The Claremont Independent - February 2013 by Claremont Independent

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT VOLUME XXII, NUMBER 3, FEBRUARY 2013

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENT table of contents.

Open letter to President Gann

Beyond Dean-O-Mite: Chodosh on free speech & more

Musings on the mainland

Lessons from Argentina: Everything will be okay

Layout Editors Lynsey Chediak Tess Sewell

Scripps meets Charles Krauthammer

Publisher Chris Gaarder

Zimbardo at the Athenaeum

Title IX, sexual violence, & the preponderance standard

Crescit cum commercio civitas: Seize the day

Perks of not studying abroad

Sandra Fluke surprises

Obama calls for minimum wage hike

The Motley Monopoly

Computing differently

Editor in Chief Marina Giloi Managing Editor William Mitchell Associate Editors Amelia Evrigenis Colin Spence

Copy Editor Bradford Richardson Editors Emeriti Hannah Burak John-Clark Levin Publisher Emeritus Michael Koenig Illustrator Simon Giloi Staff Writers Ambika Bist, Nadeem Farooqi, Aidan Fahnestock, Joseph Hylton, Kyle Johnson, Derek Ko, Martin Sartorius, Becky Shin, Kyle Tanguay

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

Lynsey Chediak, CMC ‘14 Ambika Bist, SCR ‘15

Colin Spence, CMC ‘15

Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15 Publius

Martin Sartorius, CMC ‘15 Derek Ko, CMC ‘14

Brad Richardson, CMC ‘15 Becky Shin, SCR ‘15

Chris Gaarder, CMC ‘15

editorial

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT GANN by Marina Giloi

Editor in Chief

Dear President Pamela Gann, Claremont McKenna College recently instituted a new student media policy requiring student journalists interested in contacting administrators to do so strictly through the Office of Public Affairs. The OPA may then facilitate an interview for the student, but can choose instead to provide the requested information or a statement on the given issue, which denies the reporter the opportunity to speak directly to administrators who are most familiar with each topic. We urge you to reconsider this policy because it undermines our ability to provide timely coverage of the issues that students care about. In hindering student journalists’ access to CMC administrators, this approach to student media decreases the transparency of administrative actions and harms the relationship between the CMC administration and the students whom it is meant to serve. Max Benavidez, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, and Alissa Stedman, Director of Media Relations, outlined and discussed this policy in a February 4th meeting with editors from the Forum, Claremont Independent, and Claremont Port Side. They said that this policy is meant to put student journalists in contact with appropriate sources and to provide them with accurate information. External news media already operate this way, making this new policy a formalization of such practice for all media. This policy makes sense for external media, and we appreciate the respect implied by treating our publications the same way. Yet campus publications should be treated differently. Unlike external media, we are familiar with CMC and its staff, and we care about stories that will never be national news. And in our attempts to adhere to the new policy by contacting administrators through the OPA, we have found OPA staff to be slow in responding to our requests – if they respond at all. We have missed deadlines because of this policy, preventing us from keeping students informed about the issues that affect them. We understand the administration’s desire to ensure that information published about CMC is consistent and accurate, particularly in the wake of the SAT scandal. Yet the SAT scandal demonstrated the need for more accountability, not less. Student media provide necessary external oversight by informing CMC students and the Claremont community about what is happening at CMC. Yet to do so, they must have access to administrators who are free to speak openly and candidly. The interactions between our writers and CMC administrators should not be mediated by an office explicitly devoted to public relations. CMC prides itself on its close-knit community, and rightfully so. Yet when it comes to fostering an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Trust administrators to accurately represent CMC and its policies, and to carefully explain their own perspectives on a given issue. And trust our publications to ethically communicate those perspectives to a community of students that deserves access to information about CMC’s policies and the people who shape them.

Sincerely,

Tim Reynolds, Editor-in-Chief, Claremont Port Side Caroline Nyce, Editor-in-Chief, Forum Marina Giloi, Editor-in-Chief, Claremont Independent Maya Booth, Editor-in-Chief, The Student Life

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

BEYOND DEAN-O-MITE: CHODOSH ON FREE SPEECH & MORE by Marina Giloi

Editor-in -Chief

On December 7th, 2012, the Editors-in-Chief of student publications the Forum, the Claremont Portside, and the Claremont Independent had the opportunity to interview Claremont McKenna College’s new President-elect Hiram Chodosh. The Claremont Independent had asked Chodosh some questions near and dear to our publication’s heart. We asked Chodosh if he saw himself continuing CMC’s tradition of being a politically balanced campus. He replied that much of that tradition is ingrained in participating in the Athenaeum, saying that a number of campuses are not as politically balanced as they should be. Chodosh pointed out that a large part of education can take place among peers and that, if engaged, diversity of opinion is an advantage. The Athenaeum, Chodosh said, creates that forum for discourse and has a tremendous impact on campus engagement. We also asked President-elect Chodosh about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s recent change in CMC’s speech code rating from Red to Yellow—whether this change is something that he believes is important, and what steps he plans to take to change the free speech rating as it stands. Chodosh responded that while he was new to the particular context, he believes that it is “very important that there be a strong free speech regime on college campuses.” But, he noted, it is important that the freedom of one person’s speech cannot impede another’s. Chodosh emphasized the need to create a learning environment through the promotion of free speech. Creating a learning moment from offensive speech, entails getting together to talk about the controversies in a way that can produce a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. “It is important that each of us learn our way through these controversies.” It’s a promising start for our President-elect, but we can only wait to see whether he will properly address the issues of political balance and free speech during his term. CI

Above From left to right: President-elect Hiram Chodosh, Marina Giloi (Claremont Independent), Caroline Nyce (Forum), Sam Kahr (Claremont Port Side), Max Benavidez, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs and Communications Photo credit: Leah Snider SC ‘16 Below President-elect Hiram Chodosh

campus life

MUSINGS ON THE MAINLAND

by Derek Ko Staff Writer Gun-rights advocates have often insinuated that if the government saw fit to ban firearms, it would see fit to ban knives to curb other types of violence. Though skeptical of gun control, I had always laughed off these sorts of slippery-slope scenarios as far-fetched and improbable. Last fall however, I was studying abroad in Beijing during the 18th Communist Party Congress. For the duration of the congress, a meeting of about 3000 party officials from around the country, the sale of many basic household items was banned in Beijing. These included lighter fluid (to prevent self-immolations), balloons (to prevent leaflet distribution), and yes, scissors and knives (to prevent assassination attempts and other political violence). To make matters more comical, 110,000 civilian “volunteers” were recruited from around the city and paid 40RMB (7 dollars) a day to don red armbands and keep an eye out for “suspicious activity.” The two-week extravaganza reminded me yet again that as an American-born Libertarian, I had wandered far from home both geographically and ideologically. It was during this trip however, that I was able to reflect on the common American perceptions of China, and how they stacked up against reality. As the world’s second largest economy and a “rising superpower” in the eyes of many Western intellectuals, China has not escaped mention by major American media outlets for a single day in recent years. But when I finally visited China for myself, I realized just how much comparative confidence I still had in the United States. The late economist Milton Friedman had often emphasized that how people “vote with their feet” should not be overlooked. Reflecting upon this statement, I can only be proud of the fact that over 60,000 people from mainland China still choose to permanently immigrate to the U.S. every year. While I met several American expatriates who were working shortterm in China, I did not meet a single one who had chosen to settle there permanently. If all one hears of is the overhyped Chinese “economic miracle” and the United States’ economic struggles, this phenomenon should appear confusing. If one looks beneath China’s thirty-year boom, however, one sees that for all the talk of China “surpassing the U.S.,” flaws abound in the Chinese economic model. The lack of innovation in the Chinese economy was a constant theme in my conversations with Chinese natives. One student, an economics major at my host university commented that the United States would always be a step ahead of China because the Chinese only ever copied what the Americans did. The enormous market for counterfeit electronic goods in China

