The Claremont Independent - May 2013 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXII, NUMBER 5, MAY 2013

PAGE 8: Professor Raviv talks bias, Pitzer & cockroaches

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents.

Editorial

Editor in Chief Marina Giloi

The Financial Aid Fiscal Cliff

Managing Editor William Mitchell

Scripps Students Concerned Over LASPA Center

The Enemies of Voltaire: Campus Speech Codes

Professor Raviv Talks Bias, Pitzer & Cockroaches

Remembering Thatcher

Thatcher, the Conviction Politician

What’s in a feminist?

A call for tolerance

Publisher Emeritus Michael Koenig

Pro Immigration Reform

Illustrator Simon Giloi

Hail Politically Correct, Hail

Staff Writers Ambika Bist, Nadeem Farooqi, Aidan Fahnestock, Joseph Hylton, Kyle Johnson, Derek Ko, Martin Sartorius, Becky Shin, Kyle Tanguay

News Bites

Associate Editors Amelia Evrigenis Colin Spence Layout Editors Lynsey Chediak Tess Sewell Publisher Chris Gaarder Copy Editor Bradford Richardson Editors Emeriti Hannah Burak John-Clark Levin

Marina Giloi, CMC ‘14 Derek Ko, CMC ‘14

Ambika Bist, SCR ‘15

Colin Spence, CMC ‘15

Brad Richardson, CMC ‘15 & Colin Spence, CMC ‘15 Martin Sartorius, CMC ‘15 Chris Gaarder, CMC ‘15

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Kyle Woods, CMC ‘13

Lynsey Chediak, CMC ‘14

Brad Richardson, CMC ‘15 Nadeem Farooqi, CMC ‘15

18 Divestment 2.0 Derek Ko, CMC ‘14 20 21

Housing Games

Becky Shin, SCR ‘15 In the bubble

editorial

EDITORIAL by Marina Giloi

Editor in Chief

On April 19, 2013, CMC President Pamela Gann released the outcome of CMC’s review of the verbal altercation that occurred between a CMC faculty member and Pitzer student outside of Collins Dining Hall on March 4. The student filed an informal written grievance that was processed by the CMC Dean of Faculty along with both the CMC and Pitzer adminis� tration. Neither the faculty member nor the student were able to reach an informal resolution through the informal grievance process. CMC Dean of Students Mary Spellman completed the review process and set forth several conclusions, outlined in President Gann’s email. While I think we can all agree that the altercation in ques� tion was unprofessional, the nature of the student media cover� age on the occurrence has been disappointing. Many campus news outlets featured only the student’s version of the event, though Dean Spellman’s review states that “there is a factual dispute between the CMC faculty member and the Pitzer stu� dent with respect to the nature of their interaction.”

The nature of the issue is too divisive to only consider one perspective. Student media and other media outlets report� ed on the altercation, most often only according to one source’s account of the event, as if they were established fact. However, according to the extensive review done by Dean Spellman, the facts aren’t so established. They may never be. As President Gann said, civilized, respectful discourse is of course what we as a community should strive for in the face of differences of opinion. But serious incidents deserve fair, neutral coverage, and in this arena, campus media has room to improve. Although the faculty member declined to take part in any interviews until the review process was complete, that does not give those reporting on the event free rein over the story. Rather, it calls for caution. In such situations, journalists should temper their statements, apply heightened scrutiny to the half of the story that they do have, and not rush to �� conclu� sions out of convenience. 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.

campus life

by Derek Ko

THE FINANCIAL AID FISCAL CLIFF Staff Writer

Claremont McKenna College President Pamela Gann sent an email to the CMC student body March 14 announcing the termination of the college’s “No Packaged Loans policy,” a financial aid policy which previously prohibited the inclu� sion of student loans in student financial aid packages. The policy was changed so that as much as $4,000 in loans could be included in annual financial aid packages for future classes, amounting to a maximum of $16,000 in student loan debt for CMC students upon graduation. The change understandably upset many in the CMC community who worried about the policy change’s effects on socioeconomic diversity at the college. Legitimate fears surfaced that an additional $16,000 in loans could easily be significant enough to deter low-income students from attend� ing the college. The conclusion of a historic fund-raising cam� paign, which brought CMC’s endowment to a whopping $600 million, also made many students and alumni alike skeptical of claims that maintaining the No-Loans policy was fiscally infeasible. The fact that the No-Loans policy cancellation co� incided with the announcement by the CMC administration of plans to build a new, state-of-the-art fitness center certainly did not serve as a selling point either. Echoing the concerns

and opinions of many within the CMC community, Senior Class President-elect Laura Epstein even penned an op-ed for the CMC Forum titled “Invest in Students, Not a New Gym” shortly after President Gann’s announcement. Fortunately, the voices of concern within the CMC com� munity elicited a prompt response from the administration. Dean Jefferson Huang came before the ASCMC Senate April 2 to explain in detail the justifications behind the cancellation of the No-Loans policy. He began by explaining the three pillars of CMC’s financial aid policy prior to the change: need-blind admission, meeting all need, and the now-defunct No Pack� aged Loans. Huang explained that, despite the best efforts of the administration, the Financial Aid Office had overspent by about $900,000 the previous year, even after exhausting both a $14 million financial aid fund from the college’s own pock� ets and about $4 million more in state and federal government grants. Though the sum of $14 million still pales in comparison to CMC’s hefty endowment, it is important to keep in mind that financial aid spending quickly adds up from year to year. With so much of the current endowment tied up in restricted gifts earmarked for specific purposes like campus renovation, a pol� icy that is too gen� erous could eas� ily burn through CMC’s financial aid allotments over the span of few years. Even colleges like Dart� mouth and Wil� liams, both insti� tutions with larger endowments than CMC (in both ab� solute and per stu� dent terms), have cancelled their noloans policies. In the words of Dean Huang, “Any col� lege that’s not paying attention to financial aid is asleep at the wheel

Financial aid as percentage of tuition and fees

campus life

Financial aid: Cost of attendance & family ability to pay

right now, because it’s going to kill you.” Moreover, the data indicate that CMC’s financial aid policies have gradually become more generous in recent years. The average amount of financial aid per student at CMC has risen from $20,148 to $29,492 in the six-year period from 2005-2011. While the cost of attendance at CMC has risen from $40,578 in 2004 to $60,141 in 2013 (a 48.2 percent in� crease), the expected family contribution to tuition and fees per student has, by comparison, only risen from $16,500 to $20,500 (a 24.2 percent increase) in the same time period. It should be of little surprise then that, as Dean Huang stated, it was getting financially difficult for CMC to “hold it all togeth� er.” Addressing those concerned about the impact of the policy change on CMC’s socioeconomic diversity, Huang mentioned during Senate that research done by CMC faculty suggests the No Packaged Loans policy has not served as a strong draw for lower-income applicants in the first place. In light of this, driving CMC over the financial aid fiscal cliff appears even less justifiable. It is easy to point out examples of visible waste on CMC’s campus, from the splurges on fresh-cut flower arrangements and purchases of pricey modernist furniture, to the overwater� ing of Parent’s Field. It is certainly heartening to see students and alumni question the wisdom of terminating a financial aid policy while allowing costly planned construction projects to move ahead. However, the empirical evidence presented by the CMC Administration suggests that there are, indeed, legiti�

“Any college that’s not paying attention to financial aid is asleep at the wheel right now, because it’s going to kill you.”

”

mate financial reasons for cancelling the No Packaged Loans policy. The generosity and inclusivity of CMC’s financial aid policy ultimately cannot depend on unsustainable short-term overspending. Instead, it must depend on the willingness of donors to give not merely out of a desire to put their name on a building, but also out of a desire to “pay it forward” to promis� ing students in need. Either way, there will still be plenty of fresh flowers, muddy lawns and space-age furniture for future students to look forward to (not to mention a new gym). CI

campus life

SCRIPPS STUDENTS CONCERNED OVER NEW LASPA CENTER

by Ambika Bist Staff Writer Scripps College recently received a $5 million donation, a keystone gift from alumnus Eileen Schock Laspa ’67 and Jude Laspa, Harvey Mudd College ’65, for a women’s leader� ship center to be named in honor of the former. The LASPA Center for Leadership at Scripps College will focus on 21st-century leadership, including scholarship and public service. The center has a focused mission of prepar� ing enriched, informed, intellectual and curious female leaders of tomorrow by increasing interactions with local organiza� tions and working with community leaders.

