Since the Connecticut shooting in December, gun control has

been at the forefront of political dis-cussion. While the average student might question whether or not guns should exist in society, few people examine the existing constitution-al and legal precedents that define American law. As such, the Federal-ist Society, on January 29th, hosted a gun control debate to help clarify such complicated and often contro-versial legalities.

The purpose of the debate was to clarify the legal aspects surround-ing the national discussion on gun control. Alan Gura, the constitution-al lawyer who successfully argued the Heller v D.C. Supreme Court case, and Professor Michael Dorf, Cornell Law professor and noted

Constitutional law scholar, focused the debate on how the local and federal courts should evaluate gun legislation.

According to Gura, the Supreme Court has defined much of the Sec-ond Amendment.

“[The right to bear arms] started with history. ‘Bear’ meant to carry,” he remarked. “Heller says the core purpose of this amendment is the right to defend yourself.”

By this definition, the Supreme Court has effectively created a prec-edent in which some basic level of gun ownership is protected under the Constitution and that people are allowed to use guns in a defen-sive manner. This suggests that for the foreseeable future, gun owner-ship will remain a part of American society.

However, Gura qualified his state-ment. “Heller says there are some restrictions, such as the banning of guns in sensitive places.”

“The rule derived is that the man-ner [of using and owning guns] can be regulated.” As such, although gun ownership will remain a part of American society, Congress and local governments can place cer-tain levels of restrictions on gun ownership.

Professor Michael Dorf had lit-tle disagreement on Gura’s assess-ment regarding the legalities of gun rights. However, Dorf highlighted some ambiguous elements within the ruling.

“The Supreme Court will proba-bly allow a right to defend yourself and a right [to use guns] in the home and public space,” he commented.

“But what methodology will be used for weapons outside the home?”

Because the ruling was partially vague, the government has given an unclear opinion on practical mat-ters regarding gun ownership and use. For example, what constitutes a “sensitive space”? According to Dorf, these unanswered questions are important in understanding gun legislation.

As the discussion progressed, both Professor Dorf and Mr. Gura argued the more appropriate meth-ods of judicial interpretation that define gun restriction. According

The context of an academic dis-cipline is as important as its

content, because the parameters of our knowledge are often defined by the manner in which we choose to learn, teach and research. Several disciplines that were once regarded as legitimate areas of human inqui-ry have now become obsolete. A few centuries ago, students could get respectable degrees in alchemy or

phrenology, which are now widely recognized as pseudo-sciences.

Added to this list are several ven-tures in the humanities that were undertaken as a consequence of war and colonialism in the 19th century. For instance, Egyptology began with Napoleon’s campaign in the Medi-terranean in 1798. A contingent of Enlightenment scientists and schol-ars who accompanied the French expedition to Egypt laid the foun-dations of Orientalism. Similarly, Sinology emerged as the study of classical Chinese language and lit-erature and Kremlinology as that of Russia. And Indology, the study of India, pioneered by German schol-ars August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Arthur Schopenhauer, flour-ished in the context of romanticism and British rule.

Each of these disciplines was in-tended to serve an important pur-pose in its time. To many Europe-ans, the East was an exotic place of alien, primitive and even barbaric people. The “Orient” as opposed to the “Occident” was a land of magi-cians and snake charmers. Societies

Whether an assignment or mas-sive legislation, it goes with-

out saying that anything rushed will be of poor quality. As simple as this statement may be, it appears that Congress has yet to figure this out.

Let’s be honest here: a lot of re-ally terrible things have happened recently. From Sandy Hook to Hur-ricane Sandy to the ever-looming issues present in the U.S. economy, the latter part of 2012 was a pretty bad year. For many Americans, there is a growing fear that things outside of our control are harming us when we are least prepared for it, and that fear is beginning to erode away at our confidence as individuals and as a country. Every time some new di-saster appears, our confidence (and our money) is whittled away, mak-ing us feel more and more helpless in the face of disaster.

Legislators at both the federal and state level are busy waving the legis-lative pen around like an imaginary sword, trying to fight off the men-tal dragons of fear and uncertainty. The sad irony is, of course, that what they are doing is nothing but anoth-er form of so-called security theater: that is, it feels effective and safe, but it is anything but actually safe. It’s

simply exploitation of the politically useful fear of the American public.