seemed to affirm his statement, but the failure of China to innovate was not limited to the technology sector. When I asked my Chinese roommate to recommend Chinese television shows to me, he replied that although there were a few good ones, he watched mostly American shows. Before returning to his laptop to watch Prison Break, he joked that he found it humorous that a country of 1.4 billion people could not produce a single good show. While I was abroad, I also learned that local officials in China were promoted or demoted based on their success in meeting targets for economic development and population control among other things. My roommate, who was a native of the rural Shaanxi province, spoke of how the seizure of village lands for development projects was a point of heated contention and even violent conflict at times between farmers and local officials. The seaside village of Wukan made headlines around the world when its villages revolted and drove local officials out of power over alleged abuses like illegal land-seizure. With no voice in the political process, Chinese citizens have few legal and institutional ways of fighting back. Additionally, though the Chinese government has been given substantial praise for its ability to direct enormous amounts of investment into developments in a way that the U.S. could only dream of doing, many of these investments have led to enormous waste. For instance, I had the opportunity to ride on China’s newly constructed high-speed rails, the pet project for which the Communist Party has obtained the most bragging rights. I later learned that although high speed-rail tickets cost 35% of an average Chinese urban resident’s income, they were sold at artificially low prices set by the government. Many prominent Chinese economists like Huang Yiping of Peking University, have expressed doubts of China’s high-speed rails ever making a profit. While they serve a small sliver of China’s elite, the high-speed rails have continued hemorrhaging public funds and contributing to the national debt. As I followed American politics on my laptop in Beijing, I often cursed the rampant pandering both candidates engaged in during the 2012 Presidential debates and lamented the inability of Congress to solve the looming deficit crisis. However, when I remember America’s core ideals of, individual freedom, human rights, and political equality, I am reminded of precisely why so many of the Chinese friends I had made expressed their hopes of coming to the U.S. one day.

continued on page 8

campus life

LESSONS FROM ARGENTINA: EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY

by Lynsey Chediak

Layout Editor

A strike significant enough to shut down the subway in the nation’s largest city would worry Americans (or should I say the people of the United States, since, after all, Argentines consider themselves to be Americans as well). Yet in Buenos Aires, the magically chaotic capital city of Argentina, a major strike causing the Subte (the Buenos Aires underground) to close for six entire days provokes little concern. There, todo está bien siempre—it’s all good still. This was the condition of Buenos Aires when I moved into my apartment in mid-July. As people could not get to work and students could not to get to class, the streets filled with people enjoying much-needed days off. The responsibility of fixing the wage conflict to get the subway workers back to work was merely a concern of the government and something its constituency did not concern itself with. Living and studying in Buenos Aires for five months completely changed my perspective on the political system of the United States. During my second week living in my home stay, as I was walking home from class one afternoon, cars started incessantly honking their horns in synchronization and people emerged from their apartment windows banging on pots and pans. Walking in the door of my apartment, my host mom handed me a pot and a wooden spoon and herded me out to the balcony. We proceeded to laugh and scream, simultaneously banging on pots and exchanging gleeful glances with the other people in our building and on the street doing the same thing. Our building even managed to make a beat out of it, alternating which floor banged their pots when. I had participated in my first cacerolazo. In order to protest the policies of Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, or CFK as she is commonly called, middle class Argentines have refused to listen to her speeches; instead, they bang on pots, honk their horns and scream in unison to avoid hearing what she has to say. This form of protest struck me as extremely confusing. How can one hope to change what President Fernandez de Kirchner is doing if one does not first know what she is implementing? How can one work with the “enemy” without first listening to them? With my interest in politics, I completed my first oral presentation in my Spanish class on the presidency of Argentina, comparing it with that of President Obama. Argentina historically has had an authoritative and controlling head of state. The Argentinean president can implement her own legislation in the absence of any existing technicality granting her legal

authority to write legislation. The president can issue executive documents that, on paper, sound similar to the Executive Orders of the President of the United States. These decretos de necesidad y urgenica, or DNUs as they are more commonly referred, are executive documents with the force of law for a limited period of time. An amendment to the Constitution of Argentina in 1994 legalized DNUs. As the name implies, they are to be used only in extreme circumstances, out of necesidad (necessity) and urgencia (urgency), and only when a matter is so time-sensitive that it cannot be taken through the normal route of a law through Congress. Until 2006, the President of Argentina could issue DNUs without the presence of any legislative controls. Due to modifications to this law in 2006, both chambers of the legislature, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, must now approve or reject any DNUs of the president within 10 days; however, during this period the DNU is enforced. More importantly, an existing exception in the law requires that any existing DNU that offers new rights to a section of the population may not be rejected or removed from the law. Additionally, the role of bribery on the part of the president often taints the legislative process. In 2008, President Fernandez de Kirchner issued a DNU to increase the size of the budget by $11.6 billion, claiming legality and validation for this DNU given the pending possibility of a financial emergency. No emergency existed, besides the lack of adequate funds left in the budget to allow for functionality of the government, yet the decree is still in place today. Why is President Fernandez de Kirchner not held accountable for her actions? Why is no one questioning the legality of her budget increase? As I got settled in Buenos Aires, I also quickly learned about the Central Bank of Argentina’s ban on the purchase of U.S. dollars that was part of an effort led by President Fernandez de Kirchner. No matter what ATM or currency exchange place one goes to, it is impossible to withdraw any form of U.S. dollar in Argentina. The government implemented the policy in order to protect its foreign reserves and pay off its growing debts in an effort to avoid addressing its rampant inflation. The only people in Argentina able to buy foreign currency must get permission from the national tax agency first and, moreover, must spend their dollars while traveling outside of Argentina. While a ban on the world’s predominant currency may seem perplexing, what’s even more surprising is the nonchalant attitude toward the black market that has developed since the

