The Eternal Enemy:

Every ideology and every movement needs an enemy to justify its ongoing viability.

Cleverly, many diversity activists across the country have casted the generic “white male” as the quintessential object of their resentment, contempt, and jealousy.

To the most zealous of anti-racists, the white male is the very symbol of historical injustice; he is the Great Oppressor, an Eternal Enemy, and the source of the ongoing problems for colored peoples.

But the white male is also depicted as someone in desperate need of special care, attention, instruction and training in the ways of racial sensitivity. He is, we are told, ignorant and oblivious to his own “privilege,” and therefore in urgent need of our correction.

Imagine:

Can you imagine a place in which people are subject to the invasive paternalism of political correctness?

Can you imagine a regime that assumes that you have the very worst intentions toward other races, overlooks your kindheartedness, and deems you suspicious on the basis of your supposed “privilege?”

Can you imagine being demonized because you deviated from the

regime’s arbitrary standards for cultural sensitivity?

Have you ever been crudely type-casted as “racist,” “ignorant,” or “clueless” by those inveighing against systemic injustice?

In case you haven’t noticed, we are now zooming toward a world in which this will become all too common. And since we’re already living under the regime of multicultural paternalism, one can safely assume that such conditions are already here, and here to stay.

In a time in which political traditionalism is regularly stigmatized as “ignorance” and “racism,” we can safely say that the politics of demonization and guilt-by-association have already arrived. It has cleverly disguised itself as an enlightening force, working in the name of inclusiveness and anti-racism.

Hypocrisy:

Think back to the hypothetical set forth earlier, and consider the following questions with respect to Cornell University. How could such a place ever dream of being conducive to learning? How could such an institution possibly call itself liberal, open-minded, and inclusive if all its members were expected to rigidly adhere—in speech, habit and social life—to an unbending community ideology?

All across the country, the diversity ideologues who promote

Despite what the left may want you to believe, voter fraud is a

signifi cant threat to a civically re-sponsible society. Not only is voter fraud occurring in relatively large numbers, but it also has the poten-tial to swing elections in unique situations.

According to research conduct-ed by the PEW Center, 24 mil-lion voter registrations are inval-id, 1.8 million registered voters are dead, and 2.75 million Americans are registered in more than one state. These statistics sharply con-trast the Brennan Center studies, which quotes about 0.0002 per-cent of votes are fraudulent in the United States. The reason for this discrepancy is often attributed to biased polling, such as neglecting

to ask whether the respondents were actual voters, likely voters, registered voters, or even eligible to vote at all. Furthermore, the Brennan Center’s studies signifi -cantly contrast with earlier evi-dence gathered from the American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi in 2008. What this suggests is that not only is the Brennan Center’s informa-tion dubious, but also, the notion that voter fraud is a non-existent issue is overtly naive. As such, a few states have taken the initiative to try to stop voter fraud.

In 2011, Texas passed a voter ID bill, which required a photo ID to be present when voting for a candi-date. Although the legislation suc-cessfully passed, the bill remained highly controversial. However, two years later, during an off-season

“We Do Not Apologize.”� e Conservative Voice on Campus

BLOGblog.thecornellreview.com SITEthecornellreview.com

An Independent Publication

The Cornell ReviewNovember 22nd, 2013vol. xxxii, no. ii

Continuedonpage9

Ideological Warfare Deconstructing Diversity ActivismRoberto MatosNational News Editor

� e Clarion Call

Voter Fraud Alive & Well

If there’s one thing college students, politicians, and activists

can agree on, it’s that we need more dialogue. And not just any dialogue; constructive dialogue. Thankfully there are institutions of higher learning, where thousands of our nation’s brightest minds can take part in this noble forensic undertaking and present to the world how this elusive ‘dialogue’ should take place. Who better to lead the effort than the Ivy League, with the Princeton Review’s No. 1-rated best college newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun?

Case in point: the newspaper’s ongoing coverage of a scandal

about a student who was offended by another student’s comment in a meeting hosted by the student group that oversees the school’s Big Red Bear mascot’s activities, who said that the Bear should act like a straight man and only make advances on women. Also known as ‘Bigredgaybeargate.’

The original article (by the Sun's news editor), ‘Big Red Bear’ Must Be ‘Heterosexual Male,’ Student Allegedly Told, starts off strong:

‘Top’ College Newspaper Breaks Controversy Over Mascot’s Sexual PreferenceOliver Renick ’12Former Editor-in-Chief

INSIDE!

Bill de Blasio Bad News for Big Apple

GOP at War!Which side are you on? 2

8

Missouri Fires Back at Washington on Gun Control

5

Breaking: Cornellians Continue to Ignore Student Assembly

Editorial: After the Curtains Close at the Shutdown Theater

3

10

Lovers' Spat: SA Cuts ALANA's Budget 5

Bill SnyderCampus news editor

Continuedonpage4

Continuedonpage6

And How to Kill It

Bear Scandal?

about a student who was offended

the mS

2 November22,2013

CR

If, like me, you’re not a Liberal or a Progressive, you’ve probably ex-

perienced an increasing diffi culty in identifying which political umbrella term best describes your set of be-liefs. This is equal parts annoying and alarming. Saying “I’m a Conser-vative,” doesn’t cut it anymore (not that it ever really did or necessarily should have).

Outside of predominantly con-servative regions of the country, it’s almost necessary to ruthlessly de-fend the particulars of your conser-vative (or libertarian, or neoclassi-cal, or individualist) beliefs. What normally should have been a one or two word explanation has evolved into a PhD thesis defense when ex-plaining your values.

The problem at hand, however, is not one of precision of diction, but instead one regarding a polit-ical-philosophical transformation that is challenging the status quo of right-wing political ideology in this country.

The Republican Party is experi-encing a rapid compartmentaliza-tion with unforeseen—albeit enor-mous—consequences. Ever since its emergence in the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party enclave in the GOP has wielded increasing in-fl uence on national and state poli-tics. The fallout has been the growth of antiestablishment factions in the GOP, including the Tea Party, that are reorienting a growing num-ber of disillusioned Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to-wards more refi ned conservatism- if not in some cases outright liber-tarianism or neoclassical liberalism. These groups advocate smaller gov-ernment, lower taxation, free mar-kets, personal responsibility, great-er liberty with respect to education, health, and privacy, and an end to un-necessary foreign wars and world-policing. They do so with a passion that supersedes attempts to obtain political supremacy, emphasizing

instead ideological consistency and coherency, and their refusal to suc-cumb to business-as-usual politics and in many cases to compromise garners them both adoration and scorn. Their main goal is an ideolog-ical purifi cation away from the stat-ist progressivism of Obama and the compassionate conservatism of the Bush years.

Although not every conservative fed up with a jaded Republican Party is an enthusiastic Tea Partier, the expansion of legitimate right-wing ideology is a direct result of the Tea Party’s ascent from grassroots ano-nymity to (depending on your opin-ion) either championed or ridiculed nationwide prominence. A sizeable exodus of conservatives (and some Independents, too) have fl ocked to this alternative to the establishment wing of the GOP, which is rife with contradiction in its governing and policy proposals—for example, try-ing to limit government spending while simultaneously increasing de-fense spending, or advocating Com-mon Core while also stressing the importance of local governments and parents in educating and raising children. And today, especially after

the government shutdown drama, the growing division between estab-lishment and antiestablishment fac-tions is threatening to disintegrate the Republican Party.

