OPINION
friday, april 27, 2012
A CANADIAN CONTENTION
THE HOYA
A3
VIEWPOINT • Sam Schneider & James Pickens
A Road to Better City Planning Vote on Evidentiary D Rule a Win for Justice G uring a recent visit to Southern California, I experienced great weather and horrible traffic. But even Los Angeles traffic can’t rival the D.C. area’s, where the average resident spends nearly 70 hours waiting in traffic each year. It doesn’t take much to recognize that such conditions take a toll on a city’s residents. But traffic is a symptom of far greater problems with the planning and design of American cities. Unfortunately, questions surrounding urban planning are too often left out of the national conversation, and more emphasis needs to be placed on neighborhood planning and its influence on citizens. Both in the District and across the United States, the governement needs to invest in connecting and enhancing its urban communities. Many of these problems arise from single-use zoning, which encourages devoting large areas of land to one particular use, either residential or commercial. This encourages people to live in different communities from those in which they work. Not only does this foster traffic problems, but it can also create the “urban donut” effect — urban centers remain deserted on weekends and feel alive only during work hours. Luckily, the status quo is beginning to change. After years of flight to leafy suburban communities, Americans are beginning to rediscover the benefits of population density. All but two
of the 39 U.S. counties with more than a million residents saw population increases between 2010 and 2011. The District especially has benefited from this demographic shift, as its popula-
Scott Stirrett
The nature of communities forges who and what we become. tion grew at a faster rate than that of any state last year. In recent years, there has also been an increase in mixed-use developments, which allow residents to live where they work, shop and socialize. This trend is likely to reduce pollution and obesity rates and create communities that are more enjoyable to live in. To continue this trend, city governments must invest more in light rail and bike lanes. There is already a consumer demand for these programs, as the number of miles driven by
young people dropped by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. The reality is that many members of our generation are abandoning automobiles, and public policy should take into account this change in preferences. In addition, there is a pressing need to invest in the transportation infrastructure that connects major urban corridors, such as the one between Boston and D.C. This involves investing in high-speed rail, which allows individuals and goods to travel easily between major cities. While such projects are expensive to establish, they will have a net reduction of overall transportation costs. President Eisenhower had the foresight to invest in the Interstate Highway System, and it is time to create a similar national plan for high-speed rail. For too long, countries have let metropolises grow unbridled, creating the dysfunctional eyesores that are many modern cities. Considering that the nature of communities helps forge who and what we become as individuals and as a society, it’s time to re-imagine the potential of urban life.
Scott Stirrett is a junior in the School of Foreign Service. He is the former chief of staff of the Georgetown University College Democrats and former chair and co-founder of D.C. Students Speak. This is the last appearance of A CANADIAN CONTENTION for this year.
SCRIBBLES OF A MADMAN by Ben Mazzara
QUORUM CALL
eorgetown’s Disciplinary Review Committee passed a resolution yesterday recommending that the burden of proof for all disciplinary actions be raised from the current standard of “more likely than not” to “clear and convincing.” It was a vote long overdue, but more importantly, it was a decision that will improve the lives of students and the community as a whole by making the disciplinary process more just and consistent with Georgetown’s mission. In the past, when a student was accused of violating the Code of Student Conduct, administrators judged his or her responsibility using the “more likely than not” standard. As the code states: “The Complainant must present persuasive evidence that establishes that the Respondent ‘more likely than not’ violated the Code of Student Conduct.” This standard applied both when the university or another student accused a student of wrongdoing. The problem with the former standard is that it was inherently arbitrary. “More likely than not” meant that if an administrator felt there was a 51 percent chance or higher that a student was responsible for a given violation, he or she was obligated to find the student responsible. With virtually no burden of proof, it is unrealistic to think that administrators’ interpretations of the standard of guilt will be identical. The “more likely than not” standard also left an unacceptable amount of room for uncertainty and individual error when making disciplinary decisions. Frequently, students face sanctions that can be detrimental to their futures, ranging from loss of study abroad privileges to suspension or even expulsion. With such weighty consequences hanging in the balance, institutionally-facilitated uncertainty and inconsistency are simply unacceptable. To remove the flaws inherent in a “more likely than not” standard, the Georgetown University Student Association successfully lobbied the DRC for the adoption of “clear and convincing” as the new measure of evidence for determining liability. With this new standard comes a focus on concrete evidence rather than probability. The Code of Conduct’s Ethos Statement maintains that “as a Catholic and Jesuit community, Georgetown places special emphasis on the dignity and worth of every person and the love of truth.” A higher standard of proof was necessary to preserve our student rights, our dignity and our love for truth. Peer institutions such as Duke, Cornell and Penn, along with the Georgetown University Law Center, already use this