campus life

featured organization

ban. A black market for the U.S. dollar has exploded in the past six months. While the ATMS only offer $4.50 pesos for $1 USD, rates in the black market, referred to as “dólar blue” in Buenos Aires, have reached levels of $6.80 pesos for $1 USD. Shockingly, this illegal market is in no way hidden. Newspapers daily publish rates of the dólar blue market. Websites such as Xoom.com allow for constituents to place an order for the conversion of U.S. dollars to pesos at the black market rate, picking up the pesos at a series of unmarked buildings spread out every few miles. I would know—I myself was an avid customer. Bars even post signs next to the cash registers offering reputable exchange rates of $5.25 pesos for $1 USD. The government makes no effort to combat this black market activity, and it is not concealed whatsoever. Again, I found myself asking, “Why is this allowed?” What is being done to actively fix the currency valuation problem? Six months later, I am now repeating the same phrase my host mom would use to respond to my never-ending string of political questions: tranquilo. This phrase, which directly translates to “quiet” or “calm,” has the same connotation as

the Buenos Aires slang lunfardo, an offhanded, laid-back command of “Relax!” Returning to the United States, I can’t help but be comforted by the Argentine acceptance of tranquilo. While every controversy in the United States political realm seems like the end of the world to politicians, the media, and engaged college students, at the end of the day the problem will most likely work itself out. In Argentina, questions to policy decisions and protests go unanswered. It has reached such an extreme that Argentine citizens now protest merely to express their discontent, not sure of exactly where to begin. Focusing in on a single problem would simply be too narrowing. There are problems, but the government still runs on a day-to-day basis. Buenos Aires is still one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and even one of the 10 happiest places to live in the world, according to a recent survey by Fast Company. The tranquilo response to political problems has changed my mentality. It’s impossible to explain away or fix every political problem that pops up. While it’s important to question decisions, at the end of the day, have faith in the system and relax. Everything will be okay. Todo está bien siempre. CI

The Keck Journal of Foreign Affairs The Keck Journal of Foreign Affairs was founded to connect the students, faculty, and alumni of the Claremont Colleges who have an interest in international relations. The Journal serves as a forum for their research, analysis, experiences, and perspectives on current global events. We also publish interviews with leaders on the world stage that the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies has brought to campus. Through the Journal and the initiatives of the Keck Center, we aim to promote further discussion on and involvement in international relations.

The primary output of the Journal has been through long-form articles, but this semester, we are adding a series of blogs to complement more substantial, academic pieces so we can cover not only longer-term trends but also events as they are happening. If you would like to write for us, whether through traditional articles or with blog posts, or if you would like to contribute in another way, email us at keckjournal@gmail.com. www.keckjournal.com

www.facebook.com/keckjournal

@KeckJournal

campus life

SCRIPPS MEETS CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

by Ambika Bist

Staff Writer

Dr. Charles Krauthammer, political commentator, syndicated columnist, and Pulitzer Prize winner, spoke at Scripps College on Thursday, February 7th, for the 7th annual Elizabeth Hubert Malott Public Affairs Program. The Public Affairs Program aims “to bring the world to Scripps students” by inviting a conservative speaker to campus each year. As this year’s Malott Commons Associate, I was fortunate to not only help

“

Obama sees himself as the heir to FDR, to Kennedy, and to Johnson.

with the planning and logistics of bringing Dr. Krauthammer to campus, but to also spend the majority of the day with the extraordinary speaker and leader. During Krauthammer’s visit, fifteen nominated Scripps Students had the opportunity to meet him for discussion. Most of the students selected were liberal, producing a cross-ideological dynamic that provoked interesting and informative dialogue on social, cultural, and political issues. Dr. David Andrews, Scripps professor of International Relations and Malott committee member, led the discussion session. He began by directing much of the conversation, but as the session progressed students warmed up to asking more questions. When asked about how he felt about speaking at a liberal arts college, he said he had looked forward to being challenged, especially by young liberals. When asked his thoughts

on liberal indoctrination on college campuses, he joked that “It’s good to develop antibodies toward liberals.” I had the privilege of personally interviewing Krauthammer after the student discussion. I asked him about Fox News’ recent decision to purge itself of super right-wing commentators such as Sarah Palin and Dick Morris, to which he responded, “I think Fox News has a record of having come from nowhere and today has overwhelmingly the most powerful, most watched, and most trusted news organization in the country. I wouldn’t second guess any of their choices.” When I asked about the current state of the GOP, he said, “They have a bright future, ran a bad campaign, and had a good man but a terrible candidate.” He said that when any party loses, it seems like the end, but expressed confidence that “we will see a comeback of this great party through conservative Republicans.” Krauthammer was met by an overflowing auditorium and an immediate standing ovation when he took the stage at Scripps’ Garrison Theater for his evening presentation. He spoke about the Obama administration and the role of the GOP in the current political climate. Krauthammer criticized the Republican Party for failing to select an adequate candidate for the 2012 election. He said that Mitt Romney was a weak candidate to fit the mood of the country, and not the right person to make the ideological argument against overreaching government. Krauthammer believes that Obama’s goal is to return America to the liberal ascendency of the 20th century that Ronald Reagan reversed. He said, “Obama sees himself as the heir to FDR, to Kennedy, and to Johnson.” Krauthammer, however, concluded by saying that our country will not withstand yet another rise of liberalism. “In the end, the social democratic agenda does not work… You can argue about the virtues and the justice, but if it doesn’t work, it will fail.” CI

Musings on the Mainland, continued from page 5 When I realize the amount of opportunity and social mobility still available in America and the amount of innovation that has taken place here, I can only feel a sense of deep pride. During a particular discussion in class, one of my teachers, a Beijing native, lamented the fact the Chinese government’s abuses of power could not be adequately checked because one party alone controlled the state. He then expressed

envy at the fact that Americans at least had a choice. Ever the cynic, I made an offhand comment on how two equally inept parties made neither for much of a difference or for much of a choice. He immediately objected, remarking that having just one more choice can make a world of difference. I thought on all that I had learned about China, and could only agree. SomeCI times, another choice makes all the difference.