Take, for example, the Obama Administration’s recent gun con-trol proposals. The Administration’s proposals – which recommend ev-erything from requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales to providing mental health counsel-ing services in schools – could, at least in some sense, be seen as an ad-mirable attempt at fixing worrisome issues within the current gun con-trol regime. The problem is, these proposals are not the kind of fixes that would have ever prevented the Sandy Hook disaster. There is abso-lutely no proof that, had these laws been in place before the shooting at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza would have been stopped from doing what he did.

Sure, the Obama Administration’s proposals sound helpful – phrases like “increased criminal background checks” always sound scintillating and powerful. But such proposals would have done nothing. Like it or not, the Obama Administration is using Sandy Hook as a bootstrap to justify new impositions on Second Amendment liberties – even though there is truly no connection between the new proposals and the tragedy other than a sense of fear.

“We Do Not Apologize.”The Conservative Voice on Campus

BLOGcornellinsider.com SITEthecornellreview.com

An Independent Publication

The Cornell ReviewFebruary 12th, 2013vol. xxxi, no. vii

Kushagra AniketNational News Editor

Bill SnyderStaff Writer

Continued on page 4 Continued on page 5

8

6

INSIDE

Feature: Condemning Affirmative Action

Continued on page 2

Is Africana Studies Relevant as an Academic Discipline?

What Can the Government Legally Do?

Legislative RatchetingKirk SigmonColumnist

Right on the Law

SA Seeks Required "Social Justice" Classes

2

3

6

7+

+

Fraternities Beware!Pledging and Medical Amnesty Don't Mix

4

2 February 12, 2013

CR

to Gura, the U.S. Constitution can be read through its framers’ intent. Thus, according to him, the Second Amendment and the framers intent of this right must be viewed in a his-torical context in order to accurately and effectively establish the right.

Gura took this logic one step further in interpreting the Second Amendment. “The Second Amend-ment presupposes the use of weap-ons used in the military. Technology has changed, which affects the right.

However, technology does not change the [idea] of common use.” Based on the historical

context of the amendment, individ-uals have the right to bear weapons used for common or personal use. Allowing individuals to carry com-mon weapons was how effective local militias formed and what con-sequent court cases have considered protected under the Second Amend-ment during the time period.

Professor Dorf, however, con-tended that the right is vague as well as outdated and thus a more inter-pretive perspective should be used. “What is necessary for self-defense might be lower [than the weapons used for personal use]. But this is completely arbitrary.”

Dorf argued that understanding the mindset of the framers is im-possible. Given that the language of

the Second Amendment and the Su-preme Court cases are somewhat vague, American legislators must use their own personal judgment.

By doing this, Dorf argued that the Second Amendment could be standardized to the needs of society today, rather than the historical con-text of the past.

Whether an individual perceives the law from a “conservative” or “liberal” viewpoint, these issues are both controversial and unclear.

What is the difference between using a gun at home and in a public space?

What constitutes common use?All of these questions are

worth considering and debating.

Americans have to accept that the right to a weapon is a fundamen-tal right, and the use of a weap-on in cases of self-defense is a core American value stated in the Con-stitution. Government and society can debate the legal formalities and constitutional restrictions regard-ing gun control, but at the end of the day, guns will be protected. If soci-ety disapproves of this Constitution-al value, then an amendment should be passed. Until then, guns are here to stay.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the school of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

Campus

The scheme to enact a univer-sal social justice requirement

at Cornell University was first pro-posed in May 2012. A group of pro-testors, referring to themselves pub-lically as the “Assembly for Justice”, led the cause. Throughout the se-mester, they solicited the support of the campus’s staunchest student lobbyist organizations, and they were getting respectable attention by November.

Their idea was to add an addi-tional distribution requirement to the Cornell curriculum. This slew of courses, broadly referred to as the Social Justice Requirement, would be mandatory for all colleges. They believed that such a requirement was necessary in response to allega-tions of bigotry on campus.

The demonstrators have since pushed their idea to the top of the Student Assembly’s agenda. At the moment, campus leaders are re-sponding by dedicating a consider-able amount of resources toward this initiative.

