The Claremont Independent - December 2013 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXIII, NUMBER 2, DEC. 2013

MENTAL HEALTH AT THE 5Cs

“BEING SAD AT THE HAPPIEST COLLEGE IN AMERICA” Derek Ko • Page 10

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents Editor-in-Chief Brad Richardson Publisher Martin Sartorius

EDITORIAL: LEARNING TO EMBRACE VULNERABILITY

HONORABLE MENTION: WHY CMC SHOULD NOT ADOPT AN HONOR CODE

Managing Editor Amelia Evrigenis

Associate Editors Derek Ko Colin Spence

Editor-in-Chief Emerita Marina Giloi Technology Officer Chris Gaarder Layout Editors Lindsey Betts Lynsey Chediak Kelsey Gohn

Brad Richardson, CMC ‘15

Harry Arnold, CMC ‘17

Externalizing Risk Over Common Sense: CMC DOS’s Shifting Priorities Martin Sartorius, CMC ‘15

TOP 10 SPEAKERS WE WANT TO INVITE TO THE COLLEGES

BEING SAD AT THE HAPPIEST COLLEGE IN AMERICA

FEATURED ORGANIZATION: THE 5C MENTAL HEALTH ALLIANCE

CI Staff

Derek Ko, CMC ‘14

Hannah Oh, CMC ‘16

CAN CHRIS CHRISTIE SWEET-TALK HIS WAY TO THE PRESIDENCY? 12

Photographer Lindsey Betts

Clay Spence, CMC ‘16

NSA: HERO OR BIG BROTHER?

IN THE BUBBLE

Illustrator Kelsey Gohn

Joel Porter, CMC ‘16

Staff Writers Harry Arnold, Ambika Bist, Brian Eckhardt, Nadeem Farooqi, Kevin Garske, Alexandra Holterman, Eugene Nandwa, Hannah Oh, Joel Porter, Becky Shin, Clay Spence

editorial

Learning to Embrace Vulnerability Brad Richardson | Editor-in-Chief Watching a loved one struggle with a deteriorating mental health is a unique sort of pain. In my experience, it is akin to watching someone slowly tear themselves apart and being helpless to do anything to stop it. This pain came to me in the form of an older sister with Bipolar Disorder. The transition from the carefree halls of grade school to the cruel world of high school lived up to its reputation. Seemingly overnight, my sister’s eccentric and quirky personality became mania. Her occasional mood swings morphed into an emotional state that lived solely on the extremities, and her rebellious streak turned into a revolution. Twelve-year-old me didn’t know what to do, and I’m not sure that the 21-year-old version would be much better equipped. That feeling of helplessness eventually led to anxiety and paranoia. Any time I heard muffled conversations and rushed footsteps outside my door at night, I assumed the worst. Years of suspense took their mental toll, and it became easier to stop caring after a while. Thankfully, my sister recovered. As any loving parents would, my mom and dad bent over backward to get her the treatment she needed. The transition from high school to college was far less dramatic, and, last summer, my sister graduated from college with distinction. The quirky girl with the rebellious streak has been found again, and I couldn’t be more proud of her. However, after the worst was over, I still had difficulty coping with what I had witnessed. At first, I bottled it all up. Things were getting better, and the sooner I could move on, forget about it, and pretended that it never happened, the better. But the memories lingered vividly, and I had the constant urge to share my experience. I thought that announcing everything to the world would get this weight off my chest, so I began to tell anyone who would listen: schoolmates, teachers, and random people over the Internet. But that only made the weight heavier. Sud-

denly, I felt defined by the very thing from which I was trying to escape. At least in my mind, I became that guy with the crazy sister to everyone outside of my family and immediate friend group, and the memories followed me around and suffocated me more than ever. I felt like I had “prostituted” myself á la Holden Caulfield, who warned: “Don’t ever tell anybody anything.” I struggled with the idea of talking about this period of my life for a long time after that. Could anyone really relate with what I had seen? Did I only want to share my experience for the sake of garnering sympathy and in order to sound tortured? Would I regret making myself vulnerable after the fact? Recently, I’ve been surrounded by a group of friends who embrace vulnerability. Our M.O. has been to sit back, watch bad movies, and vent with one another about whatever we happen to be going through. Nothing is taboo or off-limits. By sharing with me some of the most intimate details of their lives and personal struggles, they’ve slowly peeled away at mine. By creating a safe and trusting environment for me to spill my thoughts – and then asking penetrating questions about those thoughts – they’ve teased out details about who I am that were previously foreign to me. They’ve caused me to examine critically the assumptions that I held about myself. Before I allowed myself to become vulnerable within a constructive and safe environment, I feel as though, in the words of Elizabeth Bennet, “I never knew myself.” Just as important, I’ve learned through these discussions that mental health is an issue with which a lot of people can relate. My story is just one of many that go largely unnoticed, and it is not abnormal. Nearly everyone has a story about mental health to tell – whether it is their personal struggle, or how they’ve coped with their best friend’s or their older sister’s. But in order to talk about it and, in my experience, in order to learn and to heal, first you need to be OK with being vulnerable. CI