“

President Varga notably stressed that the center is ‘not going to be Kravis Center at Scripps.’

Having led adventurous lives, including moving 16 times, the Lapsas carry a very global perspective, which they would like the center to reflect. Yet, the family does not intend to hold any administrative position or have any involvement in the running of the center. According to Scripps President Lori Bettison-Varga, during an April 15 LAPSA information ses� sion, “They are not going to control it; they just gave us a gift to help us to steward the project.” She went on to say that they will not be part of the search committee for the director either, nor will have any special vetting of the candidate. Although much of the administration is excited about bringing new opportunities to campus, Scripps students are unsure of the benefits of such a center and have been vocal about their concerns. Chief among their worries is the thought that the institute could become like CMC’s Kravis Leadership Institute and not adequately embody all Scripps students, but only certain majors. Varga and faculty members Piya Chatterjee, Dorothy Cruickshank Backstrand Chair of Gender and Women’s Stud� ies, and Mark Golub, Assistant Professor of Politics and In� ternational Relations, held a panel discussion April 15 to get feedback on the program and help answer student questions.

President Varga started off the hour-long discussion by giving students a broad overview of the project and then opened the floor up for a dialogue. The leadership center will enhance the current curricu� lum with the hope that it may become the hub and heartbeat outside the classroom of engaging students. The goals for the center are ambitious and include research grants, among other opportunities for students. Similar to CMC’s SOURCE program, the LASPA center hopes to allow students to work directly with non-profits and local companies throughout the year, allowing students to problem solve “real world” prob� lems for organizations outside of the consortium. The center also hopes to have visiting scholars and host practical skillbased workshops, as well as have student-run conferences. President Varga notably stressed that the center is “not going to be Kravis Center at Scripps.” Rather, the program� ming is supposed to affect all students in their four years at the college, with series such as “Money Wise Woman Program,” how best to negotiate your paycheck, and similar practical skills necessary for life after college. The center will have directives unique to Scripps culture, which will interest all students with room for different views of leadership. It will have characteristics that are necessary for anyone to successfully lead their own lives and work with oth� ers. The benefits from the center do not end when one graduates, but will be available even beyond through the LASPA center’s virtual website, which will include alumni relations support. Now that the project has received the initial gift, the school has put together a search committee for the center’s in� augural director. The college wants to make sure that students help out in the search of the right person as well. To accommo� date them, there will be public, on-campus interviews of candi� dates beginning in the fall of 2013. The physical location of the center will be in the Drake wing of Dennison Library, which has been closed for three years. Although it will be housed in a very historic building, the center plans to be very contempo� rary and high tech inside, with sliding walls and state of the art equipment. Overall, the center will bring a much-needed resource to the Scripps community. The college has lacked a place to pro� vide students with necessary post-graduate tools, and the addi� tion of the center will be a welcome sight. Historically, Scripps has succeeded in preparing its students to enter the workforce academically, but alumni have expressed a lack of technical work place preparation. Hopefully, the LASPA Center will be able to help correct these past grievances. CI

campus life

THE ENEMIES OF VOLTAIRE: CAMPUS SPEECH CODES by Colin Spence Associate Editor Claremont Mckenna College President Pamela Gann sent out an email April 19 regarding the confrontation between a member of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) orga� nization and a CMC faculty member. The email included a forwarded memo from Dean of Students Mary Spellman, and summarized the findings of the six-week investigation that the school had conducted. In those intervening six weeks, the in� cident and the subsequent investigation has been discussed at length in the student media and in the general student body. While the appropriateness and meaning of the professor’s words were scrutinized, along with the investigation’s alleged increased interest in SJP’s adherence to event protocol, the ef� fectiveness and even the fundamental necessity of the school’s policy on demonstrations and free speech were not. These poli� cies have produced a substantial amount of the frustration with these proceedings. Among these policies, both CMC’s policy on demonstrations and general events, as well as the Consor� tium’s “bias-related incident” policy are substantially respon� sible for the deafening lack of important discourse on the topic. The policy on demonstrations has been addressed in oth� er publications, but the “bias-related incident” policy, which has received less coverage, poses a similar if not more insidi� ous threat to freedom of speech. This threat stems from the pol� icy’s mere existence, as it can be used to silence and discredit opponents by mere insinuation. In this case, a Pitzer student, Najib Hamideh ’15, claimed that Dr. Yaron Raviv, a CMC associate professor, used racially charged language when ad� dressing him. The long-running investigation noted that Raviv apologized for the inappropriateness of his language, and also indicated that Raviv “stated that his intent in using the term ‘cockroach’ was to respond to the student by indicating that he thought of the student as someone who could not harm him.” Raviv also said that his harsh outburst was in response to Hamideh saying, “You’re a faculty here. I will hunt you down,” which Hamideh denied saying. In addition the report also noted that after the confrontation, Hamideh returned to the demonstration and attempted to identify the professor, when, “At least one witness reported that, while doing so, the stu� dent stated that he would ‘hunt down’ the faculty member. The student did not recall making the statement but did not deny doing so.” Such facts cast a new light on this incident, and add doubt to the prevailing version of the story. These new facts do change the discussion, but what was said and by whom should not have been at issue in this case. That these were the relevant questions covered by student media represents the failings of

our current speech policy. The main culprit is the “bias-related incident” filing, which should have been dismissed out of hand. The reason? Despite the policy’s vague name, the policy itself is quite spe� cific. As stated in “[The Claremont Colleges Communication Protocol for Bias Related Incidents], the term “bias related incident” is limited to conduct that violates one or more of the Claremont colleges’ disciplinary codes and which is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or by analogous provisions of state law. A hate crime is an especially severe form of bias related incident, and such crimes fall far beyond the bounds of constitutional protection.” (Emphasis added.) Even at its broadest, the accusations leveled against Raviv did not even come close to meeting this standard. Speech that is not protected by the First Amendment is, by nature, an extremely narrow category, and also generally falls under the purview of actual law and renders such a code superfluous. Discourtesies, no matter how inappropriate or of� fensive they are deemed to be, are a private matter and should not be the subject of an official inquiry. When such speech turns to actual unlawful harassment, then the appropriate law should be applied, but again, the speech alleged in this case fell well short of that standard. To justify having a code like the “bias-related incident” policy, its purpose would have to be unique and significant enough to override any concerns that the code’s existence could endanger free speech. The “biasrelated incident” policy does not meet such a standard, and is too easily wielded as an instrument that summarily silences opponents and moves discussion out of the public sphere and behind the closed doors of the investigating committee. While the policies on events and demonstrations are not as detrimental to the freedom of discourse as the “bias-related incident” policy, they can still negatively impact speech, and are worth examining. In this case, two aspects of the policy were involved in a consequential manner. The first was the requirement that the event pre-register with the Dean. While the school does not specifically require protests to register, it does require, as specified in CMC’s Guide to Student Life, “any events held in any College building (including the resi� dences halls); [or] events held outside…” to be registered. By basically requiring all events in public spaces to register, the college has created a bureaucratic obstacle that makes protest more difficult and restricts speech because of it. Ideally, the