In the recent race for the gover-norship of Virginia, Terry McAu-liffe (D) won by a very narrow mar-gin over Tea Party-backed candidate Ken Cucinelli (R). Cucinelli only re-ceived marginal support from the Republican Party establishment—so little that conservative radio talk show host lamented that the main-stream, moderate elements of the party “betrayed” Cucinelli in an ef-fort to diminish the Tea Party. An-other highlight of this split in the party is the increasing polarization

between supporters of moderate (I say RINO) Governor Christ Chris-tie (R-NJ) and the likes of Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Mike Lee (R-UT).

The dissolution of the Republi-can Party into these often mutually exclusive camps is the major source of the increasing burden of describ-ing political beliefs with a label like “conservative,” because these groups are all claimants to the coveted title of “true conservative.” The resulting chaos ensues: Does being a conser-vative, for example, automatically make you opposed to gay marriage and for policing the world? If your views are the opposite, are you then a liberal, or could you be libertarian? There are numerous answers, and it is becoming increasingly diffi cult to answer such questions concisely.

Since Conservatives of all fl a-vors (social, compassionate, fi scal, war hawk, etc.), Libertarians, Neo-classical Liberals, and Individual-ists are all categorized as right-wing, they are supposedly built upon the same axioms of political philoso-phy. The problem is they contradict each other on a wide range of issues and at times with such intensity that

often these internal disagreements eclipse those with left-wing groups. For example, consider the NSA scandal and the debate over nation-al security and the right to privacy. Conservatives big on strong national security, like Rep. Pete King (R-NY) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), are at greater odds with libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Jus-tin Amash (R-MI) than ultra-liberal Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who supports the NSA’s wide-ranging, ill-defi ned surveillance powers. Paul and Amash instead fi nd themselves on this issue sided with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a cookie-cutter lib-eral who supports increasing gun control, legislating cap-and-trade,

and limiting free trade. It’s said that

politics makes odd bed fellows, but

what’s going on now is a full-on

swinger’s party.

While those concerned with Re-

publican political victory usual-

ly stress ideological inclusiveness

in order to win elections, the more

ideological eschew such sentiments,

making the strategy of reconcili-

ation doomed from the start. As I

wrote, this latter group is at least

right now more concerned with ide-

ological purity rather than political

hegemony, the two being very differ-

ent goals.

If at the start of this article it

seemed like I was going to offer a

solution to those who are struggling

to explain political beliefs concise-

ly, then I apologize. I’m not, and the

reason is not because I can barely

explain myself (though this is true),

but because this problem has only

just begun and the level of Republi-

can disintegration and the intensity

of intra-Republican disagreements

will continue to increase.

Optimists from both wings smil-

ingly claim that these arguments

will strengthen the party. Mean-

while, pessimists (mainly establish-

ment Republicans) decry them as

weakening. I believe if the political-

ly-minded are willing to visit adopt-

ing more of the new conservative

framework, and if the ideologues are

willing to consider political victory

as a means of spreading their beliefs,

then the part will emerge from its

crisis strengthened. Otherwise, it’s

doomed, and what will come of it all

is impossible to say.

Casey Breznick is a freshman in

the College of Arts and Sciences. He

canbereachedatcb628@cornell.edu.

Opinion

contradiction in its governing and policy proposals—for example, try-ing to limit government spending while simultaneously increasing de-fense spending, or advocating Com-

continuedfromthefrontpage

Source: Egypt Independent

Casey BreznickStaff Writer

You're Not What You Th ink You Are

“Does being a conservative, for example, automatically make you opposed to gay marriage and for policing the world?”

Cornell UniversityClass of 2017

Versus!

November22,2013 3

CR

On Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 the United States government

shut down. Sort of. I mean, the government fulfi lled obligations made prior to the shut down, and if we include the benefi ciaries of the few continuing resolutions the House passed and the Senate approved, then technically only 17% of the government was shut down, but still—the national monuments were defi nitely shut down. Unless you happened to be a pissed off military veteran, in which case they were not. But I digress.

Since the beginning of the “epic and disastrous” Shut Down of 2013, both sides of the aisle have been at each others throats. All of your favorite CSPAN reality stars have been angling for their chance in front of the camera, just to make

sure that the whole world (of CSPAN viewers, which I believe may be up to 15 at this point) knows just how much the other side was to blame for this debacle. Reid, Boehner, Cruz, Pelosi, the President, and even low-ranking aides have all managed to get their shots in.

The question that we must now ask ourselves is this: now that this is all over, the dust has settled and a budget continuing resolution was fi nally agreed upon—what now? In the weeks leading up to the October 1st deadline and in the weeks to come, both sides seem to be doing everything they can to alienate themselves from the people that they are supposed to be working with to run this country. With

every passing press conference, there becomes a more physical and palpable sense of actual hate between these people.

How in the hell are they supposed to work together after this?

It has gotten so bad now that Republicans and Democrats even have to worry about attacks coming from within their own party. How is this conducive to a productive work environment? Is this how it is going to be until elections in 2014? 2016? Beyond that?

The messages coming from both sides have bordered on the ridiculous. Really, Rei-losi-bama? You really think by putting this whole mess on the shoulders of the Tea Party it will ensure they will not be elected/reelected in 2014? Do you seriously not realize that you probably just single-handedly

ensured the election of more Tea Party representatives next year by showing just how much power you believe they have already? You actually think that by blaming the Tea Party in the press that you are going to get them to stop being the pain-in-your-ass they set out to be in the fi rst place? Really?

This has ceased to be politics. This is no longer two sides arguing over what is best for the American people. This has degraded to a simple battle of egos. This is 4th grade, elementary school playground stuff. This is cheap reality TV. That it is coming from these monuments of narcissism is no surprise. That these men and women seem unable to put their

baser instincts aside for the good of a nation is.

I fi nd it impossible to take a side in this idiotic debate. It is not because I don’t believe that the issues being debated are unimportant, because I do. I believe the rollout of ACA/Obamacare was obviously premature, and that there were still many things that need to be worked out. It does not take a genius to see that. The myriad technical glitches the Healthcare.gov website has been experiencing since it opened are just one example. The millions of people who suddenly got dropped from the plans they were promised they would be able to keep is another. I believe the program is being done with honorable intentions, but I also believe that President Obama has gone for too much, too fast, in an effort to secure his legacy.

Legacy. As if anyone on that hill could have the gall to consider that in the light of their actions over the last six years. As depressing as this whole situation is, there is still one silver lining that we can all cling to: the people are not amused. According to a recent CBS News poll, 9 out of 10 Americans are unhappy with the current situation on Capital Hill. Not exactly fodder for all of those “the American people want X” claims that keep coming from both sides. What those numbers say to me is that the American people do not want all of the petty grade-school bickering anymore. I believe that there is a certain weariness beginning to creep in. We’re tired of it. Politics is not about getting your way. It’s about being able to work together and compromise on a solution that is best for the country.

We the people trusted you to do that job. Now stop acting like children and get to work.

MikeNavarroisaseniorintheCollegeofAgricultureandLifeSciences.Hecanbereachedatmln62@cornell.edu.

Editorial 33

Jim KellerJerome D. Pinn

Anthony Santelli, Jr.Ann Coulter

Founders

The Cornell Review is an independent biweekly journal published by students of Cornell University for the benefi t of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni of the Cornell community. The Cornell Review is a thoughtful review of campus and national politics from a broad conservative perspective. The Cornell Review, an independent student organization located at Cornell University, produced and is responsible for the content of this publication. This publication was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or refl ect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives.