The Claremont Independent is an independent journal of campus affairs and political thought serving the colleges of the Claremont Consortium. The magazine receives no funding from any of the colleges and is distributed free of charge on campus. All costs of production are covered by the generous support of private foundations and individuals. The Claremont Independent is dedicated to using journalism and reasoned discourse to advance its ongoing mission of Upholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges.

opinion

Honorable Mention: Why CMC Should Not Adopt an Honor Code Harry Arnold | Staff Writer

Adopting an honor code in lieu of Claremont McKenna College’s academic integrity policy would be severely detrimental to the school’s mission of providing students with a pragmatic education. Honor codes are not only inherently flawed, but they also entail a variety of impractical applications. While there is no uniform definition, honor codes are essentially just academic integrity policies which are strongly imposed upon the student body through repetition and ritual practices (i.e. pledges, signatures). Honor codes also tend to be more concise in nature, typically consisting of two or three broad, sweeping statements. By contrast, academic integrity policies are more detailed and extensive, outlining specific procedures and practices. CMC’s academic integrity policy provides concrete examples regarding what constitutes cheating, whereas Harvey Mudd’s honor code simply obligates students to act in an honorable manner. It is important to note that academic integrity policies are in no way more lenient than honor codes; at CMC, students usually receive automatic suspension for a first time offense. At its core, an honor code is flawed for two reasons: its compact nature and strong imposition upon the student body. First, obligating students to abide by such a concise set of principles is misguided because it forces them to accept the narrow-minded philosophy that one should never lie, cheat or steal. Realistically, there are certain situations in which acting dishonorably can be necessary and beneficial for the society at large. Whether it is the doctor who purposely inflates a dying cancer patient’s chances of survival or those who lie to shield

others from intense grief, honesty is not always optimal. While academic integrity policies clearly articulate the unacceptable nature of academic dishonesty, they do not bind students to the overarching ideals of an honor code. As a result, students are provided with the intellectual freedom to explore and discover their own personal sense of morality -- one that is compatible with the real world. This approach is consistent with CMC seeking to educate students with a pragmatic sense of morality that can be applied in everyday life. The second reason an honor code is inherently flawed is the strong imposition it places upon students. Constantly reiterating the necessity of honesty via ritual pledges on exams and papers possesses no tangible benefit. Professor Donald McCabe of Rutgers University, an expert on student integrity, explains in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the effectiveness of honor codes relies on the preexisting moral composition of the students. In other words, an honor code by itself is not a catalyst for academic integrity, thus deeming its constant reiteration useless. Continually telling already honest students to abide by an honor code can actually have the opposite effect and create a detrimental environment of anxiety and mistrust. Honor codes are inherently vague and idealistic, which can lead to students unnecessarily worrying and questioning whether particular actions abide by the honor code. As a result, an honor code’s constant reiteration will only exacerbate this issue, possibly impeding constructive academic collaboration and creativity. Academic integrity policies specifically illustrate what does and does not constitute dishonesty, nullifying this glaring defect within honor codes.

