The Vassar ChroniCle

What Should Constitutional Reform Look Like?

Vol. XX, Issue 3 April 5, 2011

Debate VSA repreSentAtion: DelegAte or truStee? 16 Vassar JuD. BoArD weighS in on VSA AmenDmentS 3

INSIDE THE MIND OF COL. GADDAFI

arts & Culture page 7

the VASSAr ChroniCle

Table of ConTenTs
Vassar & Local Arts & Culture National Affairs Foreign Affairs Debate & Discourse The Last Page ediTor-in-Chief senior ediTors
Jeremy Bright Matthew Brock Steve Keller

The Vassar Student Association is currently working on revising its Constitution, much to the dismay of a large portion of the student body.

Vassar Chronicle

3 7 8 11 16 20

sTaff ediTorial

VSA constitutional reform inherently flawed

his past week, the Vassar Student Association (VSA) failed to pass constitutional reform that sought to remove House Presidents from the VSA Council and replace them with class senators. Though well-intentioned in their aim of creating a more efficient student government, the rejected legislation was flawed from the outset. Nonetheless, the VSA constitution must be reformed on a fundamental level, and hopefully this legislation will be an impetus for such reform. Here are a few suggestions about which future leaders of the VSA should think deeply. First and foremost, the VSA Executive Board should recuse itself from its voting position at the head of the VSA Council. As members-at-large, they are not accountable to a specific constituency and are therefore the least visible members of the Council. Thus, they are free to act behind the scenes in a manner contrary to the wishes of the student body as a whole, as demonstrated by their refusal to heed the massive outcry from the student body in response to their proposed amendments. Furthermore, they are able to use their status as the leaders of Councilas the oldest and most experienced members of Councilto exert undue pressure over the Council and force them to adhere to the wishes of the Executive Board, perhaps even above those of their constituents. Moreover, should the Executive Board remove itself from the Council, there would be increased accountability to the student body because it would create checks and balances within student government. Under this improved model, the people proposing constitutional amendmentsthe Executive Boardwill not be the people voting on the amendments. Instead, they will have to produce amendments that the majority of the class and residence hall representatives can actually support,

which was not the case two Sundays ago when they split fifty-fifty for and against the changes. Beyond accountability, one point that was continually brought up throughout this process was that the VSA Executive Board was overworked. For this problem, there is a simple fix: Separate the Executive Board from the Council, which should be a purely legislative body. This point of contention has not been analyzed or written on publicly, even though it would bring the VSA in line with the model of governance used by most successful governments of the world. We at The Chronicle were further perplexed by the notion that these changes should be accepted despite their flaws because of the superficial claim that they will allow more so-called activists to serve on the VSA Council. The idea behind this proposal is that senators, unlike House Presidents, will run on a platform, promising to address specific issues. We would first like to point out that House Presidents are perfectly capable of running on a platformmany students specifically run for this position out of a desire to participate in Counciland there is nothing inherent to the position of senator that makes it more likely to attract activists. Even if this new system could ensure activism, someone on Council needs to explain why activism is unconditionally positive. What do we expect this new council to be activists for, and how will this benefit their constituents? One idea that came up at the VSA meeting at which the changes were debated was that the VSA could take a stance on hydraulic fracturing. Hydrofracking, a means of drilling for natural gas that can have harmful consequences for the environment, is currently banned in New York State. However, the moratorium may be lifted later this year and hydrofracking may be used to drill for

gas within the state. If the New York State government fails to stop hydraulic fracturing, the question then becomes, what can the Vassar student government possibly accomplish? We highly doubt that a resolution signed by the VSA will weign upon the state legislature. Furthermore, how do students benefit from this activism? Council paints a picture in which every member of the VSA is trying to pursue his or her own pet cause, which seems entirely counterproductive. Council, by its own admission, barely has enough time to deal with Vassar-related issues as it stands. Bringing activism into the equation will only serve to further bog down the Council and make them even less productive. The VSA exists primarily to serve as the student bodys liaison to the administration and to advocate policies that will help improve the student experiencea function that they will be unable to fulfill if they are to busy focusing on their activist causes. In conclusion, we would like to encourage the Council to make sure that the student body truly understands and supports these changes. At Council, representatives seemed to be divided into two categories. One group consulted their constituents, found that the majority opposed the changes, and voted against the amendments. The other group did not once mention polling their constituentsmaybe citing anecdotal evidence from conversations with friendsvoted in favor of the changes because they as individuals supported them. The VSA Council is elected to represent usVassars students. We hope that they remember this charge as they move forward into the referendum process and work to continue the conversation. The Staff Editorial has been agreed upon by at least 70 percent of the Chronicles Editorial Board.

ProduCTion & design CoPy & sTyle Vassar & loCal naTional affairs foreign affairs debaTe & disCourse CoPy assisTanTs debaTe & disC. assT. researCher illusTraTors

William Serio Alaric Chinn Jessica Tarantine Michelle Cantos Lane Kisonak Ethan Madore Kathryn Bauder Andrew Bloom Stephen Loder Nathan Tauger Michael Greene Jamee Bateau Tian-An Wong

Letters Policy: The Vassar Chronicle encourages its readers to voice their opinions by writing Letters to the Editor, several of which will be selected for publication in each issue without regard to the authors race, religion, sex, gender, sexual identity, or ideology. Please address correspondence to MICA.vsa@vassar.edu. Advertising Policy: All advertisements will be clearly demarcated as such. Contact MICA.vsa@ vassar.edu for rates. All material is subject to editors discretion, without regard for race, religion, or sex. Nota bene: The opinions published in The Vassar Chronicle do not necessarily represent those of the editors, except for the Staff Editorial, which is supported by at least 70 percent of the Editorial Board. M.I.C.A. is a student umbrella organization that aims to further moderate, independent, conservative, and libertarian thought on campus by sponsoring events designed to expand the breadth of Vassars political dialogue; to this end, M.I.C.A. produces The Vassar Chronicle. Contact MICA.vsa@vassar.edu to become involved with the club.

our eDitorS StAnD BehinD their puBliCAtion.

win 25
for eACh miStAke founD in

The Vassar ChroniCle

miCA.VSA@VASSAr.eDu

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 2

Constitutional changes challenge Judicial Board oversight Judicial Board rediscovers its supervisory role in VSA
Alaric Chinn, Copy Editor Lane Kisonak, National Affairs Editor

VASSAr & loCAl

wo Sundays ago, we had the opportunity to observe the student and Vassar Student Association (VSA) debates on the far-reaching Constitutional arguments regarding VSA senators and House presidents. At one point in the debates, a request was raised to place the constitutional amendments on a referendum to be placed on a ballot. As such, the wording for student referenda was brought up on an overhead projector. However, as two trained members of the Judicial Board, we noticed something in the language that we were compelled to investigate further. Ask any random student walking through the quad on one of this years uniquely brisk spring days what the Judicial Board does, and youll probably hear something along the lines of, They sit on academic panels if a professor thinks you might have plagiarized, or, Theyre the ones you sit across from when you got caught smoking weed in your dorm last weekend, but most likely youll just get a blank stare upon mentioning one of the least visible but most essential branches of student government at Vassar College. Having a combined three years of experience on the Judicial Board in its roles within the Academic Panel, College Regulations Panel, VSA Judicial Board and the Student Conduct Panel, we are perturbed by the broad lack of awareness of the multitude of responsibilities which have been delegated to the Board both by the VSA Constitution and Bylaws and by the Vassar College Regulations. It is difficult to cast blame on the student body for its unfamiliarity with the Boards role in affairs ranging from breaches of academic integrity to violations of safety codes to the hearing of disputes between VSA organizations. One will most likely only hear from a Judicial Board representative during elections as they campaign for votes in a four-day window, bringing the Board into the public eye ever so briefly. On the nonVSA side of things, Associate Director of Residential Life Rich Horowitz notes that we currently rely pretty heavily on students taking the initiative to read the Student Handbook in order to get info about the student conduct system. Horowitz is eager to include other ways to increase general knowledge of the Boards purpose within the system. A primary purpose of the student conduct systemaside from working to provide a safe and respectful environment, Horowitz says, is to cultivate mindfulness among students as it pertains to behavioral decision-making. From our experience sitting on dozens of panels over the past two years, it seems accurate to say that the Boards representatives perform their duties discerningly and with great discipline, reinforcing Vassars ideals of communityliving through deliberate readings of College Regulations and consideration of the evidence presented before the student and faculty representatives who preside over hearings.

The case-by-case effectiveness of the Judicial Board does not translate into broad student awareness of its functions; however, the average students sole contact with the Board occurs when he or she has been brought before a panel to answer specific, situational questions in a fully confidential environment. In contrast with meetings of the VSA Council, the Miscellany News is not brought in to live-blog Judicial Board hearings. Judicial Boards confidential nature at once particularizes the role of the Board in the mind of each student who encounters it and limits the visibility of the body in comparison to the entities charged with policymaking and event-planning, such as the VSA, Class Councils, and House Teams. Furthermore, most of the Boards capabilities are only brought to bear on the residential and administrative side, despite the clear role constructed for it by the VSA Constitution in Articles IX and; among the Boards most important duties are to ensure the compliance of VSA legislation with [the] Constitution (IX.2.C) and to review the VSA Constitution and the VSA Bylaws and advise the VSA Council of problems or inconsistencies therein (IX.2.D). Additionally the Board can mediate disputes between and groups and individuals and has a role in aspects of the electoral process. In the past two years the Judicial Board has heard only two cases relating to VSA organizations and enforcement of the Bylaws, a surprising statistic when one considers we have over a hundred separate organizations. Among the student body, however, the Board has heard 57 cases within its Student Conduct and College Regulations roles in the past year alone. While this comparison suggests that the Judicial Board has been under-utilized in the VSA context, it wasnt until the VSA Council Meeting of Mar. 27, and a subsequent meeting between members of the VSA Executive Board and members of the Judicial Board, that the gap the Board had to fill was truly made apparent.

A special meeting of the Judicial Board concerning the Constitutional Referendum.

Lane Kisonak, Vassar Chronicle

In fact, we discovered that the VSA was operating under a Constitution that was not publicly available through conventional means.
Both of us were present at the Mar. 27 meeting, a gathering which evoked a multitude of emotions among Council members and drew a sizable audience. The anticipation grew through the hours as house presidents voiced the opinions of their constituencies, and it became clear with each passing word that a vote was soon to come. Sometime around 11:30 p.m. a motion was brought to the floor to push the politically charged Constitutional amendments, including the creation of Class Senators, to a referendum. At this point, displayed on the projector screen in the front of the room was a document titled Student Referenda. As the Council discussed moving to implement a referendum, it dawned on us that there was a problem with their plan; mem-

bers of the Executive Board had hoped to begin the referendum by April 8 so that there would be sufficient time before elections to bring potential VSA candidates up to speed if students were to ratify the amendments. Unfortunately, visible to those of us in the audience was a slight contradiction between the letter of the law and the proposal at hand: C. Questions must be submitted to the Judicial Board no later than two weeks before filing takes place. The period running from after Mar. 27 to April 8 came out to 12 days which, one would think, would have put the Council past the deadline. When we broached the question, VSA Vice President for Student Life Samin Shehab 11 responded: In this case, we would bypass the Judicial Board. He justified this on the following passage: D. Any member of the VSA Council shall have the power to request a referendum. A two-thirds majority affirmative vote of Council is required to place the question on the ballot. To anyone reading the document, it would seem that a referendum from the VSA Council under Section D is not exempt from the two-week rule in Section C. The Executive Board, however, moved to interpret the law in the opposite fashion and the vote unfoldedunsuccessfully, we are thankful to say. Unable to determine in the frenetic environment of the Council meeting whether or not this argument could be legitimately applied, we went to Chair of the Judicial Board Shouvik Bhattacharya 11 to figure out what steps to take next. Bhattacharya believes that training for the Judicial Board completely ignores the VSA aspects of its role. In the long term, he asserts that this needs to be corrected. What we found out in the day following the VSA meeting was disconcerting; the Student Referenda document in question, ostensibly a part of the VSA Constitution, was nowhere to be found in the version of the Constitution posted on the VSAs website. In fact, we discovered that the VSA was operating under a Constitution that was not publicly available through conventional

means. When we convened with Shehab and VSA President Mathew Leonard 11 that night, we discovered further discrepancies between the Constitution as available for public consumption and the version accessible to Council members, the most obvious gaps relating to procedures concerning student referenda and special elections, topics we spent the bulk of our time discussing. The Judicial Board plans to further review the Constitution and reassess its role in the context of VSA policy-making. Bhattacharya envisions a future for the Judicial Board in which it actively engages its hitherto ignored mandate of ensuring the compliance of VSA legislation with the governing documents rather than only staff the many important panels it serves on. If the Council had brought in the Judicial Board during the months leading up to March 27th to assess the eventuality of a referendum, is it not more likely that there would be one Constitution rather than two? All functioning governments, including the VSA, are obligated to make clear to its constituency what initiatives it is taking, especially when they are as allencompassing as the changes proposed in the constitutional amendments about to be put to referendum. At Vassar this can be achieved in part by keeping the Judicial Board in the loop and, even more importantly, by introducing new members of the community to all the institutions which are relevant to their lives. Each student would benefit from understanding that the Judicial Boardlike the VSA, House Teams, and the administrationhas a unique role in shaping policy, checking and balancing other institutions, and providing scrutiny and transparency. It would do the VSA well to realize this in future years, and it would do the Judicial Board equally well to extend its efforts toward outreach, now that the need for its capabilities has been made clear. Alaric Chinn 13 and Lane Kisonak 13 are representatives from the Class of 2013 on the Judicial Board.

pAge 3

ChroniCle, April 2011

VSA org funding overlooked in constitutional amendments

Matthew Brock Senior Editor

VASSAr & loCAl

ver the past semester, the Vassar Student Association (VSA) has been working to make itself more efficient. While most students at Vassar no doubt feel that this is an admirable goal, many of us believe that they are proceeding in the wrong way. Right now, I would like to look past the debate over senators or house presidents, and examine the issue that I believe should truly be streamlined: VSA organizations and their funding. For most Vassar students, the only contact they have with the VSA is when they are asking for funding for their organizations. Unfortunately, this process is necessary for all organizationseven Vassar College Entertainment (ViCE) whose annual budget is north of $100,000. They simply do not get enough funding at the start of the year to pay for all of their operations. Whats worse, the VSA is constantly faced with conflict over whether or not to certify a new organization given that it would eventually take up some of the alreadyscarce funding. This current system is hazardous both to current organizations financial health and to future organizations that the VSA may simply be unable to afford. I propose that the VSA devise a tiered system for organization budgeting that would allow them to prioritize certain organizations in the budgeting process to make sure that the

student activity fee is used as efficiently as possible to maximize student enjoyment. Consider a three-tiered system, similar to the one used by the Student Union at Brandeis University, where I spent my freshman year. At the top, they have what they call secured clubs who get the first crack at budgeting. At Vassar, this would include organizations that are deemed to be central to campus culture, such as The Miscellany News or any of the major cultural or religious organizations. What secured status means is that these organizations would be considered for budgeting before any of the others, and awarded funds based on their needs, not on scarcity, in order to ensure that they can continue supplying their much-needed service. The second tier would comprise the majority of organizations, which would receive funding the way all organizations do now. They would apply for a set amount, based on their perceived expenses, and would then be awarded a sum which takes into account both their need as well as the total amount of funds available. Last, at the bottom, would be organizations that were not entitled to any budgeting but could apply to the VSAs special purpose funds and would otherwise be entitled to all of the privileges of being an official VSA organization, such as being able to reserve rooms and table in the College Center. The main benefit of a tiered system is that it would make it much easier for students to start organizations. I have seen students ap-

pear before the VSA many times, asking them to approve their organization, and promising that they wont actually request money. Unfortunately, many organizations make this promise and then renege without any penalty, so certain members of the VSA may be reluctant to vote in favor of authorizing the new org. Under my proposed system, however, there would be checks in place to ensure that the organization could never request budgeting, so the VSA would not have to think twice about certifying these new organizations. For instance, say I wanted to found a film appreciation society, in which the members offered to supply all of their own movies or to rent them from the Library, so it would have virtually no operating costs, but we would still want to be a VSA org so we could reserve screening rooms. The VSA would treat this proposal under the suspicion that the club may one day request budgeting, and may deny us org status based on that logic. However, under a tiered system they would have an assurance that we would never request budgeting. If one day, this film club realized that it needed to buy the rights to the films it shows and therefore needs a budget, it would have to reapply for second-tier status on the platform that it most definitely does plan on requesting funding, and then Council would assess the application taking this fact into account. Moving on, even if an organization did try to apply to be a regular, funded organization, it would likely have an easier time being approved because it would be competing for

funding with fewer organizations, given that a certain percentage would likely be unfunded and because the VSA could be assured that there were protections in place for the most essential organizations even if there were fewer funds to go around. Finally, this system would benefit the campus as a whole by ensuring that, no matter what, the organizations that are integral to Vassar culturethat provide essential services to the campuswould be protected no matter what. Under this system, there is no risk that a budget crisis might force the VSA to change The Miscellany News back to The Miscellany Monthly, or to consolidate the Asian Students Alliance and the South Asian Students Alliance. While the VSA currently fights within itself over whether or not House Presidents can really be expected to put their full effort into being members of the Council, I hope that they are able to pause and consider types of reform that could benefit students in a very real and direct way. While the system that I propose in this article is far from perfect, I hope that it gives the Council a new perspective on how it can reinvent the VSA in such a way that truly maximizes the benefits for its constituents without tampering with Councils representative structure. Matthew Brock 11 is Senior Editor of The Vassar Chronicle and Contributing Editor of The Miscellany News. He is studying political science and public policy.