continued on page 18

campus life

PROFESSOR RAVIV TALKS BIAS, PITZER & COCKROACHES

by Brad Richardson & Colin Spence

Copy Editor & Associate Editor

Up until now, CMC Associate Professor of Economics Yaron Raviv has remained completely silent on his involve� ment in a March 4 conflict between himself and members of a pro-Palestine student group, Claremont Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). When the Claremont Independent requested an interview March 12 via email, Raviv politely declined, say� ing he wanted to wait for the review process to take its course before going public with his side of the story. Raviv, an Israel native, has been accused of using a racial slur and offensive language when he called a Pitzer student and SJP member a “fucking cockroach.” The group also alleged that Raviv tried to shut down a demonstration that they were performing, which included checking IDs at the front entrance of Collins Dining Hall during dinner service in order to simu� late a West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli checkpoint. CMC President Pamela Gann sent an April 19 email to the Claremont Colleges Community reporting the findings of a comprehensive review conducted by the administration. Although Gann ruled that, “The CMC faculty member made statements to the Pitzer student that were inappropriate and un� professional,” she also wrote that, “even if bias is assumed, the comments made, when viewed in the context and in their total� ity, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to constitute a violation of the College’s Harassment Policy.” Furthermore, she ruled that, “the SJP event was not in compliance with CMC’s Demonstrations Policy and the Cla� remont Colleges Demonstration Policy, both of which prohibit disruptive and/or non-peaceful events,” and “The CMC faculty member did not improperly interfere with or attempt to stop the event.” Now that the review is complete and the administration has ruled on its findings, Raviv agreed to take part in an inter� view with the Claremont Independent. Below is a transcript of that interview. CI: What happened the evening of March 4? Raviv: I was sitting in [my office] grading a midterm exam. It was around 5:20 and a Pitzer student called my office. He said, “Can I come to your office? I really need your help.” He sounded very distressed, and I said, “Sure, come to my of� fice.” He was probably just downstairs, and he got to my office in a minute. He said, “Listen, there is some demonstration in the dining hall.” I said, “Okay, calm down, let me…go and check what is going on.” So I [went] down to the dining hall, and once we [got] on the main sidewalk, he took a turn because

he was afraid to be seen with me. CI: Did you know the student? Raviv: Yeah, I knew the student. He was not my student. He knew that I was Israeli. I met him once at some kind of social event. CI: What did you see when you got to the dining hall? Raviv: I saw a couple of students [handing out] some fliers, a couple of students standing on the side of Collins Din� ing Hall and crying, and I saw a line of students blocking the entrance to the dining hall. I went up to go into the dining hall and the students were standing shoulder to shoulder, and I could not pass. They told me, “Show us your ID.” I said, “What?” “Yeah, yeah, this is an Israeli checkpoint, show us your ID if you want to come in� side.” I said, “I’m not going to show you my ID. Have you ever seen an Israeli checkpoint?” One of the students said, “Yeah, yeah, I saw an Israeli checkpoint.” I said, “Who is your leader? Who brought you here?” Then they told me, “We don’t have a leader. We’ve come by ourselves, and this is an approved demonstration.” I said, “Okay, okay, let me in.” They let me in, you know, so there was not any physical contact. I went inside the dining hall. I was looking for the din� ing hall manager. I called her from inside the kitchen and I told her, “Listen, the students have the right to demonstrate, they probably have approved that, but they cannot block the entrance. Please move them 10 feet aside. They can do their political activity there. Just move them 10 feet aside so they will not block the entrance and hassle students. That’s illegal.” She went outside and she talked with the students, and at first it looked like they complied. So they took off the ropes—they had some ropes on the side of the dining hall—and they moved aside. However, the moment she went inside, they imme� diately blocked the entrance again. I went inside the dining hall again. I was looking for [the dining hall manager], and I could not find her, so I went to the cashier and I asked her to use her phone. I called [Campus Safety]—I was the one who called [Campus Safety]—and I told the dispatcher, “Listen, the students have the right to demonstrate, but you need to send someone to move them 10 feet aside. They cannot block the entrance.” The [Campus Safety] officer arrived and he parked his car 30-40 feet south of the entrance in front of Story House. I saw the guy and wanted to go talk to him to explain what was

campus life going on. I started to walk toward his direction, and a [student from the demonstration approached me] and told me to my face, “Who are you? Show me your ID! Are you faculty or a visitor? If you are a visitor, you cannot be on campus after 5:00 p.m. Show me your campus pass!” I told him, “I will never show you my ID. It’s not your business who I am. I can be a faculty or a visitor; it’s not your business.” I kept walking toward the officer and this guy is in my face, you know, like overly aggressively. I started to talk with the [Campus Safety] officer and I said, “Listen, this student event has been approved for this demonstration, but they cannot block the entrance, you need to move them 10 feet aside.” To give [the Campus Safety officer] some validity to what I was saying, I pulled out my fac� ulty ID. The [student] who was in my face basically said, “Oh, you are faculty! I will hunt you down!” And I said, “What? You will hunt me down? You’re a fucking, little cockroach.” So [the student] heard that and said, “Oh! Now I’ve got you!” The moment he said that, I was really concerned—not because of the “cockroach,” I was concerned because of the f-word. I immediately disentangled because I didn’t want there to be a physical [altercation], so I went back to the Pitzer stu� dent who had asked for my help. I told him, “Listen, campus safety is here. They will take it from there.” And I left. CI: So, I’d like to get more into what SJP accused you of. They accused you of trying to take down the event— Raviv: Yeah, the two main accusations were, first, that I tried to take down the event. And then, they assumed that I meant to demean the other student as a Palestinian [through a racial slur]. So, first of all, you can read it in the report, I never asked that the event stop. I just asked that they move it 10 feet aside, and this was confirmed by [Campus Safety] and the dining hall manager. [Regarding] the “cockroach,” when I came home and told my wife [what had happened], I said I was really worried about the f-word and I didn’t talk about the “cockroach” at all. First of all, Israelis do not use that kind of expression with respect to Palestinians—that’s a total lie. But I don’t need to use this argument because there was no way that me, or any other person, could tell that the person in front of me was Palestinian. How could I know that he was a Palestinian? His English was much better than mine; he grew up here in the states. He, on the other hand, knew that I was an Israeli based on my accent when he said, “I will hunt you down.” CI: But you did know that this was a pro-Palestinian event. Raviv: Yeah, I knew that. But the probability that you see an American Jew is much higher than the chance that you see a Palestinian. CI: So you didn’t know the student and you didn’t know he

was Palestinian before it was reported? Raviv: No, and I didn’t have any way to know it, so that’s ridiculous. To say that this is the way that Israelis talk is ridiculous, but my argument is that I didn’t know that he was a Palestinian. Nobody could know that he was a Palestinian. I didn’t know his race. The report of the [Campus Safety] officer describes him as a white male. How could I know that he was a Palestinian? I’m actually a two-state solution person. [The SJP] blames me for being racist, [but when] I was on sabbatical last year, I rented my house to a traditional Muslim-Arab family— and [the SJP] still calls me a racist. CI: Another claim that the SJP made was that you said, “All Pitzer students are [fucking] cockroaches.” Raviv: Not true. It’s not true. I only used the word “cock� roach” once to the best of my recollection, and it was directly to that student. All I said was, “You’re a fucking, little cock� roach.” I poorly chose my words. I regret using bad language. We should all aspire to higher standards and not chaos. That’s not appropriate, so I’m sorry for that. But we need to under� stand what provoked this kind of language. What the student did to me, there’s no equivalence. Worst case scenario, I curse at somebody. But he has caused me real damage. [Raviv said that since the incident, he has received several unpleasant and downright threatening emails. He shared a couple with the CI.] Raviv: So, this is an email, for example, from “Juice2”: “Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever. I thought you might enjoy that since you seem to be such a huge supporter of genocide. Cheers.” I got several like this: “I am one of your students. What right do you have to call one of my colleagues a ‘cockroach,’ you filthy Israeli cunt? Please, could I ask you to leave the U.S. and return to the land of Zion-Nazis where you can slaughter innocent cockroaches at whim? See you in class you wasted inbred.” CI: How many emails did you receive? Raviv: Eight. Something like that. [Finally, Raviv claimed that reckless reporting on the initial controversy has been the cause of these emails and several other damages that he has incurred.] Raviv: At least the The Student Life didn’t publish my name initially—that was the Claremont Port Side. When I talk� ed with Carlos [Ballesteros of TSL], I asked why he posted my name, and he said, “Well, the students have been complaining about you.” I said, “If someone had complained that I was a