opinion Beyond its inherent flaws, honor codes typically cannot be implemented in an appropriate, practical manner. In order to achieve an honor code’s primary goal of fostering a community of mutual trust, students must be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, more often than not, honor codes end up creating a counterproductive environment which prioritizes the discouragement of dishonest behavior over the encouragement of honest behavior. For example, honor pledges on tests and papers signify that students have not received any unauthorized aid. These practical manifestations of honor codes do not reiterate the benefits of individuals collectively practicing academic honesty. As a result, honor codes by nature tend to suppress the negative behavior of cheating more so than reinforce the positive behavior of academic honesty. Contemporary psychology retains the consensus that positive sentiments are much more effective in molding behavior than negative ones. Therefore, honor codes are being grossly misapplied in an inherently weak manner since they stress the negative harms of cheating over the positive benefits of academic honesty. Such a detrimental flaw can gradually lead to a disdain and lack of appreciation for the honor code. Reactance theory is a widely held view among psychologists that asserts humans are naturally inclined to oppose actions which limit their freedoms. Basically, it would be more beneficial for students to be able to choose to reap the benefits of collective academic integrity rather than be told not to cheat. CMC is a unique place where students are afforded numerous freedoms usually reserved for working professionals. Whether it is conducting ground-breaking research with esteemed professors at one of the various research institutes or the ability to interact with world leaders at the Athenaeum, CMC students are expected to exemplify a sense of maturity well beyond their years. In virtually every profession, individuals are expected to abide by some form of codified rules; however, these standards are not constantly reiterated as with an honor code. In fact, most occupations embrace an approach more in line with an academic integrity policy, simply expecting employees to abide by the rules or else suffer the consequences. In order to embrace President Chodosh’s central theme of “Liberal Arts in Action,” it is essential that CMC continues to cultivate an environment where students are comfortable making decisions on their own accord. As a result, it is only logical that CMC should retain its academic integrity policy and dismiss the idea of implementing an honor code. CI

Ask the Dean We asked CMC Dean Nicholas Warner to share his thoughts on CMC’s academic integrity policy. “I believe that CMC’s academic integrity policy can help to produce an environment of mutual respect and trust—respect for truth, accuracy, and the work of others, and trust that the people we work with are, indeed, trustworthy in the fullest sense of the term. Our policy seeks to establish academic integrity as a norm; without such a norm, there inevitably comes an erosion of trust and, eventually, an erosion of respect because how can you have much respect when trust is not present? Without academic integrity as a cherished value, you cannot have trust in the statements and self-representations of others, in the data they present, even in the very identities that they put forward as individual human beings. Such a situation would not be at all conducive to the thoughtful and responsible leadership that CMC seeks to cultivate in its students. About the benefits of an academic integrity policy: such a policy provides useful guidelines for the college community. These guidelines, in turn, have at least two overarching purposes: one has to do with education, and the other with implementation. On the education side, such a policy helps to inform students as to the nature and importance of academic integrity in general, and to provide specific examples of violations of academic integrity and ways of avoiding such violations through proper acknowledgment of sources and through an ethical approach to all academic endeavors, e.g., exams, lab reports, essays, and homework assignments. The second overarching purpose, that of implementation, involves identifying and explaining the consequences of violations of academic integrity. In this regard, the policy lays out systematic procedures for faculty and students alike to follow when questions about academic integrity arise. An academic integrity policy also has the benefit, in my view, of building a sense of community at the college through the establishment of clearly stated, reliable procedures and the affirmation of shared ethical values. Ultimately, all of these aspects of the policy will, I hope, enhance the commitment to academic integrity at CMC.” CI

opinion

Externalizing Risk Over Common Sense: CMC DOS’s Shifting Priorities

Martin Sartorius | Staff Writer

“I’m going to move off-campus next year because, before you know it, this campus is going to be completely dry.” This sort of talk, which was unthinkable even a few short years ago, has become common at Claremont McKenna College, as students have begun to feel helpless in the face of a draconian Dean of Students office (DOS). What began as simple disbelief and confusion after the dodgeball tournament “Rage in the Cage” was canceled on Nov. 1 has progressed to disillusionment about the very fabric of CMC’s culture. On that now-infamous day, the DOS went from approving a registered, dry party to telling students to go drink in their rooms. According to CMC’s current Student Activities Chair (SAC), Mark Blumenfeld, this drastic shift seemed to have happened completely abruptly, as he was only made aware of the cancellation the day before the event was to occur. Due to this last-minute change of plans, CMC students who had been planning on going out Saturday evening were forced to find a way find a new venue in which to entertain themselves. This resulted in a North Quad gathering, which was perfectly normal by 5C standards. Even though, as per usual, steps were taken by the SAC and various RAs to make sure the party stayed safe, such as moving students outside of lounges to prevent property damage and student injury, it was personally shut down by Dean Spellman and Dean Voss because, in a bit of bureaucratic irony, the gathering was not registered properly. When asked what they should do now, students were told by Dean Vos to “go drink in your rooms.” That night, the Deans made the collective, decisive and unmistakably clear choice to prioritize reducing legal liability over student safety and, consequently, the culture that has made CMC the happiest college in the U.S. While the night of Nov. 2 aptly epitomizes the current stance of the Dean of Students office toward the CMC social scene, the decision to shut down the party is only a small step in the CMC administration’s longer term change in policy with regards to the social scene.. This, however, is not a change in CMC’s rules, which have always complied with local, state, and national laws.

