeatist attitude. This had to change. The moment I took the gavel and became editor-in-chief (we have a gavel, we’re cool like that) I pursued a different course. I was not going to preside over a neurotic magazine afraid of its own shadow.

I became obsessed with the nuances of the paper.

Over the summer before my senior year, I completely overhauled the layout and added new features. I settled our debt, and reformed most of the aspects of our operation. I realized that I actually enjoyed all of this extra work. Because there were so many things I wanted to change, I essentially became the layout editor, the business manager, the treasurer, the spokesman, and the editor-in-chief. My family thought I had lost my mind. I kindly told them I never had it in the first place (and that was probably their fault anyway.)

At the beginning, things were looking difficult.

While my friends and I were elected to the Student Assembly, we were looked upon with great suspicion by the other representatives, and it was unclear how we would be treated.

One left-wing group challenged the election, saying that we couldn’t possibly have been elected fairly because we were outside of the mainstream (this was coming from a fanatical Marxist group: the hypocrisy was jaw-dropping).

Publicly, the former editors and seasoned staff said very little. But in private, I was told I was a loon. They worried that I was stretching BR too thin and making it impossible to be left alone to publish. They were convinced that my policy of confrontation towards our rivals was going to bring us down. I listened, and then again, I didn’t really listen.

By the end of the first semester, I was vindicated.

Binghamton Review got its funding back. It was the largest

19

discretionary allocation that year, by far. It was supported by a super-majority of student assembly members (the vote was 16-3), and it crossed ideological lines. The election challenge by the hippies was thrown out. Even better, the leftist Off Campus College (notorious at the time for shady bookkeeping) was being investigated. They eventually had their funds frozen early the next semester, and hated us for it. Or maybe they hated us because we showered and actually had a life outside of student government. I guess I’ll never really know.

I didn’t harp on it. I was just happy that our staff was united against a common enemy. All during this, our popularity reached a new high. I think I remember some “mixer” parties with AZD girls at my house doing keg stands but I’m just not sure. It’s all so very fuzzy.

Most important to me, besides those victories, was the struggle to achieve them. I loved my time as editor more than anything. I made life-long friends, and I learned more than I ever could have by just going to class. You’ll know what I mean if you join the magazine. The experience is immensely fulfilling.

As I said in my farewell editorial (Two Parts ‘Sorrow,’ One Part ‘Sweet’, May, 2005): “Some of my fondest memories are still those nights spent debating my friends and mentors. I will forever miss the days where our penchant for hookah sessions and drink-mixing was matched only by our love of battling wits.” It is those battles that made me what I am today, both politically and philosophically. Now that I work at an investment bank and I can plainly see that countries with economic freedom are clearly better off than those without, my belief is even stronger that liberals simply have no clue that the policies they propose hurt those they are claiming to help. Even worse, maybe they do, and they don’t care.

I could bore you with the victories of my time as editor, and how my successors picked up the ball and continued the fight against a poisonous ideology on campus, but I’d rather you hear them from people currently carrying the torch of liberty at Binghamton University.

Happy twenty-first, guys. You make me proud.

-Louis W. Leonini was Editor-in-Chief of the Review in ‘04-’05. He is a baller. That is all.

Read old issues, learn about the staff, and send us hate mail at

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, December 2008

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Victories!

THE WIN COLUMN

20

We’re not lying when we say we’re always right

by Adam Shamah

W

hen considering the history of an organization like Binghamton Review, it can be overwhelming to enumerate the various accomplishments, trends, and landmarks that have come to define us. Although the task is daunting, we felt it necessary to include some of our greatest accomplishments, so you, our readers, can see for yourselves how this campus is a better place because of the Review.

ticulturalists. As reported by an old issue of the Review, “The broad language of the requirement allowed students to fulfill it by taking traditional history and philosophy courses, and even courses on ancient Greece and Rome. The multiculturalists wanted a requirement that strictly mandated

1995, succeeded on HCC in instituting the far left requirement (known as Diversity two) mentioned earlier. The original proposal was struck down by HCC, but the VPMA at the time lead his followers into the Provost’s office and refused to leave until she agreed to bypass the democratic process entirely and encourage the HCC to reconsider Diversity Two. The administration caved, and the requirement was passed by HCC. In 1997, a coalition led by March 1997: The End of Review contributor and AcaDiversity demic Vice President Jeff Golant made it their plan to repeal “Generations will grow up the requirement. BR contribufree” tor Anthony J. Benardello was the one who authored

For almost a decade, the HCC resolution calling a draconian gen-ed requirefor its repeal. Armed with arment plagued the students of guments that the diversity reBinghamton University. It was quirement was redundant of called the Diversity Requireother gen-ed requirements and ment, and it mandated that only added a left wing politistudents take courses on “the cal slant to the curriculum, the nature of oppression,” “the student led opposition spent social construction of inequaltwo weeks debating the issue ity,” and the plight of “underon the Council. Professors in represented people.” Origifavor of a traditional liberal nally, in the late ‘80s, Harpur arts education joined them.

College Council mandated Eventually, the repealers beat that students take one course the multiculturalists by a vote on a particular foreign culture and the study of ‘underrepresented peo- of 21 to 16, and Binghamton’s curan additional course dealing with the ple’ and ‘systems of oppression.’” riculum was made more traditional, theoretical aspects of diversity. This The multis set out, and in with more of a focus on education, was not enough for the campus mulBinghamton Review, December 2008

21 not indoctrination.

So, while we may still be stuck with a few lame gen-eds, be glad that we get to decide whether or not we want to take Marxist, minority-centered courses with little to no educational value. You’re welcome.

February 1999: The Arming of UPD

Most of you probably won’t believe what you’re about to read.

UPD, or as the campus police department was called back then, ULED (University Law Enforcement Division), went unarmed until January 29, 1999. That’s right, less than a decade ago BU students lived on campus with no real police force. Review editor Jason Kovacs at the time wrote of future student generations, “Why, they will wonder, did the BU administration wait so long and risk so many lives with an unarmed ULED?” In this post-Virginia Tech world, I’m sure that is exactly what you’re wondering as you read this.

Beginning in ’93, the Review began publishing articles calling for the arming of university police. We were met with opposition from the multiculturalists in the form of protests, forums, and disingenuous attacks against the officers charged with protecting us. In a 1993 editorial, Review editor Bernadette Malone explained the premise of the multiculturalist argument: “give the predominantly white police force guns, and they will undoubtedly abuse their power and victimize minorities.” In 1998, BR published an in-depth interview with a ULED officer that outlined the necessity of arming ULED. It sparked a wave of controversy, debate, and discussion, and, less than a year later, President DeFleur held a press conference to announce her decision to arm our police.

This non-ideological victory is perhaps our most important, solely for the fact that we need not worry

about deer from the nature preserve overrunning our defenseless campus.

In all serious though, could you imagine what the reaction would have been like if at the time of the Virginia Tech massacre, our own police did not even carry guns?

Those are perhaps our two greatest accomplishments in our twentyone years of existence. In addition, here are some other ways we have made this campus a better, more conservative place: NYPIRG: No longer are students giving $120,000 per year to the left wing New York Public Interest Group. The Review has been spreading the truth about BR since its very first semester of publication and ,with the help of assembly reps like Alex Rosenthal, Jeremy Zenilman, and Eric Katz, has watched in the past few years as that budget has shrunk. It now stands at $14,200 after my motion to reduce it last year, and it is expected to be cut even further next year.