continued on page 13

news

by Martin Sartorius

REMEMBERING THATCHER Staff Writer

Margaret Thatcher, in Seven Quotes “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.” “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” “The fact that we are gathered here, now -shocked but composed and determined - is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy will fail.” “I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbor and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.” “It is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the center, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and deci� sions away from the center, there are some in the community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them reimposed at a European level with a Euro� pean superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” “I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.” “I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on (Ronald Reagan’s) words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: ‘Let me tell you why it is we distrust you.’ Those words are candid and tough and they cannot have been

easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to a new be� ginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.” Margaret Thatcher Fast Facts Birth: October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England. Education: Studied at Somervile College, University of Ox� ford. Graduated with a degree in Chemistry. Adopted as Con� servative Candidate for Dartford in 1949 Marriage: Denis Thatcher, a wealthy industrialist in 1951 Resume: Education Secretary in 1970 under the Heath government Britain’s first female prime minister from 1979-1990 Baroness Thatcher, member of the House of Lords in 1992 Death: April 8, 2013 aged 87 in London, England Five Things You Might Not Have Known About Margaret Thatcher Thatcher helped develop soft serve ice cream Thatcher said in 1973 that she did not think that “there will be a woman prime minister in my lifetime.” Thatcher was dubbed “The Iron Lady” by the Soviets Thatcher was the only British prime minister of the 20th century to win three consecutive terms Thatcher shared a close relationship with President Ron� ald Reagan, as they both had similar conservative views CI

opinion

THATCHER, THE CONVICTION POLITICAN

by Chris Gaarder Publisher Developing into a “California conservative” at the begin� ning of the 21st century, it was challenging to find the ideal ide� ological role model in the public sphere. Sure, there were elder figures like John McCain or Colin Powell who had remarkable records of achievement. There were distant, historical figures like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill, leaders in times of crisis who I studied but had a hard time relating to in a time of plenty and relative security. There were public writers who were bold, clear, and intellectual. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and Thomas Sowell come to mind. But they were limited in reach to print media and Sunday shows. There were, however, two universally ex� alted figures in conservative circles. One, it goes without saying, was Ronald Reagan. The other, somewhat less deified figure: Baroness Mar� garet Thatcher With time, and, frank� ly, with the help of YouTube, I discovered the brilliance of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female Prime Minister, and the longest serving PM in the 20th cen� tury, who recently passed away in London. Thatcher was differ� ent. Thatcher earned her own term, Thatcherism, not just because of her policies, but also because of her personal power while advocating for her (classically) liberal phi� losophy. Although I was born after she fell from power, af� ter several years looking back at her speeches, interviews, and actions, I am struck by an unparalleled aura of raw strength that radiated from every part of her being. With all the talk of how conservatives are engaging in a “War on Women,” the idea that a woman led the Conserva�

tives may seem odd today. For Thatcher, however, her sex was not the issue. Her vision was. Through artful maneuvering, she rose from Education Minister to leader of the Tories in 1975. A few short years later, she moved into 10 Downing Street. Thatcher’s indomitable will is widely viewed as both her most damaging flaw and greatest virtue. It endeared her to her allies, and further alienated her from her opponents. Thatch� er’s steely resolve also set her apart from other leaders. She called herself a “conviction politician” rather than a “consen� sus politician,” although she did compromise on occasion. Some would charitably call her conviction stubbornness, evinced when she declared she was “extraordinarily pa� tient, provided I get my own way in the end.” Perhaps nowadays, fighting for freedom around the world is a stale notion, but Thatcher was on the forefront of the battle against Com� munism in all its ugly forms, and championed freedom, both personal and economic, at home in Britain and past the Iron Curtain. She quickly embraced a title invented by a Russian reporter a year af� ter she became the opposition leader, when she remarked, “Yes I am an iron lady… if that’s how [the Soviets] wish to interpret my defense of val� ues and freedoms fundamen� tal to our way of life.” Why was Thatcher so determined, so stubborn in promoting her ideology? Part of it can be attributed to Brit� ain’s parliamentary system, which gave her total control over the government as long as she remained leader of the majority and had the support of her lieutenants. I would argue that the parliamentary structure was built for Thatcher’s style of leadership. It did not make Thatch�

continued on page 19

opinion

WHAT’S IN A FEMINIST?

by Amelia Evrigenis Associate Editor On Tuesday, Jan. 22, the CMC “E-memo Digest” an� nounced a Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary Celebration to be held the following day. The flyer appended to the memo invited students to join Professors Amanda Hollis-Brusky and N. Ann Davis of Pomona College for a conversation followed by a question and answer session, and specified “Cake and refresh� ments provided!” The Pomona College Gender & Women’s Studies, In� tercollegiate Women’s Studies of the Claremont Colleges, Po� mona College Women’s Union, and Pomona College Student Affairs Office jointly sponsored the event.

“

Particularly offensive...Pomona College and the Intercollegiate Women’s Studies departments themselves sponsored it.

After four long months, I have finally garnered the bold� ness to express my unease with the Roe v. Wade 40th Anniver� sary Celebration. The mere occurrence of this event provokes in me great concern regarding the discourse surrounding repro� ductive rights at the Claremont Colleges. I write out of serious concern that the feminist dialogue at the Claremont Colleges has deemed it appropriate to celebrate abortion rights in a party atmosphere with cake and refreshments. I do not intend to provoke debate about the ethical ques� tions surrounding abortion and whether the government should control it. However, I do intend to question whether a party that celebrates abortion rights with cake is consistent with the sensitivity and respect for human dignity that the 5C commu� nity proclaims to uphold. Whether we believe that abortion should be legal or il� legal, federally funded or unfunded—that doesn’t really matter here. What matters is the nature of the circumstances that lead women to seek abortion in the first place. It is tragic that any woman should ever find herself in a position in which she feels that she must or should terminate

a pregnancy—whether because of a heinous crime that caused the pregnancy, a danger the fetus poses to the mother’s life, concerns about the baby’s health and well-being as potentially severely disabled, or circumstances such as poverty and desti� tution that render child-rearing an unfeasible task. Sometimes the circumstances are less dramatic—a woman who could fea� sibly raise a child simply doesn’t want to, and thus terminates the pregnancy. This still does not seem to me a reason to celebrate. To celebrate the right to procure an abortion with cake and refreshments trivializes the sadness and despair so fre� quently associated with the procedure. Abortion is not a deci� sion made lightly, and often involves extensive suffering in a woman’s life. Whether we believe that the woman should be free to terminate the pregnancy isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that the circumstances that so often accompany the proce� dure render abortion hardly a cause of celebration. But it’s not so much the event itself that concerns me. If a 5C pro-choice activist student group had hosted a Roe anni� versary celebration on its own, I would find myself much less distraught. What is particularly offensive about this event is that Pomona College and the Intercollegiate Women’s Studies departments themselves sponsored it. Such a department-sponsored “celebration” of abortion rights stifles the educational goals of creating dialogue and dis� course regarding reproductive rights. The consortium’s educat� ing authority on women’s studies hosting this event suggests that proper feminism necessitates the glorification of abortion rights to a degree at which it’s appropriate to celebrate with cake. It’s to suggest that one cannot be a feminist or a scholar of women’s studies without enthusiastically supporting abortion. It’s to suggest that there’s a “right” way to do feminism—and that the way is to adopt a hard-left stance on reproductive rights. The wealth of philosophical, psychological, medical, ethical, and theological scholarship that is less-than-enthusi� astic about abortion rights and the Roe decision demonstrate that, in fact, there is currently no established “right” way to do feminism. To sponsor a Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary Celebra� tion party disregards such scholarship. This is not education, but rather ideological indoctrination. It should thus come as no surprise that the general consensus pervading the Claremont Colleges is that feminism necessitates enthusiastic support of abortion rights. The Claremont Colleges proclaim to be bastions of women’s empowerment, but the Roe v. Wade anniversary cel� ebration, complete with cake and refreshments, leaves me feel� ing anything but empowered. CI