Come for the food, not the event: The problem of free pizza
Ethan Madore Debate & Discourse Editor

f you go to a college like Vassar then you know this story. Its the point of freshman year sometime after your eighty-seventh round standing in line at the Eggs-All-Day station. You go with your roommate to the Religion Department interest meeting; its in the Rose Parlor and catered by Thai Spice. The professors introduce themselves, then you all go around and say your interest in religion. Western mystical traditions, says the girl in the blue pea coat. Shinto folklore, states the bulked man in the curry-stained shirt. Early Christianity, announces your roommate. So, whats your interest? The professors ask. South-East Asian cuisines, I confess. I would have gone to the Last Supper for the bread and wine. I go to many events for the food, and working on the assumption that my friends and I are not exceptions. I think its a campus-wide phenomenon. The practice of going places just to take the food, listen to a speaker, and then leaving seems second nature to those who care to survive the horrors of campus dining. It is not that I dont occasionally learn something from an eventonce or twice the experience might have even stuck with mebut I am mostly unengaged attendance at well-catered events; another stomach. Drifting from event to event for hungers sake leaves a certain guilt on the mind. I would like to see myself as someone who

could be genuinely interested in all the events causes, but oftentimes the knowledge of my own self-interest prevents true involvement. The hosts of the events know me, they put on their events at meal times, advertize the fact that there will be free food almost more prominently than what the event is about. They hope that I, the unfaithful drawn in by carnal promises alone, can change. I will hear their words, let them hit my heart, and join the cause. Its happenedmaybe once. In the end, their job is often to create attendance, produce the feeling that the event is wellreceived. Thus we sit and eat largely in silencepied pipers and gluttons united in guilt. A few weeks ago, The Miscellany News carried an article in which one of their reporters was able to go an entire week at Vassar only eating free food given out at events. She was hungry, at times, but by no means starved. A glance at any bulletin board on campus can serve as evidence to the fact that organizations lead students by their stomachs. As President of the Vassar Debate Society, I feel the temptation to buy into our free pizza culture, to lure in the masses with Bacios and claim a massive growth when its time to apply for next years budget. More pizza, more people, more money, more pizza. Theres a certain ego you adopt when you run an orgyou feel like what your group does is the most essential thing on campusthat all people need to be drawn in to hear it. This leads to a do-anything to create attendance strategy of leading which is destructive to the organization and to the Vassar Student

By Jamee Bateau

Association (VSA) structure at large. It frightens me how much of the student activities fee must go in the mouths and down the throats of our students. We need to recognize that giving orgs money just to create attendance relies upon circular logic and denies orgs that offer substantive programming the budget they needthat it forces orgs to resort to compete for these false signs of success to get VSA money. The VSA should adopt a standard of strict scrutiny when refunding orgs for

their food purchases. Food should make sense. A good example is the recent hunger banquet put on by Hunger Action, which demonstrated a central point through use of a meal. It would also make sense for an a cappella group to be refunded for food on the road to a concert or for the Catholic Community to hold an Easter brunch. But do we need our free pizza at every other lecture and open forum? Successful orgs that can create engaging programming can do without.

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 4

Cuomos budget harsh but necessary given economic reality Activists, opponents should rethink their position on deficit
Todd Densen Contributor

VASSAr & loCAl

everal outraged Vassar students rallied peers to storm the capital Wednesday as the New York State Legislature was poised to pass Governor Andrew Cuomos controversial budget proposal any day now. The budget, which was successfully passed on Friday, Mar. 31, was the second timely budget since 1984the other being in 2006. This comes as a relief to some following last years budget, which was delayed 125 days beyond the Mar. 31st deadline. What has not been so welcome about Cuomos budget are the large cuts in spending it calls for. Cuomos proposal, which holds strong support in Albany, marks the first budget to cut overall spending in 15 years. The $132.5 billion proposal would cut spending by 2 percent and close a $10 billion deficit. Additional pressure for these cuts is fueled by the sunsetting of $5 billions in federal bailout money that will no longer be paid to the state. The plan decisively imposes no new taxes, but instead makes large cuts, primarily in Medicaid ($2 billion) and education ($1.2 billion). Additionally, New York City anticipates it will receive about $1 billion less in state aid this fiscal year. A frustrated Mayor Michael Bloomberg, facing an imposing city budget crisis as well, has not been on board with the governors plan since it was made public last month. Bloomberg projects that the cuts could leave 4,700 teachers out of a job this year in New York City alone. The budget has prompted numerous workers rights groups and a fair number of citizens to march on Albany against the spending cuts. While many reports find these cuts regrettable, the budget as a whole is being touted as a great success for the governor and the statea notion that is difficult to disagree with. In the past few years, problems have escalated. Two governors have publically admitted and apologized for having extra-marital affairs. Eliot Spitzer, as many recall, was busted for patronizing a major prostitution ring and resigned from office. Governor David Paterson on the other hand, although slightly better behaved, perpetuated an air of futility, as he was unable to pass any significant social legislation and only further escalated the states financial woes. To top it off, in the summer of 2009, state Republicans organized a successful coup, seizing control of the State Senate, an event that resulted in Democrats scrambling around the capital locking doors, turning out lights, and cutting off Internet connection to the senate chambers in an attempt to mitigate the shocking shift in power. In the end everyone looked bad, and youd be hard pressed to find anything positive to come out of Albany in recent memory. Gov. Cuomo won the 2010 election with overwhelming support, with the hopes that he could end the circus that the

state government has become. A bipartisan budget delivered and agreed upon by members from both sides of the aisle that will pass on time and cut the deficit is certainly a strong symbolic gesture for the new governor. Beyond the significant change Cuomos budget metaphorically represents, the document itself ought to be lauded, not protested. It is quite clear that the budget proposal received stronger than expected support from both parties within both the Assembly and Senate. Few expected the budget to be approved so soon. Also, a recent Siena Poll showed strong approval ratings continuing to follow the governor, his favorable/unfavorable rating is 69 percent over 20 percent. Support was equally strong from Democrats and Republicans. And when asked to rate his performance on the budget as either excellent, good, fair, poor, 50 percent ranked him as good or better, 85 percent as fair or better, and only 9 percent believing him to have done a poor job. This support may come as a surprise to some in light of the proposed cuts, but the cuts are indeed warranted. New York has one of the most generous Medicaid programs in the country and typically runs the state around $53 billion each year. Additionally, that number does not include any federal funding, that is the cost unique to New Yorkers. It is more than twice the national average per capita, and considering the entire new budget is only $132.5 billion in total, it is clear just how costly the Medicaid program is. It accounts for over a third of the state budget. The specific cuts to Medicaid are still relatively unknown outside of the capital, but speculation is that many will be targeted at eliminating bureaucracy. Cuomo has reached out to members of New Yorks health care union and hospital lobby to advise in how best to reform Medicaid spending.

The New York State Capitol Building houses the New York State Legislature.

Flikr.com

Few remember that before this years budget cuts, the state government has awarded over $7 billion in budget increases to education in the decade prior.
The cuts being made in state aid to education have drawn plenty criticism from all directions. The teachers union especially has been critical of the proposed cuts. Much of the education debate is marred with misinformation and rhetoric. The facts are that in 2007-2008, New York spent $17,173 per student on public education. This not only ranks as the highest amount in the nation, but it is substantially (67 percent) higher than the national average ($10,259). In the years since then public education has continued to enjoy high and consistent budget increases. Despite this massive amount of spending, New York public schools are mediocre at best compared to the rest

of the nation. According to the Morgan Quitno Press Smartest School State Rankings New York ranked as high as sixth in 2004-2005, but then fell to tenth in 2005-2006 and tumbled again to sixteenth in the most recent rankings from 2006-2007. Many also forget that the cuts have already been scaled back from their original proposed levels. Originally the cuts to education were slated to be $1.5 billion, but over $270 million was recovered from the original draft of the budget released in February. Institutions of higher education, SUNY and CUNY, also recovered an additional $80+ million dollars from the initial figures. While opponents of this cut will toss around rhetoric about how the cuts hurt our children, quite the opposite may in fact be true. It is true that many teachers will lose their jobs, but this gives the state an opportunity to end the widely unpopular and damaging last hired, first fired policy the teachers union and New York State law has been operating on. The law does not permit any merit-based judgment when deciding which teachers to retain when the cuts are made. The only factor that matters is seniority. This policy has kept non-performing and complacent teachers in jobs for years, while young, innovative and successful educators are turned away. This archaic policy will likely be ended with the passage of the budget. Of course cuts to Medicaid and education will be felt, but it is easy to forget how bloated the two systems are within New York. Few remember that before this years budget cuts, the state government has awarded over $7 billion in budget increases to education in the decade prior. The reality is, government has become too accustomed to overspending and underperforming in key areas. New York needs to become more efficient with health care, and more innovative with education. Hard times force changes for the better. It is hard to say that cutting funding would be beneficial, but I think it is clear that considering the financial

situation the state is in, there is no other option. It is refreshing to see a balanced budget that exercises restraint. Cuomo really ought to be applauded for not invoking one of the many shady accounting techniques or quick fixes used in the past that got us into this mess. Past budgets have relied on borrowing from the state pension fund ($6 billion). This is a very contentious point on the governors budget. The plan ends a temporary tax surcharge that had been placed on earners of above $200,000 for the past few years. Many even believe additional taxes on income or consumer products should be used to prevent widespread cuts. There are several major problems with this philosophy. New York is already the most taxed state in the nation. Part of the reason the tax surcharge is not being renewed is because it generates $1 billion less than projected last year and actually contributed to the deficit in doing so. It is becoming harder and harder to keep people with human capital, high earners, high taxpayers, to stay and live in a state where the cost of living is so high. Youth are fleeing the state to other parts of the country. New York is thus in danger of a potential brain drain. Increasing taxes can no longer be the solution. In the long run as people leave the state, tax revenue will fall, but our expenses will continue to rise. We are simply borrowing against the future with such measures. The Cuomo plan is far from perfect, but in the twilight zone that is Albany it is a pretty fair and bull-nosed budget. Cutting the deficit, cutting it now, and cutting it by cutting funds to sectors that are underperforming relative to the rest of the nation is the tough kind of solution that an economy like this demands. Not only will the budget eliminate a $10 billion in deficit this year, but shifts forecasts from a $45 billion deficit in 2014 to just $4 billion. The budget proposal is expansive, but it is fair, and it is necessary. Todd Densen 12 is an economics major at Vassar College.

pAge 5

ChroniCle, April 2011

Nuclear power worth the cost to Indian Point residents

Tracy Brtt Contributor

VASSAr & loCAl

efore the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I never realized that I lived near a nuclear power plant. I was in the fifth grade when the attacks occurred a mere 30 miles from my cozy suburban town Ossining, New York. Suddenly, the fear of terrorism became very real, and the routine siren tests by Indian Point Energy Center turned into a sound that caused knots in my stomach. I began to wonder if the day would come when the wailing sirens would signify a true emergency. Would I have to abandon my home? What about my pets? What about my friends and family? My experience is not terribly unique there are thousands, if not millions, of people who live within the danger zone of a nuclear plant. For Indian Point, the Emergency Planning Zone lies within the 10-mile radius, on the border of which Ossining happens to lie. While my fears of a nuclear disaster heightened after Sept. 11, I gradually began to grow more comfortable with my situation. People do not think about the danger every day; rather, they benefit from the energy produced by the power plant. In that regard, Indian Point is a necessity. According to Indian Points official website, the plant provides 20 to 40 percent of the electricity in the New York metropolitan area. It is estimated that, without Indian Point, energy costs could rise by over $1 bil-

lion per year in the area. If Indian Point were to shut down, alternative forms of energy would have to be used and, more likely than not, such forms would include the burning of fossil fuels and the laying of new gas pipelines. Furthermore, Indian Point employs approximately 1,500 workers and, given the perpetually fragile state of the economy, one can imagine that would be quite difficult to find jobs for these displaced workers. As much as I would like to see Indian Point decommissioned because of its potential danger, it is apparent that this course of action would be extremely difficult, given the benefits that Indian Point provides as long as it is working efficiently. Still, I cannot shake the unnerving question of What if? What if something catastrophic did happen? What would my family do? Would all of the planning in the world really amount to anything once an emergency situation occurred? I am doubtful. In light of the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, nuclear power plantsparticularly Indian Pointhave made headlines. If Indian Point experienced a nuclear catastrophe similar to the plants in Japan, then a 50-mile evacuation would be necessary. Yes, that includes New York City, home to millions of people. Honestly, its grueling to get out of the Big Apple on a good day; it seems that a total evacuation of the City would be out of the question. At the same time, I believe the hype surrounding Indian Point has gotten a bit out

Indian Point, a nuclear power plant that sits on the banks of the Hudson River.

Flickr.com

of hand. Recent articles have pointed out that Indian Point resides within the Ramapo Fault zone, causing some commentators to suggest that major earthquakes are possible. The Indian Point website, however, cites Alec Gates, Professor of Geology at Rutgers University, who proclaims that the Ramapo fault is deadIt was a big fault in the old days, but not anymore. I honestly do not think that a catastrophe caused by an earthquake and/or tsunami like the one that has rocked Japan could ever occur at Indian Point. We cannot allow that

sort of unfounded fear to fuel potential efforts to shut down the plant. It is much more rational to cite actual possible dangers radiation leaks and other malfunctions, for example. Yesthere are times that I am terrified of a nuclear disaster happening in my own backyard, but so far, having weighed legitimate concerns against tangible benefits, it seems worth the risk. I do foresee the day when nuclear energy will not be needed, but until then, I sincerely hope that the mechanics behind it all function properly and safely.

Uncodified grading system at Vassar leads to confusion

Victoria Weiss Contributor

think many of us can agree that discussion-based classes have lot of inherent value and worth in the case of an liberal arts education, but often regrettably this discourse comes at the expense of clear grading practices. Unlike issues with particular professors and syllabi, the issue of ambiguous grading affects almost all Vassar students, unless of course you have a perfect 4.0. Consider a situation where you are assigned a major project that is worth a significant portion of your grade. The professor gives you a topic, but you are not quite sure how the professor wants you to explore the topic. Despite these unclear standards, you exert a substantial amount of effort, sacrifice a good deal of sleep, and even go to the Writing Center before you turn the paper in. Yet regardless of your diligence, your professor hands it back, and you get a B+/ A-. At this point, the grade leads to so many questions, but gives so few answers: What does the dreaded slash grade even mean? Is

it a B+ or an A-? How could such a hybrid even occur? Why cant professors stick to traditional grades? What social construct are we defying today? In my frustration and search for answers to these elusive questions, I went to the recent Vassar Today panel discussion on academics. First, the panel felt the need to give me the You shouldnt focus so much on grades speech, which I find disingenuous and ultimately unhelpful. Yes, I love learning. It certainly is a valid goal which is intertwined with the mission of the school. But this seems contradictory in light of many of the Colleges policies. If I hadnt focused so much on grades, I never would have gotten into Vassar, as the Admissions Office holds them in high regard. Additionally, if grades are so unimportant, why do professors even give them to us? Other viable solutions do exist. Why not give us written evaluations like Hampshire College? Do we really need to continue to cling to the idea of written grades to give meaning to our work? Along these lines, I was interested in what Ben Lotto, the Dean of Freshman and a professor in the math department, would say

about the importance of the professor. But, to put it nicely, I am not buying it. If grades are meant to be a means to an end, why are they continuing to be used as an end in of themselves? An end, after consideration seems as though its a standard which is used often arbitrarily and without consistency. Dean of Planning and Academic Affairs Rachel Kitzinger actually told me what she uses slash grades for. The first two reasons she gave make sense, given an explanation in the comments. First, Kitzinger says that often the first grade is the grade earned, and the second grade indicates the direction in which the grade is going. So, in the B+/ Aexample, the grade earned was a B+, but it is closer to an A- than a B. The second reason she gave was that the two grades are evaluating two different things, for example form and content. Lastly, the most confusing and seemingly most common reason is that professors are inventing new grades. Because of grade inflation, professors feel guilty to give grades below a B-, so they dont, and they make up grades. This follows with Lottos assertion that grading is an agonizing process that is often without purpose or consistency

among professors. While I am not going to address grade inflation, I know one thing that would make grading clearer and a more pleasant process: Grading rubrics. When professors hand out assignments, they should instruct their students how to be successful or, in other words, get an A. I admit that on some assignments it may be hard to describe what level of work deserves an A verses what deserves a B. If this is indeed the case, give us an example. Some professors could argue that this would stamp out originality and lead to boring, uncreative papers; but, professors could appropriate a certain portion of the grade to creativity and originality. Also, while rubrics need enough specificity to be clear, they can be vague enough to allow for individuality, like good paper topics. I know this is a fine line, but I feel as though if professors were to give rubrics, and stop giving slash grades (or at least explain them), they would receive better work. Ultimately, this would result in happier students who are less frustrated at a needlessly complicated grading system, the reform of which would also benefit the professors themselves.

nAtionAl & foreign AffAirS, ArtS & Culture, lASt pAge, AnD Copy eDitorS neeDeD.
miCA.VSA@VASSAr.eDu

Do you like whAt youre reADing? wAnt to Join the StAff of The Vassar ChroniCle?