Special Representation: While the VPMA still exists to give multiculturalists special representation, the ICA no longer has a seat on the financial council, as it used to, and NYPIRG no longer has two seats on the assembly.

Off Campus College Council used to be infested with hippies who would use the council’s budget

to fund things that had nothing to do with off campus students. For example, left wing student journals and prisoner support gift baskets. Really.

Their budget was frozen and some normalcy has returned to the Council since the Review exposed the group’s misdeeds in 2005.

These are just examples of things we’ve changed that were already here, and trust us, there are more examples. But most importantly, the Review has stood as the only opposition to the warped ideologies that rule college campuses today. We stand up against the meddling administration, overreaching Student Association, and embittered multiculturalists. There is no telling what this university might look like had our founders not put the effort in the launch the movement that we continue today.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Silence!

22

23

Quiet!

21 Years of Being Told to Sit Down and “Shut Up.”

A

t the start of the 1987-1988 academic year, Binghamton University—then SUNY Binghamton—had already gone 43 years without a strong conservative voice, and had spent over two decades since the sixties’ multicultural revolution without political opposition. That changed with the founding of Binghamton Review, which has since provided a voice for all those willing to challenge the status quo at our dear university.

Politically correct administrators, left wing student groups, and corrupt, self-serving SA bosses have been just a few of our targets over the years. Now, you have to understand, challenging the politically correct is a dangerous move. Political correctness, a term coined by Mao, literally means ‘the party line,’ or the doctrine of the state. And challenging the state line usually comes with backlash from the state.

The Review believes in many things. And we disagree with a lot of people on this campus. One thing we’ll never do, out of simple honor for the principles on which this nation was founded, is deny those with whom we disagree their right to speak, to voice their opposition. The same can’t be for the other side.

Throughout our existence,

campus leftists and assorted malcontents have tried every way possible to shut us up. One week it’s because we “spew racist or sexist hate speech” that we need to be silenced, another it’s because we’re “financially corrupt.”

They’ve tried every excuse, every reason, but they have had no success. In the wake of our 22nd year of publishing, let us look back as some of the more absurd efforts to silence Binghamton’s only conservative voice…

The Gay Cartoon. Pictured below is a cartoon published in the January 1989 issue of the Review. It makes fun of what at the time was a proposed

“Gay and Lesbian Studies” major. Funny, slightly PIC (politically incorrect), but totally harmless, right? Wrong. The publication of that cartoon led to a semester long witch-hunt that resulted in the Student Association deeming the Review non-fundable, a ban that lasted until 2004.

On February 10th, 1989, Pipe Dream reported that the university’s Office of Affirmative Action had filed discrimination charges against the Review with the SA rules committee. “The office of Affirmative Action would like to see the total defunding of the Binghamton Review,” stated Eva

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Braiman, the student who represented the Affirmative Action office, “I don’t believe the Student Association should fund groups who act discriminately and hurtful towards minority groups.” The Gay Pride Union (now Rainbow Pride Union), the Women’s Center, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, and the Latin American Solidarity Committee signed on to a statement supporting the charges against the Review.

Then, after hearing the charges, on February 22nd, the Rules Committee issued its report. The committee ruled Binghamton Review in violation of the “good faith clause” in the SA’s bylaws, which stated, “groups must act in meeting the needs and concerns of minorities,” as well as the SA’s Affirmative Action clause. In addition to a funding freeze, the rules committee mandated that “The executive board of the Binghamton Review, the author of the cartoon, and the cartoonist must attend a sensitivity workshop given by the GPU. After passing in the rules committee, the report was held up on the assembly not once but twice, as hours of endless debate led the rules committee to withdraw it for further

consideration both times.

Then Eva Braiman withdrew her complaint from the committee, and went straight to the SA Judicial Board with it. After weeks of prolonging their decision, the J-Board ruled the Review in violation of the good faith clause, and mandated the same thing as the rules committee: sensitivity training.

The Review editors refused the SA’s mandate, and were instead handed the infamous funding ban that would last for over a decade.

SA Boss Investigates BR. In February of 1999, Binghamton Review once again clashed with the Student Association and was threatened by then SA President Ben Greenzweig. Back then, BR was totally financially independent of the SA and was funded entirely by donors and national organizations. Since no SA funds were being used, BR kept all of its funds in an account separate from the SA and did not disclose its financial information to the SA.

Greenzweig filed a grievance with the President’s Organizational Review Board and asked it to answer two questions: (1) Is the Binghamton Review, a SA chartered Organization, violating the SA constitution or its bylaws? and (2) Does the Binghamton Review, a SA Chartered Organization, in its relationship with Binghamton Review, Inc., pose an inherent threat to the Student Association? He demanded that the Review be forced to disclose its finances.

In the end, the

PORB found the Review in violation of nothing, as was expected by most at the time. The Review’s private funding was found to be exactly that—private.

BR was not obligated in any way to tell the SA where its money came from. It is Greenzweig’s motives that are important.

When Pipe Dream found itself in a similar position several years earlier, Ben was one of freedom of the press’ biggest supporters. Only when it came to a magazine that didn’t endorse him, one that did not support most of his initiatives as president, did Greenzweig decide that campus newspapers had to be “watched” more carefully.

Greenzweig spent the days leading up to PORB’s final meeting trashing the Review on the editorial page of Pipe Dream—something he was later condemned for by his own committee.

As Jason Kovacs, Review editor at the time, wrote, “Binghamton Review is under attack because Greenzweig is scared that a conservative student magazine has been so successful under his administration. What will we expose about the SA, he probably wonders?

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Quiet!

24

What will we print next?”

These are not the only examples of SA insiders and other opponents of the campus conservative movement trying to wield their power to shut us down. In 1997, right after the Review led the successful effort to kill the Diversity Requirement, a professor from the Women’s Studies department tried to use her position to intimidate our advertisers after we printed a picture of a topless woman in celebration. She was put in place when she was later served with an official censure by Harpur College Council.

Issues have been stolen in mass as recently as 2006, when over two thousand were taken from the lecture hall in response to an article about the origins of campus racism that blamed racial tensions on campus on the left.

Before that, there were incidents of ICA chairmen, cultural group members, and even an SA president, who stole copies of our magazine with the intention of silencing our views.

During the Spring ’96 semester the Review was, as usual, in the middle of campus controversy. This was during the debates over the Diversity Requirement and the VPMA. It was also the semester that Anthony J. Benardello ran against Jessica Flores for SA president. It was one of the dirtiest semesters in the history of SA politics. Perhaps the slimiest of attacks was against the conservative candidate for Academic Vice President, Jeff Golant.

Somebody forged a memo on his office’s letterhead (he was an incumbent) full of racist and bigoted slurs. The Review published an expose on the issue, linking the deed to people associated with the VPMA at the time. Over 1000 copies of that issue were stolen.

The next month, Review writers scouted out the union on the day of distribution and caught a student by the name of Joe Testani trying to steal a stack of papers. Testani was a member of the Latin American Student Union and there was speculation at the time that he had colluded with the VPMA and leaders of other cultural groups, including ASU, but this could not be definitively proven. He was brought up on judicial charges and his face was featured on the cover of the following issue, which Review editors mailed home to his parents every month for a year.