campus life

ZIMBARDO AT THE ATHENAEUM by Colin Spence

Associate Editor

“All evil starts with 15 volts.” If there was one point that the audience was supposed to remember from Dr. Phillip Zimbardo’s Athenaeum speech, it was this. With this one line, Dr. Zimbardo succinctly highlighted his explanation for why people perform evil actions while also tying together a lineage of research that spans decades and regions, and includes some of psychology’s most famous and notorious experiments. The line itself refers to a series of experiments carried out in the early 1960s by Dr. Stanley Milgram at Yale. These studies, which were designed to study how ordinary individuals responded to authority, involved the subjects shocking a fictional person for answering questions incorrectly. The fictional “victim” would respond with pre-recorded sounds of pain that would escalate as the shocks increased, until the last 10 levels, where the victim would fall silent and remain that way through the conclusion of the experiment. Milgram polled both senior undergraduates and fellow psychologists, and both groups predicted around one percent of the subjects would administer the maximum shock. The results revealed that both groups were extremely incorrect. Nearly 65 percent of the participants administered the maximum shock, and nearly all were clearly uncomfortable in doing so, yet did so anyway with prodding from the experimenter. The experiment shocked the world and lent some insight into how ordinary people can come to commit massive atrocities. Dr. Zimbardo noted that it was perhaps the most notorious and controversial experiment in psychology until he conducted his own experiment, referred to now as the Stanford Prison Experiment, approximately a decade later. In Zimbardo’s study, ordinary students were arbitrarily assigned to “prisoner” or “guard” roles in a jail located in the basement of Stanford’s psychology department. The two-week experiment lasted only six days as the guards quickly embraced their role and became more and more authoritarian, ultimately to the point where they were psychologically abusing the prisoners. These results, like the results of the Milgram studies earlier, were shocking. Dr. Zimbardo explicitly pointed out that these students were chosen because they were considered to be stable and healthy. In addition, Dr. Zimbardo also stated that while the actions of the “guards” became so extreme as to raise ethical and safety concerns, the students, both eventual “guards” and “prisoners,” had indicated a preference for the “prisoner” role. None of these men, he argued, were initially inclined towards the authoritarian role. This study provided substantial support for what he has termed “the Lucifer effect,” which is the notion

The experiment... lent some insight into how ordinary people can come to commit massive atrocities.

”

that over time, ordinary people can transform into evil individuals capable of terrible deeds, given certain circumstances. Dr. Zimbardo went on to apply these lessons from his study to the case of the guards at Abu Ghraib prison, in which he testified as an expert witness. In this case, guards were accused of abusing prisoners after being left in positions of authority with morally ambiguously instruction and limited oversight. In this case, but in general as well, Zimbardo noted an inclination to blame bad behavior on an individual perpetrator’s disposition, to blame the problem on a few so-called “bad apples.” Dr. Zimbardo went on to explain that this viewpoint contradicts what the research and the facts of the case indicate, which is that the situation, the “apple barrel,” was the problem, and essentially drove ordinary people to become evil and commit atrocities. Zimbardo concluded that while people are still responsible for their actions, preventing future cruelty requires actually addressing the situation or the system that caused the behavioral transformation, as well as the individuals and organizations responsible for creating the system. Dr. Zimbardo finished his speech by speaking on the topic of heroes. While ordinary people can become evil, Zimbardo argued they also could become heroes in the right circumstances. He stated that most heroes are just ordinary people in dire situations that respond courageously. There is a need in our society to honor and elevate people who do truly heroic things, and to de-emphasize cultural heroes like athletes and celebrities. To ultimately improve society, Dr. Zimbardo prescribed holding ourselves to a higher moral standard in all aspects of society. If we want to shift the balance to good from evil, we need to honor true heroes, pass moral laws, elect moral leaders and make a conscious effort to conduct our daily lives justly. Then perhaps the scales will shift, but not before we take responsibility and act. CI

campus life

TITLE IX, SEXUAL VIOLENCE, & THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD by Amelia Evrigenis Associate Editor On Dec. 10, 2012, President Pamela Gann announced in an email to the study body that Claremont McKenna College had revised its sexual violence grievance procedures in accordance with a “Dear Colleague Letter (DCL)” issued by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The OCR distributed the letter to all educational institutions in the United States that receive federal funding. The DCL addresses Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which (as summarized by the letter) “prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.” The letter states that sexual violence, in addition to sexual harassment, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. The DCL stipulates numerous Title IX requirements to which recipients must adhere in investigating complaints of sexual violence. It requires that colleges and universities adopt and publish grievance procedures providing “prompt and equitable” resolution of sex discrimination complaints on campus. As other educational institutions have done, Claremont McKenna revised its sexual violence grievance procedures in response to the DCL. In her email to the student body, President Gann wrote that these revised procedures “reflect our commitment to creating a safe community in a manner that is consistent with the law and which offers a fair and neutral process to all parties involved.” Whether these procedures are, in fact, truly fair and truly neutral, is up for debate. Of primary concern is the DCL’s requirement that schools use the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in evaluating complaints of sexual violence. The preponderance standard is met if, evidence considered, it appears more likely than not (a greater than 50 percent probability) that the offense occurred. The DCL states explicitly that schools are not to use the clear and convincing standard (i.e. it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the assault occurred). Federal civil courts use the preponderance standard in evaluating complaints. The DCL specifically notes that the Supreme Court uses the preponderance standard in civil cases involving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a statute which likewise prohibits sex discrimination. The OCR reasons that since the preponderance standard is used in federal civil cases involving sex discrimination, it is the appropriate standard for college and university sexual violence grievance procedures.

CMC’s Grievance Procedures CMC’s revised Civil Rights Policies and Civil Rights Grievance Procedures are posted to the college’s website. The document explains that complaints of alleged sexual assaults on campus shall be forwarded to the college’s Title IX Coordinator, who currently is Dean Mary Spellman. The Title IX Coordinator appoints an investigator trained in the college’s grievance procedures to conduct a “thorough, impartial, and prompt investigation of the complaint.” The investigator conducts interviews, gathers evidence, prepares a report of the investigation, and makes an appropriate finding based on a preponderance of the evidence. If the Investigator determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent, the individual accused of the violation, did commit the sexual assault, the respondent may accept the findings or reject the findings (or accept them in part and reject them in part). If the respondent rejects the findings in full or in part, the Title IX Coordinator forwards the complaint to the “Hearing Board” (the “Board”). The Board’s task is to conduct a hearing to provide an “equitable resolution via an equitable process.” The Board consists of three persons appointed by the Title IX coordinator “selected from the members of the Investigator pool who were not involved in the original investigation and faculty who have been trained to review Civil Rights complaints.” The Title IX Coordinator designates one of the three individuals as “Chair” for the hearing. It is the responsibility of the Board to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the defendant is guilty of committing the sexual offense, and to recommend the appropriate sanctions to be imposed upon the individual. For students, the possible sanctions are “up to and including suspension or expulsion.” As articulated previously, the Office of Civil Rights justifies its requirement that colleges and universities use a preponderance standard in sexual violence grievance procedures because it is the standard used in federal civil cases involving discrimination. However, the OCR appears to disregard the significant differences that exist between campus grievance procedures, such as CMC’s Hearing Board procedures, and those of the federal civil system. CMC Professor of Government and Ethics Joseph Bessette has studied both the Dear Colleague Letter and CMC’s revised grievance procedures in depth. He raises concerns