As far as the administration is concerned, it would be better for CMCers to create fraternities so that, should anything happen to a student, the parents (and college) could sue the fraternity. Unfortunately, this goal goes directly against what CMC has and should stand for, student safety. What was great about CMC was its mature, rational, and open view of drinking, preferring to help students in trouble rather than leaving them in their rooms by themselves. But, by implementing policies that encourage students

opinion to drink in private, the administration is promoting an unrestrained binge-drinking culture. In their rooms, with nothing to do, students will look to excessive, private drinking as a replacement to what used to be a vibrant social life at CMC. The administration’s new hardline against CMC’s social culture is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As discussed above, by attempting to reduce legal risk, the administration’s actions will result in more instances of hospital transports and alcohol poisoning than ever before. Of course, they will then try to blame the students and put in place further restrictions on the social scene in the name of “prevention,” which will begin a terrible cycle that threatens to undermine student safety and destroy the social culture. We have already seen this happen. Even though the DOS has taken a noticeably harder line on alcohol and partying this semester, according to the SAC, Toga Party resulted in five hospital transports (a new record number of transports for one party at CMC). Consequently, DOS decided to blame the student body and placed further restrictions on the social scene (as seen on Nov. 1) without thinking about who would have been there to help if these five transported students had been drinking in their rooms instead of at Toga. Unfortunately, though, all of the student frustration over these misguided and dangerous policies seems to be in vain. As expressed to me by the SAC, the DOS has been exceedingly difficult to talk to this semester, especially compared to previous years. For example, the SAC told me that he has been turned away from scheduled meetings with

“

the DOS on multiple occasions. He has effectively been “stonewalled,” even though he is the student body’s elected representative and main point of contact with the administration regarding the social culture. And it’s not just the SAC who is having trouble talking to the DOS. We at the Claremont Independent have tried multiple times to talk with the DOS only to be rejected or, usually, completely ignored. So much for the idea of that “safe and welcoming place” that the DOS so cheerfully claims to be on its website. In my discussion with the SAC, the only hope he had for the future was that the Alcohol Taskforce, a committee whose purpose would be to “discuss alcohol and campus life in greater depth than had been reviewed before” and submit a report to CMC President Chodosh, would be reinstated, and that the DOS would actually listen to its findings. This is similar to Chodosh’s recently proposed “alcohol and drugs subcommittee” that he proposed to in an email to the CMC student body on Nov. 22. In light of the DOS completely shrugging off students’ views this semester, however, the potential effectiveness of the subcommittee, or taskforce, is limited at best. The best-remaining hope is that the Board of Trustees, who dictates how the DOS should act, decides to change the administration’s policy that is crushing the inclusive and safe social culture that CMCers past and present so dearly love. In the end, CMC is only as good as its students and their well-being, a lesson that the DOS has been slow to learn and quick to forget. CI

When asked what they should do now, students were told by Dean Vos to ‘go drink in your rooms.’ That night, the Deans made the collective and unmistakably clear choice to prioritize reducing legal liability over student safety and, consequently, the culture that has made CMC the happiest college in the U.S.”

feature

Top-10 Speakers We Should Inspir

Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai, a 16-year-old from Swat, Pakistan, has been an advocate for education in her hometown, where the Taliban denies girls the chance to attend school. In October of 2012, her activism made her the target of an assassination attempt by the Taliban. She was critically injured and shot in the head and neck. Even with the attack, she returned to her passionate activism for education.

Neil Gaiman

Neil Gaiman is a cartoonist, graphic novelist, novelist, playwright, journalist, short story author, biographer and screenwriter. The author of novels such as Stardust, American Gods, Coraline, and The Graveyard Book, the last of which he was the first author to win both the Newbery and Carnegie medals for the same work, Gaiman is perhaps best-known for his critically acclaimed comic book series, The Sandman. Gaiman also co-wrote the screenplay for Beowulf (2007) and has written two episodes for the popular science fiction television series, Doctor Who.

Humorous Pam Popper

Will Ferrell

Will Ferrell is an actor and comedian who began his career as a cast member on the sketch comedy show, “Saturday Night Live.” During his seven-year tenure at SNL, Ferrell played characters such as Steve Butabi (“A Night at the Roxbury”) and Alex Trebek (“Celebrity Jeopardy”). Since leaving SNL, Ferrell has starred in films such as Old School, Elf, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, and The Other Guys.