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 6

book of The monTh

Jeremy Bright, Senior Editor Matthew Brock, Senior Editor Michael Greene, Researcher

ArtS & Culture

racy, he affirms. To remedy this, Gaddafi proposes a complex system of interlocking localized Popular Conferences and Peoples Committees, ranging down to the Basic Popular Conferences chosen from among the peoplethe purest embodiment of popular democracy. Without elections, parties, or parliaments, the people become the instrument of government, and the problem of democracy in the world is conclusively solved. However, the almost complete omission of any executive bodies in Gaddafis ideal state betrays the grave disconnect between theory and reality. The police and military forces utilized by Gaddafi in maintaining his absolute grip on power for 41 years are ominously alluded to in his closing lines. Recalling the logic of Thrasymachus, Gaddafi asserts that [The Jamahiriya] is genuine democracy but, realistically, the strong always rules. Thus, it becomes evident that Gaddafis philosophy is illustrative of his deeply contradictory character. This is a man who repeatedly asserts that he holds no political office, had himself crowned King of Africa, upholds democracy as the only true form of government and then uses his executive forces to violently crush dissent. Consistency is not Gaddafis strong suit. Part Two The Solution of the Economic Problem reads like a bad rendition of Marxs Das Kapital, in which Gaddafi outlines the problems of private property and the need for a socialist revolution. He begins with the traditional, socialist philosophy: Wage labor alienates the working class by taking away what they produce and giving it to the bourgeoisie. Moreover, not only does wage labor alienate the working class, enslaving them to the bourgeoisie, writes Gaddafi, it insults them because wage labor is merely a form of charity, and people should not be forced to accept charity. Instead, people should revert back to pre-industrial modes of production where they produce everything that they consume. Only then can the masses truly be free. Ironically, Gaddafis brand of socialism seems to be founded on private property. His assertion that people should make what they consume goes hand in hand with the claim that they should own everything that they consume. For instance, according to Gaddafi, housing is a fundamental need. When someone lives in a house that is not their owneither as a guest or a tenantit is therefore a form of slavery because they are dependent on the landlord. Gaddafis emphasis on ownership derives in large part from his belief that the economy is a zero-sum game, meaning there are just enough resources to fulfill everyones basic needs. Therefore, while people should receive everything that they need to survive, they should not be given any more than the bare minimum. Any form of savings or investment, Gaddafi argues, is a crime against humanity. If someone has money left over, past what they need to consume, then by Gaddafis reasoning, someone else must not have enough to fulfill their needs. This theory of a zero-sum economy ties into Gaddafis belief in private property and home ownership, because the entire landlord-tenant relationship is built on the premise that the landlord has more housing than he needs and the tenant does not own enough. This theory

Green Book provides insight into Libyan leaders philsophy

deological manifestos endure the test of time not only because of their meaningful impacts on historical events, but also because of the lessons they offer to posterity. Among such preeminent titles as Karl Marxs The Communist Manifesto, Mao Zedongs Little Red Book, and Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf, Muammar al-Gaddafis Green Book remains regrettably little known abroad, despite its centrality to political life in the Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The Jamahiriya, a neologism that plays on the traditional Arabic word for republicbest translated as Republic of the Massesis not your typical Peoples Republic, and The Green Book is not your typical political manifesto. In light of its recent rebellion and the UN-sponsored intervention, the media has focused extensively on Libya in recent weeks, but there has only been minimal in-depth coverage of the eccentric Gaddafi. Who is this man? What does he stand for? And why are so many people dead-set upon seeing him unseated? In order to answer these questions one must return to the primary sources, so as to complicate the one-dimensional image of Gaddafias-self-parody curried by an uncritical media. Written in 1975, six years after the September Revolution, Gaddafis opus consists of a compilation of mini-essays and aphorisms on various economic, social, and gendered issues. Prior to the current crisis, it had been widely available throughout Libya for a cheap price, and two hours of every school day were devoted to a study of The Green Book. Underscoring its centrality in society, Gaddafi often reads from the book at official events as he rambles off nationalist speeches. On the subject of bombastic prattle, Gaddafis writing style is to rhetorically repeat his important points ad nauseum for emphasis instead of unpacking his ideas and offering evidence. Laid out in fewer than 150 large-print, oneinch margin pages, this book is divided into three sections: The Solution of the Problem of Democracy, The Solution of the Economic Problem, and The Social Basis of the Third International Theory. We will address each point in turn. Part One In The Solution of the Problem of Democracy, Gaddafi outlines his ideal scheme of political organization: A form of mass democracy characterized by peoples committees. Confronting the vexing issue of the instruments of government, Gaddafi vehemently denounces political parties and parliaments. The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship, he asserts, a system based on propaganda and undemocratic assemblies ruled by a narrow segment of society. That a party can come to control government by attaining 51 percent of votes in an election is a dictatorial governing body in the guise of false democracy to the remaining 49 percent. Parliaments, as representatives are isolated from the people and merely serve party interest, are equally undemocratic; parliaments are similarly prone to factional struggles that prevent the will of the masses from being heard. Parliaments abort democ-

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has ruled over Libya for the past 41 years.

Flickr.com

is not unique to housinganyone who owns more of a given resource than they need to satisfy their immediate consumption must be taking those resources away from everyone else. Therefore, Gaddafis grand solution is a form of socialism that allows everyone to claim private ownership over the resources that they need to satisfy these immediate needs. In total, Gaddafis economic theory is enough to send the entirety of the Vassar College Economics Department into cardiac arrest. To start, Gaddafi assumes that there are only enough resources in the world to satisfy everyones basic needs, which is simply not the case. True, some countries have a more difficult time reaching this level of consumption than others, but Libya clearly has enough excess resources to fund Gaddafis $70 billion bank account, so it is safe to say that there are enough resources to go around. Furthermore, Gaddafis theory is counterproductive because the economy can only grow if people do consume more than they absolutely need and then look for new ways to spend their excess money. In the United States of America, when we buy that second car that we dont really need, the car company experiences an increase in demand which causes it to increase production. This in turn causes it to create new jobs which give money to more people who can in turn spend it on frivolous things. Only in this way can the economy grow. Should a society function in the way Gaddafi suggests, it would revert to the economic equivalent of the dark ages, but seeing as Gaddafi cites them as a golden era of production, that seems to be his intention. Part Three In The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theorywhich he fails to distinguish from the unenumerated First and SecondGaddafi traces the movement of history directly to the social factors that bind together the interests of the family, the tribe, the nation, and humanity at large, and offers his insights into the optimal social organization of society. At the base of this model, Gaddafi argues a posteriori that this relationship is strongest at the familial axis and weakens centrifugally. Accordingly, The Green Book stresses the importance of tribal affiliation and affairs, tribes being the optimal combination of loyalty and social organizationa social system which is strongly

institutionalized in the Jamahiriya, and a belief certainly unbiased by his descent from the ancient and powerful Gadhadhfa tribe of Sirte, who aided his coup. In framing the nature of Libyas social revolution, it is noteworthy that Gaddafi curiously constructs the world in a quasi-Orientalist paradigm of civilization, to which the people must climb to escape barbarity. For instance, he affirms that boxing and wrestling are evidence that mankind has not rid itself of all savage behavior, and that it will cease only when mankind ascends the ladder of civilization. Whether this obsession with conforming to a normative idea of civilization and escaping from supposed barbarism offers a window into the complex worldview of post-colonial African leaders, or whether it is simply another nonsensical framework constructed by Gaddafi remains unclear. In addition, Gaddafi offers the aphorism that there is no other solution but to be in harmony with the natural rule that each nation has one religion, for religious schisms threaten to split a strong society. Naturally, such a counterrevolutionary threat to the people necessitates judicial enforcement: Most mosques operate under the direct oversight of the government and conform to its politically-approved interpretation of Islam. By thus co-opting Islam into the essence of the nation and controlling and politicizing its doctrines, Gaddafi seeks to undermine the problem of Islam as ideology, which he asserts is the only rival to the social factor in influencing the peoples unity, though the social factor will eventually gain sway. Consequentially, approximately 97 percent of Libyas populace professes Sunni Islam the rest are foreigners. Of note, Libya has the largest proportion of Buddhists in North Africa, although there does not exist a single sanctioned temple so as to protect the people from democracys greatest threat: The ideas of Siddhartha Gautama. Frankly, it is amazing that the man who produced this political philosophythe Third Universal Theoryhas managed to hold on to power for over 40 years, let alone stave off wellarmed rebels and NATO air strikes, we would like to seriously underscore one idea: Americans need to learn more about this monumental world figure as well as his unique ideology, which is on par with that of any of historys most interesting figures.

pAge 7

ChroniCle, April 2011

Onward Christian soldiers? The political perversion of history

Michael Greene Researcher

nAtionAl AffAirS

peaking on February 22, 2011 at Oakbrook Preparatory School, a private Christian K-12 school in Spartanburg, South Carolina, potential Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum caused a stir, primarily among liberals, with contentious comments about the crusades and Americas place in the Middle East: The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely antihistorical, Santorum claimed, And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom. They hate Christendom. They hate Western civilization at the core. Thats the problem. This sound-bite, which was picked up across the Internet, was touted as evidence by such media outlets as the Huffington Post that the Republicans and the religious right are clinging to essentially medieval views of the Middle East, and are trying to guide our foreign policy toward toward more involvement in the region for misguided, intolerant purposes. Furthermore, Santorums belief that the United States is part of the nebulous entity he calls Christendom added further shock. Laying aside the hyperbolic and unproductive campaign trail rhetoric that liberals hate Christianity, Santorums comments yieldwhen viewed critically through the lens of a historianimportant lessons on how history and historical concepts are not static, but are constantly changing with each new (mis)application assigned to them by the media, scholars, and even politicians. As with any primary source, Santorums comments must be removed from the isolated, and potentially misleading realm of sound-bite, and put into a proper context. That the former senator chose to focus his remarks on faith should not be surprising, as he was speaking in a Christian school during the lead-up to a presidential election that will no doubt witness a full-scale mobilization effort of core conservative constituencies, among them the religious right. Santorum chose to begin his remarks by citing the 1960 speech by President John F. Kennedy that dealt with the separation of church and state, a notion that Santorum called a lie, the disastrous consequences of which included the privatization of faith. Santorum made his contentious remarks about the Crusades while chiding the Muslim community for supposedly not doing enough to identify radicalized individuals and work with authorities. Asked to clarify his comments, he seemed to back away from the most militant interpretation, saying that What Im talking about is Onward American soldiers. What were talking about are core American values. All men are created equalthats a Christian value, but its an American value. Its become part of our national religion, if you will. The point I was trying to make was that the national faith, the national ideal, is rooted in the Christian idealin the Judeo-Christian concept of the person. One can see that Rick Santorums controversial statements about the Crusades and church and state were delivered and framed within what have become traditional no-

tions among many on the religious right that America is fundamentally a Christian nation and that, as such, it is our national duty to be involved in the Middle East, a tradition going back to the Middle Ages. It is here that the use and evolution of historical fact becomes most striking. The concept of Christendom dates back to a time when, besieged by the Muslim caliphate in the East and their corsairs in the Mediterranean, Magyar tribesmen in Central Europe, and the Vikings from the North, the people of Europe formed an identity based in large part on a sense of being part of the same Christian commonwealth. When these various invasions simmered down in the 11th century, it was this Christian culture, led by the international institution of the Catholic Church and the increasingly powerful office of the Pope, that went on to launch the Crusades. That Rick Santorum chose to invoke the specter of this Christendom illustrates how selective popular interpretations of history can be. As centralized states such as France and England emerged, forming a new nexus of state-based identity which has prevailed since at least the 14th century, the idea of Christendom began to decay. The collapse of the universal sense of unity based on shared Christian belief, and the schisms within the medieval Church, whose authority had never been challenged and would be irreparably shattered in the Protestant Reformation, does not diminish the utility of the ideal of Christendom in the eyes of some Christians. Santorums contention that America is a country based on Christian ideals, a part of Christendom, is a failure to understand the history of our country in the context of its cultural inheritanceits mission framed by those weary of the official churches and tenuous position of religious minorities in Europe. By hearkening back to a simpler Christian identity, Santorums comments can be seen as furthering the othering of Muslims in American political discourse. When Pope Urban II launched what would become the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095, he painted a vividand mostly fabricatedpicture of the suffering of Orthodox Christians under the rule of the newly arrived Turks in the East. His call to take up arms was thus framed partly as a defensive measure. He would take this further in other versions of the speech, in which the plight of Eastern Christians was replaced by heartwrenching images of the body of Christ himself assailed by infidels. Christian blood, redeemed by the blood of Christ, has been shed, and Christian flesh, akin to the flesh of Christ, has been subjected to unspeakable degradation and servitude. The crusaders, who were simply called pilgrims until the 13 centurywhen the term crusader emerged from the French for signed with the crosswere thus impelled to hurry to the defense of the Holy Land and of Christ himself. It is in this context that Santorums assertion that the crusades were not an offensive movement on the part of Christendom are made intelligible, and his othering of Muslims in relation to Christendom becomes dangerously clear. He is simply reaffirming traditional Christian notions that involvement in the Holy Land is a purely defensive measure. This ties in well with Americas current entanglements in the

By Jamee Bateau

Middle East, which, from the earliest days after Sept. 11 to the opening salvos of the Iraq War, have always been framed as measures to defend the U.S. against terrorists in the region; offensive has always become defensive. Yet, that Santorum conflates modern foreign policy with the Crusade movement shows his failure to fully understand what he is talking about. The medieval Crusades, which consisted of several famous large-scale expeditions and a more continuous flow of pilgrims and warriors from 1095 c.e. to the loss of Acre (the Crusaders last foothold in the Holy Land) in 1292 c.e., were motivated by far different forces than our current wars. An immense devotion to the Christian faith and to the institution of pilgrimage, a society permeated by the violence of a warrioraristocracy with a collective sense of sin and guilty conscience, a newfound sense of European confidence after a century of continuous invasions, and other such factors were what drove men, women, children, and monks, to leave their homes behind and march to the aid of the Holy Sepulcher. Despite what Santorum appears to believe, however, Christendom has not maintained a continuous legacy of crusade stretching to the modern day. By the 14 and 15 centuries, Europe, driven from the Holy Land, was too divided to attempt to recapture the Holy Land, though many still called for such a course well into the Renaissance. By the time of the Enlightenment, however, the Crusades had come to be viewed as resulting from blind religious bigotry, ignorance, and greed for personal wealth on the part of crusaders; in short, they were irrational. Europeans became involved in the crumbling Ottoman Empire from the

late 18 century onward, which was to result in its dismemberment following World War I and the establishment of the modern states of the Middle East under primarily British protection and, later, of Israel. This involvement, historically distinct from the crusades of earlier centuries, was motivated by wholly different factors. Competition among the Great Powers for colonies and economic power, neither of which were objectives for the crusader states. This drive for colonies is what planted the seeds of modern American involvement in the region. That Santorum can comfortably conflate the two periods of intervention illustrates how little he understands about the roots of the Middle Easts difficulties, particularly radical Islam. Furthermore, he chooses to substitute facts for medieval rhetoric, not only distorting the identity of the United States in relation to religious minorities within our borders such as Muslims, but dangerously infusing medieval black-and-white thinking and ideas of holy war into our political discourse. This speaks to the larger issue of how the Crusades have changed in perception over the centuries, and how history responds to the agendas and biases of those who wield it. Santorum and others like him often misapply historical facts in conflation with modern events in ways that are unproductive, as in President George W. Bushs accidental labeling of the Iraq war as a crusade in 2003. Still, the parallels between the medieval Crusades and the United States interminable involvement in the Middle East are such that comparison cannot avoid being drawn, and our vision of the past will continue to be shaped by those who dominate our national discourse, even if they do not know what they are talking about.