campus life about using such a low standard of proof in CMC’s grievance procedures: “What I find striking is that although it’s true that preponderance of the evidence is the regular standard of proof in civil courts throughout the United States, federal and state civil courts, there are so many differences between the rights that the respondent has in [civil] courts compared to [CMC’s] procedures that it really raises in my mind the question of whether preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard.” In an interview with the Claremont Independent, Bessette identifies eight significant differences between federal civil trials and CMC’s sexual violence Hearing Board procedures that, in his opinion, “argue strongly either for changes in the [college’s] procedures,... a higher standard of proof, or both.” First. Bessette explains that a judge, who is an expert in the law, presides over all federal civil court cases. No judgelike figure presides over CMC’s Hearing Board procedures. Although the Chair shall be trained in the college’s Title IX grievance procedures, he or she will not, unless by chance, have extensive legal training. Further, the Chair is still a member of the Board that both conducts the disciplinary hearing and determines guilt. Second. Bessette notes that the federal civil system adheres to extensive and detailed rules of evidence intended to protect the accused. The CMC grievance procedures include provisions stating that that the use of alcohol or drugs may not function as a defense, that sexual orientation and/or gender identity “is not relevant to allegations,” and that the past sexual history of a party and the respondent’s prior policy violations will not be generally admissible. However, the procedures nonetheless fail to address other vital protections regarding evidence—such as rules excluding hearsay. Third. The federal civil system is bound by “discovery” laws, which allow each party in the case to obtain evidence from the opposing party by judicial compulsion. CMC’s procedures do not include the right to discovery. Fourth. The civil system guarantees respondents the right to an attorney who may act as an advisor during the proceeding. CMC’s grievance procedures specify that legal counsel is not permitted in Hearing Board grievance procedures “except in cases in which any party to the grievance faces potential criminal charges or if required by applicable law.” Thus, in cases of sexual violence, of which the defendant faces potential criminal charges arising from the same set of evidence, the defendant may hire an attorney. The guidelines state, however, that “In such cases, an attorney will only be permitted in a non-participatory advisory role for the Complainant and/ or Respondent at that individual’s expense” (emphasis added). Bessette notes that a non-participatory attorney certainly does not play the same role as would legal counsel in civil court: “That means the attorney cannot, I take it, speak out in

the hearing itself. He can be sitting there, because it’s a potential criminal case, but can’t actually [participate]. I don’t know what advisory role means if you’re not participating... But it’s clear that you’re not playing the same role that your attorney would play in a real civil trial.” Fifth. In the federal civil system the burden of proof falls on the complainant. Just as defendants in criminal cases don’t

CMC’s grievance procedures, on the other hand, don’t actually require that the complainant or respondent even appear at the Hearing Board procedures.

”

have to prove their innocence, respondents in civil cases don’t have to prove that they are not at fault. CMC’s grievance procedures, however, nowhere specify that the burden of proof falls upon the complainant. “Even though the standard of proof [in a civil case] is low, 51% / 49%, the complainant still has to prove his or her case… And there’s no such language in the CMC rules that I can see that puts the burden of proof on the complainant.” Sixth. In a civil trial, the defendant has the right to see all the evidence and to cross examine the witnesses. CMC’s grievance procedures, on the other hand, don’t actually require that the complainant or respondent even appear at the Hearing Board procedures. Although the explanation of the Hearing Board procedures seems to assume participation, the document states several pages later that complainants in CMC grievance proceedings retain the right “To participate or decline to participate in the grievance process related to a discrimination, harassment, and/or sexual misconduct complaint with the understanding that the process may continue without their involvement and that the Investigator and/or Board will determine an outcome with the information available to it” (emphasis added). The document similarly states that respondents have the right to “participate or decline to participate in

continued on page 19

opinion

CRESCIT CUM COMMERCIO CIVITAS: SEIZE THE DAY

by Publius In 2007, the Robert Day School (RDS) of Economics and Finance was established in recognition of a $200 million gift from Robert Day ’65, former Chair of Claremont McKenna College’s Board of Trustees. It has been described as the single largest donation to an American liberal arts college. It has also been described as a threat to the goal of a liberal arts education. Background The RDS offers undergraduate majors in Economics and Economics-Accounting as well as a Master’s Program in Finance. It also offers the Robert Day Scholars Program, which is divided into two categories: the BA Program and the BA/ MA Program. At this time, only CMC students have the option to select between BA and BA/MA options, while students from other campuses may apply for the BA/MA Program. The BA Program provides students of all disciplines with an introduction to and a curriculum tailored around courses in finance, accounting and organizational behavior/leadership. The BA/MA Program focuses more on finance and allows students to take graduate courses to achieve a Master’s degree by the time of graduation. The application deadline was Friday, February 15. One more thing: all BA and BA/MA Scholars receive a $15,000 scholarship during senior year. Controversy That last point is what has generated some concern amongst professors on the Kravis side of campus (geographically speaking; not to be confused with “Kravis-like” professors). Some worry that the RDS and the Robert Day Scholars Program in particular may change CMC from being a genuine liberal arts college to being more of a specialized, pre-professional school. If I am a student majoring in philosophy, literature, or religious studies, for example, I have an incentive to pursue the Robert Day BA Scholar Program so that I can receive $15,000 to help me pay for my education. That means, however, that I now have to take courses in finance and accounting – subjects I would not have otherwise pursued – instead of taking upper level courses in my respective major. The concern of professors is obvious: CMC may no longer be focused on developing minds, but on developing careers instead. Such concern is indicative of a pressing controversy in higher education. On January 29, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory chided liberal arts courses offered at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, saying “If you want to take gender studies, that’s fine… But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.” But this is not only a recent problem. Author and recent Athenaeum speaker William Deresiewicz noted in 2008 that this trend of focusing on careers is not limited solely to public officials, but to the atmosphere of educational institutions as well. “The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.” Universities and colleges seem to be forgetting, according to Deresiewicz, that the “true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.” It thus comes as no surprise that some CMC professors may be concerned that the Robert Day Scholars Program – which emphasizes pre-professional skills and career development – may detract from the goal of a liberal arts college. They worry that the Program may change CMC permanently and not necessarily for the better. Seize the Day I believe these concerns are justified. After all, the RDS Program may detract from the well-roundedness of CMC’s education by shifting focus and students towards the path of technical education. But I believe these concerns can easily be ameliorated as long as we do not act rashly. Firstly, the Robert Day Scholars Program curriculum includes philosophy classes such as “Moral and Political Issues” and “Ethical Theory.” At the very least, there is some effort to ensure that there is not solely a focus on technical education. Furthermore, the Program is still being developed, and can potentially be reformed to address grievances. Secondly, we have a President-Elect who understands the value and power of a liberal arts education, and who has already taken time to meet with department heads to understand potential concerns. Even if the current landscape is worrisome for the liberal arts at CMC, it definitely helps to have a president who has spearheaded the development of interdisciplinary courses, has won a Distinguished Teacher Award, and has extensive experience in academia. I would say the future looks rather bright. Thirdly, we focus on learning, and we focus on doing – but more importantly than either is that we focus on “learning for the sake of doing.” I used to think of this motto as just an

opinion empty slogan to distinguish CMC from other liberal arts colleges for attracting applications. I now understand that CMC combines the best of both worlds. We develop minds and creative ways of thinking by ensuring that students take courses in philosophy, literature, government, history, etc. But we do so with an eye toward the future, so that we can apply the skill of critical thinking to any and all of our future endeavors, whether it be in the realm of academia, politics, gender studies, economics, or finance. The RDS and the RDS Program offers another avenue for students to achieve that end. RDS Dean Brock Blomberg notes this on the school’s website, saying that the RDS provides the opportunity for technical learning “in a liberal arts

setting.” Does this mean that a student may not take as many upper-division courses in their respective major as they otherwise would? Yes. But this also means that students can still learn about literature, gender studies, and philosophy – the liberal arts – while simultaneously gaining pre-professional skills that allow them to strike a balance between developing their mind and career that will serve them in the future. CMC has reached a middle-ground, a sweet spot, between the overzealous public official concerned with jobs and the academic concerned with minds. We have become the practical liberal arts college. We have ambition counteracting ambition. We have an opportunity to seize the Day. CI