Dr. Pam Popper is an internationally recognized expert on health and wellness. She is an experienced lobbyist and public policy expert, and currently serves on the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington D.C. Her expertise in studying the nuts and bolts of health and wellness, as well as the policies which govern our health care system, make her a dynamic speaker with a potentially powerful message for the 5Cs. Students care about health to a degree, but the 5Cs lack a coherent dialogue on wellness and health, and Dr. Popper has the ability to spark debate and inform our campus in an engaging way.

Poli

Invite to the Claremont Colleges ational

feature

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Nick Vujicic

Born with tetra-amelia syndrome, a disorder that left him without all four limbs, Nick Vujicic is a motivational speaker, the founder of a non-profit, evangelical organization, Life Without Limbs, and the author of a book of the same title. Vujicic has struggled for years with depression and coming to terms with his disorder, but ultimately realized that he could live a full and accomplished life, with or without limbs.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is the Chauncy Stillman professor of practical ethics in the Duke University Philosophy Department. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong is one of the preeminent living moral philosophers and has published extensively on topics ranging from moral skepticism’s place in his coherentist epistemology to issues of applied ethics, such as criminal responsibility legislation for offenders with multiple-personality disorder.

Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel is an American political philosopher and a professor of Government at Harvard University. The London Observer calls him “one of the most popular teachers in the world,” as he lectures on some of the most hotly debated moral and political issues of our time. His most recent book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of the Market, questions the idea of whether or not markets are morally neutral.

Academic Heidi Nelson Cruz

A graduate of CMC’s class of 1994, Heidi Nelson Cruz has had a tremendous amount of experience working in both the public and private sector. Cruz was the Director at the U.S. Treasury Department, a special policy assistant to Ambassador Zoellick, then Chief U.S. International Trade Negotiator, and served as one of President George W. Bush’s three economic advisors. Currently, Cruz is Vice President of the Private Wealth Management group at Goldman Sachs, a position that makes her notably qualified to talk about the subprime mortgage crisis. Oh, and did we mention that she’s married to Ted Cruz.

Gary Johnson

tical

The Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party nominee during the 2012 Presidential Election. The most successful third party candidate since 2000, Johnson and his running mate James P. Gray received 1.27 million (0.99%) popular votes. Johnson is committed to free enterprise, foreign non-interventionism, limited government, and privatization policies.

Anthony Kennedy

Justice Anthony Kennedy has served on the Supreme Court since his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Though Justice Kennedy identifies as a conservative, his views tend to be moderate as he sits at the ideological center of the bench. Because he rarely decides cases on partisan lines, Justice Kennedy has often casted the deciding swingvote in some of the Court’s most contentious cases to date.

life

Being Sad at the Happiest College in America

Derek Ko | Staff Writer

If the Daily Beast is to be believed, students at Claremont McKenna College attend the “happiest college in America,” while those in the surrounding four colleges attend institutions that consistently rank within the top 10. People seem to think that we’re a happy bunch, and many students at the Claremont Colleges would probably proudly agree. With green lawns, never-ending sunshine, great food, diverse communities of friends, endless networking opportunities, and much more, the 5Cs seem to be the Disneyland of higher education. Like many of my friends, I keep track of these rankings and have even flaunted them proudly on my Facebook timeline from time to time. The Claremont Colleges are among the premier educational institutions in the country, and I know that I am very lucky to be here. There’s just one small problem: I am not happy. For the past year, I’ve dealt with recurring episodes of depression, which finally became so severe that they started seriously affecting my studies this semester. After falling behind in my classes despite a reduced academic workload, I recently made the difficult decision to formally withdraw from CMC and seek comprehensive treatment. At a school where everyone is preparing for the next exam, organizing the next event, or landing the next prestigious job, internship, or fellowship, I felt inadequate for “failing” to overcome my condition. In a place where everyone is supposedly happy, I felt very much alone. I soon discovered that I am not. According to the Claremont University Consortium, 14 percent of all students at the Claremont Colleges (approximately 780 people) visit the Monsour Counseling Center in any given year. The mental health issues students face range from relationship difficulty and stress to substance abuse and eating disorders. However, according to Monsour Assistant/Training Director Fiona Vajk, the most common issues that students report are anxiety and depression. With such a large volume of students to treat, Dr. Vajk admits that Monsour is often overwhelmed. “Throughout the current semester, the wait time for an intake (first appointment) for therapy has remained at approximately two weeks,” Vajk said. “This is longer than we would like.” Due to the resignation of one of Monsour’s two staff psychiatrists at the start of the year, students seeking appointments for medical evaluations have had to wait even