The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profi t corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the editors or the sta� of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, o� cers, or sta� of The Ithaca Review, Inc.

The Cornell Review is distributed free, limited to one issue per person, on campus as well as to local businesses in Ithaca. Additional copies beyond the fi rst free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

� e Cornell ReviewFounded 1984 r Incorporated 1986

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Tuesdays at 5:00 pm in RCK B16.

E-mail messages should be sent to cornellreview@cornell.edu

Faculty AdvisorWilliam A. Jacobson

The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We publish a spectrum of beliefs, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a well-reasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@cornell.edu for consideration.

Copyright © 2013 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The Reviewwelcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best

suited for publication in the CornellDailySun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words.

Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@cornell.edu.

“This has ceased to be politics. This is no longer two sides arguing over what is best for the American people. This has degraded to a simple battle of egos.”

So…Where Do We Go From Here?Mike NavarroEditor-In-Chief

The Cornell ReviewEST.1984

thecornellreview.com

Mike NavarroEditor-in-Chief

Laurel ConradPresident

Bill SnyderCampus News Editor

Roberto MatosNational News Editor

ContributorsMichael Alan

Kushagra AniketCasey Breznick

Caroline EmbertonAndre GardinerAlex Gimenez

Laura GundersonNathaniel HunterMichael Loffredo

Emeritus MembersNoah Kantro

Alfonse MugliaKarim Lakhani

Board of DirectorsChristopher DeCenzoJoseph E. Gehring Jr.Anthony Santelli Jr.

4 November22,2013

CR

election, the ID bill was fi nally put in place.

This was important because it was the fi rst test of the new law. Dur-ing the election, few people had is-sues with voter ID verifi cation. This suggests one of two things: either the law worked and prevented sub-stantial cases in voter fraud, or many people can easily fake photo identi-fi cation. The more likely explana-

tion is that photo-ID reduced voter fraud; however, because little data is collected consistently

between districts and states, the exact nature of long-term trends is diffi cult to determine.

With all of this in mind, why do some people so forcefully detest voter I.D. requirements? The short answer is that people believe it to be inherently undemocratic. Voter I.D. requirements are often com-pared to policies such as poll taxes or other unconstitutional meth-ods of disenfranchising minorities and less affl uent members of soci-ety. However, these accusations are an irrational response to a relatively menial requirement. According to a survey conducted in 2006, less than one tenth of one percent of individu-als did not have any form of proper identifi cation that could be used to vote. Even on a common sense basis, people don’t think twice about re-quiring photo I.D. for airplane tick-ets or Wal-Mart refunds, yet when it comes to verifying eligibility for elections, this is somehow too much to ask. Furthermore, states now pro-vide government I.D.’s for individu-als that do not have any other form of identifi cation. If anything, these laws are a backhand tax likely paid by the rich, then a vehicle to prevent minorities or the poor from voting.

As such, this evidence suggests that any positions against voter I.D.

laws are either unwarranted or born from malicious motivation. While many people that are likely misin-formed, the more concerning issue lies in the possible motivations of preventing such laws from being passed. The only reason a group would be interested in preventing laws designed to stop voter fraud is because that group benefi ts from the effects of voter fraud. That’s right; some groups are willing to allow voter fraud if they think it is help-ing their agenda. And that impulse is what is truly against democracy. While it is dubious as to whether or not one could prove this, I remind you of this event:

In the 2008 Minnesotan senato-rial elections, Democrat Al Franken won by only 312 votes, all of which where under suspect and challenged by the incumbent.

I propose that some of the allega-tions against tighter voting require-ments is motivated by a selfi sh, par-tisan goals. Photo I.D. laws are not and should not be diffi cult to obtain in a free and wealthy society like America. But people will need to recognize that a problem does in fact exist before the issue of voter fraud can be resolved.

BillSnyderisasophomoreintheCollegeofArts&Sciences.Hecanbereachedatwjs245@cornell.edu.

The Intercollegiate Studies Insti-tute’s (ISI) honored Cornellian

Caroline Emberton with the Pres-ton A. Wells Jr. Leadership Award in October. This prestigious award is presented to only three conserva-tive student leaders nationwide who have made an impact on campus, in their communities, and beyond.

Caroline is a senior government student and is the cofounder of Cor-nell’s chapter of NeW, the Network of Enlightened Women. She also served as the president of NeW for two years and is currently one of NeW’s chapter leaders. The pur-pose of this organization is to foster dignity and self-empowerment in women, while creating an environ-ment in which students can discuss important issues and connect with peers.

Caroline told the Review that a major goal of NeW is to allow stu-dents to have a networking and sup-port group and to provide oppor-tunities for the discussion of ideas

with others, especially on campus where conservative women rarely have a very big voice. She also men-tioned that one of the most mean-ingful aspects of NeW is that it offers a perspective different from those of most women’s groups on campus. NeW focuses on promoting values that uplift women and maintain dig-nity, which in turn fosters empow-erment and growth on an individu-al and organizational level. Caroline said that she believes there to be many common goals among wom-en’s groups, and that collaboration is important.

In an interview conducted by NeW, Caroline said, “I started Cornell’s NeW chapter because I thought NeW would add diversity and provide a valuable contribution and voice to the community of wom-en’s groups on campus. Our aim is to fi nd common ground, yet provide an alternative to some of the aspects of feminism that we fi nd less empow-ering to women. The NeW chap-ter at Cornell has had the opportu-nity to foster debate and discussion by bringing speakers to campus and

collaborating with other women’s groups at Cornell.”

Caroline received the award at the Yale Club dinner banquet, where she was able to connect with stu-dents from all over the world, as well as meet professionals in the fi eld. Caroline said that networking is ex-tremely important for her and has enabled her to, “attend conferenc-es, speak on the radio, meet incred-ible conservative female leaders,

and build so many friendships with women from all around the country.”

Caroline is looking into working in the area of public policy related to women’s issues, where we know she will excel and continue to make a difference.

LauraGundersonisafreshmenintheCollegeofAgriculture&LifeSci-ences.Shecanbereachedatlcg63@cornell.edu.

Campus

Caroline Emberton ’14 speaking at last fall's Newtork of Enlightened Women conference

Election Fraud

Cornell NeW Leader Wins National AwardCaroline Emberton honored by ISI

Laura GundersonStaff Writer

“…people don’t think twice about requiring photo I.D. for airplane tickets or Wal-Mart refunds, yet when it comes to verifying eligibility for elections, this is somehow too much to ask.”

Continuedfromthefrontpage

National

because that group benefi ts from the effects of voter fraud. That’s right; some groups are willing to allow voter fraud if they think it is help-ing their agenda. And that impulse laws are a backhand tax likely paid is what is truly against democracy. While it is dubious as to whether or

November22,2013 5

CR

Missouri recently attempt to pass legislation reducing re-

strictions on gun ownership to counter new federal regulations. While the legislature failed to over-ride a veto by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, this law marks the most recent attempt by a State to nullify federal law.

The Missouri gun bill was meant to reduce the restrictions on gun ownership, which directly opposes President Obama’s desire for new laws tightening regulation on guns. The bill included such provisions as: creating a state misdemeanor charge against federal authorities attempting to enforce the current gun laws, allowing police and pros-ecutors to be targeted with law-suits for attempting to enforce the nullifi ed laws, and prohibiting the press from publishing the names of gun owners in the newspaper. As such, these laws not only would re-duce the restrictions on gun own-ership, but also would confl ict with

the Constitution's First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution. While the State House of Representatives did over-ride the veto by Governor Jay Nixon, the Senate failed to override by only two votes.