PERKS OF NOT STUDYING ABROAD by Martin Sartorius Staff Writer Discovering a new culture, meeting new friends and having the experience of a lifetime. With these selling points, you might wonder why some students say “no” to the chance to study abroad. Although studying abroad is quite popular at the 5C’s, every year there are many sophomores who choose to stay in Claremont during their junior year. To get a better idea of why one might choose not to study abroad, I interviewed several students who chose to spend their time in Claremont instead of Europe, Asia or another exotic destination. Why would you choose not to study abroad? In a word: education. Most of the students I talked to mentioned that they preferred taking classes that were meaningful and would advance their education over going abroad (where classes might not be at the same calibre as they are in the 5C’s). Some of the students found that they wanted to take some specific classes before graduating and, unfortunately, would not have time to take them if they went abroad. There are also those who cannot study abroad if they want to complete their major. For example, Marc Blumberg (CMC ’15), an Economics-Engineering (3-2) major, is staying on campus to complete all his required courses before he applies after three years at CMC to Harvey Mudd College for his last two years of school. With regards to choosing the 5C education over studying abroad, I think Katya Abazajian (CM ‘14) put it best when she told me that, “To those who want to take substantive classes and are loving their education here at CMC, I’d recommend not going abroad—because if you’re taking substantive classes abroad, you’re just not doing it right.”

What are the benefits of staying in Claremont? One of the benefits of staying is being able to take classes that you would not be able to abroad. Hannah Burak (CMC ‘13) explained that, by staying in Claremont, she “got the opportunity to continue taking econ classes and eventually added it as a major—something [she] could not have done otherwise.” In addition to taking classes at the 5C’s, choosing not to study abroad allows juniors to work on projects that they would not have time to work on otherwise. For example, Burak took advantage of this extra time on campus by taking “on leadership of the Claremont Independent for a full year—one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of [her] life.” Abazajian also said that she had “been able to start projects that will allow [her] to travel for academic reasons, so that has been a huge perk.” Would you recommend staying in Claremont to freshmen and sophomores considering studying abroad? The responses that I got point to the fact that the decision really depends on each individual student’s preference. For some students, a 5C education trumps partying abroad. Other students believe that traveling once one has graduated is more valuable when taking into account opportunity costs from not spending four years at the 5C’s, such as Abazajian, who told me, “Traveling is not unique to college—having accomplished professors willing to freely share their knowledge with you and help you develop into an educated person is.” CI

opinion

SANDRA FLUKE SURPRISES

by Derek Ko Staff Writer As someone who not only opposes public funding for birth control, but also believes in axing public funding for a wide range of government programs, I was quick to pass judgment on Sandra Fluke following her speech at last year’s Democratic National Convention. To me, her words were painfully unoriginal, retelling the tired feminist narrative portraying conservative men as a patriarchal oppressor class trying to “control women’s bodies” in an age when contraception was more accessible than ever. As for Ms. Fluke herself, she was the figure around which the Democratic Party opportunistically built its “War on Women” narrative following a few abhorrent comments made by figures on the fringe of the GOP. She was not, in my mind, a gender egalitarian or even an advocate for the oppressed. She was simply a feminist icon, the latest front woman for the women’s lobby which has favored genderbased affirmative action over meritocracy and kangaroo courts over due process for handling sexual assault cases on college campuses. It was as I began writing my preconceptions down on paper that I realized that I had fallen into the trap of my own prejudice. Despite my constant criticism of the way libertarians are mischaracterized and misunderstood by the left and in the media, I myself was guilty of drawing a radical caricature of Sandra Fluke which could be easily judged and discredited. Meeting Ms. Fluke at the Athenaeum gave me a much-needed reminder that good people often have the same goals—albeit radically different ideas on how to achieve them. The topic of Ms. Fluke’s speech was a pleasant surprise. Putting her advocacy for universal birth control funding and reproductive rights aside, she took the time to speak on a topic near and dear to her heart: America’s LGBTQ population. She described how even though there are several million LGBT employees in the private sector, only 21 states and Washington D.C. currently prohibit work discrimination against gays and lesbians by law. Fluke then shifted the attention of the attendees to the “T” in LGBT, explaining that even in many of the states where discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited, there are no protections in place for gender identity. Ms. Fluke later spoke of her support for the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would replace the patchwork of laws addressing discrimination against the LGBT community with comprehensive federal protection. Her message of equality for all in society and her special emphasis on refusing to leave

transgendered Americans behind proved noncontroversial to the audience. Even during the question and answer period in which she tackled thornier issues, Ms. Fluke answered questions in a straight-forward manner and showed herself to be a pragmatic and moderate advocate. When asked about the lack of attention and help given to male domestic violence victims or the gendered language of legislation regarding human trafficking, she vehemently asserted that all victims, regardless of gender, deserve help. When questioned on the conflict between the provision of birth control and the question of religious liberty, she answered from the center, asserting that there needed to be a balance between the two. She went on to list categories of religiously affiliated organizations which were exempt from the birth control mandate, and stated her firm commitment to the liberties of all religious communities including her own. What I admired most about Sandra Fluke, however, was her emphasis on free expression and the necessity of dialogue. Her anecdote about an ACLU lawyer who protested a speaker on a university campus, but stood up against fellow demonstrators when they started blocking access to the talk, showed that strongly held beliefs and a respect for open dialogue are not mutually exclusive. I personally believe that it is exactly this kind of dialogue that needs to take place more often between those on opposing ends of the political spectrum. Because Ms. Fluke dedicated over half her time to the question and answer period, this open dialogue is exactly what I and many other students present received. The talk became one of a few at the Athenaeum where few hands were left raised and few questions left unanswered. I still oppose the regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare of Obamacare (which does not currently contain a single provision on much-needed tort reform). Though I believe strongly in reproductive freedom, I remain allergic to the idea of the government paying for any man or woman’s personal choices. However, I have found that in many ways, liberals can be friends of the Liberty Movement and more importantly, advocates for the rights of all people. When it comes to causes like equality for LGBT members of society, prevention of human trafficking, and the upholding of First Amendment rights, I am proud and very glad to have allies on the Left like Sandra Fluke. CI