A CALL FOR TOLERANCE

opinion

by Kyle Woods Guest Contributor Tolerance is a cornerstone of American thought. Wheth� er or not you believe in conservative or liberal ideals, it is gen� erally understood that as Americans we should be tolerant of all viewpoints. While we have struggled with this in the past, I proudly believe that we have developed a widening toler� ance in recent decades. Our tolerance and open-mindedness as a nation sets us apart as a beacon for free speech and thought. Unfortunately there has been a disturbing trend of intolerance on our campuses here recently. While students here may prop� agate conservative economic thinking, there are relatively few political conservatives, and to admit that you are a conserva� tive or a Republican certainly has a stigma attached to it. Some of the progressives here at the 5Cs are more than happy to support and promote this stigma. Supporting this stereotype elevates the partisanship of both groups, breeding more extreme thought on both sides of the aisle. When pro� gressives immediately impose stereotypes upon Republicans or conservatives, this only deepens the resolve of Republican students and creates a more partisan atmosphere. To be a Re� publican on our campuses is to be an elitist snob who seeks to control women and who wants to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is far from the truth, and our Republi� can students deserve the right to be judged upon their actions and beliefs rather than stereotypes. Stereotyping against liberal or progressive students does not occur nearly as often, and it should not occur at all, but all of our students deserve to have their opinions judged by their merits rather than a label. Republican students in 5C budget hearings should not be told by members of the budgeting committee to avoid playing

intramural soccer because Republicans are only good at golf. I enjoy a good joke among friends about my political beliefs, but to be told out of malice that I should stick to certain sports and avoid others due to my political beliefs is beneath the cali� ber of discourse we maintain at the 5Cs. It is no different than saying that liberals are weak, and as such should avoid football because they cannot handle such a violent sport. Alternatively, this low form of stereotyping is a predecessor to more invasive judgments. A student at the 5Cs, or any human being for that matter, deserves to be heard. It is unlikely they have extreme beliefs. It is more likely as a Republican that they believe in conservative economic principles, smaller government, and more freedom for the individual who deserves protection from state intrusion into their life. I argue here not for a favorable view of the Republican Party, or that everyone should vote for Republican candidates; I’ll save that for another day. Instead, I implore the students of our campuses to support tolerance of conservative thought in the same way we support tolerance of other beliefs. I argue for reason, compromise and intellectual discourse. I’ve been here for four years now and have loved every one of them, but without a doubt there are students here whose opinions of me have been shaped entirely upon my identity as a Republican, and who think lesser of me for it. We are better than that. We are better than stereotyping, and we are better than thinking of people as nothing more than a label. We are the future leaders of this nation, and if we are not tolerant now, when will we ever be? CI

Professor Raviv, continued from page 8 pedophile, would you still publish my name?” Why wouldn’t you wait to see what happens first? If someone claimed that I was a rapist, would you publish it? They really damaged my reputation. I have some Arab students in the class, I have some Palestinian students in the class, and they accused me of being a racist. This has never happened in the college, this kind of persecution just because of political views. And you try to ask yourself, if I was an Irish-American, would they accuse me of being a racist? Or are they accusing me only because I’m an Israeli-Jew? So now, I ask you, where is the bias-related behavior? If I was an American and I said, “Fucking little cockroach,” would they accuse me of being racist? CI

opinion

PRO IMMIGRATION REFORM: Please Allow Immigrants to Keep My Taxes Low

by Lynsey Chediak

Layout Editor

In wake of the April 15 bombings in Boston, the eight speaking, is a new social construct. No problem actually ex� Senate members tasked with addressing current immigration ists. Never before has the movement of people across countries woes have decided to postpone moving forward. Members of been so low. Never before, in the history of other civilizations, the working group, four Republicans and four Democrats, are has a government attempted with such brute force to restrict not able to discuss the provisions of the bill publicly until it is the imminent, natural flow of people to such a devastatingly finalized, according to an article published in The Wall Street low degree. Even the Great Wall of China didn’t span the entire Journal. As both brothers accused of setting off the bombs length of the empire, as plans for changes in the Mexican/U.S. had legally immigrated to the United States, Senator Charles border propose. Grassley (R-Iowa), believes the recent bombings pose the In fact, rather, what exists is an opportunity—an oppor� question, “How can we beef up security check on people who tunity to ensure the United States remains the largest economy wish to enter the United States?” in the United States. Projected to surpass us soon is China, a Let’s be honest with ourselves. We all know the concern country with a population of 1.344 billion. With the current is not about security checks, pre-Boston bombings or postUnited States population at 313 million, China is more than Boston bombings. According to the United States Department one billion people ahead of the United States. of Homeland Security, in 2012, 757,434 people were natural� Absurdity. That is the only word that comes to my mind ized. Therefore, the two men accused of the Boston Marathon when I read these current population statistics. There is simply bombings represent 0.00026% of naturalized citizens just in� no imaginable way to compete with a work force more than cluding the year 2012 four times greater than alone. Moreover, in the ours. A group of 429 peo� past 20 years of my life, ple is unquestionable go� 17 individual bombings ing to be more productive by U.S.-born citizens than a group of 100, re� have taken place, each gardless of improvements killing multiple people. in technology. Looking Security concern at the bigger picture, or not, there are 11 mil� three things matter in an lion illegal immigrants, economy: land, labor, and more than 3.5% of the capital. Despite increases total population of the in communication assist� United States, waiting ed by globalization, we for a change to happen. are not living in a time of The recent Senate bill re� the greatest flows of land, leased, as the Wall Street labor, and capital. That Journal reported, includ� already passed in 1973 ed “an eventual pathway with the end of the Bret� to citizenship, but only ton Woods system. Far Above: Lynsey with her grandfather, a doctor who immigrated from Cuba. after a series of ‘triggers’ past the search for ghost are met to enhance border security.” Border security enhance� acres and the need of exploiting land merely for food suste� ment or not, 11 million people already made it. The existence nance, land changes won’t contribute to the prosperity of the of more security along the Mexican/U.S. border is simply not United States anytime soon. Therefore, looking ahead to keep going to change anything. The “problem” itself, historically our dominance from an economic perspective, we are only

opinion able to look to our capital levels and our labor levels. Accord� ing to economist Barry Eichengreen’s recently published book, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System, one-fifth of all tax dollars are currently committed to interest payments alone to satisfy the debt of the United States. Given our debt situa� tion, the United States can’t hope to maintain dominance using levels of available capital. A visit to the Athenaeum by acclaimed French econo� mist and philosopher Dr. Guy Sorman, however, convinced me, from the standpoint of a history major, not to entirely lose hope. As Dr. Sorman exclaimed, “You can see the future as a threat or an opportunity.” An opportunity is exactly what my grandfather saw when he came to complete his medical residency in the United States from Cuba in 1954. However, the opportunity was not only to complete his residency. Despite many pleas to contrib� ute his knowledge to Cuba as the number one student in his graduating medical school class, he preferred the opportuni� ties offered to him in the United States. Similar to the United States’ current economic standing, it is crucial Americans view each immigrant as an opportunity, and a last hope, for contin� ued prosperity rather than an apocalyptic disaster waiting to happen. Each immigrant is an opportunity to improve our la� bor productivity and, more importantly, an opportunity to once again reach a viable level of competition in the world labor market. The restrictions on immigration, from a historical stand� point, have never been as high as they are today. Clever politi� cians stating there are more immigrants living in the United States than at any other time are correct; with the monumental increase in population that has occurred over the past century, the physical number of immigrant is higher than ever. As a percentage of total population, however, it is at a low point. Why is immigration from a historical standpoint so crucial to our economic prosperity? Population is a key de� terminant of economic size. Plain and simple. Eichengreen writes in his book, “A stagnant population will mean a stag� nant economy.” While the U.S. is still the largest economy in the world due to its incumbent position, with the possibility of a stagnant population, we will without a doubt fall form this position. There is no feasible way that China, with an addi� tional billion people, will not out-produce our economy. From a competitive standpoint, we are poised to lose. Additionally, to put this vast gap into perspective, the difference in popula� tion between the United States and Russia at the end of the Cold War, seen to be impossible to compensate for, was a mere 40 million people. To reach the population level of Russia, the United States would have only needed to increase its popula� tion by 16 percent.