Because State legislators have made signifi cant progress in gain-ing authority over gun regulations, the Missouri State Senate likely in-tended to be successful in passing a law that nullifi es the federal govern-ment’s actions. While the Supreme Court would likely challenge and successfully strike down this law, it is likely that some parts of the legis-lation would remain, thereby reduc-ing signifi cant gun restrictions.

However, this issue was not about pragmatic Senators attempting to reform gun law, but rather, a direct challenge to the federal government. The Senators in favor of reduced gun restrictions strategically used the popular guns rights issue to send a message to the federal government. The message was simple: Missouri does not support an encroaching

federal government. And while the legislation did not pass, the message remains clear.

Missouri’s attempt at nullifying federal law harkens back an earlier America in which States retained more power and the federal gov-ernment remained relatively small. Thomas Jefferson and James Madi-son both argued that the States' right to nullify federal action was neces-sary in preventing federal abuse of power. This logic was later applied during the Civil War Era, in which Southern States wanted to nullify laws such as high protective tariffs and restrictions on slavery. While the Union had hoped to put to rest the issue of nullifi cation after the

Civil War, the issue seems to have re-surfaced (at least for the moment).

Missouri is challenging the fed-eral government and the Obama ad-ministration to stop expanding fed-eral power. Although the Missouri State Senate’s legislative focus was on gun regulation, the State’s mes-sage was likely in response to the broader issue of government inter-vention against state sovereignty. In the words of Republican Senator Nieves from Washington, MO, “This fi ght ain't over, it ain't over, it ain't over.”

BillSnyderisasophomoreintheCollegeofArts&Sciences.Hecanbereachedatwjs245@cornell.edu.

National

“Missouri’s attempt at nullifying federal law harkens back an earlier America in which States retained more power and the federal government remained relatively small.”

Missouri Sticks to its sBill SnyderCampus news editor

Thisarticlewasfirstpublishedonthe Cornell Insider (blog.thecornell-review.com).

In a rare stroke of fi scal conserva-tism and fi scal responsibility, Cor-

nell’s Student Assembly voted 23 to 2 on November 21 to affi rm the ap-propriations committee’s funding recommendation for the African, Latino, Asian, and Native American (ALANA) Intercultural Program-ming Board, an umbrella organiza-tion on campus for 45 multicultur-al organizations, according to their website. The approved measure amounted to a reduction in fund-ing of nearly $25,000 for the 2014-2016 cycle. The two dissenting votes came from the assembly’s two mi-nority representatives.

Geoffery Block, vice president of the Appropriations Committee, guided the assembly and audience through ALANA’s numerous viola-tions of its own constitution, funding rules, and alleged fl agrant misuse of funds and exorbitant spending on its organization’s activities and events, especially those involving food.

Some examples of the fi scal ir-responsibility included spending $5,600 on a $1,000-capped event called Filthy Gorgeous and spending $92 per attendee on Rap Sessions when normally $20 per attendee is the max. Another criticism Block and the appropriations commit-tee offered of ALANA was its poor bookkeeping and the unaccountabil-ity of $8,000 even after their funding application was revised three times due to incongruence and failure to report fi gures correctly.

Part of the uproar over the reduc-tion stemmed from some communi-ty members’ belief that the decision to reduce spending was made be-cause the university does not priori-tize diversity.

Earlier that day, the Cornell Daily Sun ran an editorial supporting the assembly’s decision (once again, a rare stroke of fi scal conservatism from the Sun). It also ran a news arti-cle and two submitted letters which

insinuated that the issue at hand was not misspent dollars, but squashing on-campus diversity. When repre-sentatives of ALANA took the mi-crophone to make their case before the Student Assembly for a revised, more moderate request of funding, they acknowledged that there had been many mistakes made in the management of their funds.

As the major reason for its fi s-cal irresponsibility and lack of over-sight, ALANA identifi ed a diffi cult transition of its Executive Board last year, and concluded with their wish to make this into a “learning experience.”

The organization’s representa-tives then claimed that they had already put into effect various cost-cutting measures and other safeguards to prevent such over-spending and misuse of funds from occurring again. They submitted a revised request for funding that would cost each student $10.75 from

his or her activity. ALANA cited growing membership as the primary reason for a funding increase.

Later in the proceedings, Block shot back at ALANA with a blunt denial of sympathy and pointed out that an organization going through a learning process should not be han-dling over a hundred thousand dol-lars of funding. He also questioned ALANA’s requests for more fund-ing in light of the organization’s own projections of declining spending over the next two years.

The Student Assembly’s hard line stance on ALANA’s irresponsibility should come as a positive to cam-pus conservatives and all those who place common sense and fi scal con-servatism over political correctness and bowing to popular outcry.

CaseyBreznick,whocanbereachedatcb628@cornell.edu,andNathanielHunter,canbereachedatnth9@cor-nell.edu,arebothfreshmenintheCol-legeofArts&Sciences.

Campus

Student Assembly, ALANA Clash Over FundingA surprising win for fi nancial responsibility

By Casey Breznick and Nathaniel Hunter

6 November22,2013

CR

“Lastmonth,SamuelNaimi’16attendedtryoutsforthe BigRedBearsClub,whichrecruitsvolunteerstobethe BigRedBear,Cornell’smascot.Butwhatclubmembers saidatthetryoutssoonmadeNaimi,whopreferstogo bythepronoun“they,”realizetheymightnotfittherole.”

The lede abides by traditional journalism standards, in which the author introduces the source, defi nes Big Red Bears Club, and clarifi es which pronoun they will be using to refer to the source.

According to the source, while explaining to students how the person in costume as the bear mascot—who is named Touchdown—should act, someone from the group allegedly said:

“TheBigRedBearmustalwaysactlikea‘heterosexualman’ and‘approachonlywomen,’oneofthemembersoftheBig RedBearClubsaidatthemeeting,accordingtoNaimi.”

Oh, well of course this is a problem! Why is the school encouraging a student in a giant bear costume to harass women—oh never mind that’s not the issue at hand.

“Thecommentthatthemascotmustactlikea‘heterosexual man’madethemfeel‘extremelyuncomfortable,’Naimi said.‘They’resupposedtoberepresentingthediverse Cornellcommunity.’”

Granted, this paragraph is kind of confusing at fi rst, what with all the ‘them’ and ‘they’s. But once you connect the pronoun dots it really does make sense: they are offended because they said to them that when they dress up as bears like them they shouldn’t act gay, which offended them and they. But they were even more offended by this comment:

“‘OnlyduringFilthy/Gorgeous[apartyhostedbythegay community]isthebearnotastraightmale,’oneofthe memberssaid,elicitinglaughterfromtheaudience, accordingtoNaimi.”

The bear can act gay at the gay event??? Still don’t understand the outrage? Well, then, just listen to these two other sources

from the gay community who are also upset over Naimi’s story about his trip to the Big Red Bears meeting which has now become a 400-word article written by an editor of the nation’s top college newspaper at an Ivy League University:

“BaileyDineen’15,whoalsopreferstogobythepronoun‘they,’ saidhearingabouttheincidentleftthemfeelinginfuriated. DineenisthevicepresidentofHAVEN:TheLGBTQStudent Unionand a Sun columnist.”