news

OBAMA CALLS FOR MINIMUM WAGE HIKE by Brad Richardson

Copy Editor

One of the more memorable proposals President Obama made in his State of the Union address was his plan to increase the federal minimum wage by a whopping 24%, from $7.25 to $9 an hour. “A family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line,” Obama said in the Feb. 12 address. “That’s wrong. Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families.” It sounds simple enough: on the surface, increasing the minimum wage appears to equal more money for poor families. But some economists have serious reservations about the wisdom of such a move and believe that, in the end, it will harm working-class Americans more than it will help them. Manfred Keil, Associate Professor at the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College, has done extensive research on the effects of the minimum wage on the labor market. In 2001, he coauthored a paper entitled “Minimum Wages and Unemployment” that was published as a part of the Labour Markets Programme of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “In my research, I have shown by looking at variations between states that employment of teenagers goes down significantly if the minimum wage is raised,” Keil said in an interview with the Claremont Independent. “Increasing the minimum wage does hurt teenage employment.” Keil notes that there is a minor decrease in employment among 20-24 year olds and virtually no effect on adults over 24 years old when the minimum wage is raised. Rather, he believes that the minimum wage hurts most acutely the group most in need of support: poor, disadvantaged and low-skilled 16-19 year olds who require on-the-job training. President Obama’s central justification for increasing the minimum wage is keeping families who rely on minimum wage salaries out of poverty; however, Keil argues that such families are rare. “People who are receiving minimum wages are typically not the heads of households—these are typically waiters, waitresses or [people in] the fast food industry and so forth—they are typically dependents,” Keil said. “So, Obama’s argument for raising the minimum wage that he brought up in the State of the Union address was interesting.”

Keil also questions the timing of President Obama’s proposal, because increasing the minimum wage is not generally even considered during macroeconomic recessions or anemic, low-growth recoveries like the one now underway. National minimum wage adjustments are more typical in periods of robust economic growth and low unemployment, when an increase in the cost of labor is less likely to result in layoffs and businesses can tolerate hiring and retaining more expensive entry-level workers. “I was stunned when President Obama brought this up,” Keil said. “To me, to be raising the minimum wage should not happen until national unemployment is to a level of perhaps five percent, and that’s not going to happen in the near future. So to even talk now about increasing minimum wages, that to me was a real surprise in that speech.” Professor Keil is not alone in his misgivings about both the conceptual merits and macroeconomic timing of the President’s minimum wage proposal. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represents the interests of small businesses, released a statement shortly after the State of the Union Address that was dismissive of the President’s proposal. “A government mandate such as this would need to be completely absorbed by small business owners, who are already operating on razor-thin margins,” NFIB/Florida Executive Director Bill Herrle said in the statement. “Small firms cannot pay a worker more than the value the worker brings to the firm. Raising the minimum wage denies more low skilled workers the opportunity to get a job and receive ‘on the job’ training.” On the other hand, some groups, such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the nation’s largest labor union, came to the President’s defense. “President Obama rightly put rising wages and good jobs as his top priority [in his State of the Union address], and we fully support him,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement following the President’s speech. “We applaud the President for expressing support for raising the minimum wage and tying it to the cost of living.” Those supporting minimum wage increases often point to higher minimum wages in other developed economies— from Canada to Australia to France—and contend that mini

continued on page 17

16 humor by Becky Shin

THE MOTLEY MONOPOLY Staff Writer

It’s Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013, and the spring semester has officially started at the Claremont Colleges. Back to late study nights that entail midnight snacking and caffeine highs. In order to face another intense study schedule—staring at a textbook with blood-shot eyes, unkempt hair, and a growling stomach—we need grub. Pomona’s Coop Café? Check. CMC’s Hub Store? Bustling. Pitzer’s Grove House? Open. Mudd’s Jay’s Place? Got it. Scripps’ Motley? Dark, dead, with a “Closed” sign hanging from the door for well over the first two weeks of this academic semester.

“

The Motley permeates entitlement with its pristine location in the center of all 5-C’s, freshly baked goods, good-looking baristas, and quirky atmosphere strewn with colorful breast-castings and tampons next to the register.

When questioned about their late opening, the Motley management claims that they need to train their baristas and make a work schedule during the first weeks of the semester. (Meanwhile, the managers use the space as a personal study lounge.) Yet all the other student-run food joints on campus open early, with trained workers and a running schedule! What? Who? How does the Motley get away with this when all the other colleges’ food Meccas are open and serving? The Motley permeates entitlement with its pristine location in the center of all 5-C’s, freshly baked goods, good-looking baristas, and quirky atmosphere strewn with colorful breast-castings and

tampons next to the register. Regardless of when the Motley officially decides to open to the public and regardless of how much we all complain about our caffeine deficiency, nobody will boycott the Motley! We are upset about their late opening because we love them so much. Boycotting the Motley would mean choosing to deprive our taste buds of an experience in addition to prolonging accessible caffeine. Sure, we all have coffee machines in our cafeterias, and a few other school cafes provide us with drinks, yet we rush to the Motley after class and wait in long lines out the door. We’re even willing to pay that extra dollar to have a “to-go” cup because the Motley is worth it. 5-C’s! The Motley has a monopoly over the coffee business and we need to speak up! The rest of the Consortium’s café’s face market competition. They keep each other in check. Yet, why do we put up with the Motley’s dawdling? In addition to their late opening, the Motley is constantly running out of supplies—occasionally without the proper juice for their smoothies, without straws for their iced drinks, and without cream cheese for their bagels. I have experienced the displeasure of strawlessly sipping my “to-go” iced chai as I lifted the cup and was forced to avert my focus from my studies in order to avoid spilling. A coffee shop in the consortium competent enough to challenge the Motley is nonexistent. What then should we do? Should we oblige to the Motley’s schedule and put up with their occasional lack of ingredients? We justify our Motley excursions, reasoning that we only have to put up with this for four years and it’s not that big of an inconvenience. And after all, there are other coffee venders on campus (which is comforting to know, even though it is unlikely that we will utilize any other café). Will we just sit back as the Motley drains our Flex with their “to-go” cup policy, or opt to inconvenience our schedules by refusing to pay and sit inside the lively atmosphere and sip from a ceramic mug? Are we audacious enough to boycott? Perhaps not, because if one is, she or he was never truly an ardent coffee lover and this entire dilemma is deemed irrelevant anyway. So as I am contemplating how to overcome this power struggle that is the “Motley monopoly,” I am currently sitting in the Motley, listening to Florence and the Machine and sipping a non-fat, large Chai tea Latte from my personal ceramic coffee mug, daringly defying the extra dollar “to-go” cup policy. 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!

Scripps Voice

Hollywood is notoriously sexist. The Bechdel Test is a quick test for gender bias in film, television, or other works of fiction. When you see the rules, you’d think that it shouldn’t be hard to pass the test:

The Student Life

1. There must be two named female characters 2. Who talk to each other 3. About something besides a man Perhaps the most disturbing thing about porn is that it doesn’t even try to pretend. Politically correct porn is an oxymoron and nobody’s pretending that it’s not. So if we all know that porn isn’t all-inclusive, why does the exclusivity continue?