“clear and convincing” standard. In fact, here at Georgetown this requirement was already the code’s standard for appeals. While students were being held responsible on the probability that they “more likely than not” violated the code, they were, and still are, expected to reach the “clear and convincing” threshold of evidence to prove their case was mishandled. This imbalance is but one way the code used to be tilted against students — the adoption of the new standard is a way to rebalance the scales. With the greater certainty offered by the new standard, students can have more confidence in the ability of the disciplinary process to result in just outcomes. In the past students have often felt helpless in the face of a conviction, and students who were wrongly found responsible were often dissuaded from appealing because of the steeper burden of proof that they would face. Removing this imbalance will improve the integrity of the process. What’s more, the “clear and convincing” standard will help the hall directors, administrators and students on the Residential Judicial Council who hear disciplinary cases. Adjudicators will no longer be obligated to make narrow and often insufficiently informed calls about whether or not it is probable that a student is guilty of what he has been accused of — they will have to be absolutely certain. If all goes as expected, the new standard of proof should result in fewer convictions. Georgetown should be comfortable with this outcome. Preserving the dignity of students and the university’s commitment to truth must be the chief aim as we, as a community, work to become better men and women for others. Now that the DRC has voted to raise the burden of proof, the recommendation will go to Todd Olson, vice president for student affairs and dean of students, for a final decision. We hope that Olson accepts the recommendations of the DRC. If the university’s standard of proof remains arbitrary and capricious, the integrity of the entire disciplinary system is compromised, and it will neither garner the respect nor contribute to the education of students. The adoption of the “clear and convincing” standard is a major victory for students and for the integrity of the disciplinary process.
JAMES PICKENS is a senior in the College. He is the founder and former Co-Director of the Student Advocacy Office. SAM SCHNEIDER is a junior in the College. He is the current Co-Director of the Student Advocacy Office and a member of The Hoya’s Board of Directors.
VIEWPOINT • Dan Healy
Palin 2.0 an Unlikely VP Choice Journalism Program W A Major Shortcoming G
ith Mitt Romney having nicely sewn up the Republican presidential nomination, there is one major question mark left to salivate over: Whom will Romney pick as his running mate? Before giddily poring over the prospective individuals on his short list, I find it interesting to explore the process adopted by the Romney campaign. Some have speculated that Romney will name his running mate relatively early in order to consolidate his base, energize his campaign and turn the page on the divisive primary contests. That is likely wishful thinking by a ravenous media. Instead, you can count on an exhaustive, comprehensive and extended process that will prioritize the working relationship between Romney and his number two — both on the campaign trail and in a Romney administration. If you’re like me and enjoyed the “Game Change” book and movie, you caught a glimpse of running mate vetting at its worst. John McCain’s campaign exercised appallingly little scrutiny of Sarah Palin beyond the most superficial prospectus. The result spoke for itself. You can expect the Romney campaign to diligently avoid this McCain model and go out of its way to nitpick and finesse its ultimate decision. There are two diametric models of selecting a running mate. On the one hand, you seek someone who complements you in terms of geography, personality or experience. The Kennedy-Johnson ticket exemplified this model, with its regional balancing and contrast of character between the two men. Such a ticket can attract broad support but risks sending schizophrenic messages and creating antipathy and discord between the running mates. On the other hand, a presidential candidate sometimes seeks another version of himself to reinforce the core message of the campaign. No better case of this exists than the partnership
between Bill Clinton and Al Gore, two moderate young Southerners from neighboring states. Here, the benefit is a cogent message and a strong working partnership on the ticket. Yet it risks presenting a monochromatic message that inhibits outreach to diverse constituencies. Let’s say Romney opts for the first model. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tops most people’s lists. Young, telegenic, Latino and from a mega swing state, Rubio would be the ultimate complement to Romney. Other choices include Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.), another popular Hispanic conservative from a swing state, and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), who is young, popular and represents diversity in the GOP. This category is rich with potential
Sam Dulik