Adhering to more time-tested techniques of news writing, the author quotes a columnist from her own newspaper as a source and lets them dictate their preferred pronoun usage. In closing, the author (instead of offering an opposing viewpoint on the issue by fi nding a source, any of probably 14,000 students at Cornell, who would think that Bigredgaybeargate might be just a little bit overblown) quotes another member of the gay community—who can certainly understand why the genderless pronoun person and Daily Sun columnist acting as a source are offended by the comment that the Big Red Bear mascot club may have made in what is now an 800-word article in the best newspaper in the country that leads the world in higher education.

“‘Constantlyfindingout,‘Okay,amIgoingtobesafe?amI goingtobeunderstood?…’It’sincrediblytaxingtothink thatwayeveryday,allthetime,’[BetrearonTezera’14, facilitatorofDirectActiontoStopHeterosexism],said.”

Campus

the

Mooning

The Cornell Daily SunPresents

Scandal TheaterIthaca

Author & Editor Ms. J. Lee

BigRedGayBearGate

BENEFIT!To Further the Causes of Moral Relevance & Progressivism Through the Continued Destruction and Obfuscation of the English Language by Shoddy College Journalists,

Starring

&TOUCHuDOWNthere the sexualized MASCOT BEAR

The THEYSLIMITED ENGAGEMENT —

UNTIL THE NEXT ABSURD OUTRAGE ONLY!

Continuedfromthefrontpage

“Oh, well of course this is a problem! Why is the school encouraging a student in a giant bear costume to harass women—oh never mind that’s not the issue at hand.”

More than just a friendly paw?

November 22, 2013 7

CR

Indeed, it is a serious issue if students feel unsafe or misunderstood around The Big Red Bear. But by you now you may be asking yourself: how did this story come about? How did the Sun manage to find such a gold mine of like-minded sources, some of whom work at their own paper? Is Bigredgaybeargate’s androgynous whistleblower even telling the truth? How the hell did the editorial board of the best newspaper in the country sign off on all this?

I’d like to think they just were short on space and knew that publishing an uncorroborated story of a random person and his/her friends about Touchdown the Bear’s sexuality isn’t an actual scandal they just thought what the heck we need to fill som—OOHH MY GOD YOU MEAN THEY ARE ACTUALLY ON BOARD WITH THIS AND PLANNED IT OUT IN THEIR NEWSROOM AS ‘BEAR SCANDAL’??

Yes!, according to an image from Business Insider’s article on the best college newspaper in the country and arguably, by transition, the world.

Right. So, anyway…the credibility of the Daily Sun as a news outlet is not really what Bigredgaybeargate is about. It’s about inciting intellectual dialogue.

And sure enough it did! The Theys wrote an accompanying letter to the editor to further enhance dialogue:

“AttherecentauditionfortheBigRedBears,amemberofthe LGBTQQIAP+communitywasexplicitlytoldthatinorderto representtheCornellcommunityasTouchdowntheBear…”

— Oooook, this is a little bit confusing as I’m pretty sure LGBTQQIAP+ is some kind of a coding language I’ve never heard about and I’m not really sure how it applies to Bigredgaybeargate. Also I’m just not sure I can take anything seriously after the words “Touchdown the Bear” have been thrown around so callously.

So what do The Theys want?

“TotheBigRedBears,then,wedemandthatyouthinkcritically, thatyoureflectandconsider:Doyourepresenteveryoneinthe Cornellcommunity?”

That is a good question. I guess I’d have to say that they probably represent a giant plush bear costume called Touchdown who may or may not have been instructed to harass women on a daily basis and act gay at gay events.

But let’s not lose sight of what’s important here: dialogue. Taken from the comments section, here are some snippets of that prized dialogue. Thank you Cornell Sun, for starting the conversation and showing what constructive dialogue can be.

I do have a legitimate question for The Sun, though.

I was at a recent ornithology event at Cornell in which I was told I can’t live in the campus aviary, and I was very offended. I can provide two friends who were also offended. So…who should I contact to get our article?

Also, I would like to be referred to using the pronoun ‘a dinosaur,’ i.e, “a dinosaur said.”

Thank you,

Oliver Renick A dinosaur

Campus

Photo by Rebecca Harris/Cornell Daily Sun

And, zoom: Bear Scandal!!!

The Sun’s high tech planning process…

maxmill:ThebearisunlikeSpongebobinthatthereisahumanbeing insidethemalebearcostume.Liza:‘Andthere'sacertainwaytoactwhenyouarethebear.’whyis there?Whywouldabearonlyapproachwomen?Thatmakes nosense.mike:Oppression’snotadickmeasuringcontest.Injusticeagainst onepersondoesn’tmakeinjusticeagainstotherslessimportant. Allstrugglesarebounduptogether.nowag: ThismaybethesinglemostridiculousthingIhaveeverread ontheinternet.TravisCuvelier:Couldn’tagreemore.MittRomneyshould’vewon.Luke: *sigh*It’sliketalkingtomylittlebrother,heneverquitegetsit. Ifyoucan’tfollowimpliedsubjectsinatext-based conversation,Isimplywon’tcontinue.Liza:Saying“abearshouldbeaheteromale”whichissooffensive becauseit’ssooutofleftfieldisnottheresultofadiverseview point.Don’tkidyourself.BillStewart2012:TheBear’snotsupposedtobeasexualcharacter, soheshouldn’tbeactingheterosexual.He’sabear. He’ssupposedtobebouncyandenergetic.I’ma straightguyandIplayedthefootballteammascot whenIwasinhighschool(andwasn’tverygoodat it:-)Ifthesefolkswanttobethebear,andthey’re goodatbeingthebear,great!Andifyoudon’twant tousethepronountheywanttobecalled,then “Hey,Bear”willdofine.Luke:Howdoesawhitemanact?NYFGJoe:SowhatdoesitsayaboutTouchdownthathewearsno pants?mike:Thewhitenessonthiscommentthreadtho…NYFGJoe: PerhapsitwouldbedifferentiftherewasaMrs. Touchdowntoo,butthere’snot.Asforthestatementthat thebearshouldonlyapproachwomen,that’sjustfalse. I’mamale,andI’vehadthebearapproachmemany times,usuallyforahigh-five(whichisobviously non-sexual).

8 November 22, 2013

CR

Negotiations between Iran and the “P5+1,” which refers to

the five World War II allied pow-ers (US, China, Russia, France, and Britain) and Germany, began with a first round in Geneva on October 15th. This was generally seen as a positive first step in what will ulti-mately be a difficult task: reaching a solution that satisfies Iran’s desire for sanctions relief and peaceful nu-clear energy, while also denying Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons. E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton characterized the meeting as “very intensive and very important.” In a positive concluding sign, the two sides released a joint statement for the first time, setting November 7th as the date for the second round of talks.

First, a little background. Iran’s interest in nuclear development began before the revolution of 1979 and continued afterward. Fears of Iran developing nuclear weapons have been voiced since the 1980’s. By 1990, when it had become in-creasingly clear that Iran was violat-ing non-proliferation norms, the US imposed sanctions on Iran. Since then, sanctions have gradually in-creased in scope. In addition, the US has had success in rallying more and more UN countries to support the sanctions program.

The sanctions have hurt. Iran’s oil exports have fallen by about 50

percent since 2011. Although the numbers are hard to pinpoint due to questionable accuracy, Iran is likely suffering through about 30 percent inflation and 20 percent unemploy-ment. This deep economic turmoil

has had a significant impact on the lives of the Iranian people, yet Iran has continued its nuclear program without any intention to even ne-gotiate until recent months. All the possible benefits of peaceful nuclear power couldn’t come close to out-weighing the deep economic pain that Iran is suffering. So why has it obstinately insisted on maintaining its program?