Why is immigration from a historical standpoint so crucial to our economic prosperity? Population is a key determinant of economic size. Plain and simple.

”

Will we feel this fall from incumbency? Let’s take Japan as a case study, as Dr. Sorman pointed out. Currently, Japan is facing zero economic growth. Moreover, the population is decreasing, failing to even remain stagnant. Does the rule hold that population determines economic size? From the point of view of an average Japanese constituent, it apparently does not. With a decrease in population, income for each individual has actually increased. While Japan is receding on the global market, the common constituent feels no sense of crisis. Yet. The common American citizen, the generation of current policymakers, specifically, may not feel our fall from hege� mony. My generation will. Most importantly, my generation will feel the increase in taxes. Even for those who argue that a fall from hegemony may not be that bad, it will undoubtedly mean an increase in taxes. According to Dr. Sorman, it is possible to attribute a coun� try’s propensity to redistribute income to the uniformity of its population. Countries with greater homogeneity redistribute income at much higher rates than those with heterogeneity in their population. In the long run, without immigration reform, the United States will see no economic growth, if not a decrease in eco� nomic growth, a fall from a position of hegemony, and an in� crease in taxes as the population increases in homogeneity. Our only hope for a continued rise in economic growth, fostered by a change in labor, is a substantial growth in population. An increase in immigration, and the subsequent increase in popu� lation, is our last hope to even have a shot at remaining as a dominant economic and global power. CI

16 opinion

HAIL POLITICALLY CORRECT, HAIL

by Brad Richardson Copy Editor As hundreds of Pomona College alumni descend upon the campus for Alumni Weekend May 2-5, there are sure to be graduates looking to relive their glory days through reverent nostalgia, whimsical antics and general drunkenly disorder. In addition, while jaunting about their stomping grounds of yesteryear, many Pomona grads will likely sing their school’s alma mater, Hail Pomona, Hail, as alums are wont to do. Yet, few current students will recognize the song as Po� mona’s alma mater. The hymn became controversial in the spring of 2008 after fliers appeared across the campus linking the song’s inception to a blackface minstrel show performed as early as 1909. While the song itself contains no offensive lyr� ics, this apparently sordid pedigree has tainted the image of the song in the eyes of the Pomona administration. President David Oxtoby sent a letter to the Pomona Col� lege community on Dec. 15, 2008, writing that, “Given the divisive nature of the song on campus… it will not be included in programs for Commencement or Convocation for the pres� ent.” However, he also “decided to confirm Hail Pomona, Hail as Pomona’s Alma Mater and to end the suspension of perfor� mances at official college events such as Alumni Weekend.” This was certainly an odd turn of events. If the song is truly bigoted and immoral, then why not comprehensively ban it from all college functions? Pomona’s demographically driven ban—a musical score forbidden for current students but “confirmed” for aging alums—results in a philosophical no-

man’s-land of carefully considered interests. This “selective” prohibition both appeases youthful rage and alumni nostal� gia—the latter a sentiment that often propels donor wallets. Hypocrisy aside, and regardless of whether the song was actually performed as part of a blackface minstrel show (a charge comprehensively refuted in a well-researched report by Pomona alumnus Rosemary Choate ’63 in 2008), the no� tion that one must ban anything with unsavory historical roots borders on the ridiculous. Indeed, President Oxtoby acknowledged this point in his decision, writing, “there is the troubling idea that all things associated with an imperfect past should be considered tainted even if there is nothing inherently objectionable about them.” And yet, Pomona apparently got over that trouble and imposed the ban on Hail Pomona, Hail anyway. Another troubling idea about the decision: What’s the limiting principle? Where to start? Where to end? If one were to implement that Pomona’s historical purity policy across every American institution, a vast array of pro� fessional sports associations, newspapers and magazines, and a lion’s share of the colleges and universities would have to be discontinued in the name of political correctness. In the realm of music alone, notable tunes like the StarSpangled Banner could potentially be deemed politically in� correct due to their nefarious origins. The melody of the StarSpangled Banner was taken from a drinking song popular at

Hail, Pomona, hail! We, thy sons and daughters, sing Praises of thy name, Praises of thy fame. ‘Til the Heav’ns above shall ring: To the name of Pomona Alma Mater hail to thee! To the spirit true Of the White and Blue. All hail Pomona, hail!

opinion

“

The notion that one must ban anything with unsavory historical roots borders on the ridiculous.

an all-male social club in London. By Pomona’s standards, the national anthem has got to go. And what of art or cinema? Should we ban masterpieces because their creators may have held racist or sexist beliefs ir� relevant to the overall significance of their work? Walt Disney was infamously rumored to be anti-Semitic (a charge contested by many who knew him), yet we continue to enjoy movies and products branded with his name. Indeed, Walt Disney’s nephew, Roy, was a Pomona alum from the class of 1951 and for whom the “Roy Edward Disney Professor of Creative Writing” at Pomona is obviously named.

Is the close nephew of a rumored anti-Semite sufficiently prox� imate ground on which to rid the faculty of any association with the Disney name? The logic of Pomona’s decision inevi� tably takes us to some pretty untenable places. More important, Pomona College missed a crucial op� portunity to teach its students an enduring lesson through the whole song debacle. Instead of trying to cover up the past or pretend that racism didn’t (and doesn’t) exist (even if it didn’t actually exist, in this case), why not try to examine more fully the connections between racism and sexism in history and cul� ture and try to learn how to stop it from spreading to other spheres of influence? Pomona chose to shut down further discussion in the name of avoiding “divisiveness.” In doing so, Pomona improp� erly elevated perceived student unity over the essential core value of the university in civil society: discovering the truth through never-ending discourse, dialogue and debate. President Oxtoby imposed his campus ban on Hail Po� mona, Hail only “for the present.” Nearly five years later, perhaps it’s now time to revisit the wisdom of that misguided prohibition. Censorship via political correctness is not the solution to discrimination; rather, censorship merely allows more subtle forms of bias to fester beneath the surface of silence. CI

The CI’s own Nadeem Farooqi recaps recent on-campus news as only he can:

news bites

24 Hour Party, originally scheduled for 4/20, cancelled because of Inside CMC Day and high school debate tournament. CMC students partied in front of them anyway. After witnessing the 4/20 day party, several prospective students now intend to commit to CMC. Pomona buys new soda fountain. CMC students seem amazed. They are, however, quick to remind people about the shiny new gym in the works. Daisy Dukes party was a success! Daisy Dukes cleanup was a different story. Faculty members were momentarily confused by the unusually high amount of hay present at north mall on the following Monday. DOS concluded a review of SJP-related incidents. Pitzer student remains outraged and intends to file a formal grievance. President-Elect Chodosh visits Senate. ASCMC Senators, for the most part, conclude that he is awesome. CMC’s new student media policy remains in place despite criticisms from heads of student publications. Instead of changing the policy, administrators encouraged editors to discuss the issue with President-Elect Chodosh. It appears that even school administrators believe Chodosh is awesome and can solve their problems. CMC’s secret society remains mostly secret.