By excluding cultures other than Western civilization from the curriculum, Core I continues to propagate the hegemonic standard that Western civilization is the focus of academia in the world. This kind of narrowmindedness doesn’t allow us to expand our thinking to its fullest potential. It limits our education. It’s a disservice to us to allow us to believe the world revolves around Western culture.

To put this into perspective, an article from TSL in 2010 quoted history professor Victor Silverman with the alarming statistic that “60 percent of grades given at Pomona are As.” Data regarding the Pomona College Scholar distinction seem to back up Silverman’s claim. Last spring, the cutoff for the award—which represents the top 25 percent of the class—was 11.857 on the 12-point scale.

The Student Life Obama calls for minimum wage hike, continued from page 15 mum wages in the U.S. have not kept up with increases in the productivity growth of American workers. The federal minimum wage represents a floor for hourly wages, but states may exceed it, and several have. The President’s proposal would do nothing in one state—Washington— where the minimum wage is already $9.19 an hour. The mini-

mum wage in California is currently $8 an hour. Like many of the policies advanced by the President in his State of the Union speech, his minimum wage proposal is unlikely to get very far in the current Congress and will probably be rejected by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. CI

18 campus tech

COMPUTING DIFFERENTLY

by Chris Gaarder

Publisher

In 2009, iPad was iPod spelled incorrectly, we only engift for Grandma!) dured one Hangover, the Motorola Droid was the archaeoFor media consumption, light and low-cost gaming, porhipster’s solution to the iPhone, and a fair number from the tability, and especially for reading and marking up documents, senior class bought their first laptops, many of which are still a tablet – namely the iPad, because of its ubiquity – easily fills in use today. the rest of your computing needs. The ability to mark up docuWhile the cell phone industry pushes a 2-year lifecycle ments, in a world where free printing is not the norm, is my fafor smartphones, the demarcation for laptops is blurrier. As the vorite feature. Using the Notability app, I have avoided printsummer approaches, and a quarter of our classmates prepare ing roughly 4,000 pages worth of homework PDFs and other to write a new chapter in documents in the last year their lives, many are bound Americans who own a tablet computer alone (4,000 pages x $0.04 to think: “Should I write it per page = $160). In addition in a literally cutting-edge to the iPad, the Surface from computer, like the Air or Microsoft is also worth takan Ultrabook? Should I ing a look at among larger get a traditional laptop? Is tablets. The iPad Mini and there another solution?” Google Nexus 7 are nice enOwn 31% My answer: it detrants in the mid-size categopends. ry. So, what’s so great about For users with metablets? They are not abdium-to-heavy computer surdly expensive, considerusage, I am not going to ing all the functions they fill offer a recommendation in – $329 for the Mini, $399 for Do not own this column. For the more an iPad 2, $499 for the New 69% casual user, for whom New iPad (4th Edition) or money is a concern, howMicrosoft Surface RT. Add a ever, a more radical deparChromebook, to their prices, ture from the computing and they run $578, $648, and norm makes sense. As the $748, respectively. technology evolved, a new Looking at Amaoption emerged in 2012, 31% of Americans own a tablet computer, according to a January 2013 zon’s top laptops, after one with increased versa- Pew Survey. (pewinternet.org) the Chromebook is the tility, decreased cost, and $1,129.98 MacBook Pro improved functionality: the Tablet-Chromebook combo. 13.3-inch, more than twice the cost of the first two options. What is a Chromebook? Think of the Chromebook as a The MacBook Air 128 GB version is $1,035.99. Ok, so let’s descendant of the netbook. A Chromebook is a trimmed down assume Apple is overpriced. Dell’s Inspiron i15R (heavily dislaptop that runs Google’s Chrome OS (a Linux-based operatcounted) is selling for $469.99. For an Ultrabook, the Lenovo ing system, basically an advanced Google Chrome browser). U410 14-inch is selling for $599.99. The Tablet-Chromebook It centers around web-based applications and on- or offline option may not be the cheapest upfront, but factoring in savdocument creation using Google Drive. Drive is a service that ings over time – printing far less, buying cheap game apps allows users to create and store documents, spreadsheets, prerather than expensive traditional videogames, cheap or free sentations and forms. Files can be stored on the Chromebook, books with Kindle for iPad, the convenience of receiving a but Google is promoting data storage on “the Cloud,” with 100 discounted newspaper or magazine directly on the machine, GB of space on Google Drive included. For heavy duty typing, and a decent camera on the new iPad to boot, switching to this web browsing, and presentation-creating duties, a $249 Samcombo is a relatively cost-efficient, versatile, and green (in all sung Chromebook fits the average user’s needs. (Also a great senses of the word) option for the average consumer. CI

campus life

Title IX, sexual violence, & the preponderance standard, continued from page 11 the review procedure, with the understanding that the process will continue regardless...” Bessette says, “Now as I read that, that means you can be accused of some really serious misconduct by a person, and that person doesn’t necessarily have to appear and make the case in front of you and be cross-examined by you.” Seventh. Bessette explains that federal civil trials have a minimum of six jurors and that at-fault verdicts must typically be decided unanimously. In CMC’s grievance procedures, however, just three members of a Hearing Board determine the guilt of the defendant. CMC’s procedures do not specify that the Board must determine guilt unanimously; it simply states that the Board will “determine an appropriate finding based on a preponderance of the evidence.” Bessette notes that the document’s failure to explicitly require unanimity implies that only a two thirds majority is necessary to determine guilt, asking rhetorically, “How much easier is it to ‘prove’ an accusation if you only have to persuade two out of three people that it’s slightly more likely [that the offense occurred] than to convince six people?” Eighth and last, Bessette notes that federal civil cases are almost always open door, unless they involve serious matters of national security. Bessette explains that public trials serve to protect the accused: “If a defendant or a respondent is being

mistreated some way by the process, the public can witness that... It’s a protection to an individual who is accused of something.” CMC Hearing Board procedures, on the other hand, are closed-door, offering no such public oversight. The grievance procedures state, “Board hearings are closed. The hearing itself will be recorded but not the deliberations. The recording will be destroyed after the appeal period has been exhausted.” The guide specifies that the complainant and respondent may listen to the recordings, but does not say whether they will be available to members of the CMC community. To summarize—CMC’s Hearing Board procedures do not include a judge-like figure, specify proper rules of evidence to protect the accused, delineate rights to discovery, grant the defendant the right to an attorney who may participate in the hearing, specify that the burden of proof falls upon the complainant, permit the defendant to be confronted by and cross-examined by the complainant, require a unanimous jury of six to determine guilt, or open Hearing Board procedures to the oversight of the CMC community. That CMC’s sexual violence grievance procedures lack so many of the legal protections afforded by the federal civil system argues strongly for a higher standard of proof, changes to the procedures, or both. CI

Have something to say? Email a letter to the editor: editor@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.