longer – often more than a month – in order to get the help that they desperately need. The backlog at Monsour has led some students to turn to treatment options outside of the colleges. A student at Pitzer who wishes to remain anonymous said she sought outside treatment after suffering from intense depression, PTSD, and social anxiety. “It was to the point that I would skip class for a week because the thought of attending was so stressful,” the student said. Though she eventually completed a six-month outpatient program through her health care provider, the student recognized that she was “extremely lucky to have such coverage.” She also expressed the concern that students who cannot afford outside treatment or do not feel comfortable in group therapy at Monsour often “slip through the cracks.” Fortunately, Claremont College students have formed their own systems of support in the meantime. The 5C Mental Health Alliance (MHA), founded last year and currently led by President Colin Belanger PO ’14 and Vice President Sarah Blumenthal PO’15, stands as the largest and most visible support organization for Claremont students struggling with mental illnesses. Aimed at erasing the stigma surrounding mental illness at the Claremont Colleges, the MHA has already hosted recent events like “All About Therapy” and “Students Speak!,” the latter of which involved student panelists sharing their personal experiences and challenges with mental health. “Mental health is a bedrock quality-of-life issue,” MHA member Nick Sundback PO ’14 said. “We want students to feel comfortable discussing mental health.” According to Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) Vice President Madeline Hall CMC ‘14, an important step to make students feel comfort-

life able talking about mental health is changing the way that students themselves interact with one another. Hall recently gave a talk at “CMC Forum for the Future,” in which she recounted the grief she grappled with every year on March 4, her late mother’s birthday. “I didn’t want to be different,” Hall said. “Everyone else at CMC seemed so happy, so driven, so normal. I wanted to fit in and be happy, too.” Hall said that “fine, good, busy” tends to be the most common response students give when being asked how they are, a reply she abbreviates as “FGB.” Yet, as many students at the Colleges are able to attest, “FGB” is said much more often than it is actually meant. There are obvious steps that need to be taken before the needs of students with mental illnesses are adequately met at the 5Cs.

Monsour desperately needs an infusion of funding and resources. Other measures, like increasing the number of free counseling appointments for students per academic year (currently six), would also help. However, building a culture that de-stigmatizes mental illness remains the most important step to improving mental health at the 5Cs. In a place where we should all feel grateful for the opportunities that we have been afforded, the shame that some feel about their mental illnesses is often heightened. Students of both good and poor mental health must understand that it is perfectly normal to be sad at the happiest colleges in the country and, more important, that it is absolutely okay to talk about it. It is only then that happiness at the Claremont Colleges can begin to be genuine and inclusive, rather than assumed. CI

Campus Spotlight: 5C Mental Health Alliance

Hannah Oh | Staff Writer

The 5C Mental Health Alliance (MHA) is a studentled organization that seeks to erase the stigma around mental illness at the Claremont Colleges. MHA’s primary mission this year is to promote student dialogue regarding mental illness throughout the 5Cs by facilitating panel discussions, inviting speakers, writing publications, and providing a safe space for students with mental health concerns. This fall, events have included a “Therapy Mythbusters” panel discussion, which unraveled common misconceptions regarding the practice of therapy and an “Exploring Mental Illness” screening, which educated students on different types of mental illnesses. MHA has also organized a student panel called “Students Speak!” where students from the 5C’s shared their personal experiences dealing with mental health issues in an effort to “humanize” mental health cases. Along with encouraging healthy student discourse, MHA pursued additional resources for students in need of mental health services at the 5Cs. “Part of what prompted me to broaden the mission to increase resources for treating mental illnesses on campus is because, at many of our meetings in the past, we have gotten complaints from people saying Monsour, in many cases,

was overbooked or provided inadequate treatment.” MHA President Colin Belanger PO ’14 said. Belanger said that MHA seeks to find as many ways as possible to meet the needs of students in distress by helping them find the right kind of support they need. Expectations are high for students at the Claremont Colleges, and feeling stressed out and even overwhelmed is par for the course. Students can change how we deal with these expectations, however, by supporting an environment that fosters a healthy student population. By decreasing the stigma associated with mental illness and by increasing access to different treatments and services, 5C students can make a significant impact in how mental health concerns are viewed and addressed in our community. “This [issue] concerns a lot of students on campus – I’d really like to see that change,” Belanger said.