Then in March of 1999, the university administration got involved in the attempts to relinquish BU from the “neofascist grips of Binghamton Review.” The university’s Associate Director of Campus Activities for Student Multicultural Programming, Linda Morales, gave Women’s Center President Amy Blundell a several page long pamphlet. As reported by the Review at the time, “the pamphlet was basically a how-to manual for hapless campus leftists on shutting down conservative student publications. Essays in this pamphlet include ‘Tips on

Challenging Outside Funding,’ ‘An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis,’ and ‘Tips on Responding to the Right Wing.’” The pamphlet made such suggestions as demanding that the SA pass a bylaw prohibiting outside funding, with the full knowledge that conservative newspapers across the country receive most of their operating budgets from national organizations.

The most disgusting aspect of this whole incident is the fact that a member of the university administration, Linda Morales, was the one who made the pamphlet available to students on campus. As the Review said at the time, Morales’ job was to provide cultural groups with support in programming. Apparently she felt that part of her taxpayer funded job description entails distributing left wing propaganda to left wing students with the goal of shutting down right wing magazines. Not only is that unethical, it may be illegal. University administrations are not allowed to pick favorites in ideological political battles, at least not explicitly as Morales did in 1999.

Despite all of this, we are still here. Binghamton Review persists and continues to lead Binghamton’s conservative movement. We’ve won our battles but there are still more to be won. Regardless, we won’t be stopped by anyone who tries to silence us.

Read old issues, learn about the staff, and send us hate mail at

www.binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, December 2008

25

Help BR Grow For 21 years, Binghamton Review has been the voice of the campus right at Binghamton University. Now, more than ever, BR needs your help.

Please consider donating to our cause. Every penny counts towards advancing the conservative movement on BU’s liberal campus.

Donate now and get Binghamton Review delivered to your home free of charge.

Fill out this form and return it to: Binghamton Review Include a check P.O. Box 6000 made out to Binghamton, NY 13902 Binghamton Review Mailing Address:

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________ Enclosed is: ______ $30 ______ $100 ______ $1000 ______ $50 ______ $500 ______ Other

‘

Rules to Follow

26

*The Godfather s Guide to Drinking

by Louis W. Leonini

You’ve probably had to sit through some speech when you were in grade school about the dangers of alcohol. Or perhaps you’ve noticed the not-so-subtle way that the administration is pulling out all of the Gestapo-like tactics it can to get you to break free from your addiction. I’m here to tell you that your guilt when you drink is unwarranted. Alcohol is not a problem. It’s an essential! Think about it—back in the day, our ancestors moved from an agrarian lifestyle to life in towns. When they did so, they encountered a true problem—drinking water. There simply was no way of proving it was safe, or testing it for impurities. Therefore, people drank beer! The process of making beer (besides making otherwise uninteresting items such as hops and water taste awesome) happens to kill germs! So cheer up. You are a descendent of a proud people. A drinking people.

There are rules, however. After all, we are not anarchists. These rules should help you in your transition from

a scared, guilt-ridden college student to a proud drinking partner!

21. It is absolutely essential that you have a balanced diet. Sodexho

pizza doesn’t count. In fact, it’s not even food. You mustn’t forget your vegies. Beer is made from barley. Problem solved.

20. Barley is a cereal crop. Beer is therefore an acceptable breakfast food.

19. Beer is not the only acceptable alcoholic drink. Get yourself acquainted with wine and single-malt scotch.

18. You’ve heard of wine and cheese? Mad prissy, yo. Unless you are a

useless, cowardly, urban liberal (a.k.a. yuppie idiot), then scotch and a Cuban cigar is where it’s at.

17. Drinking alone doesn’t mean you’re an alcoholic. It means you’re practicing.

16. If you are in jeans, it’s beer. If you are in a suit, champagne or

a mixed drink will do. If you are in a tux—scotch. Know your surroundings. Being a drinker doesn’t just mean guzzling. Have some class, you cafone!

15. Guys—chicks dig wine. But they want YOU to be the expert.

Learn, or at least learn how to fake it.

14. Girls—watch out for fakers. Anyone can say “ah, it’s from Napa.” He’ll be trying hard now that he knows rule number 15. But if Binghamton Review, December 2008

27 he says “Napa is great, but have you ever tried a Paso Robles Cabernet?” He’s a keeper. Call your parents to break out the special silverware for winter break.

13.

Guys—If she doesn’t like wine, she probably doesn’t drink.

She can’t be trusted. Let Darwinism take its course, she’ll be weeded out eventually. Go to State Street to find a replacement.

12. Girls—don’t be worried about whether he’s pouring you more wine. Alcohol enhances your experience. Conversely, it renders him incapable back at the dorm. Keep this in mind, and embrace your destiny. Salute!

Drink up.

6. When throwing a party, make

sure you make room in the fridge for as much beer as humanly possible. See Snoop Dogg’s “Gin and Juice” music video for more information.

5. If you bring beer to a party, put it in the fridge immediately.

This ideally should happen before you say hello to everyone, otherwise you’ll forget.

4.

by Rod Alzmann ‘11

If you ever see a girl shotgun Keystone Light, propose to her.

3. Drink as much cheap beer as

possible. It will help you learn to appreciate the good stuff when you graduate.

2. If you are a liberal, you are Bullshitting is an essential expected to drink more to prove life skill. Drinking makes it easi- you’re not a girly-man. I personer to bullshit. ally make anyone who voted for John Kerry funnel at least two 10. Drinking is a good network- beers before they can chill con la ing activity. See that? You’re on famiglia. the fast-track to a high paying job. Not in SOM? Then getting 1. Binghamton Review is a suwasted is your only hope! perior student group. Them boys can drink. Coincidence? I think 9. If it’s nighttime, you should be not. drinking. You are only allowed to stop if you are taking your clothes That’s the rules, folks. I’ll off for some extra-curricular ac- be checking on your progress in tivity with your comare. my periodic visits. Learn them, live them. Buona Fortuna! May the good 8. 38 degrees, 12 pounds of pres- times roll, the kegs be always tapped, sure = no foam. Keep repeating it and the bottles forever uncorked. until you remember.

Cheers!

11.

7. Don’t stick your finger into a

Why We Need Rational Tuition Increases

-Louis Leonini is the Godbeer to get rid of the foam. Pour it father of Binghamton Review. He is out, tilt the cup, and pour again. going to make you an offer you can’t Don’t be a bad host. You can af- refuse. ford the beer. If you couldn’t, you shouldn’t have thrown the party.

V

alue. The word gets pounded into our heads over and over again as to why we chose Binghamton over schools like NYU, Georgetown, or even Cornell. When you compare the level of education we receive here, it is comparable to the greatest educational facilities in America, and at a fraction of the cost. That being said, it is a fact that many of us chose Binghamton primarily due to the ridiculously good value that it offers us. We take for granted the fact that our yearly investment of roughly $15,000 for four years will pay enormous dividends over the course of our lives.

Liberal, conservative, or politically apathetic, the primary reason for obtaining a college degree is to increase the amount of money you earn. According to Census data from 2006, on average someone with a bachelor’s degree will make $22,909 more per year than someone with only a high school diploma. So if you graduate at the ripe young age of 21 and expect to work until 61, you should make approximately an extra $916,360 over your career. That doesn’t include compound interest or investing, so let’s be conservative

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Tuition

28

(gasp) and say that you earn an extra MILLION dollars.