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 8

Geographic representation hinders national progress

Mathew Leonard Contributor

nAtionAl AffAirS

n American society, the gold standard for representation has always been the local representative serving as a national actor. Indeed, this is the means by which all of our representatives identify. We see this organization on the national level, with congress comprised of senators and representatives; we see this on the state and municipal level, with representatives serving from a series of districts; we even see this at Vassar College with house and class presidents. Each of these sub-level units were formulated in the image of the American Republic, and can thus be examined as parallels. In order to fully understand the implications of this system, it is necessary to explore the composition of the United States at the time our governing documents were written. The image of the unified American nation that we treasure today is a creation of a specific form of nationalist revisionist history crafted after the Civil War. The American identities of the 18th century would be almost unrecognizable to todays citizens. In the years preceding the American Revolution, the vast majority of Americans associated by colony or state. These Thirteen Colonies viewed themselves as independent nations, unified only by their relation to the distant British power. In an era before mass communication and transportation, these colonies operated, more or less, as autonomous bodies levying their own taxes, building their own infrastructure and even going to war with each other over territory. Any colonial citizen would have self-identified by colony, not as an American; the language simply hadnt entered into the discourse. While the American Revolution did much to solidify national unity, the sevenyear struggle for independence was not enough to overcome almost a century of opposition. The first attempt at a constitution, The Articles of Confederation, established a weak federal government that provided for each state to retain its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. Notably, the Articles never used the word nation to describe the new American union, instead stating: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other. These States, bearing their own laws, regulations, currency, etc. were, effectively, a collection of independent nations with a strong treatysimilar to the Eropean Union today. When finally crafted in 1787, the Constitution, as we know it today, was the first to form a Federal Government that coordinated the actions of all the formerly independent States. However, the role of the State in this new document still took predominance, with each state providing its own congressmen to represent the interests of the state on the national level. This structure was never intended as a form of efficiency, it was designed to maintain the rights of each state. Each subsequent state constitution and municipality followed a similar structure, dividing the individual state into increasingly

smaller districts. There is, one must admit, a certain degree of practicality to a system like this, especially for a pre-industrialized nation. Again, the lack of rapid transport and mass communication ensured that the majority of citizens remained in a small community, which, for the most part, never experienced any interaction with the federal government. It wasnt until the mid-19th century development of massive infrastructurespecifically the locomotivethat the affairs of the nation became intertwined with the local community. The nearby representative ensured that, despite limitations on travel and communication, there was always somebody nearby who knew the community and could articulate, as well as address, community interests. At the time, this was the most efficient and effective way for individual voice and state issues to be heard. Fast-forward to 2011 and a different picture begins to emerge. The state or municipality no longer holds predominance in the lives of the citizenry. Thanks to television; fast transportation; and, especially, the internet, citizens today think on a national scale. No longer is the state viewed as an independent nation, but is instead seen as a sub-unit of a larger American nation. Todays American political identities cross state lines to form national movements and political parties that represent far more the interests of the state.

A depiction of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Wikipedia

Congress should be reorganized to mimic a parliamentary system, where seats are not awarded by population but by percentage of the national vote.
Despite the radical shift in how Americans self-identify, the system in place has hardly changed. Indeed, much of the inefficiency of the Federal Government arises from the fact that there is no clear divide between state and national issues. An American congressman, despite his own personal beliefs on the current national issues, is always beholden to the state he represents. Many Americans have looked on in dismay, as session after session of congress is unable to move forward on any agenda items or deal with national crises. Time and time again, citizens have questioned: Why cant they just put personal interests behind them and vote for the nation as a whole? The fault arises from the fixed constituent bodies. No matter how important an issue may be for the nation as a whole, they have been charged, by the system itself, with representing and addressing the problems faced by their state and only their stateat the cost of solving the problems of the national government. It is because of the system that supports only state needs that Congressmen pile millions of dollars into pork-barrel items or earmarks that benefit the needs of a small constituency at the expense of all other American taxpayers. It is because of this need that a Democratic representative

from Kentucky has to choose between voting yes on either the health care reform or on the cap and trade bill; finally choosing no on the former, to regain the constituent support he lost in voting yes on the latter. These individuals, now charged with making decisions on the national level, are beholden to the interest groups of a small few. There is one individual who does not run on a fixed constituent base in the American system: The president. The individual striving for the White House is expected to present ideas and goals that span beyond the scope of one state, county, or town. Their election is viewed as a national thermometer, gauging the trends of the entire nation and, in theory, setting the tone and the agenda for the next four years. Unfortunately, the one person mandated to speak for the nation as a whole, is unable to actually deal with legislation for the nation as a whole. Yes, the party system has developed power structures that recognize the presidents administration as the voice for the party and, yes, the administrations proposed legislation carries weight. However, when it comes down to it, the actual work of legislation always falls on the backs of individuals tied to the state and limited interests. What is needed then is a division of the state and the nationalor a divorce from fixed constituent bases. The American Congress needs to be reworked so that each congressman is elected in a national election. This would allow for new constituent groups to arise: Ones that care about issues that expand far beyond the realm of an individual state. In a system organized this way, congressmen, like the president, would speak with the voice of the American people. Their election would become a stamp of approval that reaches beyond all state politics and allows them to successfully address the needs of the majority of Americans. A new system would also allow for current minority voices or parties to establish themselves as legitimate actors in American politics. So, what would this new system look like? Congress should be reorganized to mimic a parliamentary system, where seats are not awarded by population but by percentage of the national vote. Assum-

ing that the number of voting members of both the House and the Senate were to remain the same, and assuming current voter turnout for presidential elections (around 40 percent): 2 percent of the vote (or 2,600,000 votes) would secure a seat in the Senate, while .2 percent of the vote (26,000 votes) would secure a seat in the house. This would allow for a massive diversification of who could serve as an American Congressmen. Take for example the fact that, according to a Feb. 4, 2010 Gallup poll, 36 percent of Americans have a positive image of socialism. However, nowhere in America is there a specific population where more than 50 percent of the voters consider themselves socialist. These individuals are spread across the nation, thus effectively closing down the socialist voice in American politics. In a system with open constituent bodies, an organization such as the Socialist party could rally support from across the nation and secure a legitimate voice in the government. The same problems we have discussed about the American system can be found right here at Vassar. This is because the Vassar Student Association (VSA) Council, like the American Congress, organizes itself on fixed constituent bodies: Instead of States, we organize by House. The idea, however, is the same: It is almost impossible to fully represent the diversity of student voice on this campus This is, of course, part of the rationale behind the proposal of the new senatorial system. If the VSA Council, like Congress, were divorced from specific constituent bodies, it could also become much more effective in addressing the needs of all constituents. The proposed Residence Council, rather than diminish house voice, would empower the house presidents to positively affect life in the house, allowing them to more easily address the daily concerns of residence. At the same time, it would establish a VSA Council that included students that want to make positive changes here at Vassar. Wouldnt that truly be a better form of democracy? Mathew Leonard 11 is President of the Vassar Student Association.

pAge 9

ChroniCle, April 2011

McCain criticism of Bush, Obama shows double standard

Ryan Martin-Patterson Contributor

nAtionAl AffAirS

word of caution: This article may cause euphoric flashbacks to the fall of 2008. It was a simpler time, my sophomore year of college; my friends and I lived in the dorms, we thought we could find true love at 3:30 a.m. in the Mug on a Thursday, we outdid each other to see who could eat more Doritos, and our favorite pastime was bashing John McCain as he slogged towards his Election Day drubbing at the hands of Our Lord and Savior, Barack Hussein Obama from Afrier, Honolulu. I guess I didnt get it all out of my system. Remember all the way back to 2004. John McCain was speaking at the Republican National Convention: We need a constructive domestic debate. Rather than discuss how we can best achieve our objectives in Iraq, some have preferred to use the issue as a political weapon to score points in this election. This is simply irresponsiblethe stakes in Iraq are too high. We must show bipartisan resolve to prevail in Iraq, and not allow the insurgents to believe that they are winning minds in Washington. Our troops, the Iraqi people, and the world need to see unified American political leadership. Smarter minds than mine have taken this particular gem and torn it to shreds, so I want to just do a little bit more of a quiet, respectful dissection. The problem with this quote is that it essentially rules out productive debate on the (at the time controversial) War on Iraq; you are either with the Republicans in participating in a war that was poorly planned, poorly fought, and extremely expensive, or you are with the terrorists. There is no room for constructive disagreement. Clearly, if you disagree even a little, the terrorists have won your mindas if Joe Bidens mind is some sort of prize. By the way, I say it was controversial at the time because it is simply not controversial now. It is not even fun to make fun of how badly conceived and poorly managed the whole business in Iraq was; it just makes me depressed. The only reason to

do it is to get straight As in my Political Science classes. I guess I can understand the sentiment: At a time of war, when the lives of United States citizens engaged in dangerous combat missions are on the line, some feel it best to limit criticism of the war, even that which is constructive, because it can be seen as damaging to your troops and simultaneously a morale-booster for the enemy. So if that is the honorable Senators perspective, then I suppose we can expect unqualified support for the men and women in uniform flying over Libya as they bravely engage in the process of removing another dangerous Middle Easter tyrant. Right? Lets see what McCain had to say. [President Obama] waited too long in Libya, theres no doubt in my mind. But now, it is what it is, he said on Mar. 20, 2011. This policy has been characterized by confusion, indecision, and delay, he said on Mar. 27. I welcome the Presidents clarity that the U.S. goal is for Gaddafi to leave power, but an equal amount of clarity is still required on how we accomplished that goal, he said on Mar. 29. My friends, I know how to win wars. And if I were President, American soldiers would be pulling down statues of Gaddafi all over Libya by now. It would have been 2003 all over again. (All right, I made that one up.) Taken separately, none of these quotes is particularly damning, and McCains position, instead of outright hostility towards Obamas policy, seems to be a grudging, Well, not exactly what I would have done, but not half bad, either. But, taken in the context of his (and other Republicans) statements during the Iraq war, which asserted that anyone who criticized anything about the war was consorting with the enemy, it seems just a touch dodgy. McCains quote from 2004 makes the point that debate needs to be constructive, rather than simply being snarky for political points. I agree, Senator. So explain to me how complaining that Obama should have gone in earlier and offering no alternative to the current strategy is constructive. It is what it is is not a constructive

By Tian-An Wong

statement; its a resignation to what you consider to be a wrong course of action. So do you want to change it, or are you just looking forwait for itpolitical points? Reading this, you might feel obligated to point out that McCain is never going to be seeking any political office higher than his current senate seat, which was relatively safe. Good counterpoint. But McCain wasnt running for office in 2004 either; he was just shilling for his party. And thats exactly what hes doing now. Any strike against Obama is a potential gain for whomever the Republican Party nominates for President in 2012. McCain has been perfectly willing to be a good Republican drone when called on before, and there is no reason to think he wont be perfectly willing to do so again. His criticism of Obama this time is no different. In fairness, I dont disagree with McCain; the no-fly zone should have been imposed earlier (as much a fault of the UN as of Obama), which would have prevented some of the earlier massacres; the President didnt consult Congress, essentially taking us to war while stepping around the need to actually declare it; and Obama has not outlined a detailed plan to remove Qaddafi and steer the country to a peaceful, stable, democratic government at minimal cost to US taxpayers. Did we not learn any-

thing from Iraq? Were going to take down a Middle Eastern dictator with no public plan to create an orderly transition to a stable government, and then peacefully remove any US military presence. Ive seen this movie before, and I distinctly remember it sucking. But thats not the point here; when it was a Republican president, these werent issues, but when the president is a member of the opposite party, most of McCains rally-around-the-flag rubbish goes straight out the window. Constructive debate is rendered incredibly difficult when one party spends all the time theyre in power yelling You hate America! and all the time they arent in power yelling, You suck! Maybe Iraq would not have been so botched had the Republicans let members of both parties have a mature conversation about it. Maybe we can make this Libya situation work if they are willing to offer suggestions rather than complaints. All of this is not to let Obama off the hook, by the way. Communication goes both ways. But if Republicans are really interested in making our government work rather than simply scoring political points, they need to be willing to offer constructive criticism and, just as key, they need to be willing to take it.

Do you wAnt to mAke your VoiCe heArD? The Vassar ChroniCle enCourAgeS you to SuBmit ColumnS AnD letterS to the eDitor.
ContACt VASSArChroniCle@gmAil.Com SpeeCh iS CiVilizAtion itSelf. - thomAS mAnn
ChroniCle, April 2011 pAge 10

The North African uprising and Libyan conundrum

Ismail Rashid Contributor

foreign AffAirS

fter the ouster of Zine Ben-Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in Jan. and Feb. of this year, it looked as if the firestorm unleashed by the Dec. 2010 self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a young Tunisian street vendor, would consume all the autocratic and repressive regimes of North Africa, the Near East, and the Arabian and Gulf peninsulas. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and recently, Syria, exuberant and determined crowds pushed for the ouster of their own autocratsor at the very least, the opening of the political arena to more voices and participants. The monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Jordan used a mixture of financial bribery, acknowledgement of some public grievances, resignations of dismal governments, and the adoption of cosmetic political reforms to quell popular discontent. For now, it seems as if these monarchical regimes have secured a modicum of social peace. The most violent and repressive responses to the revolutionary wave of popular protests have been in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. The strongmen in Syria and Yemen, except for the brief moment when Ali Abdullah Saleh seemed to have lost confidence, remain immovable. Every round of popular protest against them has been followed by funerals for martyrs killed by their security forces and supporters. Bahrain and Libya, so far, seem to have been countries where the ruling regimes have gone the furthest to repress and turn back the tide of the popular revolutionary protests. On Mar. 16, 2011, after a month of tolerating demonstrations in Manamas Pearl Square, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain finally called on his equally autocratic allies in the Gulf Council, in particular Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to send in soldiers and tanks to squelch the increasing volatile movement for political change. They willingly obliged, driving protestors off the public square and destroying the monument signaling their democratic aspirations. In Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, his sons and allies continue to fight ferociously, in the face of a NATO aerial offensive, to thwart the aspirations of the newly emergent opposition. The violence and stalemate in Libya has become emblematic of the conundrum of change in the region. It is now clear that what started as popular protests by Libyans inspired by the examples of the Tunisians and Egyptians has degenerated into a civil war, waged largely by factions of a divided ruling elite. It was a civil war that could have been avoided if only the Libyan revolution had followed the similar scripts of its neighborspeaceful, determined, and cohesive populations united by common aspirations outstare a strongman and refuse to be drawn into the trap of using violence in retaliation. The primary reason for the failure of the script is the nature of the Libyan leadership and regime headed by Colonel Gaddafi. In the four decades that he has shrewdly clung to power in Libya, the Colonel has been a bundle of contradictions and inconsistencies. Claiming to be inheritor of the mantle of Omar Mokhtar, Libyas most prominent anti-colonial hero, Gaddafi has restricted

rather than facilitated the freedom of his compatriots. Though his public spectacles lauded Libyan nationalism, he fostered tribal affiliations to ensure the hegemony and dominance of his kinsmen in politics. The Colonel claims to have created the Jamahiriya, the first state of the masses in which ordinary citizens control power, but the countrys resources and meaningful authority are, in reality, concentrated in the hands of a very small clique. At the core, the Colonel is a military autocrat like his neighbors in Tunisia and Egypt were, but unlike them, he has hollowed out rather than build a strong and cohesive national force. Internationally, the Colonel sees himself as the brotherly leader of a global anti-imperialist movement and an ardent supporter of African Unity but has invested billions of Libyan dollars in the very imperialist European and North American countries that he claims he is fighting against. Also, he has armed some of the most violent and reactionary groups in various African countries, including Liberia, Sierra Leone, Chad, Sudan, and Uganda. Needless to say, the inconsistent actions of the Colonel have earned him support as well as opprobrium in different quarters around the world. It has also made it very difficult to predict his actions in any given situation. Gaddafi and his ruling clique were completely caught off guard by the spirited demonstrations in Benghazi on Feb. 15, 2011. Despite the unfolding regional political maelstrom around him in December and January, the Colonel had deluded himself that Libya would be an exception. He warned political activists and other media figures that he would not tolerate any attempts to disturb the peace in Libya. The nervous and poorly trained security forces in Benghazi had interpreted that to mean shoot first when the demonstrations started. They killed around thirty-five protestors, before thinking or consulting with the Colonels sons. Rather than stopping the protest, the deaths led people in other Libyan cities, like Derna and Al Bayda, to join in the antigovernment revolt. Within a week, the protestors overran the main military garrisons in Benghazi, capturing significant amounts of arms. The Libyan regime seemed shell-shocked as city after city fell under the sway of the anti-government forces that later formed themselves into the National Transitional Council. The Colonel and his son, Saif Islam, blamed drugs, Al-Qaeda and foreign agent provocateurs for the spread of the protests. Indeed there have been suggestions that there are flickers of Al-Qaeda amongst the protestors, as well as confirmation of CIA and MI5 presence and support for the rebels. These claims aside, the ruthlessness with which the Gaddafi regime retaliated and sought to reestablish control against the population centers that had rebelled or had been captured by the rebels sent shockwaves through the world, even in capitals favorably disposed towards the Colonels regime. Libyan government officials, diplomats and generals, some genuinely horrified at the regimes punitive actions against the civilian population, and others tacitly encouraged by the European and U.S. governments, deserted the regime and the rebel government. The situation in the country raised the spec-

ter of a humanitarian crisis, or even a tragedy like those that have occurred in Somalia and Rwanda; it prompted a widespread call for intervention to protect civilian lives. The process of mobilizing international intervention in Libya was fraught with the contradictory morality, impulses, and interests embedded in our contemporary global politics. Since the 1990s the UN has been invested with a responsibility to protect the sovereignty of states without reservation, even as it depends on the archaic Westphalian model of international politics to fulfill this responsibility. But if the UN had a responsibility to act: Why in Libya? Why not in Yemen, Syria, or Bahrain? Getting the UN Security Council members to adopt Resolution 1972 (2011)which called for an immediate ceasefire, imposition of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo, and the freezing of the assets of key members of the Libyan regimebecame a rather tortuous process. Moved by a mixture of concern, shame, and outright arm-twisting, France, Britain, and the U.S. were able to get the vote of seven other Security Council members in support of the resolution, and the abstentions of heavyweights Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russia. The abstentions of these nations weakened the force of the resolution and subsequently deprived it of any chance of being perceived as a truly international response to the crisis. Moreover, some of the initial African and Arab supporters of the open-ended and ill-defined UN resolution almost immediately suffered buyers remorse and publicly tried to disown portions of it. Despite the palpable humanitarian need which the resolution seeks to address, it has been difficult to shake off the perception in many parts of the world that what the U.S., Britain, and France really want to do is to control and parcel out Libyan oil. The leadership roles of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have not allayed this suspicion. President Sarkozy has insisted on the departure of the Gaddafi regime while Prime Minster Cameron impulsively recognized the Benghazi-based National Transition Council without first consulting EU or NATO allies. Some observers feel that Sarkozys impetuousness is because France lost out to other European countries in the rush for oil largesse in Libya after the Colonel came in from the cold and started parceling out oil concessions to his new European and American friends. Others are even more cynical, seeing Sarkozys role in the Libyan crisis as merely a calculated move to distract the French public and shore up his falling popularity at home. There is also the larger European concern about staunching the flow of refugees from, and through, North Africa. Over 23,000 Northern Africans have fled to the various parts of South Europe since the political upheavals started in Dec. 2010. Libya had been a vital part of Europes containment of African immigration. The EU had even bankrolled Gaddafi to contain, detain, and deport young Africans back to their countries of origin. The Colonel had threatened that if Europe did not play ball, he would not hesitate to let sub-Saharan Africans overrun their continent.