Ulysses Smith, the former Ar-chitecture & Art Planning Rep that has now been given the title of Vice President of Diversity and Inclu-sion, is currently leading the effort. Even he, however, has expressed disbelieve that the idea is still being discussed.

“I actually didn’t think there was any way we would get that done this year or anytime in the near future,” remarked Smith. “Then again [the idea] kept coming up at a lot of dif-ferent discussions with different ad-ministrators, so we decided to see what this should look like if we ex-ecute it.”

According to a report compiled by Smith and Chelsea Cheng, clerk of the Student Assembly, the re-quirement could be an additional distribution requirement for each of the individual schools, or it could be a universal requirement through the University, like the swim test.

“We met with a lot of the differ-ent assistant deans, just to get an un-derstanding of the various process-es these colleges have in order to bring about curriculum changes,” he remarked.

At the first Student Assembly meeting of the semester on Janu-ary 31st, it was decided that college representatives should reach out to their respective college Deans.

While student representatives meet with these administrators, there exists very little knowledge as

to what this requirement would en-tail or why the Assembly has put it so high on its agenda. There is also no explanation for why last semes-ter’s calls for diversity initiatives have transformed into the loose-ly defined social justice initiatives, causing many to question the inten-tions of the activists.

The Student Assembly’s efforts thus far have not been focused on addressing this question of intent. Rather than addressing why the curriculum must be changes, their

efforts have been focused on learn-ing how to change the curriculum.

This top-down effort demon-strates that amending the curric-ulum is no longer an initiative of a select group of radical activists. Rather, this initiative is part of dis-cussions between numerous cam-pus leaders and will be a significant issue in Student Assembly elections later this semester.

Meanwhile, members of Stu-dent Assembly executive board are talking about plans to make head-way on this issue immediately. In their weekly meeting, they have es-tablished a two-year timeframe for enactment.

Because of the lack of under-standing as to what the requirement actually is, the considerable amount of effort being put toward it has come as a surprise to many. Some

are arguing that amending profes-sor syllabi does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Student Assem-bly. Others argue that their leaders are wasting their time with an ini-tiative that will ultimate prove fu-tile. Still other students point to the fact that many schools already have a similar requirement, and that try-ing to bring them under a universal rule would actually decrease diver-sity, not encourage it.

It should be noted that the 2012-2013 Assembly has made substantial

strides in improving communication with students. They have shown a willingness to hear student feedback on all of their initiatives. Knowing that the student justice requirement will be high on the group’s agenda for the spring, students now have the opportunity to share their opin-ions and affect the potential policy through conversation.

General student body negligence could allow this initiative, which began in the hands of a small group of activists and was pushed by select campus lobbyist, to find its way to the desk of President Skorton.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Rela-tions. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu

Student Assembly Wants To Amend the CurriculumMandated Additions Would Increase UniformityAlfonse MugliaEditor-in-Chief

Amending the curriculum is no longer an initiaive of a select group of radical activists. Rather, this initiative is part of discussions between numerous campus leaders.

Gun Control Continued from the front page

While much about the effort to add a requirement to the Cornell curriculum is still unknown, the Student Assembly is curently exploring three courses of action.

Option A: Creating Coursework Under this option, the SA would call upon the University to add new courses. These courses would fulfill the potential requirement, across all seven schools & colleges.

Option B: Using Existing Structure Under this option, classes that already exist dealing with diversity would no longer be electives; they would be requirements.

Option C: Integration Under this option, existing courses would be forced to amend their sylabi to facilitate the SA's definition of social justice.

What is the Social Justice Requiement?

National

February 12, 2013 3

CR

A group called the Campus Liberty Project has been circulating the following petition in response to the Student Assembly’s move to add a "social justice" class to all students' graduation requirements. The editors of the Cornell Review fully endorse the sentiments laid out in this petition and encourage our readers to sign on at www.ipetitions.com/petition/in-opposition-to-additional-curriculum/ (linked in the QR code below)

This petition is being circulated in response to calls from other student organizations and members of the Student Assembly to increase the homogeneity of the Cornell curriculum in certain areas. These groups currently seek to amend the curriculum of all seven undergraduate colleges by adding even more requirements than those that exist presently. These efforts include:

—Social Justice Requirement —Diversity Requirement —Tapestry Requirement

From here on, these requirements will be referred to collectively as “the requirement.”