18 humor

DIVESTMENT 2.0: POMONA COLLEGE’S BRAVE NEW SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

by Derek Ko

Staff Writer

In a recent school-wide ballot mea� sure, 78 percent of Pomona College stu� dents voted to request that the administra� tion divest portions of the college’s $1.7 billion endowment currently invested in fossil fuels. The April 9 landslide vote was widely hailed by progressive-minded stu� dents at the Claremont Colleges as a sign of environmental consciousness and a step forward for sustainability. However, others have asserted that the recently passed divestment measure does not go far enough. Riding on the coattails of their overwhelming victory, some Pomona College student leaders of the Claremont Colleges Divestment Campaign (CCDC) have already announced just weeks after their historic win that they have drafted a new ballot measure and will be calling for yet another referendum before the end of the semester. The referendum, dubbed “Divestment 2.0,” is rumored to contain provisions that provide for a complete distancing of Pomona College students from the “immoral fossil fuel economy.” If passed, it would require the entire Pomona College campus and student body be moved to the Amish countryside of Western Pennsylvania, where Pomona college students will learn the “true meaning of sustainability.” Megan Torukmakto PO ’15, one of the most prominent voices favoring divestment at Pomona College, helped draft the new resolution and is one of its strongest sup� porters. “There was definitely an element of hypocrisy that came with the initial vote for divestment” said Megan. “It didn’t make sense for Pomona College students who voted for di� vestment to continue flying to Australia during the summer to conduct anthropological studies on feminism in modern ab� original society. Trips like that spew about a thousand pounds of carbon into the atmosphere and we don’t even give it a sec� ond thought.” Torukmakto also lamented the fact that the ma� jority of Pomona College students have continued to purchase Apple products manufactured in the coal-guzzling factories of

Image Courtsey of David_Jones, Flickr urban China. Kaie Arons PO’15 expressed similar sentiments, saying, “It’s contradictory for Pomona College students to make such a sweeping symbolic move to separate itself from fossil fuels, yet continue consuming so many products made from fossil fuels. Even the posters we made for our March 4th divestment rally were made from paper produced by polluting mills. Di� vestment 2.0 will finally give CCDC the chance to organize sustainable demonstrations.” Despite Pomona College President David Oxotoby’s concerns that the lack of fossil-fueled technology, including computers, printers, and electric lighting, will hamper the institution’s quality of education, student proponents of Di� vestment 2.0 have insisted that the college’s future location will be just as robust of a learning environment. Supporters of Divestment 2.0 are rumored to have already begun re� printing textbooks on hand-made paper using the HonnoldMudd Library printing press. Students in the college’s sci� ence department have also begun blowing glass beakers and test tubes for use in the college’s future log-cabin labs. These

continued on page 22

opinion Thatcher, continued from page 11 er, but rather enabled Thatcher to be the leader she was. After a lifetime observing politics, she knew what she thought, and if she could, she would implement her preferred policies. In 1968, even before she became party leader, observing weak� ness in many of Britain’s leaders, she warned that “There are dangers in consensus: it could be an attempt to satisfy people holding no particular views about anything. ... No great party can survive except on the basis of firm beliefs about what it wants to do.” Twenty years later, in 1989, Thatcher’s tune changed little when she spoke ill of those who dither, who buckle at the ideological knees to keep avoid making enemies: “If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time and you would achieve nothing.” While Thatcher was being Thatcher, characteristically direct and car� ing little about offending others’ sensibilities, she raised an im� portant issue lost today in popular culture. We often hear calls for compromise for its own sake when politicians have major fundamental differences on poli� cy. With large, ideology-based differences, as with health care, taxation, and regulatory policy, where the role of the federal government is what is really under debate, there should be a decently protracted, publicly argued battle where both sides take clear positions. The resulting legislation should be sub� stantive, consistent, and understood by all parties. If policy is decided in a mostly party line vote, then so be it. Why vote for someone who says they believe a certain philosophy on gov� ernment is morally superior if they abandon it? Ultimately, what is most refreshing for me about Baron� ess Thatcher is her clarity, which, for a politician, requires both brains and courage. Thatcher refused to mince her words, and spoke boldly both while fighting for power, and while she held it. She made her principles crystal clear, and stuck by them. Because she was so direct, when voters went to the polls they knew exactly what kind of policies they were voting for or against. Conservatives won four consecutive elections after Thatcher took control of the party (every election, you could say, if you include Labor under Tony Blair). Thatcherism as an ideology, in one form or another, has dominated British poli� tics ever since. Maybe that is because liberalism is inherently superior to what it replaced, but Thatcher nonetheless deserves credit for shifting the postwar paradigm toward it. What I think Republicans, but also Democrats, should take away from Thatcher’s time in power is that whatever poli� cies a party or politician supports, and whatever grand vision they have (assuming they have a vision), they should commu� nicate it clearly, directly, and honestly. They should focus their campaigning on explaining what they believe is the best policy

and why, rather than paint pictures with words, incite anger at “the other,” or talk about nothing, yet make it sound good. Since few politicians have the internal motivation to be clear and direct and honest, voters should demand those qualities. Too often, politicians hide behind empty words and ex� pressions in public, whether at a local event or a presidential debate. Some do so because they want to be liked. Others want power for its own sake, and will say or do anything to acquire it. Many are honest people, afraid to speak candidly in the age of YouTube and Politico, when a poorly chosen phrase spoken to a group of five people can cost five hundred thousand votes, waste millions of dollars and throw away years of prepara� tion. Politicians’ lack of clarity bad for voters and our political system, but it also sets a bad example for young people inter� ested in politics. Anecdotally, it seems young people interested in politics (obviously no one at CMC) hesitate to speak their minds if it means the slightest disagreement could arise, almost as if someone with a notepad is transcribing their every word with the goal misconstruing them 30 years hence. Every man and woman who runs for office should have a vision as to what would make his or her constituents better off, and never shirk from declaring it. Aren’t one’s convictions worth a little tension? Either way, Thatcher had her vision, and she certainly expressed it. She would appreciate it if America’s politicians today followed her lead. In terms of her directness, but in terms of her policy too, I feel I must end echoing The Economist, the true authority on Thatcher: “What the world [and the United States in particular] needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.” CI

Have something witty to say in 140 charcters or less? Accept the challenge! Join the conversation on Twitter

20 humor by Becky Shin

THE HOUSING GAMES

Staff Writer

In late August, Scripps first-years nonchalantly moved into their spacious, pre-assigned rooms, unaware of the stress that the other three classes encountered while struggling with housing arrangements the previous April. The first-years be� friend their neighbors and built a community, hanging out in the lounges and fostering relationships with their classmates. Then spring rolls around and, as Scripps women have been known to say, “the claws come out.” The Scripps housing assignment system gets the job done, but not without a fair amount of stress, drama, tension and awkwardness. Let’s eval� uate the social and emotional repercussions under the formal house-assigning framework of the common Scripps student. Ground rules Decide who your favorite friend(s) is/are and whom you could live with most functionally. Scout out potential dorm rooms that you want. (Side note: typically Routt and Frankel seven-person suites go to sophomores and Gabrielle Jungles Winkler (GJW) suites to juniors and seniors.) Receive your hall draw number based on a lottery sys� tem. Lower numbers pick first. When applying for a room with two people or more, take the average of everyone in the group (which makes it advanta� geous for everyone in the group to have a low number). Highest grade has first pick of rooms. Biggest applying groups in the grade level pick first. The biggest group chooses first (seven-person suites, then five-per� son suites). If the group’s pick is no longer available, the group must rearrange themselves to cater to a smaller room (thus, people get kicked out of groups). Disclaimer: Scripps offers seven-person suites, five-per� son suites, four-person suites, triples, doubles, singles, Routt apartments, language halls, and off-campus dorms at Smiley in Pomona. Arrive at hall draw with a detailed ranking of dorm rooms, a horseshoe, four leaf clover, magic wand, and a time machine (in case your desired rooms are taken, to go back in time and hack into Staci’s, the Associate Dean of Students/ Residential Life, computer) because you’re going to need all the luck and magic you can get. The pre-assignment stage/thinking process As “simple” as the system may sound, the housing pro� cess is notorious for consuming the entire campus with stress

and nerves. Out of the larger group of friends, women are forced to pick their few favorites that they want to live with, creating friction as true loyalties are revealed. Those “little an� noying habits” that one’s friends have, that were once bear� able, are now magnified as we shamelessly conjure up excuses as to why we cannot dorm together. The number assignments Then the housing numbers come out. At this time, a few unlucky group members may have scored extremely high numbers. This throws off the group’s average and the group’s chance to live more luxuriously in the upcoming year. The group now has two options: (1) to rearrange the group by ex� cluding the people with high numbers or (2) to suck it up and hope for the best. The result Hall draw forces friends to split groups and reveal their true loyalties. The worst part is, there are still a long two months of school left to face the “friends” (that may not have been in� cluded in the housing arrangements), creating plenty of oppor� tunities for awkward eye contact, silences and relationships in general. And we all better just hope, with fingers crossed, that each group/set of friends obtains the desired room, otherwise, there is more rearranging and tension across the campus. Needless to say, Scripps College’s hall draw is a bit of a pressure cooker, but on the bright side, it is also extremely practical in that it teaches us how to confront awkwardness, create a certain type of framework/front to generate excuses, or the opportunity to do neither and remain loyal to friends regardless of their numbers. At the end of the day, all is well as Scripps women come together and settle into their new rooms in the communal and empowering atmosphere we can call home. And who knows, even if one does end up forced into double with a tiny closet, has to force her bookshelf onto her desk for more walking space and cram the mini fridge under the sink because there is no space in the room, it’s all just an extra push to spend less time hermitting and more time im� merse herself into the community. As someone in that current predicament, I’ve had firsthand experience with that. CI

humor

“In the Bubble”