Using the UN resolution, the United States and its NATO allies have moved swiftly within the last two weeks to degrade the military assets of the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan rebels riding on the effectiveness of the NATO aerial bombardment swiftly retook some of the cities they had lost in the Gaddafi counteroffensive in the past month. In the past few days, however, the rebels have lost them again. Within and outside the ranks of NATO, there is now growing unease regarding the financial and civilian cost of the enforcement of UN 1973. Evidence has surfaced of Libyan civilian casualties due to the bombardment. While NATO continues to bomb pro-Gaddafi targets, it is evident that the Libyan situation is at an impasse. The emerging scenarios do not inspire optimism for the future of the country. The first scenario would see the persistence of the stalemate, with the remnants of the Gaddafi regime retaining authority in the western chunk of the country, unable to retake Benghazi due to the solid opposition of the NATO-backed rebel forces. This would impose a ceasefire and negotiations to sort out the mess. The rebels have already called for one, though they insist on the departure of Gaddafi and his alliesa nonstarter which has been rejected by Gaddafi. Meanwhile, the regime has reached out to and is having several conversations with different countries around the world. The second scenario would be the disintegration of the Gaddafi regime to the point where Gaddafi, his sons, and closest allies have no choice but to give up power. NATO is actively supporting this scenario, with the latest defection of Gaddafis Foreign Minister, Moussa Koussa, being seen as a major boost. However, the core of the Gaddafi regime remains and there is no guarantee that the process of attrition might succeed. The third scenario would be for NATO to directly arm and swell the ranks of the rebel faction so that they can prevail over Gaddafis better trained and more disciplined forces. However, while U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates maintains that no U.S. boots will be placed on the ground in Libya, NATO has not completely ruled this option out. Besides, it has been made public that President Barack Obama has already authorized CIA personnel to support the rebel forces. Nonetheless, any visible presence of foreign troops on Libyan soil will open up an even nastier can of worms in the region and the global community. None of these above scenarios bode well for the future of Libya. No one who truly believes in the right of people to express themselves and choose their own form of government would disagree that Gaddafi needs to go after forty years in power. There is no doubt that the right side in the crisis is to support the genuine aspirations of the entire Libyan populace, not just particular factions. However, American and European military forces raining bombs on yet another African and Arab country does not foster a healthy culture of democracy; it merely creates new poisoned chalices. We already have enough of these in our world today. Ismail Rashid is an Associate Professor of History with a specialization in Africa.

pAge 11

ChroniCle, April 2011

Flying blind: UN intervention in Libya ill-conceived

Cold War intervention in Afghanistan. During the 1970s, the U.S. funded insurgents known as the Mujahideen, or Islamic warriors, who were working to combat the Soviet-supported government. This conflict ended with the installation of the Taliban at the head of the Afghan government, a theocracy that became a professed enemy of the United States and a haven for al-Qaeda in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The U.S. and its allies were forced to enter into a warthe longest American conflict in history, now entering its tenth year, with staggering human and economic costsin order to defeat this hostile, rogue government. Given the Central Intelligence Agencys historical development of al-Qaeda and Taliban assets, among other bad foreign policy decisions, policymakers would be wise to exercise caution before militarily, politically, and financially supporting insurgents, especially when they oppose a regional ally. And let us not forget that Libya is a sovereign statetherefore, does it not have the right to defend itself against insurgents? There is a crucial distinction between sustained genocidal slaughter and a sovereign government upholding its authority in the face of an insurrection, especially one with radical Islamist connections. Did President Abraham Lincoln have the right as a sovereign leader to uphold the Union when the Confederates rebelled against the United States, even when it entailed punitive campaigns that are still capable of eliciting acrimony and disgust in the South, such as William Tecumseh Shermans March to the Sea? A few isolated, small instances of unwarranted violence simply do not warrant the political, human, or financial costs of this interventionabout $50 million a day to enforce the no-fly zone, according to Defense officials. Moreover, Gaddafi still holds the support of many Libyans. At the start of the conflict, he opened his armories to loyal civilians and many of them actually responded to his calls, taking up arms against the rebels. The key city of Sirte, which remains a major obstacle on the rebel drive toward Tripoli, is strongly pro-Gaddafi. Of course, these Gaddafi loyalists may be in the minoritycitizens who have managed to prosper under Gaddafis dictatorship. However, it may well be that they are in fact the majority. In this case, can the world powersespecially the United States, which prides itself on supporting democracyin good conscience overthrow a world leader who holds popular support of his own people? These questions of sovereignty lie at the heart of the UNs Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, which posits that a states sovereignty is dependant on its ability to uphold the principle that it defend its people against genocide or other war crimes. When a state fails to act as such, R2P asserts that it is the role of the international community to aid the state in protecting civilians through mediation or mobilization/strengthening of security forces; armed intervention is reserved as last solution. That R2P, which inherently disregards national sovereignty, is widely criticized and seen as a tool of Western aggression by the Third World, particularly given the obscurity surrounding who is to decide when a state fails to live up to its responsibilities. Similarly, proponents of R2P often cite that, unlike the broader concept of humanitarian intervention, which lends itself to unilateral military intervention, R2P reserves intervention as a last means and stresses multilateralism. However, just because the UN mission in Libya is multilateral does not make it inherently just, and the U.S. and its allies have been too hasty to disregard national sovereignty before acquiring all the relevant facts. Furthermore, intervention under R2P is dependent on a government carrying out a sustained campaign of genocide, as occurred in Rwandathe event that prompted the formulation of R2P in the first place and upon which we seem to be basing our reaction to this dissimilar case. The UN had no evidence to indicate that the violence in Libya would extend beyond the campaign to defeat the rebellion. That the rebellion in Libya, and thence the violence, was on the brink of collapse before intervention should have given further pause to the international community. Prior to the UN and NATO campaign against Gaddafis air and ground forces, rebels forces had largely stalled in the face of Gaddafis superior monetary and tactical resources, having been driven from such strategic points as the oil port of Ras Lanouf. With the intervention, Gaddafis forces have not only been weakened, but he has reached into his coffers to recruit foreign mercenaries who have continued to fight in the violent back-and-forth struggle. International debate has now shifted to whether the rebels should be sent arms. It is here that we must ask ourselves a pivotal question: Should the international community continue to prop up a losing rebellion, and does doing so contradict our stated aim of protecting civilians by indefinitely extending a brutal civil war? By propping up the rebellion with air support, we are doing little more than delaying what would have been a decisive resolution to the conflict, adding foreign air-strikes to the lethal mix that is sure to keep the civilian death toll rising by the day. Given the stated mission, this is complete hypocrisy. When the U.S. intervened in Vietnam, we established no-fly zones, then sent military advisers, tried to augment the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) with specialist forces, sent in main force infantry to defend our specialists and support ARVN, and when the guerrilla ground war proved difficult to definitively win, we escalated to large-scale aerial warfare, which maimed and killed a massive number of civilians. With recent discussions about arming the rebel fighters and sending military advisers to train them, this pattern of escalation could come to characterize Libya. Conversely, if one does not think Vietnam offers lessons for Libya, perhaps one should also consider the difficulties of the continued counter-insurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, the domestic fallout of President Barack Obamas decision to strongly support the no-fly zone is likely to have serious repercussions. The Presidents complete failure to take a stance on the Libyan crisis until three weeks had passed adds weight to bipartisan criticisms that the President is an indecisive leader afraid to take a stance on tough issues. Further, his ultimate decision to intervene in Libya flies in the face of domestic discontent with the Bush doctrine, and the political backlash from foreign adventurism will no doubt damage the Presidents credibility.

foreign AffAirS

A rebel fighter poses near the city of Benghazi, Libya after fighting loyalist forces. Jeremy Bright, Senior Editor Matthew Brock, Senior Editor Michael Greene, Researcher

Flickr.com

n the eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, Mar. 19, 2011, United Nations and NATO forces implemented a no-fly zone over Libya in an effort to prevent the use of air strikes against rebel forces and preempt civilian casualties. This UN decision was taken prematurely, at a time when conclusive evidence concerning the precise nature of the conflict remains nebulous. The rush to infringe on the rights of a sovereign nation involved in an internal civil war with a murkily defined rebel group leaves many questions to be answered and opens the door to debate over what role the international community should have in supporting the rebellion, or if we should take part in the conflict at all. The U.N. initially intervened under the auspices of averting civilian casualties, but at that point in the conflict Libyan forces cannot be said to have been solely targeting civilians. While the rebellion started as a series of protests that were forcefully put down by the military at a time of broader unrest on the Arab street, since then the nature of the conflict has changed: The rebels are now armed with advanced weapon systems that are not available to the average civilianweaponry that qualifies these rebel groups as armed combatants in a civil war. On this point, observers should take time to consider how the rebel groups became so well-armed. In the early days of the uprising, several units of the Libyan military defected and joined the rebel cause, taking their arms with them. Similarly, there have been reports of arms shipments from Egypt to the rebels. While former soldiers and shipments from neighboring countries account for much of the arms utilized by the rebels, this fails to fully explain how they have been able to maintain their armory over the last weeks of fighting. Going hand in hand with this is the question of who are they and where are they from? While Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi was widely ridiculed in the media for his statements condemning the rebels as al-Qaeda going so far as to accuse al-Qaeda of putting

hallucinogens in the rebels Nescafeeach of the six insurgent leaders who have become prominent figures in the rebellion either support, were part of, or continue to identify with al-Qaeda. For example, Abdel al-Hasidi, a senior rebel commander in the northeastern port city of Derna, fought in Afghanistan on the side of the Taliban, and recruited Libyans to fight against coalition forces in Iraq. What is more, al-Hasidi belongs to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a violent terrorist organization banned world-wide by the UN in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks for its intimate connection to al-Qaeda, and was detained in Guantanamo Bay for six years. Captured documents suggest that the LIFG has been one of the largest insurgent factions in Iraq and is arguably the most powerful rebel group waging war against the Gaddafi regime, which in recent years has stood with Egypt as American allies in North Africa. Although some leaders of the Libyan Interim National Council (INC) are decided supporters of the West and have had highlevel meetings with policymakers such as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, the little-discussed question of who will triumph in a second conflict between ideologically alien diplomats associated with the Gaddafi regime or opposing mobile divisions of armed rebels is of monumental importance to the United States and its allies. Further complicating their position, the INC has no single cohesive ideology or unified government, operating principally at a council level to manage local affairs. Also, provisional leaders cannot lay claim to being fairly elected, undermining their legitimacy post-conflict should the opposition forces prevail. Should a second civil war erupt between them, will we be forced to prop up the INC government amid questions of domestic legitimacy in order to avoid a more unwelcome outcome? British Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that the risk of terrorist attacks will be greater if the international community does not intervene, but this logic is inherently flawed given the ideological composition of the rebellion. Without resolving such problems, how could even ardent neo-conservatives co-opt this conflict into the Global War on Terror or democracy promotion? The United States and its allies would do well to remember the results of Americas

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 12

U.S. media, govt. should pay more attention to Syria, Yemen

Chris Montero Contributor

foreign AffAirS

t seems that every week since the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on Dec. 17, 2010 in Tunisia, the demonstrations and repression in North Africa and the Middle East have grown in scale and pitch. Most recently, the embattled regimes of Presidents Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen broadened their repression of pro-reform demonstrators, while suggesting that political reforms are on the way. In Syria, President al-Assad has actually said very little publicly, opting instead to have a top advisor, Bouthaina Shaaban, speak on his behalf. When President al-Assad did choose to speak, last week, he made clear that he has little intention of lifting the emergency law in place since a 1963 coup that elevated the al-Assad family and the Baath party to power. With the end of emergency law would come the freedom for protestors to demonstrate peacefully and without persecution by the Syrian security apparatus, as well as an opening up of the media. Conversely, Ms. Shaaban has claimed that President al-Assad has specifically ordered police not to use live ammunition against the demonstrators and political reforms are supposedly on the way this week. Yet, throughout last week, there were numerous reports of police forces firing on demonstrators, with Amnesty International putting the number killed in the dozens. Human Rights Watch has also reported that the Syrian military has moved into Deraa and the port city of Latakia, adding to earlier reports of a massacre in Sanamin by soldiers. Similar hypocrisy and violence occurred in Yemen, where President Saleh attempted to counter popular protests with a defiant speech in the capital, Sanaa, over the weekend. Despite earlier concessions to the opposition, like an end to his 32-year rule, Saleh is now resisting calls that he step down sooner than the 2013 deadline he initially set and has suspended talks with the opposition about other political reforms. As he called the opposition drug dealers and separatists on Sunday, it is hard to imagine that Saleh is not trying to exploit the growing civil strife as a means to remain in power longer or avoid prosecution for corruption and violence against his people. The odiousness of that opportunism fully manifested itself on the morning of Monday, Mar. 14, 2011, when Yemeni security forces fired tear gas and live ammunition against peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders in Taiz, resulting in over 1,500 people wounded. What strikes me about these reports, aside from the brutality of the violence, is that they have reached the rest of the world in spite of state control of the media and the Syrian governments refusal admit foreign journalists. Yemen deported all foreign journalists weeks ago. As demonstrationsand the repression of demonstratorscontinue, it is imperative that the brave and bold actions being taken by Arab men and women continue to be reported on. Without the pressure that such reportingas well as subsequent questions that are raised provides, these governments cannot be held accountable. It is obvious that the promises made by the Syrian and Yemeni governments are not being upheld. At present, leaders do not even have to speak publicly on the issues, as is the case in Syria. Instead, they choose to

have their spokespersons make promises of restraint at the same time that the police are in the streets murdering civilians. It goes without saying that the international community is highly unlikely to intervene militarily in either Syria or Yemen to protect civilians as it has in Libya. In fact, the Yemeni and Syrian examples show how the international community can make a difference without the force of arms. The United States has been reluctant to lean on Saleh because of the precarious internal situation in Yemen involving rebels in the North and al-Qaeda elements in the South; our current approach has been to ensure that Yemen does not become a safehaven for terrorist elements hostile to the U.S. According to multiple American and Yemeni government sources quoted by the New York Times, that reluctance is now fading as new violence has erupted and as it becomes clear that Saleh has little interest in discussions with the political opposition in Yemen. It appears that the international criticisms that the Obama administration was facing for its inconsistency of support for pro-reform movements has also played a role in its shift away from supporting Saleh. Nevertheless, the biggest obstacle to the Obama administrations support of the Yemeni opposition will no doubt be its uncertainty and ignorance about what the opposition stands for. The lack of information on opposition groups involved in the anti-authoritarian uprisings throughout the Middle East and North Africa has severely hampered the international communitys ability to respond quickly and consistently on the rapidly unfolding events. In Syria it would appear that the U.S. has everything to gain from a weakened al-Assad regime given the latters cooperation with Iran. Given that the U.S., as a consequence of that relationship, does not have a great working partnership with Syria, it seems odd that it has not made efforts to support the demonstrators in that country. Regardless of what the U.S. has or has not done in Syria, it should begin backing up the Syrian protestors, but it absolutely cannot do so in efforts to weaken an Iranian ally. Some might argue it matters very little why the U.S. leans on the Syrian government to stop it from oppressing its people, but I strongly disagree. The Arab protestors are as anti-authoritarian as they are anti-U.S. That ambivalence has no doubt grown in recent weeks as the U.S. has criticized the regimes it does not like and refused to criticize those leaders with which it is friendly. The time has come to dispel that ambivalence. One of the simplest and most effective ways in which the U.S. could demonstrate greater consistency is by supporting very specific rights, such as a free press, in every Middle Eastern and North African state. Doing so would show its dedication to the general liberties that these demonstrators are fighting for, without necessarily destabilizing whole regimes. It would appear that the greatest drawback to having more reports coming out of Syria and Yemen is greater knowledge of the repression and violence that is ongoing. No doubt some would rather that knowledge not be spread in the event that it mobilizes greater guilt and more calls for international pressure on the regimes to reform. For obvious reasons, I do not see that as a bad thing and have little respect for anyone who would rather sit in ignorance of the violent reality in the Arab world with the hope of not being asked to do anything about it. Further, as a new wave of protests are

A propaganda poster of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on the streets of Damascus.