We are against this additional requirement for the reasons listed below and call upon our campus leaders to focus their attention to more important concerns.

We welcome you to sign this petition and join our cause.

We Believe That: 1. It is the responsibility of the Student Assembly to serve as the voice of the undergraduate student body in communicating its desires to the administration.

2. Cornell University is an institution that presently provides a wide range of extra-curricular and professional opportunities for students to learn about social justice and diversity.

3. The Cornell course offerings are among the best and broadest in the country and are not in need of an additional requirement dealing with diversity and social justice.

4. There exists a finite amount of resources that the administration has at its disposal. Other departments within individual colleges will naturally suffer if they are forced to incorporate this requirement into their curricula.

5. The current University response to the diversity question is too focused on one particular dimension of one's background. The University should give more weight to students’ intellectual and philosophical background. This requirement limits intellectual freedom by mandating that every undergraduate student must take courses on diversity.

6. The Student Assembly’s attempt to impart prefabricated, narrowly focused concepts of morality through required classes on social justice and diversity disregards true diversity—the opportunity for every student to craft a curriculum which allows for maximum personal choice.

7. Promoting academic liberty does not hinder the desire of the Student Assembly to increase campus diversity. In fact, it allows students to engage in a wider range of intellectual pursuits. One cannot support this additional requirement while also stating to support increased student choices.

Calls to Action 1. In the best interest of students, the Student Assembly should immediately discontinue all efforts to promote the Requirement.

2. In discussions with the administration, the Student Assembly should promote academic policies that encourage free thought, intellectual diversity, and ultimately, provide increased options, not fewer, for every student.

By signing this position, I affirm the above beliefs and call upon my student leaders to act in the best interests of all undergraduates so as not to limit our academic freedom.

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 benefit 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 reflect the policies or opinions of, Cornell University or its designated representatives.

The Cornell Review is published by The Ithaca Review, Inc., a non-profit corporation. The opinions stated in The Cornell Review are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the staff of The Cornell Review. Editorial opinions are those of the responsible editor. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the board of directors, officers, or staff 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 first free issue are available for $1.00 each. The Cornell Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

The Cornell ReviewFounded 1984 r Incorporated 1986

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 156.

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

Noah Kantro Alfonse MugliaEditors-in-Chief

Karim LakhaniPresident

Lucia RafanelliExecutive Editor

Vice President

Christopher SlijkManaging Editor

Laurel ConradCampus News Editor

Kushagra AniketNational News Editor

ContributorsCaitlin Deming

Caroline EmbertonAndre GardinerAlex Gimenez

Raj Kannappan

Michael LoffredoRoberto MatosMike NavarroKirk SigmonBill Snyder

Emeritus MembersAnthony LongoLucas Policastro

Faculty AdvisorWilliam A. Jacobson

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

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.

Katie JohnsonTreasurer

Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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

suited for publication in the Cornell Daily Sun. 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.

The Cornell Reviewest.1984

thecornellreview.com

In Opposition to Additional Curriculum Requirements

4 February 12, 2013

CR

Campus

such as the Royal Asiatic Society (1824), American Oriental Society (1842) and German Oriental Soci-ety (1845) were formed to decipher the incomprehensible and to equip colonial rulers with a better under-standing of the peoples they sought to govern. But following the retreat of colonialism and perhaps in re-sponse to Edward Said’s criticism of the Eurocentric approach toward Middle Eastern, Asian and North Af-rican cultures in his influential book Orientalism (1978), these disciplines were either discarded or radical-ly altered. Those scholars that still managed to survive had to take re-course to Marxist historiographies in their celebration or dismissal of indigenous cultures as per the wish-es of their patrons.

Under the garb of academic so-phistication, some of this fabrica-tion resurfaced in the form of “di-aspora studies” in our times. Ideas of economic determinism and class struggle were more than evident here. The “diaspora” was viewed as a distinct oppressed class of people sharing ethnic identities. The mem-bers of the diaspora had been de-tached from their ancestral roots and dispersed by the forces of impe-rialism, slave trade, conflict and re-settlement. The concept of Africana Studies is to be located within this context, as it is presented as an in-vestigation into the African diaspo-ra. But the greater problem that we encounter here is that this diaspora might not even exist.