Back to the present. Certainly none of us like paying the tuition bill (that is, unless your parents take care of it, curse you!) I, for one, put it off until the last possible day and try not to think about it after I’ve

paid it. But in reality you and I are much better off than our friends at the private schools. They pay twice as much as us, $33,301 on average, for one year at their school. Now, I don’t know about you, but I find myself asking this; why is it justified that they spend this much more? Is their education really worth twice as

much? The answer is a resounding no. Yes the average graduates from Harvard, Yale, UPenn, et al. will earn slightly more than the average Binghamton grad. However, All in all it just doesn’t add up. We win, you lose, blue-blazer-wearing rich kids.

I could devote an entire diatribe to the benefits of a public vs. a private in non-financial matters, but let’s get back to the title of this article.

Currently there is no system for tuition hikes within the SUNY system. It’s basically as though the state legislature could roll the dice and use that as their guideline for what tuition’s change will be the next year; snake eyes is a tuition decrease, three to nine and tuition stays the same, and 10 to 12 is a 15% increase. Obviously I’m being facetious, but the point still holds true: SUNY needs a rational tuition system. For students who are fiscally strained, as many of us are, the lack of a system for budgeting the biggest expense in our life so far—college—is a real burden.

I recently put forth a resolution in the Student Assembly, which is obviously non-binding to the state legislature, seeking to define what constitutes a “rational tuition increase.” My definition is “that a rational and predictable annual tuition increase be defined as one pegged to HEPI plus, up to, but no more than, 1%.” Many that I spoke to were in favor of this, yet there were some who disliked this. Allow me to summarize why this should be done.

First, the definition of HEPI—and no, it’s not a word. The Higher Education Price Index tracks the inflation rate of primary cost drivers of, yes you guessed it, higher education. So the factors that make Binghamton University’s expenses increase would be what our tuition is based off. Fair enough. Also, since

according to Webster’s inflation is “a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services,” this wouldn’t be a “real” increase.

By “real” I mean that yes the amount has gone up, but this is reflected in the value of money as a whole.

I also added the clause “plus, up to, but no more than, 1%.” My rationale for this is multifaceted.

First, inflation indexes generally under represent the real value of inflation. Second, to ask for our tuition to effectively stay the same year over year is just stupid. No, we don’t want our tuition to compare to George Washington U., but at the same time we should want our school to continue to get better. If, and only if, that 1% is going straight to Binghamton, then that increase is directly benefiting you and your family by virtue of increasing the value of your diploma.

Which returns us to my argument early on, that the cost of a college degree now is minor when compared to the increase in earnings potential it bestows. So let’s look at real numbers.

1% of current tuition is, rounding up to the nearest $10, $50 per year. Going by the standard of eight semesters, we are only seeing an increase in the range of $200-250 for our entire time at Binghamton. That $200-250 then goes directly to Binghamton, which, based off 14,373 students enrolled is roughly $720,000 for the University. I’m generally a cynic, but I certainly believe, as I hope you do, that an additional $720,000 is going to benefit Binghamton.

Like it or not tuition is going to go up. Let’s enact a real, meaningful method of increasing SUNY tuition. SA reps, let’s pass this.

-Rod Alzmann is a sophomore majoring in Accounting.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

BR Takes on SUNY Social Justice

by Rachel Gordon

and Stephen Herman

B

etween November 7th and 9th, Binghamton University held the SUNY Social Justice Conference. The conference was a series of workshops held in the Fine Arts Building. The sponsors of this event ranged from the Graduate Student Organization to Sociology/History Graduate Students to the Food Co-op to various academic departments, such as the English Department. The main event of the conference was a lecture by Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States. His lecture was also sponsored by the Harpur College Dean’s Office, Departments of Africana Studies, Anthropology, Asian and Asian American Studies, Comparative Literature, English, History, Human Development, Political Science, Sociology, Women’s Studies, Philosophy, Politics and Law, as well as the Institute for Global Cultural Studies.

In total, there were approximately 35 workshops that lasted for one hour and fifteen minutes each. There were at least 1,000 participants in the conference.

Here is a brief sampling of the workshops I attended.

Intelligence and Security Culture

The first seminar that I had the misfortune of attending was called “Intelligence and Security Culture.”

The lecture began with a brief “history of intelligence,” discussing such events as the Red Scare, the creation of the CIA, and the Phoenix Program. Soon, however, it took a nosedive on a slippery slope into madness. “ Countersubversion and Neutralization” was the next topic. The speaker stated that the government uses four tactics, namely infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and ohysical force, in order to infiltrate your organization. Eventually, the constant use of these four attacks will lead to infiltrated groups developing a Security Culture.

A Security Culture is a way of life for these groups, and the way wonderful organizations such as Weather Underground and the Black Panthers operated. Security Culture is a series of rules to live by that includes such mores as “don’t be afraid,” “don’t gossip,”

“humble yourself,” “don’t talk to the FBI,” and “allow for open discussion.”

Members of a group with a Security Culture also need to adopt “security names,” also known as aliases, in order to protect themselves from government intrusion, also known as “prosecution of crimes.” A simple question rose up in my mind: What the hell are groups like EMO/SAC and BPI doing that they need lectures like this?

Stop the Death Penalty Now:

A former member of the Black Panthers came to speak at the Social Justice conference. Remember, the Black Panthers were a group that was affiliated with Weather Underground. He talked about being falsely accused of murder when he tried to participate in a private (vigilante) drug raid. He was sent to jail, and was, as he said, “waiting to die.”

This former member of the Black Panthers felt the need to express to the members present that he had never killed anyone ever. Except when he killed his cat, but that was because

Binghamton Review, December 2008

SUNY Social Justice

30

he was angry with his mother. A man currently on death row also spoke on a phone conversation to the people present about his experiences and his fears. He said that he didn’t think he was guilty.

When people are sentenced to death, as Kant says, their dignity is more respected than if they spend all the rest of their life in a jail “waiting to die.” So in the end, death comes more quickly, and hopefully more painlessly, than if they had to rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

Democracy Matters

The first question out of the coordinator’s mouth was whether anyone had ever heard of clean elections. She said it was the process in which instead of taking funds from private sources such as industries, and “being beholden” to these industries, politicians would take money from individual citizens in $5 dollar contributions. The rest of the money would then be supplied through taxpayer spending.

Well, of course, nobody has ever heard of a clean election. That’s because that is not this type of financing’s name.

This is called public financing, and people have definitely heard of public financing.

You know, the type of financing that John McCain used and Barack Obama didn’t. It’s funny; Democrats created public financing, and the only candidate who used it was a Republican.

The coordinator then said that public financing is the way to go, but she’s okay with the fact that Barrack Obama took private financing because it won him the election. However, she hopes that now that he is in office, he will move to a public financing campaign. Does anyone else have a problem with an entrenched congress controlling the distribution of campaign funds for the entrenched congressmen and their opponents?

Tactical Action

At the “Tactical Action” workshop, pictures were forbidden, although the reason was never discussed.

The speaker had mentioned that this lecture had been done a fair amount of

times, and had before been “infiltrated” by police.