This basic question and all reli-able sources of intelligence indicate

that Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, even at the cost of crippling economic sanctions. It has engaged in types of enrichment that can only be for weaponry, and has specifically hidden centrifuges deep

into mountains, where they are im-mune to many forms of aerial attack. This all suggests that Iran is most likely pursuing nuclear weapons.

Whether Iran will use nucle-ar weapons or not in the region is unknown; however, the important point is the threat of arms prolif-eration in the Middle East. Add-ing devastating nuclear weapons to this situation will likely encourage weapons proliferation in the region

because other nations will be at risk to an increasingly militarily power-ful Iran. As Iran develops a nuclear program, other nations will attempt to match this program for strategic defensive purposes. Furthermore, the Middle East is already the most dangerous region in the world, and is closely linked with terrorism. Be-cause Iran has been known to spon-sor terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who are dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel, nuclear weapons have a reasonable risk of coming under terrorist con-trol. And all of these dangers are in addition to the threat of Iran itself using such weapons against its ene-mies. It’s no wonder that all respon-sible countries, including neighbor-ing Muslim states, have lined up behind the effort to stop it.

It appears unlikely that Iran will accept a deal that will ban the con-tinued production of nuclear weap-ons. With this in mind, it seems fair to be skeptical about the chances that these negotiations will succeed. The P5+1 should maintain the cur-rent sanctions until Iran shows real steps towards dismantling its nu-clear weapons capability. The US and its partners should approach with a big stick, because naïveté and soft-handedness can lead to an empty agreement, and later, an Iran with nuclear weapons. As such, the world should be weary of the Iran’s nuclear program and its progress.

BenjaminHorowitzistheChairofPoliticalAffairsfortheCornell-IsraelPublicAffairsCommittee.Heisaju-nior inCALS,andcanbereachedatbsh56@cornell.edu.

National8

After close to two decades of Re-publican or Independent lead-

ership, New York City voted in Bill de Blasio by close to 50 percent-age points. Bill de Blasio, who ben-efited from an embarrassing field of Democratic opponents, as well as a strong populist message, barely had to campaign outside of the primary session. The Republican Challenger, Joe Lhota, failed to gain any trac-tion despite a strong record as the MTA chair during Hurricane Sandy. With all the media attention being focused on the Democratic prima-ry, Lhota failed to develop the name recognition and the brand need-ed to win as a Republican in New York City. Needless to say, party af-filiation in NYC is overwhelmingly Democratic, making it difficult for any Republican candidate to win.

Implications aside, the contrast between de Blasio and former mayor Bloomberg couldn’t be starker. Michael Bloomberg

brought international name recog-nition and political independence to a city in need of direction after 9/11. His efforts to reform the NYC education system, as well as the in-fusion of billions in personal/pub-lic investment have transformed the look and feel of the city. His continuing support of police com-missioner Ray Kelly has decreased crime and increased prepared-ness for potential terrorist attacks. Mayor Bloomberg also brought a degree of professionalism to the city government that can could only come with decades in the pri-vate sector. In contrast, De Blasio has been a lifelong activist and pub-lic servant. His understanding and connection to all levels of the city are unparalleled, but his ability to raise the city’s standing is very lim-ited. Unlike Bloomberg, it will be very difficult for de Blasio to act as a representative of the city’s interests outside of the five boroughs.

From a policy perspective, there is a lot more rhetoric than substance

to look at. The most high pro-file initiative de Blasio has is on education. De Blasio hopes to increase taxes on those earning over $500,000 a year to support Universal Pre-K. While the returns to any proposal that in-creases educational outcomes typi-cally passes a cost benefit analysis, most of the academic literature on scalable programs do not support de Blasio’s policy. Outside of edu-cation, de Blasio has a very general populist agenda that covers taxes, housing, and crime. However, he will likely run into a ton of road-blocks related to state and local power issues. Most of the chang-es that may occur in NYC over the next four years will come down to larger economic trends that are out of the mayor’s hands.

Whatever your opinions on de Blasio’s policies may be, the larg-er national implications of his

election are limited. While de Bla-sio’s reform initiatives have some national appeal, it will be difficult for them to be implemented. New York City will struggle to overcome the challenges that the departure of Bloomberg will bring, such as a government brain drain, mixed in with potential reductions in private funding. De Blasio may change the city for the better, but his election shifts the mayors’ office from one with national recognition, to one with no political relevance outside of New York State.

Andre Gardiner is a life-longManhattaniteandseniorintheCol-lege of Human Ecology. He can bereachedatapg58@cornell.edu.

NYC Elects DeBlasio,Irrelevance to Ensue

Keeping Pressure on IranBenjamin HorowitzGuest Column

Andre GardinerStaff Writer

Closer every day…

Mayor and Mayor-Elect, chatting about how staged this photo is.

November22,2013 9

CR

“tolerance” and “inclusion” have become the epitome of the very ugliness, arrogance, intolerance and exclusion which they purport to fi ght against. They exhibit a spirit of ideological conceitedness and self-righteousness, and this is especially evident in their attitude toward those they consider “privileged.” Diversity ideologues are absolutely convinced that the privileged are necessarily “clueless” and “ignorant,” and therefore racist. By extension, the privileged, according to diversity ideologues, are not only in desperate need of re-education, but are exceedingly worthy of demonization.

An Incident:

Much has been made of Cornell Athletics culturally insensitive appropriation of Chicano culture in its promotion of Homecoming (the infamous Cinco de Octobre scandal). Understandably, the outcry in response was profound. The Intercultural Center’s assistant deans convened a few dozen student activity leaders on campus, among them Student Assembly representatives, to discuss the matter and engineer a response. It was a symposium aimed toward combating cultural insensitivity on campus. Most of the attendees made well-reasoned and thoughtful comments regarding the incidents in question.

Perpetual Crisis:

But our attention here must focus on the most vocal student participants who either (1) exhibited the most extreme variety of alarmism, (2) became strangely indignant toward dissenters, (3) exhibited overweening self-righteousness, or (4) proposed dangerously paternalistic pro-diversity reforms.

I do this not to create the impression that these extreme views

and attitudes are representative of the entire pro-diversity movement, but to call attention to the individuals whose views are rapidly gaining currency amongst it, especially on this campus.

It was as if the campus is in a perpetual state of crisis. The most vocal participants operated under this assumption. The system, and everyone identifi ed with it, is against them and biased against them. “Racism is everywhere," they preach. “White privilege” is the ultimate source of problems on campus. The campaign to fi ght ignorance is an everlasting project. One or two incidents of “bias” justifi es sweeping, wholesale reform and diversity training for faculty, and even students, to fi ght the “plague” of racism, which is apparently all-pervasive and infects everyone.

The “Ignorant”:

Others believed that oppression perpetrated by “ignorant” students and faculty can be found in practically every nook and cranny on campus. “No one can escape it,” they cry (Although from what I could gather, the very worst thing anyone could do is appear culturally insensitive or biased). These ignorant folks must be forcefully dragged into the light.

Let’s step back here: One can imagine the response to such tones. The masses of politically indifferent students hearing this will tune out automatically, and dismiss the effort as just another protest launched by zealous agitators.

A Call to Action:

Some attendants hoped to devise new schemes to fi ght the racism and white privilege which they fear is constantly stalking the campus. They proposed mandatory course requirements regarding racial sensitivity, non-traditional diversity training for fi rst year students through university-imposed and student-driven programing, and rigorous processes during faculty recruitment, screening to ensure that public announcements and posters are culturally sensitive.