Here, it is important to distin-

guish between African American Studies and Africana Studies. To conflate the two would be a mistake. African American Studies is an aca-demic discipline directed toward the study of the history, culture, politics, and literature of African Americans. On the other hand, Africana Studies or Africology focuses on all peoples of African origin, both in Africa and in the African diaspora around the

world. As stated on the website of the Africana Studies and Re-search Center at Cornell, this

field studies the cultures of the peo-ple of African descent not only in the United States but also elsewhere in the diaspora:

“Africana Studies is a tradition of intellectual inquiry and study of Af-rican peoples. Using a transdiscipli-narian approach, Africana scholars document the global migrations and reconstruction of African peoples, as well as patterns of linkages to the Af-rican continent (and among the peo-ples of the African Diaspora).”

This description raises two ques-tions: 1) Does the African diaspora exist? 2) If it does, how do Africana studies contribute to our under-standing of the issues and challeng-es faced by this diaspora? I would argue that this diaspora might not exist as we assume it to and that even if it does exist, Africana Studies might not help us address the issues of the people of African descent in a significant manner.

First and foremost, one should note that the basis for the African di-aspora is race. Other commonalities such as shared cultural values or his-torical experiences are not of great consequence because they do not contribute to the idea of a distinct diaspora. If historical experiences were to constitute its basis, then the diaspora would have to include all peoples of former colonies within its ambit. Besides, geography is not a cohesive element, because the di-aspora is spread across thousands of miles and covers about a third of the world. Africana Studies is divided into three concentrations represent-ing the three regions of the African Diaspora: Africa, African America, and African Caribbean. The enor-mous diversity within the African diaspora in terms of language, reli-gion, ethnicity and nationality de-molishes the argument of shared culture. Within Africa, too, great dif-ferences are apparent as one travels from Egypt to South Africa. Similar-ly, African Americans have little in common with the people of African countries. Even recent immigrants to the US from Africa face problems and challenges that more closely re-semble those experienced by immi-grants from other countries.

Further, even when Africana claims to address the histories and cultures of all peoples of Africa, it does not give sufficient attention to several large communities of the continent. There is no course in Af-ricana that documents the migration of North African Arabs to America and Europe. While it puts great em-phasis on the arrival and settlement of people of African descent in the New World, there is no mention of the large concentrations of inden-tured laborers from India and China who landed in Mauritius, Madagas-car, South Africa, and the Caribbean, to name a few. Don’t these commu-nities also belong to the African di-aspora? The fact that Africana does not seem to be concerned with this question makes one doubt the basis for its selective conception of the Af-rican diaspora.

A glance at the list of cours-es offered by the Africana Studies

Department at Cornell also proves this point. For instance, ASRC 1500 (The Shape of American Culture: An Introduction to Africana Studies), ASRC 3660 (Race, Migration and the American City) and ASRC 3031 (Race and Revolution in the Americas) are taught along with ASRC 2670 (His-tory of Modern Egypt), ASRC 4600 (Politics and Social Change in the Caribbean), ASRC 4672 (National-ism in the Arab World) and ASRC 4303 (Nationalism and Decoloniza-tion in Africa). The department also offers an assortment of language courses in Swahili, Yoruba and Ara-bic. To be fair, most of these courses are cross-listed with other depart-ments such as History and Govern-ment. One should also note that ASRC 2670 and ASRC 4672 are not taught by Africana faculty but hap-pen to be conveniently cross-listed. But the disparate nature of these studies con-tained in one department re-minds one of the “cabinet of curi-osities” that a colonial adven-turer would as-semble upon his return from the Orient. One can clearly see that these courses hardly present a coherent narrative. The only thread that runs through them is that of race, which is not only inadequate, but also erroneous in some respects.

When I first developed these ideas, I took the liberty of circulat-ing them among some friends. One person expressed broad agreement with my thesis that Africana Studies is actually an inversion of Eurocen-trism and added:

“We still haven't overcome the assumption of the superiority of the 'Eurocentric' approach to sub-jects, and this approach still under-lines our fundamental assumptions, firstly because it forms the basis for the vast majority of our doctrinal writings and research, and second-ly because it seems to be embedded in our minds. This hinders a more broad-based enquiry into subjects.”