First, there was a discussion on all the various aspects of protest that one could think of. The speaker explained that in order to properly understand the right way to protest, you have to know the police, how they think and move. On a side note, this is similar to war tactics involving knowing your enemy that Sun Tzu espoused, interesting that police are seen as automatically adversarial to “peaceful” demonstrators. People in the workshop studied the United States Army Civil Disturbance Manual, or Field Manual 3-19.95 and YouTube videos of protests to see how the police organize and move in a protest situation.

Second was protesting practice.

We were brought outdoors to the center of the Fine Arts building, right into the September 11th Memorial. We split into two groups, one group representing the police officers, and the rest of the group was supposed to be the protestors. The speaker-turned-instructor taught us the right way to hold hands and connect the group to make us stronger against the police and the proper way to keep our fellow protestors from being arrested.

This seminar made me completely dumbfounded. I have nothing against free speech, and this seminar was completely within their rights to discuss this matter. However, the reasons for protest were never discussed, and the principles behind it were never mentioned. It seemed to be a fight for nothing more than the mere idea of being able to fight. This group consisted of intellectual carbon copies of each other, and they were so eager to protest that it became frightening. Not to mention that some of the material was teaching people how to commit the crime of resisting arrest.

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Four veterans from the Iraq War came to speak at the onference in an Iraq Veterans Against the War workshop. Now, there is nothing wrong with thinking that the war is bad. Many soldiers do, but does that make them unpatriotic? No. I was slightly agitated by the presence of

one of these “veterans,” because he wasn’t even stationed in Iraq; he went AWAL before he even left America. There is no excuse for anyone to go AWAL before he even leaves American soil. The fact that the rest of the soldiers were glad to have him as part of their “council” is beyond comprehension.

The veterans claimed that recruiters lie to people about the reality of the war and the army. Now, everyone knows there are reports of recruiters lying about benefits and money, but how can they lie about how bad war itself is?

Media coverage on the war is literally everywhere, and enough people know that war isn’t exactly a trip to Disney World. They can blame their recruiters, but they should have known that, as the saying goes, “war is hell.” These soldiers volunteered to go into the military, and no matter what they say, they knew the risks; this isn’t Vietnam, there was no draft.

One comment that the soldiers made was really off the mark; it was that all soldiers, in fact, hate the war and want it to stop. They claimed that all soldiers are changed in gruesome ways.

They murder innocent civilians, as part of orders, and that all soldiers need to be shown the truth. “Veterans” must protest recruiters out of schools because of the evils they spread. Must dissent always be so violent?

In conclusion, the Social Justice conference was certainly unique in that an event of such size has not been held at our university in many years. But the ideas espoused were nothing new; just the same old liberal talking points that we hear every day in Sociology class, or read in the EMO Zine. But hey, it’s better than apathy.

-Rachel Gordon is a sophomore and Stephen Herman is a freshman. They are still trying to get the smell out from the conference.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Gay Marriage

31

The Great Prop 8 Debate O

by Alex Paolano ‘10

n November 4, 2008, the left wing of this country had perhaps the greatest victory that they could have imagined. Democratic wonder-child Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, and the Democrats increased their lead in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

The strategy of mobilizing the youth and minority groups helped the Democrats achieve their goal of controlling the government.

The one unexpected consequence of this was in California. The one victory for the conservative base came with the voters voting yes on Proposition 8, upholding the traditional view of marriage as being an institution between one man and one woman. In the midst of the Obama celebration, wild insane protests began across the country.

The most loyal Democrats of all, African Americans, helped bring down gay marriage in what is perhaps the most liberal state in the country. This is a case of irony that is beyond comical. Exit polls, while not always reliable, do paint a pretty clear picture. Blacks overwhelmingly

supported Barack Obama, but also overwhelmingly supported Prop 8, by a margin of around seventy percent. The fact remains that while the black voter generally votes liberal, they remain socially conservative. A majority of Latino voters also voted to uphold the traditional view of marriage. Was this a botch in the gay and

lesbian community? Perhaps it was.

It has been said that the gay community did not do enough to reach out to minority communities; they did a poor job outside the white middle class community.

The next question is whether the voice of the people will be upheld, or whether radical liberal judges will

continue to legislate from the bench: the same way gay marriage became legal in the first place. In early 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, and without asking the voters, overturned the law and allowed same sex couples to marry.

California became the second state, after Massachusetts, to redefine marriage. On November 4, 2008, the voters were finally given a choice, and the voice of a solid majority, 52.2%, decided they wanted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. People instantly vowed to fight this. They vowed to fight the will of the voters. The United States is an amazing place because we have the choice to decide how we live based on a system of voting. If the vote doesn’t turn out in the favor that you would have liked, then you have the opportunity to change it in the upcoming election.

Imagine for a second, if a group of people decided they wanted to fight the election of Barack Obama because they didn’t agree with his policies. The election results are taken to the Supreme Court, despite the clear majority of 53% of the population (a remarkably similar percentage to the

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Prop 8

32

vote to enact Prop 8). The Supreme Court rules that John McCain is the better man for the job and overturns the will of the people. This is a completely asinine situation, but in reality it is no different than what the homosexual agenda wants to do with Prop 8.

It is of the utmost importance that the American people do not allow for the will 6,322,732 Californians to be undermined by four justices on the Supreme Court. This stands in stark contrast to everything American stands for. I have no interest in this article to debate the issue of homosexual marriage, because the people have already spoken and my thoughts are completely irrelevant.

But what I do believe in, and what I think needs to be recognized here, is an issue that goes beyond gay marriage. It bleeds into states’ rights issues, and the right of every vote to be counted.

On this past Election Day, the United States saw unprecedented turn out in perhaps the most important election of at the very least our lifetime. People truly believed that their voices would be heard and truly wanted to participate in the electoral process. How can anyone tell the voters of California that their votes truly matter if a court of seven unelected lawyers can overturn their decision?

America is great because of the right to disagree, the right to express your opinion and truly vote for change.

The American people voted for Barack Obama because they wanted change (whether or not this change will come is yet to be seen), and the Californian voters wanted change as well. They wanted to change the law, and they were successful.

-Alex Paolano is a junior majoring in History. He will now be referred to as the artist formerly known as Alex Paolano.

BR’s Holiday Gifts for the Needy

Matt Landau: A Mayor Ryan sex scandal Mayor Ryan: A Matt Landau sex scandal Ken Kamlet: A student neighbor Pipe Dream: A story not first covered by BR Sam Riedel: An economics textbook not written by Bill Ayers EMO/SAC: Irish Springs Bath and Body Wash Maryam Belly: A legitimate position NYPIRG: Their $50,000 back Lois: Sunblock, so she can come outside

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Letters

Letters

to

the editor To the Editor:

I recently had a chance to have some (very) small chit-chat with Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first former press secretary. Fleischer is now working as a sports consultant. When introduced, “Jarred, this is Ari Fleischer,” I responded “Oh, damn! I thought I was meeting Scott McClellan!” and Fleischer responded with uproarious laughter and said, “Ouch, you really know how to hurt a guy.” Of course, most members of the press had no ideas that you could treat someone who was a VIP humanly, and looked baffled at the exchange.

I asked him, in the same facetious manner, about the future of the GOP. “I understand there’s been a schism in the GOP” (he interrupted jovially and said here “Yeah, schism, I guess that’s a good word for it”) “and the Republicans are going to need a figure with a good outgoing personality to unite the party. I guess my question to you, sir, would be are you going to run for president in 2012?”