A new section dedicated to featuring some of the most notable quotes from our fellow publications. Submit your own at: editor@claremontindependent.com! ‘Gay marriage’ is wrong. Not because two boys or two girls shouldn’t get married, but because there are more sexual orientations than just gay and straight. [in]Visible Magazine

Football is a sport dominated by men— from the players, to the viewers, to the coaches and management. Given that context, it its [sic] hugely important that she [Beyone] was able to put on a 10 minute show not only celebrated, but empowered women without ever demeaning them. Scripps Voice

But if animals can never, under any circumstances, engage in consensual sex with humans, then who’s to say that animals can consent to sex with other animals? If animals are inherently incapable of consent, then it would seem to follow that animalon-animal sex is always rape. Scripps Voice

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. The Scripps Voice

Before diving into the history of this practice, I’d like to clarify that coprophilia is a legitimate sexual preference with a solid following. I encourage you to receive coprophilia as you would any other fetish: as long as consent is in the mix, scat away! Scripps Voice

jump

The friends of Voltaire, continued from page 7

college would create a special dispensation in the event policy for peaceful political protests, with the understanding that that status would be revoked if the gathering no longer met the de� scription of “peaceful political protest.” In addition to modify� ing the event policy, the policy on demonstrations’ terminol� ogy could do with some adjustment. The college faces an understandable dilemma in this case, as it must balance its interests of protecting the rights and safety of its students while simultaneously protecting and promoting an atmosphere of free and vibrant speech on cam� pus. To accomplish this, the college endorses free speech, but prohibits “disruptive or nonpeaceful actions.” The Guide to Student Life also goes on to define these terms, and while nonpeaceful action is largely self-explanatory, it should be noted that disruptive activity is defined as “a deliberate disruption or an impedance of access to regular activities of the College or of the College community, including those which restrict free movement on the campus.” This definition does not recognize that protests are by nature disruptive from time to time, as they need to disrupt daily activity to a degree to have an impact. The policy could benefit from modification that amends it to prohibit significant or substantive disruption, so as to allow protesters to make their point while also allowing students to complete their daily activities. On the other hand, the students involved in a protest have an obligation to ensure that their

activity is a peaceful protest and not a substantial disruption and a hazard to their fellow students. In the SJP event, this did not occur, as the investigation noted, “The event partici� pants complied with requests to adjust their event so as to not restrict access for a period of time, but at a certain point reor� ganized themselves in a manner that again restricted access.” The right of free speech should be strongly biased in favor of the speaker, but on private property, especially, there should be some reciprocity to allow for the balancing of speech and safety concerns. This recent incident, contentious and emotionally charged, has also exposed a deeper and more systemic prob� lem. The SJP incident revealed significant flaws with the poli� cies that regulate speech on campus, flaws that hinder the free exchange of ideas and hurt the Consortium’s role as a bastion of open and free communication. These flaws either harm speech by allowing individuals to be silenced and summarily branded as a bigot on the basis of hearsay, or by obstructing speech through prior restraint, such as when events must be ap� proved before they can happen. Both flaws are an anathema to free speech, and need to be corrected. That way, in the future, we do not have to shift our focus from the main issue to assess the validity of valid speech, but can instead engage in discus� sion and argument about the substantive issue, and enrich one another. CI

Divestment 2.0, continued from page 16 and many other fossil fuel-free educational materials will be transported in a covered-wagon train along with Pomona College’s over 1500 students once the referendum passes. In addition to the usual courses in science, English, for� eign languages, and mathematics, students at Pomona Col� lege’s new sustainable campus will offer new sustainability courses taught by local Amish, which will include Organic Corn farming 50, Intro to Husbandry, Weaving 1A and 2B, Barn-raising 101 and more. Although some of these courses will become part of Pomona College’s general education re� quirements, proponents of Divestment 2.0 have stated that vegans will be exempt from classes on ranching, egg farming and dairy-production. In the meantime, Pitzer Anthropology Professor Daniel Seagull has announced his intention to draft Pitzer College’s own version of Divestment 2.0, titled “Divestment X-treme.” In a stunning act of one-upmanship, Professor Seagull has sug� gested that Pitzer College’s main campus be moved to the east

coast of Brazil instead, where students will learn the skills and traditions of the Amazonian natives. Volunteers have already reportedly begun constructing Polynesian-style canoes using sustainable wood harvested from fallen trees. The 9,000-mile voyage to Pitzer College’s new Brazilian campus will take the students around the southern tip of South America and is expected to take several months. Though use of the Panama Canal would substantially shorten the journey, proponents of Divestment X-treme have maintained that they refuse to utilize a monument of U.S. imperialist legacy in their travels. Professor Seagull concluded in his official statement an� nouncing Divestment X-treme that, “Unlike our peers at Po� mona College who seem to have neglected the environmental contributions of the oppressed and marginalized third world, we here at Pitzer have not.” Pitzer students have generally welcomed Divestment X-treme as an opportunity to experi� ence a non-Western form of sustainable living. Pitzer Student Senate Vice Chair Seabasstion Aguilar PZ ’14 echoed these

jump sentiments. “So much of liberal arts education is already built upon the white colonialist capitalist patriarchy,” Aguilar said. “It would be a shame if we make sustainability education so Euro-centric as well.”In the meantime, Pitzer Anthropology Professor Daniel Seagull has announced his intention to draft Pitzer College’s own version of Divestment 2.0, titled “Divest� ment X-treme.” In a stunning act of one-upmanship, Profes� sor Seagull has suggested that Pitzer College’s main campus be moved to the east coast of Brazil instead, where students will learn the skills and traditions of the Amazonian natives. Volunteers have already reportedly begun constructing Polyne� sian-style canoes using sustainable wood harvested from fallen trees. The 9,000-mile voyage to Pitzer College’s new Brazilian campus will take the students around the southern tip of South America and is expected to take several months. Though use of the Panama Canal would substantially shorten the journey, proponents of Divestment X-treme have maintained that they refuse to utilize a monument of U.S. imperialist legacy in their travels.

Professor Seagull concluded in his official statement an� nouncing Divestment X-treme that, “Unlike our peers at Po� mona College who seem to have neglected the environmental contributions of the oppressed and marginalized third world, we here at Pitzer have not.” Pitzer students have generally welcomed Divestment X-treme as an opportunity to experi� ence a non-Western form of sustainable living. Pitzer Student Senate Vice Chair Seabasstion Aguilar PZ ’14 echoed these sentiments. “So much of liberal arts education is already built upon the white colonialist capitalist patriarchy,” Aguilar said. “It would be a shame if we make sustainability education so Euro-centric as well.” CI

Have something to say?

Have something to say? Contact thethe editor: Contact editor:editor@claremontindependent.com editor@claremontindependent.com OR OR Comment directly Comment directlyat at claremontindependent.com claremontindependent.com

like us on facebook:

facebook.com/

ClaremontIndependent

Interested in writing for us? Attend our meetings this semester every Sunday at 9 pm in Kravis Center 321.