Wikimedia Commons

erupting throughout Syria, and as President al-Assad continues to blame the protests on a foreign conspiracy, the need for journalist access is becoming even more critical. Finally, if greater information about opposition groups involved in these anti-authoritarian demonstrations can be attained, then the U.S. could establish a much more consistent and timely approach to the pro-reform movements. Instead of having policy driven by fear of the devil we dont know, we can have a policy of backing the groups most dedicated to instituting political reforms and working towards better governance. Had the U.S. realized that support of Saleh was untenable at an earlier date, over 1,500 peopleincluding school children on their way to schoolwould not have been brutally attacked by Salehs security apparatus. If there were any doubt about the role that journalism can play in amplifying the power of the demonstrations, then one need only consider the reporting coming out of Libya and Egypt. For example, a few weekends ago in Libya, where the military intervention by the U.S. and its allies had been the focus of recent news, Eman al-Obeidy entered the hotel housing foreign journalists in Tripoli to tell them of her beating and rape at the hands of over a dozen of Qaddafis security forces. Ms. al-Obeidy was later forcibly removed from the hotel by other members of the Libyan security apparatus, but not before telling her story to the journalists assembled for breakfast. Some of the reporters even struggled with the security forces in attempts to prevent their removal of Ms. al-Obeidy. Her bravery in telling her story has been met with calls by a multitude of journalists and foreign leaders demanding that she be released and that other women who are currently detained not be harmed any further. Sadly, Ms. al-Obeidy remains missing, despite claims by the Qaddafi government that she has been released.

Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has documented similar abuses of Egyptian female activists by the Egyptian army since the latters take-over. Other shortcomings that have arisen from the military rule in Egypt have also been reported on and pressure has been applied to the military leadership that is currently running the country. This reporting in and of itself has not led to greater American pressure on the Egyptian Armed Forces Supreme Council, but it should. As some of these authoritarian regimes begin to reform and democratize, it is important to not let the work of the Arab street be for naught. Greater access for foreign journalists and the elimination of state-controlled media in these countries can help ensure that. Even reporting on the violence in Syria and Salehs refusal to meet with the political opposition served to put greater pressure on the Obama administration to curtail its support for the Saleh regime. The Yemeni example, sadly, also shows the limits of reporting in supporting the pro-reform movement and human rights more generally. While information is a critically important resource in the enforcement of human rights, information, in and of itself, is not the silver bullet. As long as the policy-makers receiving the information view it solely through a national interest, realist lens, the information that journalists provide on human rights abuses will not be enough to ensure the preservation of those rights. While national interests may sometimes overlap with the prioritization of human rights in a particular instance, relying on that overlap makes for inconsistent and terrible human rights foreign policy. The only way of successfully inserting human rights into foreign policy is to make it a priority and place only the most critical of national interests above it, as well as advocating strongly and consistently in defense of very specific rights, such as a free press.

pAge 13

ChroniCle, April 2011

Muslim Brotherhood poses Egypts new constitution faces danger to minorities, women opposition from various factions
Madeleine Morris Contributor

foreign AffAirS

hile the international focus in the past weeks has centered on the conflict in Libya, Egypt stands on the brink of dramatic change that merits close attention. Widespread anti-government protests in January and early February 2011 pushed Egyptian President Muhammed Hosni Mubarak to resign; Mubarak stepped down in February after reigning for 30 years and Egypts interim military council disbanded the parliament and suspended the constitution. In Mar. 2011, 77.2 percent of Egyptians voted in a referendum to approve the constitutional changes that would allow for legislative elections as early as June and a presidential election in August. This vote also maintains the Ssecond Amendment of Egypts Constitution, which establishes Islam as the state religion and the principal basis for all legislation. The main supporters of the changes were the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubaraks own National Democratic Party. Although the swift timetable provides a quick return from military to civilian rule, the rapidly approaching elections do not give enough time to emerging groups to organize and set up a secure path to elect the Muslim Brotherhood into public office. The forerunner of the coming elections is the Muslim Brotherhood, also called al-Ikhawan al-Muslimun, the largest and oldest Islamist organization in Egypt, and a threatening group to U.S. interests in the Middle East. After its founding in 1928, the movements original intentions to spread Islamic morals soon transformed into an ideology focused on cleansing Egypt of colonial and Western influence. In 1954, after the Muslim Brotherhood tried and failed to assassinate President Gamal Abdul Nasser, they were officially banned, though the group continued to gain followers underground. It was then that the focus of the Muslim Brotherhood shifted toward an advocation of more violent and radical methods, including the use of jihad against Western and socalled ignorant Islamic societies. Beginning in the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood made attempts to work itself into the government, allying with Wafd, Labor, and Liberal parties, and eventually winning 20 percent of the seats in the Peoples Assembly through independent candidates in 2005. Subsequently, President Mubarak launched a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, changing the constitution to prohibit political parties and activities from having a religious foundation and banning independent candidates from running for president. But Mubaraks moves to reduce the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in parliament backfired when the Brotherhood failed to win a single seat, pointing to election fraud. This widespread governmental repression of opposition parties served as an important trigger for the anti-government protests of January 2011, in which the Muslim Brotherhood deftly kept a low profile. The fear of many critics of the Muslim Brotherhoods coming to power is largely based on their advocating for Sharia law as evidenced by a drafted political platform from 2007 in which they urge the establishment of a council of religious scholars tasked with approving all laws passed by civilian institutions and pro-

pose measures banning women and Christians from becoming president or prime minister. Nonetheless, within the group, more moderate and conservative members disagree about the extent to which Islamic law should be applied to Egyptian public life. The party as a whole is committed to expanding the influence of Islam on Egypt and Sharia seems for many of the groups supporters to be a central part of the political agenda. For Egypts eight million Christians, the potential for Sharia law is particularly troubling; for the U.S., the change from a moderate to a very religious government could have a very negative impact of U.S.-Egyptian relations. A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhoods Guidance Bureau, Issam al-Aryan, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood did not plan to put forward its own candidate for the upcom-

Michelle Cantos Foreign Affairs Editor

n an effort to hastily push the nation towards democracy as fast as they can, the interim government of Egypt held a constitutional referendum on Mar. 19, 2011. This desire for such an immediate transition to an alternative form of government has hindered the ability of the nation to create a comprehensive constitution that will address the issues that brought the Egypt to the brink of destruction in the first place. Although 77.2 percent of participants voted in favor of the referendum; many critics, including the pro-democracy activists who catalyzed the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in Feb., believe these constitutional reforms merely serve as a band aid for a much more severe wound.

Citizens protest against the former Egyptian government, headed by President Hosni Mubarak.

Ikhwanweb.com

ing presidential election and said instead that the opposition as a whole should nominate a consensus candidate. However, the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized and popular group of the opposition and it is likely that while the opposition candidate may not be officially representing the Muslim Brotherhood, he will very likely have strong ties to it. This could cause Egypt to move from being one of the few Middle Eastern strongholds of moderate political activity and relative friendliness to the West into a very inhospitable and fiercely Islamist, anti-Western country. Egypt must decide for itself the role religion will play in its political life, but their decision will have consequences for the rest of the world, in particular the United States and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhoods hostility towards Israel runs deep and would serve as a potential threat to U.S. foreign policy should the Muslim Brotherhood come to power. The Brotherhoods ideology is oppresive regarding the rights of women and religious minorities and might transform Egypts historically moderate stance to a very inhospitable climate for these groups. However, the West should respect the decisions of the election, whatever they may be; U.S. involvement will only garner hate and distrust. Although involvement in the elections or political affairs is by no means an acceptable or viable option, the U.S. should keep a close watch on the affairs of Egypt, and perhaps begin the search for a new ally in the Middle East.

Rather than construct an entirely new constitution after the fall of the Mubarak regime on Feb. 11, 2011, the interim government has seen it fit to create 62 articles which reform the preexisting constitution. The most prominent reforms to the constitution are those concerning future elections and the creation of the new government of Egypt; these articles imply that elections for Parliament and the Presidency can become a reality as early as this summer. However many smaller political parties within the nation are fiercely critical of such a short time span between the constitutional referendum and the proposed elections. These political groups believe that holding elections in a mere matter of months will benefit political parties which have long been established, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and render the burgeoning political parties as futile given their lack of exposure to the electorate. The interim governments rush to turn the government into a sustainable democracy through these constitutional reforms has done nothing but hinder political pluralism within the nation. Furthermore, many youth-based protesting groups are incensed by the provisions in the constitution, which seek to reserve half of the seats in the new Parliament for farmers and workers. The protesters who contributed to the fall of former President Mubarak believe this proviso is an obstacle to Egypts primary objective of achieving a genuine democracy.

Allowing special privileges to a select group solely based on their occupation is antithetical to the basic tenets of democracy; the amount of cognitive dissonance it takes in order to advocate in favor of these constitutional reforms while simultaneously touting a desire for democracy is astounding. Constructing the Parliament in such a way preemptively undermines the governing body; the entity loses legitimacy since it no longer aligns with the ideology of equality. In addition to issues regarding representation, many touting democratic sentiments are also perplexed by the inconsistent role that religion is purported to play in the new democracy of Egypt. Under Article 2 of the new constitution, Islam is declared as the national religion and Sharia shall be utilized as a reference for the creation of government legislation; however, Article 4 bans the creation of political parties based on religion. The articles portray religions inconsistent role in Egypts democracy. Moreover, imposing a religious ideology on a system of governance is problematic from a practical perspective due to the static nature of these doctrines. The use of religion within these referendums alienates the minority and further pushes them to the fringes of society; all notions of religious plurality have been obliterated with the passing of these articles. If anything, this new constitution will embolden religious minorities to disrupt the status quo given their lack of representation in this Islamcentric government. The problems with Egypts constitutional reforms dont just stop at the electoral or legislative bodies; the powers of the executive branch have also become a point of contention. Apart from altering the term limits of the presidency, the constitutional reforms have done nothing in the way of legitimately limiting the powers of the president. One of the main reasons that the protests in Egypt began was because of President Mubaraks propensity to monopolize the governing bodies in order to keep his party, the National Democratic Party, in power. The new constitution neglects to address this problematic power dynamic; how can Egypt attempt to create a genuine democracy when its constitution fails to address the problems that catalyzed the nations upheaval? Transitioning from one form of government to another ostensibly takes time for adjustment; however the interim Egyptian government is too impatient to deal with this time lag and has hastily pushed the nation towards a democracy. The current government is unable to see the forest through the trees; they do not understand that their hard and fast conversion to democracy severely debilitates the nations long-term stability. The changes to Egypts constitution are hindrances that have restrained the nations ability to reestablish a stable democracy in the nation. As Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prominent opposition leader of the protests, told the BBC It [the new constitution] doesnt talk about the imperial power of the president, it doesnt talk about the distortion of the parliament, it doesnt talk about the need to have an independent constituent assembly that represents everybody. The results of the constitutional referendum have done nothing but sown the seeds of demise for Egypts democracy.

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 14

Japanese economy strong enough to survive disasters

Erina Kii Contributor

foreign AffAirS

he tsunami that ravaged Japan on Mar. 11, 2011 will ostensibly have long-term impacts on the political and economic sectors of the nation. However, an analysis of the current political situation in the area is problematic since many of the crises are still unfolding and the Japanese government is still taking action to ameliorate their troubles. As part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, the country has experienced multiple earthquakes which garnered at most, a 3 or 4 on the Richter Scale. Given the propensity for earthquakes to hit the nation, Japan has become a trailblazer in the realm of seismological research in order to better anticipate and prepare for these acts of nature. Although this desire for more preventative research was born out of a previous tragedy, the Great Hanshin earthquake in Kobe in 1995; the quake killed 6,425 people, displaced 300,000 people, and destroyed nearly 100,000 buildings. Ever since this devastating event, the government has implemented stricter earthquake safety procedures as well as regulations on stronger building codes. From an economic perspective, experts have insinuated that Japan will make a swift financial recovery from this natural disaster. Historically, Japan has often observed a timely economic revival in the face of natural disasters. The port town of Kobeformerly the worlds sixth largest portwas a symbol for this mending process in 1996. The Economists article Economics focus: The cost of calamity asserted that Within a year import

volumes through the port [of Kobe] had recovered fully and export volumes were nearly back to where they would have been without the disaster. Less than 15 months after the earthquake, in Mar. 1996, manufacturing activity in greater Kobe was at 98 percent of its projected pre-quake level. Within that year, the Japanese economy also saw an overall two percent growth. Past natural disasters in Japan have showed us that the nations economic capacity can be revived, and sometimes improved, in the wake of a natural disaster. Furthermore, the area which was plagued with the most devastation is not considered the industrial center of Japan. Tokyo sustained itself well during the earthquake, and the town of Sendai was built far enough away from the shore to ensure that the tsunami did not reach relevant industrial sectors. The wellresearched safety precautions coupled with the nations economic resiliency imply that the Japan will endure these crises and emerge as a stronger nation. The financial devastation brought on by the earthquake and tsunami is formidable. It will cost an estimated $200 billion to rebuild homes, factories, roads, and bridges; there is an unendurable amount of pressure that is burdening the Japanese government. The nations automobile corporations were substantially damaged by the tsunami. Nissan Motor Companys Iwaki plant in the Fukushima Prefecture endured devastating blows by the disaster. The plant is Nissans only base that produces the V6 engine for certain high-end models. Its equipment and parts that were used to make engines, transmissions, and air conditioners for

car companies are now useless since they have been buried in debris. Yet the Fukushima prefecture is just a small part of Japans overall business sector; the countrys history of timely economic recovery is still applicable to modern day Japan. However, the main issue creating so much consternation within the nation is the ongoing breakdown of the Fukushima Daichi nuclear reactors. Despite the tedious amounts of research and safety regulations that went into creating nuclear reactors, they are developing problems which become graver by the day. Like the Tokyo-Sendai earthquake in Kobe, the Fukushima Daichi has precedents: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The dangers of a nuclear meltdown and the subsequent radiation exposure that will ensue have made this issue of nuclear power an international concern. During the earthquake, control rods were thrust into the core of the reactor in an emergency shutdown to stop the production of electricity. The tsunami, however, damaged the generators and flooded the electrical equipment. When they failed to cool the core of the reactors through batteries and generators. The people at the Fukushima nuclear plant needed a way to cool the plant before the heat starts melting the inner reactors. In two reactors, No. 1 and No. 3, steam was released into the surrounding area to relieve the pressure of the vessel, which simultaneously released the radioactive elements along with the steam. Overall, the plant has had little success in attempting to cool the reactors, which has caused a meltdown with some of the rods.

Locals are incredibly afraid of radiation exposure. With the rapid yet unclear information that is tossed around by the media and the government regarding the levels of radiation, people have become frantic. Misinformation has circulated about the side-effects of radiation exposure. On the international stage, there has been a strong emphasis on stopping developments of nuclear reactors, with the end objective of halting the use of all 55 reactors located in Japan. It is a stark contrast to the views of Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, who has insisted that production of nuclear energy will not cease. Yet, recent local protests of the nuclear reactors have encouraged the Prime Minister to reconsider his former stance on nuclear energy. Dreadful memories from the events at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island motivate the international communitys strong apprehension towards nuclear power. Images of radiation checkups with captions entitled Reliving the horror their grandparents knew reflect the uneasiness of continuing to pursue nuclear energy. Japans long and tumultuous history with earthquakes has showed us that the nation is capable of economic recuperation after natural disasters. The tsunami has also had ramifications on a global level and the nuclear crisis has become fodder for the anti-nuclear energy advocates. Only time will tell if their government will step up to find a comprehensive way of dealing with the nuclear power debate. Erina Kii 14 is a member of the Vassar Japan Relief Group.