The surrounding media trying to talk to Ari looked at this point incredibly baffled and attempting to interrupt the exchange but Fleischer was visibly amused.

He said, “Hell no!” and laughed. He said that “See, I like NY. I don’t want my kids

growing up to be Redskins fans!”

I must look elsewhere and ask other members of the GOP who do not want to be president, and no one thinks they have any chance in hell of being president, whether or not they are considering running.

-Jarred Weiner To the Editor:

I have two main points of contention with Robert Menje’s article, ‘Stop Saying Sorry, Against White Guilt.’ First, Menje’s comparison of the Ku Klux Klan to organizations like the Black Student Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Second, his notion of ‘white, liberal guilt.’

First, after asserting the likeness of the BSU and the NAACP to the KKK, Menje writes, “There is a double standard in America. There is a domination of everything that would allow one to be proud of their white, European heritage.”

Menje implies that the KKK is the vessel through which white, European descendants can display their pride, similar to the way in which black and ‘colored’ people use the BSU and the NAACP. If the KKK is so proud of their white, European heritage, why do they hide their

33 faces? When people hide their faces, they are usually ashamed, the antithesis of pride.

But my point is not to make Menje a defender of a terrorist organization. I merely wish to point out the logical inconsistency in his argument. The irony is that current members of the BSU and the NAACP would be less successful had their ancestors (if not themselves personally) not been persecuted by the likes of the Klan.

Second, Menje implies that people who are not Klan members, or who, at the very least, are not opposed to organizations like the BSU on campus, are guilty of white, liberal guilt. What Menje calls guilt, some people call duty or obligation. The liberal ethic demands that we put other peoples’ views (particularly minority views) ahead of our own. There is no guilt involved. It is the alleged motivation behind many of our countries foreign policy initiatives that are fervently defended by this publication.

It is reasonable to question why a particular group of people who look a certain way receives drastically more funding (from a public university) than a group of people who look differently.

If Menje had posed his argument in this manner or similarly, he may have gotten to something. Menje writes, “Until whites stop hating themselves and start being proud of their heritage, all races will not advance and racism as we know it will continue to exist.” Tackling racist issues in a racist manner is not the most effective way to eradicate racism; it’s probably the least effective way.

-Jordan Rubin

Agree with us? Disagree?

Write us!

Email letters to the editor to editor@binghamtonreview.com Binghamton Review, December 2008

Illegal Immigration

34

What Happened to the Melting Pot? Illegal Immigration

and

American Exceptionalism

by Stephen Herman ‘12

I

n 1919, Teddy Roosevelt wrote a letter to the American Defense Society. In it, he had a few remarks about illegal immigration: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

For all of its controversy, the touchy subject of illegal immigration was barely touched upon in this past election. Sure, the two candidates were asked a question about it in one of the debates, and each gave an answer, but then the debate moved on. And never again was the topic heard. Why is that?

Was it because neither of them had an answer the country wanted to hear?

Whatever the case, this an issue that warrants longer then a six-minute response in one debate.

Current estimates of illegal

immigrants living here range from 12 million to 20 million people. You may ask what the problem is. “They just want to send money back to their family,” you might say, or “They’ll starve otherwise,” but that is not what this debate is about. No, people hide behind humanitarian reasons for why they are willing to accept so many illegal immigrants. Or else, if that fails, they will say, “Well they do all the jobs we don’t want to do, thus making life easier.” Sure, that is true, but they also get taken advantage of more than an American citizen would, and everyone knows that. The real reason that people are willing to accept so many illegal immigrants is their direct rejection of American Exceptionalism. More aptly put, they refuse to believe that America is the best country in the world.

America used to be the great melting pot; people came here and brought their cultures with them. Each culture came together and created something greater than itself. Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, each nationality has joined to share a common greatness, the greatness of America. They became citizens of America while retaining their own culture. That is what makes this country great. Illegal immigration is a much harder pill to swallow. When those people come here, not only do they bring their culture with them, they force it upon others. Menus have to be in Spanish, and restaurants cannot choose to not serve people who

don’t speak English because that would be discriminatory.

This may not be a well-known fact, but American citizenship requires a basic knowledge of the English language. One must be able to understand what he is promising to do as an American citizen in order to be one. Immigrants who come here legally, deserve a

Each culture came together and created something greater than itself. Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, each nationality has joined to share a common greatness, the greatness of America. huge amount of respect. They come here from other countries not knowing what their fate will be. Usually, they know their civic duties better than natural citizens because they had to learn them.

All it took for most of us to be citizens was to not complain about our country and to apply for selective services when we turned 18, if we are male.

American Exceptionalism is not a dead prospect. The foundations of republican democracy started

Binghamton Review, December 2008

35 here, and the Constitution was written here. Our government works the best.

We’ve saved the Western world more times than anyone cares to count, and for what? Why do you think so many people want to come here? Illegal immigrants and legal immigrants alike both agree that this is an amazing culture. The people who refuse to believe that America is exceptional are the same people who live in it. So, what do they want to do? They want to bring as many illegal immigrants in as possible and grant amnesty to every single one, without making sure they have even basic knowledge of the English language.

It’s so easy, destroy the American culture, destroy America. That will end the whole notion of American Exceptionalism.

Teddy Roosevelt held his country as his primary focus. He loved it more than anything and would fight to the day that he died to keep it safe and secure. How apt, then, are his words today? Surely there are more illegal immigrants today then there were in 1919.

The final question that must be asked, then, is whether people have changed.

Are illegal immigrants different than they were in 1919? Sure, nationality has changed over the past century, but what

hasn’t changed is human nature. Illegal immigrants still come here, ruining immigration quotas and disregarding our customs and laws. How can any of them contribute to our culture if they aren’t willing to work for it?

-Stephen Herman is a freshman majoring in Latin and Philosophy, Politics and Law. He hired two “undocumented authors” to write this article for him.

Nothing to do on a Friday night?

Tired of Beer Pong, Flip Cup, and Screw the Dealer?

Introducing

Truth and Two Shot Glasses the Official Drinking Game of Binghamton Review -Letter to the Editor calling BR racist: Take one shot per grammatical error. (Harpur’s Farry on speed dial).

-Presswatch catches Pipe Dream’s lack of spine. Chug a 40 and start reading Free Press.

-Hilarious/extremely offensive back cover.

Animal House a bottle of Jack and feel slightly dirty for laughing.

-Article on why the VPMA sucks.

Do a keg stand and call an emergency ICA meeting.

Cartoon making fun of homosexuals.

Do a beer funnel and file a hate crimes charge.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Guns

36

The Right of the People Shall Not Be Infringed

Foreign Aid amendments. Because the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, is it up to the states to restrict and even eliminate rights that are explicitly the rights of the people? I simply say, no, it is not.

Since DC v. Heller, lawsuits and court cases have been filed from New York City to Chicago against their

The Second Amendment

W

punishment. These are your rights that have been enumerated by the founding fathers.

The most important amendment to the US Constitution is the second. Amendment II is the amendment that secures the rights of all the other amendments. Amendment II states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For years, many on the left argued that this limited the right to keep and bear arms to a militia.

What they fail to realize is that when this amendment was written, all adult male citizens were considered the militia. Also, the founding fathers wrote the amendments in plain English so that a

common man with a third grade education would know his rights. Finally, in June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that Amendment II allows for an individual’s right to possess a firearm, and specifically mentioned in the ruling was the right for an individual to own a handgun. This ruling finally put to bed the argument that it only applied to militias.