But others objected to this thesis on several grounds: “The existence of a particular racial diaspora is nei-ther presumptuous nor precarious. It is a fact.” “Bigoted understandings of race surely were a major cause of the diaspora and were intimately re-lated to the experiences of peoples in that diaspora….The big picture is that proximity causes peoples to have common historical experienc-es.” Others contended that the thesis was “decontextualized from the re-ality of racism in America” and that “pretending racism never happened is a failed strategy”.

It is true that the social construct of race has deeply shaped the his-tory and development of African American Studies. African Ameri-can Studies is a product of the Civil Rights Movement and the first Black Studies program was started at UC Berkeley in 1969. The creation of

similar departments across univer-sities once played a significant insti-tutional role in supporting academic views that were marginalized from the mainstream discourse. On the other hand, Africana Studies first began as a direct consequence of the later stages of colonialism, when European interest in African cul-tures grew in the 1890s. It was only later that the two disciplines were integrated to encourage a global ap-proach to studying the diaspora. So, the point that I wish to raise is not against African American Studies but rather against Africana Studies and, indeed, all other forms of dias-pora studies.

Race is a social construct that has no technical basis, and it is difficult to deal with cross-continental is-sues on the precarious presumption that a particular racial diaspora ex-ists. This assumption is a relic of the

colonial era that somehow persists in our times, at least in some areas. Today we cannot imagine a depart-ment on Aryan studies because we understand that the notion of an “Aryan people” is fictitious and dan-gerous. Correspondingly, we should also desist from viewing Africa over-whelmingly in terms of racial iden-tities and focus more on the inter-nal nuances of the challenges facing the continent and its people. It is a welcome sign that Africana Studies along with some other disciplines, is proceeding in this direction.

However, in its core conception, Africana Studies seeks to provide a unique “African experience” with an Afrocentric perspective. The idea that a discipline has to be centered around one perspective, whether it is Eurocentric, Afrocentric or Sino-centric, is itself a product of imperi-alism. Africana Studies is premised on the acceptance of a colonial pro-jection onto Africa, its inversion and outward reflection. So, as a concept, it is no different from Eurocentric approaches to the world. It should now be recognized that it is a poor and naïve strategy to combat Euro-centrism with Afrocentrism. Rath-er, it would allow far more compre-hensive study if scholars could work with and express a juxtaposition of different perspectives. But most im-portantly, race must be addressed in an appropriate manner, and this cannot be done through the mistak-en projection of a pan-global sense of commonalities onto what is, in reality, a very diverse collection of people.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu

Continued from the front page

Africana

“…the disparate nature of these studies contained in one department reminds one of the “cabinet of curiosities” that a colonial adventurer would assemble upon his return from the Orient.”

February 12, 2013 5

CR

Campus

Fraternities BewareShortfalls in Medical Amnesty

In the administration’s attempt to end pledging as we know it, the

Greek community at Cornell has now reaffirmed, with the ejection of the Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity, that medical amnesty applies only to violations associated with alcohol and drugs and not those associated with pledging. Until last fall, medi-cal amnesty had been the absolution a chapter receives for calling 9-1-1 in the case of a medical emergency.

The problem here is not whether the university should attempt to end pledging, which is an historic tra-dition and a valuable experience if done right. The problem now is that fraternities at Cornell, who actively engage in both pledging and drink-ing activities, must consider the im-mense pledging violations associat-ed with calling for help.

It seems easy to blame an indi-vidual fraternity’s leaders for stall-ing or not calling for medical assis-tance when a situation becomes so dire that professional medical help is the only option. But consider the all-too-common occurrence of indi-viduals, who have likely consumed a significant amount of alcohol at a “pre-game”, arriving at a fraternity’s house at a time where pledging vio-lations may be apparent. If those in-dividuals become sick, the President or other risk managers in the fra-ternity must determine if the situa-tion is so bad as to require medical assistance.

With the administration’s recent ruling, these risk managers will like-ly raise the bar for how sick some-one must be before they endanger their fraternity’s recognition by call-ing 9-1-1. This is exactly what the al-cohol medical amnesty policy was put in place to prevent. Without ap-plying the policy to all infractions, its purpose is negated.