Japanese crisis leaves void U.S. economy should fill

Andrew Bloom Copy Assistant

hile the effects to Japan after the recent earthquake are in the billions of dollars, in todays age of interdependence and global trade, the damage that has been done to global supply chains around the world is difficult to estimate. Certainly, the United States should, and does, stand ready to assist Japan in the recovery efforts and the economic redevelopment the nation. But at the same time, the United States should not be scared to take advantage of the opportunity to increase our domestic trade and rebuild manufacturing jobs that have been disappearing from the United States for decades. This could very well be a defining moment on President Barack Obamas new pledge to win the future, if only Congress could act on this opportunity. After only a few weeks, it is apparent that the crises affecting Japan will wreak havoc on global supply chains. Unfortunately for Japan, the area that was hardest hit by the earthquake and following tsunami included an area that was vital for manufacturing. With many factories in the area, manufacturers are incapable of producing

goods that are required in Japan. Global manufactures that rely on these factories are incapable of receiving desperately needed supplies to produce their finished products. The automotive industry illustrates the desperation of global manufacturers. Japanese companies Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have already announced plans to close their plants in the wake of recovery while slowing production of others, including plants that build in demand vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius and Honda CR-V. With increased fears of radiation, Nissan has announced that it will now have to check all of its produced vehicles for radiation before importing them into the United States. But it is not just the Japanese automakers experiencing the effects of the earthquake and tsunami. Even domestic automakers that rely on Japanese factories for parts have been forced to slow production of their models, even as there is a budding automobile industry recovery in the United States. Ford Motor Company announced that it will have to reduce its supply of certain red and black colored cars that it produces because a supplier in Japan was destroyed by the earthquake. General Motors has announced that the company will

lay off workers in an engine plant in New York in addition to halting production at a plant in Shreveport, Louisiana. It is clear that in addition to the domestic ramifications, the crises in Japan are already having an effect on global trade. Ostensibly, the United States has a moral obligation to act to aid in the recovery efforts of this devastated area of Japan. Yet, the United States also has a financial obligation to take steps that will enable global economic recovery to continue. In order to do so, the United States must pass legislation that will allow the country to once again become a manufacturing nation. The United States has the economic potential to fill this transient void for manufacturing. It is quite possible that the manufacturing base of the United States can at last begin to grow again if Congress only were to act. Incentives that give tax breaks to companies opening new manufacturing facilities or reopened older facilities could fill the temporary void posed by Japans recent disasters. Only through these actions can the United States help to keep the global economy on the road to recovery. Furthermore, it can only help President Obama to meet and exceed his goal of

doubling exports by 2014. The recent push by the Obama administration to win the future can only be achieved through investing in the nations infrastructure and manufacturing bases. While this push for more domestic manufacturing would certainly assist in keeping the global economy humming, it would also provide jobs to the needy Americans domestically. Instead of providing unemployment benefits to millions, Congress could redirect these funds to stimulate manufacturing growth in the Midwestern states which require this capital. Corporations opening factories in the United States which take advantage of these tax breaks will be forced to hire Americans to work in these factories. The resulting economic growth and reductions in unemployment rates will yield a more economically viable United States; this will fortify Americas influence on the global economy. True, the United States could do this at any time; but circumstances beyond our control have made this moment ripe for American economic dominance. This ephemeral void in global trade needs to be filled, not just for our sake, but for the sake of the international economic community.

pAge 15

ChroniCle, April 2011

How should the House Presidents have voted on VSA reform?

Alex Koren, Contributor Michael Moore, Contributor

DeBAte & DiSCourSe

iscussion on the new proposed changes to the Vassar Student Association (VSA) Constitution has flooded the college this week. Michael Moore 14, Class of 2014 President and ardent and articulate supporter of the changes, sat down with Alex Koren 13, a member of the Lathrop House Team, skeptic, and opposition organizer. They discuss the substantive changes, the role of student government, and if it is okay for a representative to vote for what he or she feels is best for their constituents, not necessarily what public opinion demands. Michael Moore: The new proposed system will work because the Residential Council will have a significant amount of power and it will be able to hold constant conversations, for example we have Buildings and Grounds in the VSA once a year or maybe once a semester. The Residential Council can request B&G meetings every other week. And quite frankly constant conversation is the only way things get done on this campus. So far from removing residence issues from the VSA, its instead focusing them on another VSA body. Theres this opinion that anything thats not on VSA Council isnt going to happen, and I think thats absolutely going to happen. The Residence Council has an incredible amount of power under the proposed changesand an incredible amount of potential. And say there is a snag, the Residence Council has three representatives on the VSA Council, just as much as any other body. So far from burrying the issues, they can come up and can be worked on at full potentialwhat you would have under the change is a separation of residential issues and wider campus issues. Alex Koren: Id like to try to link two separate things youve mentioned in support of the reform. Earlier, you said that the residential issues werent being brought up and had to be crammed into open discussion, now youve said that campus-wide issues are ignored because of residential issues. If the VSA isnt talking about residential issues, and theyre not talking about campus wide issues, then Im not sure what they are talking about. And I think thats really tellingif you cant get things working under the current system, I dont see how the new system will get anything done either. Why do we have to change the entire system? Why cant VSA President Mat Leonord just bang his gavel and say, Now were going to talk about this. You dont need to modify the Constitution to change how a VSA meeting works. If you were to come to Council and present what you believed to be a serious campus wide issue, I dont think the house Presidents are going to raise their red name tags and say No, we dont want to talk about this, we only want to talk about residential issues. Moore: Thats not the problem. I can bring up an issueinterpersonal violence, for exampleand we could have a nice conversation about it on Council. Thats not where the work gets done, though. It gets done in the subcommittees. Because the subcommittees are split, what happens too often is that these issues fall to the executive board. You have exec board members working 30 hours a week who cannot hand off responsibilities because it wont get done. The projects they can work on for the rest of the year are limited

The VSA Council meets on April 3rd to discuss a student referendum. Moore is seated second from the left.

Matthew Brock, Vassar Chronicle

in size and scope by the simple fact that they know if the project is too big it simply wont get done. Koren: The other issue you bring up, however, is that you feel like some people dont feel connected to their dorms, yes, but some dont feel connected to their classit works both ways. But look at the fact that at the council meeting on Sunday house presidents stood up and said that they had received overwhelming negative feedback on the proposal from their constituents. I know that Main House President Boyd Gardner said that he didnt get a single positive comment on the changes. Moore: Yes, and he also said on the onset of the meeting that his vote was set, which is a horrifying prospect for me, but Koren: But my point is that the house presidents received overwhelming negative feedback and such they voted no, right? Moore: Not all of them. Koren: Most of them. There were nine no votes on the proposal, and I think that all but one of them came from the residential members of the Council. And if thats because theyre getting overwhelming negative feedback, then how are the class presidents voting? How is the Executive Board voting? Are they secretly getting a lot of positive feedback that the house presidents werent? It seems to me what is more likely is that people just didnt reach out to them. They didnt reach out to the Executive Board because they dont feel accessible; they didnt reach out the their class presidents because they dont feel connected. People reached out to their house presidents and thats telling of the fact that they knew what the student voice was, that it was no, and that the class presidents voted yes because there werent that many people reaching out to them. I think thats kind of telling that the house system works better. Moore: Thats an entertaining assumption, but Id like to say that its not empirically backed-up. What I saw is that we had house presidents, Dan Flynn was one, who said that while they personally thought that the VSA would work better under this new system, they did get negative feedback and therefore

they felt like they had to vote no. The problem with that is that, yes, the amendments were horribly presented to the student body at first and little emails with blurbs and 60page attachments about the constitution bylaws is a completely inefficient way. So people were presented with a new structure, without people really knowing how the old structure worked in the first place, explained in miserable Old English, legislative language, and told that house presidents are being removed, and thus they instinctively opposed it. What Ive found when Ive actually discussed the changes with people is that, logically, it works; however, it was presented poorly. People werent taking the time to understand all the issues and they were reactingIm not going to say only emotionallybut they were reacting. Koren: That wasnt the case. In my dorm, we sat down, read the proposal in its entirety, and asked ourselves if we supported itit was in a neutral point of view. I think that when you present something to someone in a very forceful fashion people arent going to care enough to refute that. Moore: I dont think thats fair to the students at Vassar College. They absolutely have the intelligence to look at an issue, to weigh it, and to make a decision for themselves. What you seem to suggest is that the only approvals we got back were because they were forced or a result of a bias. Yes, it should be noted that people largely dont feel connected to the VSA right nowwhat we end up with is people who dont understand the current system passing judgment for why a new system wouldnt work. I think that it should be noted again that a lot of the house presidents worked on this for the past month, like the result, and wished they could have voted yes. It comes to that old Platonic paradoxthere is a separation between what someone on the government knows and what someone not on the government knows, Socrates called it the power of the one versus the power of the many. People dont know the little bureaucratic workings of the VSAwho comes to subcommittees? Im telling you right now, I only know one student at this college who

came to a subcommittee meeting, where most of the work gets done. Koren: You cant just change the system and assume that those sorts of things are going to be different. I think if people went and worked hard at subcommittees that would be greatit really just depends on who you elect. Elect someone whos not that devoted and its not going to work. You say that Vassar students have the ability to make their own decisions, yet at the VSA Council meeting you said that house presidents should vote for the proposal even if their constituents are against it because the VSA members know better than their constituents. Moore: Again, in this instance, when it comes to the interworking of the VSA, the representatives do have special knowledge. Vassar students are very smart, but they dont know what its like to sit on Council. A lot of the opposition, I think, is based off of misconceptions. You think that just because the Residential Council will only have three members on the VSA General Council that it wont have a voice, but you are assuming that the Residential Council in itself wont have the power to get things done, and that is the whole point of the proposed changes. Koren: If the Board of House Presidents (BHP) cant get things done, how would this Residential Council be any different? Moore: BHP doesnt get things done right now because they dont have to, its the same people who are on VSA Council so they just bring it up there. The same issues are discussed on both councils, that problem is immediately solved by the Residential Council because you bring in those other residential voices. Koren: If thats the problem why dont we just put senior housing, town students, and Ferry House on BHP? Why do we have to take the vote away from the house presidents? Moore: You are assuming that a senator wont be able to represent residential issues when they come up, maybe not, they can focus on other issues. But the Residential Council will still be voting. I dont see how that wouldnt create more of an overlap.

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 16

Should the U.S. Constitution dictate our worldview?

Ethan Madore, Debate & Discourse Editor Jessica Tarantine, Vassar & Local Editor

DeBAte & DiSCourSe

he United States Constitution is often more than a foundational document of governmentit has gone from a contentious text struggling for ratification to a cultural icon. Ethan Madore 12 and Jessica Tarantine 14 explore the ramifications of current Constitution culture. Ethan Madore: It seems like a lot of peopleI could point to the Tea Party or libertarians, but I think it is intertwined with a large part of American political culturehold a lot of regard for the Constitution. And it frustrates me that often times the Constitution is a persons trump card in an argument, that because something is unconstitutional then it should not be considered, they insist that I could care about the moral compass and political philosophy of the Framers. Do you think its a good thing to have our morality enshrined within a single document? Jessica Tarantine: I think it is absolutely essential. When we look at what the Framers were trying to prevent, and what those who you claim use the Constitution as a trump card are trying to prevent, we see a commonality in purposethe prevention of power gains on the part of the federal government that ultimately result in the loss of freedoms. I think it is clear that the only way we can prevent such action is by a single objective document to which we give reverence. Madore: I do not oppose a system of checks and balances, honestly, and it pains me to admit this, but I think a lot of what is in the Constitution is perfectly adequate. The problem is within that system of enshrinement. What do you think would happen, Jessica, if a United States senator saidon the floor of the Capitol Building, that they thought the Constitution was a deeply flawed document? Tarantine: Well, Ethan, I think that within our system of governmentand certainly within the context of the Constitutionwe can make changes within in the system. The senator should frame his concerns within the framework of how to amend the Constitution, not throw it out. The senator should respect the framework of the government and work with in it because without it

Do you enJoy thiS kinD of DeBAte? Join the VASSAr DeBAte SoCiety, VASSAr S moSt SophiStiCAteD Sport.
DeBAte.VSA@VASSAr.eDu

we no longer have any defenses against peoples natural inclination to acquire power. Madore: So there is a certain rhetorical game they have to play, right? Social conservatives who want to add an amendment that would define marriage always couch it in terms of more clearly articulating what the Framers would have wanted, we amend to correct for things that they couldnt have accounted for or, in the case of slavery, would have prevented if they were not tied down by the political realities of the time. When do we suggest that the Constitution is just completely wrong on an issue? Its rare. Tarantine: I would agree with you on the issue that the Framers were often blatantly wrong on many issues, but I also do not think that is important for the sanctity of the Constitution. The Framers never held the pretense that they had the right answers, and they welcome in fact believed it was our responsibility to amend the Constitution to our needs. If the words of the Constitution fail us it is because we have failed to amend the Constitution to our needs. It is representative of our inadequacy, not the Constitutions. Madore: Touching, but I think the issue is more complicated that just mustering the will to amend the Constitution. My problem is that often the Constitution is not reflective of perceived American valuesit creates them. The Constitution has become so embedded in political discourse that it seems to be held as the root of an American national moral system. How do we know that free speech is good? Too often the answer is because its protected within the Constitution. Why do we think that using torture or denying a person a fair trial is wrong? Too often its because its unconstitutional. Am I alone in thinking that we should have a more compelling reason to dismiss these actions? If reliance upon the Constitution as truly usurped genuine political philosophy, then how do we adapt the Constitution to fit the times? Change does not come easily from within a static documentan ideology has a tendency towards self-affirmation. Tarantine: I would agree that looking to the Constitution for a standard of morality is problematic. We need to accept that certain actions are permissible or impermissible not because they are listed in the Constitution as such but instead because the Constitution attempts to establish a sort of objective guideline for what is permissible. We should divorce morality with the guidelines of what the Constitution gives us. By correcting this we can begin to see that the Constitution is not the word on what should be but rather a malleable document that while objective can be altered to fit the times. This is important because Ive stated we need an impartial decider for what is acceptable. A standard of morality can never be a good system of government because, fundamentally, it is subjective, not objective. Yes it can tend towards self-affirmation but this that is not nec-

essarily bad. The Constitution allows very easily for political socialization, American values may be carried to each generation in turn. This allows for a stable society and a stable government. Madore: So for you it comes down to a matter of stability of values, which is more important than a document or government that reflects changing, subjective morality? Tarantine: I think you may fundamentally misunderstand my argument. It is not a matter of weighing a government that is stability and a government reflective of a subjective morality. The Constitution is essential because it provides a needed defense against attempts to gain power. We must have something objective to stop these advances. It must be an objective non-personal document. I dont believe that it is even an issue of the content of the document, so long as it can be changed. But by simply going through the motions of having to justify your actions to an objective, nonsympathetic law you must go through a step to show how an action will not be a tyrannical play for power. The reverence is essential because in fact it is not a reverence to a document written two hundred years ago but instead a reverence towards a fundamental idea in government that people are greedy and will tend to trample individual freedoms. Its the reverence which is essential not the words or the ideas. Madore: So it is devotion, not content, which is important? Tarantine: Yes, devotion, even to the point of obsession, gives insurances against overreaching governments, as long there is an option of changing the content of that document. Madore: It requires a certain disconnect, I think, to be devoted to the point of obsession to something but still think that it ought to be changed. Tarantine: Its not devotion to the content of the document its a devotion to the idea that there needs to be an objective set of principles. The need for the objective set of principle is unchanging. Madore: I dont think that really addresses my concern. Once an individual clause is part of the Constitution, it becomes hard to challenge it without challenging the documents status as a sacrosanct cornerstone of our political culturea status which is cultivated for just the reason you suggest: A stable set of principles. In this way our reliance upon the imagined greatest of the Constitution stagnates any change to the parts of it that you yourself claimed can be blatantly wrong. Tarantine: Well clearly our system isnt perfect, but what alternative do you suggest? Madore: Trust me, I dont want to throw out the Constitution. I suppose my alternative is tied up in a notion of government. Reverence for the Framers and the Constitution is born out of a desire to see government as the primary moral actorto guide a selfish and unkind populace into peaceful coexistence. Early on in this discussion you expressed the common sentiment that people are greedy and power-seeking,

and thus must have a government that recognizes this fact in order to entrap self-interest within a series of checks and balances. I agree that this is an important fail-safe, but might that notion, if it is too ingrained within our discourse, actually promote the type of society it fears? When the Constitution is allowed to function as a fundamental document of American culture, not just law, it allows a certain vacancy of thought. Why do I need to analyze my own status as a moral actor of the perfect society has already been outlined in a document Im forced to follow? If we just view the Constitution as a basic safeguard, without imbuing it with some quasi-religious status, then we more accurately recognize that the responsibility for moral action lies within the individual, not the government. The government should be the last check on basic insurances, not the first responder. There are certainly things that I hold to be essential that the
Our Constitutional culture.
AZPlea.com

Constitution or any law never told me to do: to act with a certain level of kindness and respect, make small actions towards seeing more equitable communities, etc. Tarantine: I would agree that the Constitution should be a last check to act as a minimum moral baseline of what is acceptable. But is important to note that it gives a code of what isnt permissible, not what must be done. By all means rise above that and institute your own moral code above that point, what society may feel is an imperative. But the sad fact of the matter is that in our society we are not creating our own moral codesor if we are its in a unsophisticated race towards social utility at the cost of rightsand what should be a last responder becomes the first response. The Constitution does not attempt to legislate all morality, just what cant be done if we wish to continue to live in a society in which has the resemblance of a society with American values. Madore: Its not a matter of legislating morality; it is about how we regard those guidelines set in the Constitution. We can treat them as axiomatic principles that define an essential American spirit, ossifying a nationalist sentiment around a document that is not going to markedly change and does not substantiate the rights-claims that it makes. It can be a vacant stand-in for argument; it can be paired with notions of American values or the American way; it can hobble individual moral reasoning to a dead and distant document. Or we can deny it apotheosis as a tautological and inaccessible popular god; we can keep it as a foundational document of governmentnot culture, and we can assert personal moral agency as the core of political philosophy. Ethan Madore 12 is President of the Vassar Debate Society and Debate & Discourse Editor of The Vassar Chronicle. Jessica Tarantine 14 is Vassar & Local Editor for The Vassar Chronicle and a reporter for The Miscellany News.