Now that Americans have the right to individually own handguns, why do states and cities such as New York City, San Francisco, Illinois, and Wisconsin feel that it is up to them to restrict and often eliminate the rights of the people that were guaranteed to us by our forefathers and confirmed as our rights by the Supreme Court? I pose this question because I also ask, “Can the states take away our rights in the name of ‘states’ rights’?” Amendment X states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” States often argue that it is their right to create laws in the name of “states’ rights”. That is why something that is legal in one state is a minimum of three years in jail in another.

I must point out that Amendment X states, “The powers not delegated … are reserved to the States respectively.”

This means that states can create laws that are not in direct opposition to the rights established by the first nine

Binghamton Review, December 2008

draconian gun laws. I ask, “Why is it my right to open-carry a loaded handgun in Arlington, VA but once I travel several hundred feet over a bridge into DC, it is a felony? Why in New York City, would I be given a minimum sentence of three years in jail for carrying a concealed handgun, the same thing that is my right as a citizen in almost

every other place in the nation?”

-Robert Menje is a senior majoring in History. He has been placed on indefinite suspension from the Review for shooting himself in the thigh.

The Pain of Foreign Aid

by Robert E. Menje ‘09 hen James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1789, there was a huge uproar that jeopardized the ratification of the Constitution. Some wanted no Bill of Rights, while others refused to ratify the Constitution without one. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was created to secure the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to petition, the freedom of the press, and the freedom to keep and bear arms. It also prohibits certain things like unreasonable search and seizure, selfincrimination, and cruel and unusual

37

by Aaron Sebag ‘11

A

s a product of the vital effort made by today’s leading industrial nations to address the plight of the world’s poor, the past half century has seen an unprecedented amount of foreign development aid sent to countries of conflict and famine. One of the most significant barriers facing current developing markets and economies is the dismal and inefficient distribution mechanisms used by benefactor nations providing aid earmarked to combat world poverty. It has been the case, and it still is that one is likely to encounter periodicals and briefings that highlight the quantitative contributions made by aid organizations working to help the plight of those for whom aid is designed. However, there has been a growing voice and vision amongst reformists and entrepreneurs from corporations to non-governmental organizations to create policy initiatives that will promote bottom-up solutions structured and responsive towards the specific interests, needs, and demands of the people living in regions of economic penury.

Rather then being based on strategies and decision making tactics structured on a push-production approach, whereby directors and distributors in charge of aid allocation determine what is supplied and to whom, aid should rather be based on a pull-production mentality where what is supplied via aid organizations is

dependent and responsive to the practical conditions and needs of those on the ground. This approach would work best because it promotes a better framework through which a greater inclusion of the will of the poor can be taken into account during the decision making processes of aid organizations.

Although efforts made by countries through the United Nations and other institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have resulted in providing greater access of individuals to life sustaining goods and services, the efficient and properly targeted delivery of food and supplies remains distant from actual need. One primary fault for this disconnect is based upon the standards on which development aid is assessed. The emphasis on the quantitative inputs and contributions of organizations vs. the qualitative results of their inputs is what creates this tension between effort and result. Former senior research economist for the World Bank, William Easterly writes in his book, The White Man’s Burden, “That in the field of aid there are two types of policy makers, planners and seekers. Planners on one hand, announce good intentions but don’t motivate anyone to carry them out; they raise expectations but take no responsibility for meeting them. Searchers on the other hand, find things that work and get some reward. They de-

termine what to supply by adapting to local conditions to find out what is in demand.” I agree with Easterly in his assertion for there to be a greater need for organizations to assume a greater degree of entrepreneurial spirit into their delivery systems of goods and services.

For the proper allocation and distribution of aid to occur and be successful, their needs to be greater incentives and pressures placed on aid organizations to function well. The further creation of independent oversight authorities may very well be the proper direction to take to achieve this goal. Independent regulatory bodies over the foreign aid industry would have the power to encourage and make suggestions to organizations aimed to help them amend or reform their existing practices. One effective power that could prove useful to such bodies would involve the ability to expose the failures and inabilities of organizations to either meet or address their suggested changes.

The threat of bad press and resulting implications could then put pressure on organizations to better align themselves and search for new and innovative methods to reach their target populations.

-Aaron Sebag is a sophomore at Binghamton University. We would pay him a stipend, but our funds are currently being diverted to the South African government.

Binghamton Review, December 2008

Slash This, Slash That

BR flashbacks

Streamlining the SA Constitution

by Justin Somma October 1998

S

o I hear the SA Executive Board is “streamlining” the Student Association Constitution.

I feel so sorry for the students, I really do. In my quest to rid the world of evil, this will be a major setback. You see, the Executive Boa....

Wait.

When I was a freshman, I remember trying to read all the “inside” news that Pipe Dream and Binghamton Review printed, wondering the whole time who the hell all those people were, and what the hell all those “associations” and “coalitions” did.

I feel bad now because I am forced to write “inside” news, so I will do my best to translate from “S.A. Speak” into common English, because if the world were run my way, we’d never have any associations or coalitions to care about. So in the following paragraphs, I will follow up each unknown term with a translation as to their function.

To continue...

The Executive Board (the high lords and rulers) of the Student Association (The Five Guys in a Mysterious Dark Room Association) has decided to streamline the SA Constitution (an unworkable document filled with bureaucratic nominalizations) and make it better (pure evil). In order to do this, they will make the changes during the summer (time when Executive Boards are free to do anything they want). When

the Student Assembly (50 Students who gather in a room to hear themselves speak) meets, they will attempt to ratify the Constitution and send it to the general population for vote (what we do on our way to the dining hall that we have no interest in really doing). If the vote passes, then the new Constitution becomes the law.

If the Executive Board’s Constitution becomes law, then, for all you “Hellraiser” fans, the puzzle box is pretty much open and it’s time for Pinhead to step into our dimension.

So instead of going along with the Executive Board’s changes, I decided to make a few suggestions of my own that would do nothing but make students happy. Here’s how...

Vouchers, Vouchers Everywhere. Since the dawn of time, a voucher was used whenever the government wanted the citizens to choose something for themselves. Be the voucher a school voucher that allowed citizens to choose their children’s schools or a tax voucher that allowed citizens to allocate their taxed funds.

In my Constitution, there would be a voucher for the Student Activity Fee (Money that we give along with tuition each year that mostly goes to fund radical political weirdos). The money in the Student Activity Fee totals over $50 per person per semester, or over $100 per person per year, and you are forced to

38

give it to the SA without even a voice into where it goes. Pretty shitty, huh?

Hmm... what else could we do with $100? We could buy 2 ½ kegs of Milwaukee’s Best. We could drive down to Mardi Gras and spend one night in a seedy hotel with two half-naked women and an 8-ball of cocaine. We could do a hell of a lot of fun things for $100. Unfortunately, if the Executive Board gets their way, we’ll never be able to do anything with that $100.

So I say that we send it to the students. Let the students choose what groups their money goes to, if they want their money to go at all. We’d end the reign of 5 member groups that get $2000 from the SA. Membership and allocated funds would pretty much be two parallel lines on the chart - the way it should be.