You can expect the Romney campaign to diligently avoid the McCain VP model. candidates who balance out Romney in terms of race, ideology and geographic base. They all feature immense risk but the potential for a big Election Day payoff. But at this point, I doubt Romney will go this direction. McCain was a risk-taker and a romantic, while Romney is fastidious, cautious and unlikely to make the same mistake as McCain. Throughout his political career, Romney has placed a high premium on personal loyalty and wonkish hard work, and I am convinced that he will
look for an individual who shares his values. With that in mind, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) could be an outstanding choice. The hugely popular, intelligent and personable senator hails from the crucial Cincinnati area of a swing state, but Portman is vulnerable for having been a lead contributor behind some of George Bush’s unpopular fiscal policies. Even so, I like his odds. I can also see Romney tapping Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.), former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) or Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) to fill the bottom half of his ticket. A supernova pick might be House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), whose visit to Georgetown yesterday underscored his flourishing political profile. A darling of conservatives thanks to his courageous and innovative plans on entitlement programs and fiscal policy, Ryan is young, dynamic and personable but simultaneously an intellectual and a workhorse. Although Democrats have worked to demonize his good name, Ryan as a candidate for vice president could inject some youth and vigor into the GOP ticket while rounding out the heavy emphasis on policy chops and intellectual prowess. All said, Romney might surprise everyone with a dark horse pick, such as Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) or Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). In presidential politics, unpredictability reigns. Romney’s choice can easily be dictated by the media coverage he receives, polling data or developments in current events. However, I have a hunch that we’ll see the number two slot filled with someone who has more in common with Romney than the two have differences.
Sam Dulik is a junior in the School of Foreign Service. He is the director for special events for the Georgetown University College Republicans. This is the last appearance of QUORUM CALL for this year.
eorgetown offers an impressive array of majors across its four undergraduate schools, including such disparate areas as medieval studies and international political economy. Yet among all these possibilities, one standard area of study remains conspicuously absent — journalism. The Hoya reported in February that Georgetown had announced plans to introduce a minor in journalism, to becoming available to students in the fall of 2012 (The Hoya, “Journalism Minor Now Accepting Applications,” A1, Feb. 7, 2012). This is an improvement, but it is not nearly sufficient. It is surprising and disappointing that a school of Georgetown’s caliber does not offer a journalism major, which would offer considerable benefits to both current students and the university’s reputation. A more expansive journalism program would be appealing to high school applicants who are interested in Georgetown but concerned about the lack of a formal journalism major. As college admissions becomes increasingly competitive across the country, Georgetown ought to use every tool at its disposal to attract a diverse and talented applicant pool. A journalism major will further solidify Georgetown’s position as one of the leading universities in the country while ensuring that the university’s academic focus is not perceived to be one-dimensional. Establishing a journalism major would also allow Georgetown students to take full advantage of a city that is one of the nation’s preeminent hubs for media activity. The District of Columbia is home to some of the titans of both old and new media, from The Washington Post and the Gallup polling organization to the as-
sortment of new media covering Capitol Hill, yet Georgetown still lacks a journalism major that could have the potential to tap into the wealth of experience and inspiration available in D.C. Georgetown is also recognized across the country as a great university for students who are politically active. The school’s strength in politics naturally lends itself to an interest in journalism, as the media is intimately connected with the political arena. Students who are pursuing careers in politics would benefit from a greater understanding of how journalists perform their jobs. The existence of a journalism major would also help cultivate a more active and informed student body on the Hilltop. A good proportion of Georgetown students stay up to speed on current events, so they would already be prepared for the civic engagement that studying journalism requires. Furthermore, these students would have outlets to immediately apply the skills that they learn in the classroom by participating in Georgetown’s studentrun media. Instituting a journalism minor was undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but it still leaves Georgetown’s academic opportunities lacking. The journalism minor alone will not draw prospective students to Georgetown, nor will it result in sufficient build-up of the necessary number of faculty in the department. A major, on the other hand, would enable students to gain the full benefits of both D.C. and Georgetown’s scholastic resources. Georgetown students need and deserve a full journalism major. DAN HEALY is a junior in the College.