The 5C Mental Health Alliance meets every Thursday at 7:00 P.M. in Smith Campus Center’s Room 212 at Pomona College. Find out more about MHA on their website and Facebook page. Inquiries can be sent to mhalliance5c@gmail.com. CI

opinion

NSA: Hero or Big Brother? Joel Porter | Staff Writer Edward Snowden became a household name nearly overnight when a June 9 article in the Guardian revealed that he leaked roughly 200,000 confidential documents pertaining to the data-collection and -monitoring techniques used by his former employer, the National Security Agency (NSA). Soon after 29-year-old Snowden leaked the confidential documents, polls cropped up everywhere: Edward Snowden—hero or traitor? Perhaps the more relevant question, however, is: The NSA—hero or big brother? To answer this question, it’s worth reviewing the actions of key NSA personnel during the time of the Snowden leaks. On March 12 of this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the NSA does not intentionally collect any type of data on millions of American citizens. However, after it became public knowledge that the NSA does intentionally collect data on millions of Americans—by requiring major phone companies to hand over records of their clients and, according to some sources, accessing information from Google and Yahoo without their knowledge—Clapper later admitted the misleading nature of his response. Because of the necessary secrecy of the NSA’s operations, he claimed, his statement was the “most truthful, or least untruthful” response he could provide. Clapper’s response sets a worrisome precedent. By lying in front of a congressional hearing (a crime which could result in at least five years in prison), Clapper under-

mined congressional oversight. With the example set by the director of National Intelligence, other employees of the NSA are more likely to lie. Even Clapper’s justification of his statement is suspect. As Claremont McKenna College Associate Professor of Government George Thomas points out, “[Clapper] could [have] easily said, ‘I can’t disclose that.’ [Lying before a congressional hearing] certainly is illegal, and Congress could have recourse.” This breach of trust easily extends beyond the director of National Intelligence. In August, it was revealed that NSA agents had used NSA technology to spy on their love interests. The NSA assured the Wall Street Journal that they dealt with the matter internally, and that there were only “a couple” of such willful incidents in the last decade. The Wall Street Journal, however, cited revelations that nearly 3,000 such incidents occurred over the last year. The list goes on: Perhaps most destructively, it was revealed that the NSA has been tapping the phones of 35 world leaders. Take a moment, stop, and re-read that sentence. The NSA was listening in on, among other leaders, German Councilor Angela Merkel. The U.S. had been on good terms with Germany, but, after this incident, Merkel said that trust with the U.S. “has to be built anew.” “Those sorts of things seem crazy and utterly unjustified,” Thomas said. “Whether they are unconstitutional or not, they seem stupid. And foolish… what would be the

opinion benefit, even?” Although the benefit is not clear, the cost of listening in to these calls, and collecting data from foreign calls, is evident. El Mundo, one of the most popular newspapers in Spain, reported that the NSA had collected data on 60 million phone calls in Spain in just 30 days. Along the same vein, Le Monde, a French newspaper, reported that the NSA collected data on more than 70 million calls in France over a period of 30 days. Mexico’s foreign minister remarked that “Mexico is convinced that the practice of espionage committed constitute a violation of norms, an abuse of the trust built between partnering countries and does not honor the historic friendship between our nations.” Just looking at this as a foreign policy matter, America has failed spectacularly. Is it possible that the NSA is less popular internationally than it is domestically? Congressional oversight would normally account for such overreaches. But, according to Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein, neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the president

knew that the NSA was tapping into the communications of allied leaders. When an internal review, initiated by the Obama administration, revealed that the NSA was tapping into Chancellor Merkell’s cell phone, and the phones of some 35 other leaders, many of the monitoring programs were terminated. The implication is that both President Obama and Congress were unaware of the NSA’s actions. Ironically, President Obama, in defense of the NSA’s acquisition of Verizon’s data, reassured Americans that “[t]he last thing [the NSA would] be doing is taking programs like this to listen to people’s phone calls.” The bottom line is the NSA crossed the line. It lied to Congress; it required companies like AT&T to release vast amounts of private information on American citizens; it tapped into the phones of our foreign allies; it may have accessed Google and Yahoo’s secure data; and it did its best to cover up its actions with each step along the way. Something tells me that internal reviews are not going to meet up with the level of change we need here. CI

Can Chris Christie Sweet-Talk His Way to the Presidency?