Unfortunately there is a great battle against this. The Executive Board is currently offering up a popularly elected Budget Committee (a collection of jugheads who decide how many trillions we should give to the “Save Farrakhan Foundation”). What they don’t realize is that no matter how much they advertise it in Pipe Dream, no students will ever vote for this. We have so little faith in government that we realize that it’s not even worth the effort to vote because the status quo of shitty funding will always be maintained. The only way to effect radical change is a voucher system. The only way to get your money put where you want it is a voucher system. All that and it is the easiest system for the Financial Vice President (money lady) to work with. Sure there is more to the system than just that. There are plenty of provisions to make sure that needed groups like Harpur’s Ferry get their allocation, but in order to save space, those issues will be addressed in a later issue of the Review.

Self-Termination. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger said at the end of T2, “I cannot self-terminate.” That sentiment is

Binghamton Review, December 2008

No VPMA, No VPF, No Assembly... shared by the Executive Board. They simply cannot find it in their hearts to write a Constitution that would eliminate their roles (and their stipends). Well, because I am not one of them, I will help them along with the act.

The Executive Board is chockfull of useless positions and responsibilities that are either totally extraneous, or that duplicate a necessary function performed by one of the two nice ladies paid by the Association to do those duties the first time.

The first victim of my slashfest would be the Vice President for Multicultural Affairs (A Politically Correct mix of Oscar the Grouch and the demon that took over Linda Blair’s body in “The Exorcist”). The VPMA was a position created so that our university could look more “multicultural” (more full of shit than a McDonald’s hamburger). It does nothing but start fights, riots, and general misery that never ceases to inconvenience the fun of students that aren’t here to start a war. The SA was created to divide up $1,000,000 in student funds, and a position created to “make sure we do it fairly” tends to set off a few warning lights in the heads of us logical folk.

To put it simply, having a VPMA oversee money allocations is like having a cannibal referee for a Mike Tyson fight. It just isn’t fair.

The second man out would be the Executive Vice President (the SA’s answer to Mills Lane). He does two things, approves group Constitutions to keep them accountable to the SA, and runs the three-hour nightmare that is a Student Assembly meeting.

First off, groups should not have individual Constitutions because under a voucher system, groups would only be accountable to the students that fund

them, and only if those students choose to worry about it. If a group wants to blow their money on a wild beer bash, let them - but it’s their loss because in the end their group begins to serve no purpose but beer bashes. Then let the President deal with them. It’ll give him a chance to use the cellular phone that we pay for.

Secondly, there should be no Student Assembly. With a voucher system, there would be no budget to argue over, and therefore, no purpose for a centralized association. The only other function of the Assembly is to make “suggestions” to higher organizations that carry the same weight as a single student sending in a letter of complaint.

If the second function of the Assembly wants to be served, let the community governments do it, the administration takes them more seriously anyway.

Third goes the Financial Vice President. Currently, the FVP does little more than add an unnecessary step to the job of the Association’s paid accountant.

With a voucher system the FVP would have even less to do, and needless to say the paid accountant’s job would be easier. I’d eliminate the FVP and raise the pay of the accountant to take on the five extra minutes of daily responsibility.

That leaves three positions.

The first is the Academic Vice President (useful position that sometimes adds to students’ academic lives). So long as this person is not permitted to advocate more requirements to burden incoming freshmen and transfer students with, everything should go fine. There are a few powers regarding the Harpur College Council (group of professors and students who occasionally do good but mostly argue over whether or not students should be forced to take ENG

39 114D: Skydiving Voodoo Multicultural Literature) that need to be removed, but for the most part the position is sound.

The second position that I would keep would be the Vice President of University Programming (that concert girl). The VPUP is responsible for LL Cool J, Dave Matthews, Howie Mandel, and others coming to visit campus. Since there is no more pub there will be no more pub shows, but the VPUP can still plan smaller campus events all year long, if any position needs power, this is the one.

The final position is the President (the only thing pipe dream has to write about during the year). A good figurehead to interact with the administration, and a good source of controversy (if the streak of the past few years holds true).

That would be it. Three Executive Board positions, no voting power for any of them, no Assembly for them to control. Their weekly reports would be printed in The Student Advocate, a newspaper mentioned in the current Constitution that is supposedly a newsletter of the SA.

Those two very simple changes would infinitely simplify the Constitution, considering that the Constitution revolves around rules governing SA meetings and E-Board rights and privileges. Unless the Executive Board proposes something along the lines of what I just wrote about, don’t buy into it. We don’t need another dark age of co-operatives and multiculturalism. All we need is a chance to have a kick-ass time here at Binghamton University. Just be warned that if we don’t fight them now, there will come a time when their Constitutional changes actually hit home, and we’ll be powerless to stop them.

Binghamton Review is a monthly, independent journal of news, analysis, commentary, and controversy. Students at Binghamton University receive two copies of the Review free of charge (non-transferrable). Additional copies cost $1 each. Letters to the Editor are welcome; they must be accompanied by the author’s current address and phone number. All submissions become the property of the Review. The Review reserves the right to edit and print any submission. Copyright © 2008 Binghamton Review. All rights reserved. Binghamton Review is distributed on campus under the authority of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Binghamton Review is a member of the Collegiate Network and is a Student Association-chartered organization. Binghamton University is not responsible for the content of the Review; the Review is not responsible for the content of Binghamton University. Binghamton Review thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Past Editors of Binghamton Review: John Guardiano, Yan Rusanovsky, Kathryn Doherty, Ephriam Bernstein, Michael Malloy, Paul Schnier, Adam Bromberg, Bernadette Malone, Michael Darcy, Nathan Wurtzel, Amy Gardner, John Carney, Paul Torres, Jason Kovacs, Robert Zoch, Matthew Pecorino, Michael O’Connell, Louis W. Leonini, Joseph Carlone, Christopher Powell, Nathaniel Sugarman

Binghamton Review, December 2008

From the politically correct team that brought you Tuition Hikes! and Pretty Woman 2: Newing Girls on a Friday Night

The rebel scum (Binghamton Review) had forged an alliance with the colorblind people of the Republic. Unfortunately, the Sith Lord and her clone army stormed public comment, and intimidated the mindless drones into submission. The communities were powerless to defend their liberties, as the multicultural horde aimed the death star at the consciences of their representatives. “Racist, you must be,” said Yolanda, “if for this you vote.” The mindless drones of the SA were powerless to stop the multicultural empire from preventing the galaxy wide vote on Darth Maryam’s position in the Republic. The rebel forces were not finished though...

Stupid Association Films Presents...

SA WARS Episode 9: Attack of the Drones

STUPID ASSOCIATION FILMS in association with Stalin and Mikhail Gorbachev presents a SA Insider production. a film by 6 guys in a back room starring maryam belly as “the Sith lord for multicultural affairs (SLMA)” Brian Rose as “The grossly inappropriate control freak” Andrew Epstein as “white guilt” Rod Alzmann as “lando calrissian”and Jared Kirshenbaum as “the only rational one” directed by diversity and multiculturalism. soundtrack by the Experimental Music Organization racist commentary by L.A.S.U. and 20 Public commentors and a special appearance by aJB. financed by the educational opportunity program.

R

This movie has been undemocratically restricted to only the 40 people on the assembly.

Binghamton Review

Binghamton University P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000 binghamtonreview@gmail.com

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit 61 Binghamton, NY