The privileged students, in particular, should be made to feel what the oppressed students feel. They should be forced to experience, in some sort of creative way, what the diverse students feel.

Diversity Monitoring and

Alerts:

When the plans are implemented, everyone will be expected to take part in the ideological war to root out racism. The hope is to recruit students into the ranks of vigilant foot soldiers against bias. A truly all-encompassing revolution.

One recommended policy warrants our careful attention: “diversity monitoring” and “diversity alerts.” Diversity monitoring would model itself on the alcohol monitoring which already is customary in informal social settings on campus. People at parties or other gatherings would be designated to “correct” participants who deviated from the principles of cultural sensitivity, especially if they made statements that could be

construed as racist. Racism would have nowhere to run or hide!

Diversity alerts would model themselves after Cornell crime alerts. University offi cials would alert members about the most controversial bias incidents during their immediate aftermath. Through email blasts to every member of the campus community, this reporting would likely become routine.

Blood Feud:

The invocation of historical injustice has become a sort of rallying cry for never-ending agitation and guilt-tripping. One should feel deeply sorry for the sins of their ancestors. And if they fail to renounce their white privilege, they are necessarily complicit in ongoing oppression.

The constant reference to historical injustice and white

privilege as justifi cations for more top-down policy will most certainly stoke growing resentment, intensifying racial balkanization, increasing fragmentation, defensiveness on the part of those accused of being privileged, deepening resentment and, ultimately, blood feud rooted in jealousy.

Sobering Truth:

Clearly, the fact that cultural misunderstandings are a natural outgrowth of ethnic diversity was not adequately appreciated. The group failed to consider the possibility that in an increasingly diverse, ethnically heterogeneous and fragmented environment, episodes of cultural insensitivity are inevitable. They wanted diversity, and now they have it. Surely it's absurd for them to be surprised at its occasionally unpleasant implications (episodes of confl ict, tension and misunderstanding). Frankly, anti-racist activists on campus should be thankful that these sorts of incidents don’t occur more regularly.

Grappling with Reality:

But there was also little consideration of the fact that this campus has (1) been saturated with diversity initiatives, that (2) its faculty and curricula are thoroughly steeped in the multicultural ideology, and that (3) its students and faculty adhere to it in practice in social, professional and academic realms.

Never Satisfi ed:

But to many diversity activists on campus this is not enough. With overweening arrogance, the most

vocal of the group expressed their naked contempt for entire swaths of the campus they deem to be necessarily ignorant and clueless, their impatience with white males and their resentment, and their disgust with an administration they claim has been unresponsive. They are not satisfi ed.

We Should be Grateful:

With all the work that diversity activists on campus have been doing to stoke the fl ames of perpetual outrage and racial indignation, one should be grateful that there are, in fact, so few incidents of racial controversy and open confl ict on campus. But with more denunciations of “white privilege” coming down the pipeline, one can envision a future in which blood feuds and racial resentments deepen

on this campus.

Acknowledgements:

For years we’ve been bombarded by emails announcing the implementation of programs large and small aimed toward ethnic inclusiveness and cultural exchange. President Skorton has issued exhaustive statements articulating his utter devotion to expanding and re-tooling these initiatives. Cornell administrators practically fall over themselves in their swiftness to decry incidents of racial bias and continually reaffi rm their commitment to diversity.

The University Responds to

Activism:

Of course, contrary to the claims of most diversity advocates, the University has hardly shirked in its duty to respond to calls to “take action” through provision of pro-diversity resources. The emergence of OWADI and the Intercultural Center are just two examples.

The examples of faculty and student attempts to promote cultural inclusion and openness in practice are too numerous to even begin to explore here. Boards, committees, student groups, employment offi ces and student government orgs have been established in the name of this worldview, or have gone out of their way to “take action”.

It should go without saying that numerous student groups already cater—rather explicitly—to minorities, who are automatically deemed “diversity students” (Notice the implicit assumption here that

Blood Feud:

The invocation of historical

rallying cry for never-ending agitation and guilt-tripping. One should feel deeply sorry for the sins

“diversity monitoring” and “diversity alerts.” Diversity monitoring would model itself on the alcohol monitoring which already is customary in informal social settings on campus. People at parties or other gatherings would be

steeped in the multicultural

Campus

Continuedfromthefrontpage

“It was as if the campus is in a perpetual state of crisis. The most vocal participants operated under this assumption. The system, and everyone identifi ed with it, is against them and biased against them. “Racism is everywhere," they preach.

Ideological Warfare

“…in an increasingly diverse, ethnically heterogeneous and fragmented environment, episodes of cultural insensitivity are inevitable. They wanted diversity, and now they have it.”

Continuedonpage11

10 November22,2013

CR

The Freshman Student Assem-bly Debate, which took place on

Wednesday, September 11th, echoed phrases such as “the voice of the people”, “I want to be your voice”, and “direct democracy” countless times. Over the course of the de-bate, almost every candidate said or implied that they would base their actions in Student Assembly on the opinions voiced to them by their constituents. One candidate, Jus-tin Selig, summed the idea up rath-er eloquently, saying “I am here to represent all students, regardless of political or social background. You could be conservative or liberal, I will voice your opinions in student assembly.”

Most candidates based their plat-forms around addressing a series of smaller problems, said to be taken directly from the mouths of the stu-dent body. The most common issue candidates wished to address was the TCAT bus system. Posting more maps of bus routes near bus stations, rebooting the TCAT app (as well as the creation of a TCAT app for An-droid, as currently there only exists an app for iOS devices), and extend-ing bus hours later into the night were a few of the solutions posed to the problem of ` ineffi cient, un-predictable public transportation system.

The dining halls were another commonly-mentioned issue. Many candidates believed that hours should be extended, whether that be by opening up RPCC for breakfast or Appel later into the night. Lines at the dining hall were also frequent-ly brought up, with solutions of re-

organizing their layouts or re-organizing their hours being

proposed. Candidate Nick Mileti criticized the halls for serving most-ly unhealthy foods, proposing the creation of new menus based around healthier options.

Amidst these common issues— which seemed to be fueling one large echo chamber—a few can-didates brought up some unique problems. Candidate Kern Sharma wanted to upgrade campus wireless modems to expand internet access. Seth Lutsic called for a re-exami-nation of the administration’s han-dling of fraternities and sororities in the past year. Both Alex Chakrin and Daniel Jablansky were highly vested in environmental issues, calling yet again for Cornell to divest from fos-sil fuels. But, most interestingly, can-didate Shohini Kundu proposed the creation of a massive online petition service, to allow students to directly voice their complaints to the Assem-bly and the Administration.

And so we return to the idea of vox populi, the voice of the people. Each candidate was quite drawn to it. Their platforms centered around it, either by addressing the voice as they had already heard it or, in the case of Kundu, creating a system in which that voice would continue to be heard. But, despite their sincer-est beliefs that listening to that voice and repeating what it said would be the main thing required of them, there was a bit of a problem.

The Robert Purcell Auditorium, which housed the debate, was all but empty.

At the opening of the debate, the 19 candidates for Freshman

Representative stood and outlined their platforms before a crowd of 15, including the four members of the press there to document the oc-casion and the fi ve candidates for Transfer and LGBTQ Representative awaiting their turn to take the fl oor. If you’re counting back at home, that means that only six students showed up to watch the debate of their own free will. Over the course of the de-bate, between 10 and 15 more people trickled in, eventually making the ratio of audience members to candi-dates about one to one.