Clay Spence | Staff Writer

News coverage of Chris Christie’s recent re-election has hashed out the policy issues that may impact his chances at the presidency in 2016. I’d like to take a different tack: Chris Christie’s speaking ability has the potential to win him the presidency. If you haven’t listened to a Christie town hall meeting, consider watching one. As the Star-Ledger endorsement of Christie rightly put it, “Gov. Chris Christie is the most remarkable political talent America has seen since Bill Clinton.” Christie’s hard-hitting, blunt style of politics is exactly what endears him to his voters on both sides of the aisle, and exactly what pumps up the like-count on YouTube videos of his speeches. Such video titles as “Christie Owns Hecklers,” “Christie Smacks Down” and “Best of Chris Christie” are indicative: in the face of angry constituents and confrontational reporters alike, Christie dominates policy questions. Christie is a true politician in the Ancient Greek sense

opinions of the word – a master of rhetoric and persuasion in the service of the state. “In New Jersey,” said Christie, “we have an obligation that’s bigger than our party, and that’s to get things done.” In his recent gubernatorial election, New Jersey residents of all political stripes bought in. According to exit polls, not only did Christie carry the overwhelming majority of conservatives, Republicans, and Tea-Partiers in a landslide re-election, but 31 percent of the state’s Democrats also backed their governor, as did a majority of Latino voters. The kicker is that they did it despite Christie’s mediocre political record. Poverty is at a 52-year high under Christie, with a whopping 24.7 percent of New Jersey citizens categorized as poor, and New Jersey’s credit rating fell recently. But does it matter? Christie has demonstrated he’s amply capable of sweet-talking his way out of thorny policy questions – he makes a living of it – and for all intents and purposes, his electorate seems to favor Christie’s call-it-like-he-sees it, takeno-prisoners speaking style over his track record as New Jersey governor. However, Christie’s charisma alone might not carry him through a presidential campaign. Strict fact-checking scrutiny might hamper Christie’s ability to sass his way through the 2016 electoral race. And should he win the Republican nomination, Christie will likely face a formidable opponent in Hillary Clinton. But as CNN’s Timothy Stanley notes, “In electoral politics…that might not really matter. As governor of California in the 1970s, Ronald Reagan raised taxes at least 10 times. Yet he still won election as a conservative, tax-cutting, cowboy Republican in 1980.” As Steve Kornacki of Salon points out, “the obvious analog for this Christie triumph is the 1998 Texas reelection victory of George W. Bush.” In that election, a Republican Party tired of losing to Clinton wholeheartedly backed Bush’s vision of a ‘compassionate conservatism’ which would expand social welfare, despite their Federalist leanings. Perhaps more important, Bush was able to draw heavily from the Republican donor class despite his moderation. Christie is more moderate than Bush, and this will

“

make his path to the GOP’s nomination steep and narrow. As Dan Balz of the Washington Post writes, “Christie is poised to become the anti-Cruz,” which may cripple his chances of winning over a Tea Party more concerned with ideological purity than electability, as evident by the government shutdown. Although Christie’s potential to clinch the general election is far greater than the principled Ted Cruz can claim, Christie’s penchant for compromise makes the nomination a high hurdle. In order to secure the presidential nomination Christie will have to convince right-wing Republicans he’s one of them, or at least close enough that he deserves their votes. I think Christie will overcome these obstacles and secure the GOP nomination. However, should he secure his position as the Republican Candidate, the question remains as to whether or not Christie can breeze through the primaries with his customary brashness and charm. Nate Cohn of the New Republic voices concern that “Christie might just be from a state that’s a notch too liberal and a notch too northeastern,” which means “it’s unclear how Christie’s Jersey Shore demeanor and temperament will play in Iowa or New Hampshire.” Christie’s success is far from certain, but it is impossible to understate the fact that his oversized personality constitutes a trump card. It’s hard not to love Christie’s swagger, especially in a Republican party comprised primarily of stodgy old men. Christie has the magical ability to win over a room of people who disagree with him: to crack jokes, play both good cop and bad cop, and temper his informality with serious and earnest conversation about the issues. As Kornacki recalls, “I’ve seen him do this in rooms of skeptical Democrats. I’ve seen him do this in rooms of skeptical conservatives. And I can absolutely see him doing it in a room of skeptical Iowa Republicans two years from now.” So will Christie win the Presidency in 2016? Here’s my view: If Christie makes it to a presidential debate with his Democratic opponent, he’ll dominate the discussion and clinch the election. CI

Christie is a true politician in the Ancient Greek sense of the word – a master of rhetoric and persuasion in the service of the state.

feature

In the Bubble

It’s impossible to keep up with everything that’s happening around the 5Cs – even for those of us in the journalism business; however, we diligently read through each of the other publications on campus and featured some highlights to keep you up-to-date on the campus dialogue. Here’s what’s happening in the bubble.

visit us online:

claremontindependent.com

Interested in writing for us? Attend our meetings this semester every Sunday at 9:00 p.m. in Kravis Center room 321.