pAge 17

ChroniCle, April 2011

offiCe hours wiTh James Challey

DeBAte & DiSCourSe

So they are being very careful with children. The next worry is the population that is around the plant. There its compounded by the tsunami. Here are these folksmany of whom have lost everything. Theyre trying to go back and rescuing whatever they can is really important. And now theres this added hazard. So its a tough situation, and of course the pictures of the devastation are just unbelievable. Kisonak: The original evacuation zone was 12 kilometers. Is that arbitrary or is there something meaningful there? Challey: Its arbitrary in the sense that there has to be some place that you have to define it. Theres nothing magical about twelve kilometersits just based on their best estimates. The initial worry was the smoke and steam plumes. When the explosions and fires first happened, there were clearly some materials in it. The indications were that these were not things to worry about. There was iodine which had a short half-life, and tritium which is not particularly radioactive. So the twelve kilometers means: How far do you have to go before these elements disperse to levels that are not worrisome? Now, clearly a number of these reactors got really hot, so they got their fire trucks in place. This was after the explosion, which actually did them a favor because it blew off the top so they could get water into the reactor. They then tried to flood the reactor shell and containment thing with seawater, hoping to cover the top of the reactor. But now were not sure whats going onmaybe the reactor cracked and thats where the fuel rods are leaking out of. Radioactivity can also occur in pools where the waste rods werethat water gets hot and starts to boil away. So they had to pour seawater in there. Then the minerals get exposed to the radiation and become radioactive. Thats probably where were seeing how the lighter elementsthings like cesiumor it could be coming from the fuel rods. The other thing that happened is they pump the seawaterwhich boilsand then the steam boils off. And they have to guess where the steam gets taken by the wind. And what happened to it when it condensesdoes it soak into the ground, or run off into the ocean? Thats kind of how these zones are defined. They continue that guessing when the seawater boils off, with all the salt is left behind. This apparently has crystallized around parts of the fuel rods. And of course the salt is helping to insulate it, not cool them. And as you work your way into this, it really becomes one thing after another. Alaric Chinn: At Chernobyl, the Russian government ordered that the entire plant be buried in cement and concrete and left there for a long time. Is that an option in Japan? Challey: That may be well what happens. I believe for sure that four of the reactors will never be active again. Because the seawater is corrosive to the pipingindeed, all of the metal in the plant. Even under the best of circumstances, youll have to tear it out and start over again. There are twonumbers five and sixthat were in a cold shutdown that werent generating any energy. The control rods had stopped the chain reaction. The fuel rods were still radioactive. But the cooling systems were keeping it under control. If thats the case, then the reactors may be operational in the future. The others will have to be cooled or interned for a long time. Chinn: Recently the German government has shut down their own nuclear power plants and has placed a moratorium on the construction of new ones. To what extent is this driven by practical concerns or fear? Challey: Its hard to sort that out. Public apprehension is a real thing. And I think that saying were going to take a close look here, is probably just prudent, politically. If the reactors in Germany and in the United States are being operated properlythen a review is no harm. If theyre not, then we should check that out. A lot of the response is in response to the public concern and I think political leaders would be foolish to ignore that. There is an argument that you could make that parts of this are irrational. The argument would go something like this: The likelihood of something like this repeating itself in the U.S. is low. What happened in Japan is the coincidence of unlikely events. Every engineering disaster is almost always by definition that. When buildings collapse it isnt because an engineer or architect was an idiot. Its because nobody thought the steam boiler in the basement was going to blow up at the same time as one beam that happened to be next to it started to rust up. A building in New York City actually collapsed just because of that. So in this situation, the question becomes: What are the odds that the earthquake knocks out all the power, and then a tsunami comes in and wipes out the backup system? Kisonak: Are there fault points on the Eastern Seaboard where that could happen? Challey: Its really hard to imagine that. So you could say that the odds are very, very small so spending a lot of time and money on a small danger doesnt make a lot of sense. That in fact raising these kinds of issues does little but drive up costs of building reactors or running them. What were doing is were throwing a lot of money at a problem that is very, very unlikely. We could spend the money better in ways that would make more of a difference in terms of public health. You could make that argument. And the nuclear industry does. And a number of people in nuclear science and engineering do. But I think that at the moment the reality is that this disaster in Japan has spun enough out of control that it is not unreasonable for people to be worriedand the political process has to respond in a meaningful way. The Chinese have already announced that what happened in Japan is sufficient reason for them to slow down their nuclear program. Theyve announced that their goal over the next twenty to thirty years is to put fifty reactors online. And one of the analyses that I saw put it this way: The estimate for the casualties at Chernobyl are about 50,000 people when all the cancers due to radiation exposure works its way up. One estimate says that 50,000 people a year die in China because of respiratory diseases by burning coal. Kisonak: Is there something in the design of these power plants that causes risk? Challey: What I can tell you is that the vast majority of reactors around the world are of two kinds. Theres the boiling water reactor what the Japanese have. And theres the pressurized water reactor. And the boiling water reactor is the older one. Basically theyre not built anymore. There are some advantages to See CHALLEY on page 19

Challey discusses Japanese nuclear crisis, U.S. energy issues

James Challey, Senior Lecturer of Science, Technology, and Society at Vassar College Alaric Chinn, Copy Editor Lane Kisonak, National Affairs Editor

Alaric Chinn, Vassar Chronicle

ane Kisonak: So what exactly is the breakdown of this nuclear disaster? What happened? James Challey: My sense is that it will be years before we figure out what happened. That was true with Chernobyl and that was true with Three Mile Island. And in the time between last Friday and now, things appear to have gotten worse. Last Friday it was more hopeful. Theyd gotten the power back and it looked like they were going to be able to get some of the cooling pumps started again. And the radiation was of the sort thats not terribly serious and was manageable levels. Since then, the thing that Ive found most scary is that theyve apparently detected some plutonium. And what that means is that the fuel rodseither in the reactors or in the spent fuel poolshave been damaged or breached. The only place that plutonium could come from is from uranium in the fuel rods, bombarded by neutrons, transformed into plutonium and that then escaped. That means theres lots of other stuff in those fuel rods that could potentially get loose. So right now its been a roller coaster. It looked like maybe things were going to be stabilized and under control, and thenUhoh!there were new surprises. Right now were at the Uh-oh! stage. Kisonak: So has the core material breached the containment vessel? Is that whats going on? Challey: Its not clear exactly where they found the core material. Apparently it is outside of the reactor vessel. Now, what may have happened is that the material got out of the reactor itself, was in containment, and then got washed out by the seawater that had been put in to flood it. Thats bad but not awful. On the other hand, if it means somehow the containment chamber is cracked and stuff is leaking outthats really problematic. As of now I dont think theyve been able to tell. Its conceivable itll be months or even years before we figure out what happened. The latest problem has to do with the tunnel water. Theres a tunnel underneath the

reactor, which took the steam from the reactor to the turbines, into the condenser and then back. That tunnel apparently has been filled with some of the pumped water. And where its going from there is not clear. Some is clearly going into the ocean because the radioactive iodine levels are up in the sea. The other puzzle is that the levels of iodine are much higher than they thought across the board. Normally, iodine has a half-life that is pretty short. So if you have a spill, people have to be careful for a couple of days. Then the threat is basically gone. If you have levels this high it means you have a lot of it thats continuing to come in on a regular basis. The evidence right now is that there are active leaks of radiation. Kisonak: What about the workers who were there for the original investigation? They were saying they were martyrs. Are they doomed? Challey: Whatever we decide went wrong there, the people who initially responded to it were truly heroic. Its absolutely remarkable that the engineers and technicians at this plant have stepped up, and I think they are doing everything they can. You cant say enough on their behalf. That was true at Chernobyl too. The Russian technicians who went in knew exactly what the dangers were and are now paying the price. Its almost guaranteed there will be long-term health problems. The prevailing theory is that there is no exposure threshold for radiation that is to say, every exposure increases your risk. Whether its a chest X-ray or flying to Los Angeles or working in a building with bricks with radioactive potassiumit adds up, though it turns out that the radioactivity from the bricks is less than if we walked outside and sat in the sunshine. But there is a constant exposure and it appears to be cumulative over time, which is why theyre being careful with children. You dont want to add to their load early in life because then their cumulative exposure will increase. Theyre not worrying about people like me. At this point the risk to me is negligible and not really more than the health risk that Ill get from not exercising or eating fatty foods.

ChroniCle, April 2011

pAge 18

Prof. Challey How can we reduce media sterotypes of Muslims? talks nuclear power, politics T
Lane Kisonak, National Affairs Editor Nathan Tauger, Asst. Debate & Disc. Editor

DeBAte & DiSCourSe

Continued from CHALLEY on page 18 themthey are a bit more efficient in terms of fuel. They have advantages in terms of that you can ramp the power up and down easier, and that makes stabilizing the load on the grid better. But the newer reactorsthe socalled pressurized reactors are regarded as inherently safer. The Chernobyl design was an awful design. Everyone agrees on that. Once something went wrong, the way it was designed, everything went catastrophically wrong. I dont know if there are any Chernobyl style reactors still going. There are proposals for several new designsall of which have been claimed to be safer than the existing reactors. Many of them have a demonstrative model built. But until you have longer experiences with these reactors, its hard to say. Kisonak: A common concern in the wake of this disaster is Indian Point. Its close to us and New York City. What do you think about proximity to population centers? Challey: Politically, its terrible. Of course youre going to have concern and opposition! Part of whats going on at Indian Point is the history working its way into the public consciousness again. Indian Point was built by Consolidated Edison, which is the power company in NYC. And upon its construction, no borough in NYC wanted it. So they shipped it up the Hudson. Up until that point, most of the power plants for New York City were in New York City. And people wanted to get that out of the city. In a sense, Indian Point is where it is because they wanted to get power plants away from population centers. Now its in the middle of suburbia, because suburbs have grown up around it. That cuts two ways. If youre really concerned about Indian Point, you shouldnt have moved to Westchester. The other reality is: What do you do now? Indian Point supplies a very sizeable portion of the electricity that is consumed in this area. The reality is that if you didnt have Indian Point youd have to have something else. Given this area, it could not be replaced by a coal plant. It would have to be natural gas. Thats a little better. Right now the prices are low. Who knows whats going to happen in the future? The whole Japanese issue is probably going to encourage people to switch to natural gas. If supplies go down and prices go up, thats going to be a problem. Plus, its still going to be a big power plant. Where are you going to put that? So right now what youre seeing is a struggle between two different forcesthe section of people and politicians and environmentalists whoin very good faithsay that Indian Point is the wrong plant in the wrong place. Theres another group that says what are the alternatives? Until we get other kinds of green energy, its a necessity. What happens in this case is that we try to balance it out and thats why I think the idea of a close examination of our plants is a good idea. Every time theres a disaster like this, people go back and add another scenario to the What-ifs? and try to fix themknowing full well that the next disaster will be something you didnt foresee.

he Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization devoted to fostering more accurate views of Islam within the American entertainment industry, recently began training young hopeful Muslim-American screenwriters in the art of making Hollywood hits. The groups mission is to combat TV shows like 20th Century Foxs 24 and Bruce Willis film The Siege (distributed also by Fox), which portray Muslims as villains. Nathan Tauger 14 and Lane Kisnoak 13 debate whether media companies should be barred from producing overtly anti-Islam productions.

Nathan Tauger: Imposing any kind of de jure restriction on entertainment companies is censorship and bad for American society. Even if this specific instance seems justified, allowing censorship in this case will set a precedent for more censorship in the futurea real harm if we value letting all people have a voice. The entertainment industry should be unregulated with respect to its content; imposed regulation of the entertainment industry works best, where concerns of the public are still addressed. Lane Kisonak: While I largely agree that certain forms of censorship are unproductive and constitute an unnecessary diversion of resources (Did anyone really need to get as worked up as they did over Janet Jacksons breast in 2004? Does the f-word have to be bleeped out no matter how innocuous the use?), there is a time and place to deploy government action within the airwavesnamely, against blanket portrayals of a single people as entities that should be feared. Letting shows like 24 dehumanize Muslims is especially dangerous amidst the revival of McCarthy-esque witch-hunt tactics by politicians such as Representative Peter King of New York. Groups such as Muslims must be afforded some extra protection during a time of institutionalized prejudice. Tauger: There is no federal law barring the use of curse words in televisions. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), an organization that carries no legal authority, only rates films, and imposes guidelines by companies for companies. Entertainment corporations and other bodies are able to govern themselves through truly democratic public opinion, not imposed views by the government. People should respond through grass-roots methods: Complaining and boycotting channels and programs. Keeping this format, where people respond directly to corporations rather than making government an inefficient middleman that can ultimately misconstrue what people actually want, is whats best for our nation. Moreover, if we want government to censor what people can and cannot portray on television and in movies, how long until criticizing public officials becomes illegal? The merit of our right to free speech of the press is predicated on its application to all people, not only the people who produce what were okay with. Kisonak: Youre correct that there is not currently a federal law barring the use of expletivesbut that is because long-standing, and ever-expanding, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations were

tossed out by the second U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan just last year. You are also correct in your enthusiasm for grassroots organization as a method of influencing programming decisions. However, the pluralistic structure of society works as a double-edged sword in this instance. For every pro-diversity advocacy group or enterprising independent film studio, there is a right-wing, fundamentalist network ready to lobby conservative politicians, whose sole strategy in this era seems to be a constant appeal to an increasingly nativist base. We can see the same impulses of traditionalismwhich led to the dramatic build-up of the FCCs censorship powers through the 2000shard at work, lending permissibility to the defense of traditional American society against Muslim culture and others that are similarly marginalized; insular sentiments are then seized on by savvy politicos during crucial elections. That they are mocked by cables top satirists does little to influence the hearts and minds of those who dont watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Reporti.e., the vast majority of the U.S. population. Tauger: This argument that non-intervention by the government will make the most Americans vote poorly is fraught with elitism. We should respect the ability of mature American citizens to make their own choices when presented with differing media instead of filtering out what we think could be a bad influence on them. Once again think of this argument outside of the context of this case, it could be easily applied to Colbert, Stewart, or South Park. All we need is someone to say that our political systems are too serious to be mocked and suddenly we have a watchdog group preventing Stewart or Colbert from making commentary. What happens when Scientologists say that South Park offends their sensibilities and promotes negative stereotypes of Scientology even if a more nuanced interpretation does not agree with this? While this first step seems to be on the right path to cultural tolerance, its actually the first step towards widespread censorship. Kisonak: We may well be able to anticipate that certain members of society will be discerning enough to see the difference in the portrayal of Muslims among shows such as 24, which mainly casts adherents as terrorists, and shows like Lost, which features Sayid Jarrah, a flawed but self-sacrificing, intelligent man of loyalty and decencybut then we have the segment of society that has its TV tuned to Fox News during dinnertime and finds profound truth in the gospel of Glenn Beck. The ability of the consumer of media to make rational choice, in the situation of Fox News, is impeded by the power of outlets such as Fox to broadcast misleading or outright fictional pieces of information and impart unto them an air of verisimilitude. This is why many groups are advocating for the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, a law which, until its repeal in 1987, enforced standards of equality and factual evidence in presentation of controversial issues. The same principle is at work here; when a group or faction of groups gains control over media outlets such that it can disfigure an entire ethnicity, the playing field is no longer level, and government needs to step in to balance it once more. The slip-

pery slope argument is not valid here because satirists such as Stewart and Colbert are not treading on any of the territory under debate; they will only do so if they start perpetuating negative stereotypes. As for your South Park example, I see no overlap between satirizing the precepts of a given religion and saying its adherents tend to be terrorists. Tauger: My point is not only the slippery slope but also the subjectivity in deciding what is okay to put on TV and what is not. There is definitely an overlap between satire of Scientologists being sub-human and stupid and stereotypes of Muslims being terrorists. I am strongly opposed to the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrinea view I share with good company. Michael Ortiz, then Press Secretary of the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, wrote in an e-mail to the publication Broadcasting and Cable in June of 2008: Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters... He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible... That is why Senator Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets. Kisonak: Obamas press secretary might have written that memo, once upon a time, but do you think the people surrounding the President would say the same thing today, faced with that right-wing, revolvingdoor news-centrifuge that is Fox News? Obama defending the organization that transgressed all basic journalistic principles and tore national discourse asunder during the debate on health care? Even if Obamas people were still to take a reasoned stand against the Fairness Doctrine and analogous policies such as the one that sparked our debate, it would not necessarily be the correct position to take. Satire and analysis that include stereotypes is not in itself necessarily harmful. What is harmful, however, is the sort of traditionalism that wastes resources on the sanctioning of harmless curse words while at the same time allowing the word Muslim to collect harmful meanings in the minds of viewers. Tauger: I think we both agree that government censorship of words on TV is a harm, the clash in this conversation comes elsewhere. We hear that we dont want Fox News perpetuating bad stereotypes because the American proletariat does not have the discerning eyes and ears to filter what they hear, but that more complex media like Stewart, Colbert, and South Park can remain because their nuanced intentions will be understood. This confusion alone serves as a precursor to the main problem with this kind of thinking: Subjectivity. We have to allow presentations that we think are morally abhorrent or wrong in order to preserve what makes our country great: Freedom of letting what we think be heard. I can stand against both Muslim intolerance and censorship. The public forum is for sharing our subjective views in a manner that allows for discourse. Government intervention is not the way to promote this and should not be used as long as we value free expression.

pAge 19

ChroniCle, April 2011

The LasT Page

leT The PeoPle Think ThaT They goVern and They will be goVerned - william Penn