This speaks to an issue that has plagued Cornell’s student govern-ment for years, and shows no sign of letting up: students just don’t care about Student Assembly. Hard-ly anyone votes, and when they do vote, it’s often a high-school-come-again popularity contest, with votes being earned mostly through name recognition and silly costumes. And then, after elections are over, the ac-tions of student assembly fade once more into obscurity until next year’s elections.

The fi nal question of the debate, sent in via Twitter, indicated that at least someone had realized this and wanted to do something about it. The question asked each candidate to outline the specifi c methods they would use to promote Student As-sembly outreach.

There were many strategies sug-gested, most resting on increas-ing Student Assembly’s physical presence throughout campus. Sug-gestion boxes scattered through-out campus, an idea introduced by

candidate Simone Klein, seemed to be agreed upon as a good move. Most candidates also agreed that the Student Assembly meetings, which are open to the public, needed to be much more strongly publicized. In a rather radical suggestion, candidate Marc Masson suggested that SA rep-resentatives “take to the street” in mass demonstrations to gain a bit more publicity.

Most candidates, at least, seem to be aware of the lack of involvement in student government (or else, they were made aware of it by this de-bate). Alex Chakrin pointed out that, in the current state of affairs, “The max [attendance of SA events he] could really see would be if every student was able to get his friends to come.” He bemoaned the lack of stu-dent activism, saying that Student Assembly was “really isolating.”

Student government seems to have at least taken the fi rst step in solving this issue: acknowledging that there is a problem. The next thing they need to do is actually enact their plans to increase student involvement, before even touching the dining halls or the TCAT or the Wi-Fi. If they can do that, they stand a chance of making the student gov-ernment actually mean something. If not, they’ll follow the same old path into obscurity, and we’ll pub-lish this article again next year with new candidates and new quotes.

NathanielHunterisafreshmanintheCollegeofArts&Sciences.Hecanbereachedatnth9@cornell.edu.

Campus

Freshman SA Debate Falls on Almost No Ears at All

Vox Populi, Sine PopuloNathaniel HunterStaff Writer

“At the opening of the debate, the 19 candidates for Freshman Representative stood and outlined their platforms before a crowd of 15, including the four members of the press there to document the occasion…”

the main thing required of them, there was a bit of a problem.

The Robert Purcell Auditorium, which housed the debate, was all but empty.

At the opening of the debate,

Photo by Judith Suzuki

Sparsely attended, with sparse attention paid, except by the Review's own Alfonse Muglia, moderating at left

November22,2013 11

CR

non-minorities are necessarily anti-diverse, bland, boring).

Consider Student Social Life:

Cornell student social life already refl ects openness to embracing diversity as well. Members of different ethnic, cultural and racial backgrounds regularly interact,

exchange, engage, fall in love, and make lasting friendships.

A Warning:

There will come a point when entire segments of the student body tune out, if they haven’t already. The louder the horn blows for diversity become, the more forcefully ears will shut. The paternalism and invasive nature of the message will alienate vast swaths of the student body, which, for all we know, was

merely indifferent. Thus, diversity activists should worry that their efforts are approaching the point of diminishing returns, and they should note that more saturation of the multicultural programming will, at best, create an atmosphere of passive acceptance, not an army of poised anti-racist activists.

RobertoMatosisajuniorintheCollegeofArtsandSciences.Hecanbereachedatrlm387@cornell.edu

CORNELLINSIDER (blog.thecornellreview.com)

Cornell Review Wins William F. Buckley AwardPosted by Laurel Conrad

Review President Laurel Conrad and Editor-in-Chief Mike Navarro are presented the award by ISI President Chris Long and CN Director Lillian Gerken

IdeologuesContinuedfrompage9

The Cornell Review is honored to have received the William F. Buckley award this month.

The award is presented by the Collegiate Network to a news source that the CN team feels has best demonstrated outstanding campus-specific reporting in the style of William F. Buckley.

CN program officer Lillian Gerken told the Review:

“As you’ll recall, Buckley got his start by publishing a book about his alma mater, Yale. That book—God and Man at Yale—accurately reported on campus happenings. It also influenced dialogue on his campus and beyond, as good journalistic writing can do.”

Siri a Ron Paul Fan (Or At Least Was)Posted by Casey Breznick

Sometimes Apple’s voice-activated personal assistant Siri can be a little sarcastic or sassy, but I don’t think it was lying about being a Ron Paul fan.

Asking Siri “What are your political views?” prompted the all-knowing, web-surfing app to return a snapshot of a Wikipedia article on none other than libertarian champion of freedom, former Texas Congressman and three-time presidential primary candidate Ron Paul. Since 1979 Ron Paul, a former flight surgeon in the US Air Force and subseqent obstetrician-gynecologist, has spent his time in Congress and on the national stage during two highly attention-garnering presidential primary runs in 2008 and 2012 espousing libertarian-conservative ideology concerning government fiscal policies, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, and the War on Drugs.

Not surprising in the slightest, Reddit users were the first to discover Siri’s libertarian leanings, and the news was quickly picked up and confirmed by major news outlets on Monday, Nov. 18. However, on Tuesday evening it was reported that Apple had changed Siri’s political disposition to something more neutral: the Wikipedia article on “ideology”.

Apple has not released comment on why Siri was once a Ron Paul fan and why that has since changed. I suspect Apple feared backlash from those who disagree with small government and economic and personal freedom, a group which must make up a considerable portion of its religiously devoted client base.

To explain Siri’s former libertarian inclination before Tuesday’s unfortunate change, some pointed to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s fiery defense earlier this year of Apple’s tax practices

and his call on Congress to apologize to “one of America’s greatest success stories.” Rand Paul’s political boldness may have inspired someone at Apple, or perhaps Siri picked it up itself while surfing the web. Rand Paul, for those that don’t know, is Ron Paul’s son and a potential 2016 presidential primary candidate.

Regardless of whether some internal libertarian at Apple headquarters or one of Siri’s many algorithms was responsible for its initial response, at least the good doctor and the libertarian cause received some positive PR from an unlikely source.

entire segments of the student body tune out, if they haven’t already. The entire segments of the student body

louder the horn blows for diversity

There will come a point when

The Cornell Review is honored to have received the William F. Buckley award this month.

journalistic writing can do.”

12 November22,2013

CR

Even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.Bill Clinton, Nov. 12, 2013

The only thing I can conclude is it’s impossible to do something in this Administration that gets you fi red. It’s impossible. You can lie to the American people, you can consistently misrepresent the facts but it’s impossible to get fi red.Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

I can only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve offi cial, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s fi rst plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping

Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.Andrew Huszar, former Federal Reserve offi cial

When a nation goes down or a society perishes, one condition may always be found—they forgot where they came from.Carl Sandburg

By cowardice I do not mean fear. Fear is the response of the instinct of self preservation to danger. It is only morbid, as Aristotle taught, when it is out of proportion to the degree of the danger. In invincible fear—‘fear stronger than I am’—the soldier has to struggle with a fl ood of emotion; he is made that way. But fear even when morbid is

not cowardice. That is a label we reserve for something that a man does. What passes through his mind is his own affair.Lord Moran, Anatomy of Courage

When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about.B. H. Obama

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.Lord Acton

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplifi ed, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between

being effective and being honest.Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford University, on climate change

With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualifi ed by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.James Madison

Wisemen & Fools

Read archived issues online at thecornellreview.com

Come to Rockefeller Hall B16, Tuesdays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu

Join the Review.

Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change changechange change changeBarack Obama