Being an outsider looking into the Greek system at Cornell, it may seem silly for the President of a fraternity

to delay calling for help in any situation. The issue is that the President of that fraternity, upon taking his position, becomes en-trusted with protecting and pro-longing an organization that may have existed on campus for over a hundred years and is responsible for answering to many dedicated alumni.

Regardless of the hazing vio-lations TEP may have been guilty on, the fraternity’s leaders made the correct judgment in calling for medical assistance. The Universi-ty, in response, repaid the fraternity by revoking its recognition. In Pres-ident Skorton’s attempt at ending fraternities as we know them, he has encouraged a system that endangers at least a third of the student popula-tion at Cornell.

Risk managers who must make judgment calls as to whether some-one needs medical assistance are al-ready under-qualified to do so, but are disincentivized from reaching out to capable professionals. I be-lieve the University must eliminate these deterrents and encourage

fraternities to reach out for help re-gardless of the level of pledging vio-lations they may be involved in.

Until the administration makes amnesty universal for all types of in-fractions, fraternity members, and other Cornellians who may be at fra-ternity houses, will continue to be in danger.

Karim Lakhani is a junior in the School of Hotel Administration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell.edu.

Karim LakhaniPresident

Coffee with Karim

Of course, many Republicans are equally guilty of this kind of reac-tionary, bootstrapping legislation. Ever since the NRA accused violent video games of fostering violence in America, certain Republican legisla-tors have been aggressively pursuing anti-entertainment policies in the wake of Sandy Hook. For example, Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah has re-cently proposed a bill that would not only make the (currently voluntary) ESRB ratings label on videogames mandatory, but that would also im-pose severe penalties on retailers who sell, rent, or attempt to sell or rent Adults Only (“AO”) rated video games to minors. Yet again, there is absolutely no proof that this would have prevented Sandy Hook and no proof that it would have any sub-stantial effect on violent behavior. Instead, such legislation exploits the sense of fear and dread that emerged from Sandy Hook to enact policies that impinge upon the liberties of the American public.

The big problem with legislation like the examples above is that it has a ratcheting effect upon the liber-ties enjoyed by American citizens. When emergencies are used as boot-straps for unwieldy but plausibly helpful legislation, legislators may slowly but surely encroach upon the liberties of American citizens

while avoiding criticism or serious debate. As more and more emergen-cies arise that scare the American citizenry, legislators are given more and more chances to move the pro-verbial ball down the field. The net effect, of course, is that the average American walks away with less free-dom than he had before.

It’s time for a reality check: there will always be emergencies and hor-rible events that we cannot prevent. No matter how advanced and edu-cated we are as people and as a so-ciety, certain horrible things—hur-ricanes, shootings, and the like—will occur, reminding us of the fragility of both our own lives and of the fragili-ty of the society we have built around us. This is, of course, scary. But the answer to this fear is not to buckle to asinine legislative ideas and the mob mentality of post-emergency reform movements. Rather, we must learn to adapt and to recover where we are harmed, and we must learn to bond together rather than point the finger at anything and everything we find harmful in society.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Legislative RachetingContinued from the front page

At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun con-

trol proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gan-dhi, one of the greatest champi-ons of non-violence and someone whom the President counts among his personal inspirations, active-ly campaigned for the right to bear arms during the struggle for Indian freedom.

Today the left claims that much of the original purpose of the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—has become obsolete and irrelevant. But it is important to note that the British advanced a similar argument for gun control while presenting their rule as the best and most en-lightened form of government in the world. Since then we have revised our assessment of the empire.

It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was im-portant to resist totalitarianism. During World War I, Gandhi called for the repeal of the unpopular In-dian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi con-demned this act in unequivocal

terms: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”.

The right to bear arms was also listed among Gandhi’s 11 demands presented to Lord Irwin before the famous Salt March of 1930. In his letter addressed to the Viceroy of India dated March 2nd, 1930, just before the commencement of mass civil disobedience, Gandhi argued passionately for the right of citizens to bear arms:

"And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?…It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lack-ing inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal dis-armament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness."

It seems clear that Gandhi saw the right to self-defense and to re-sist government usurpation as con-sistent with his unwavering faith in non-violence. Some of his arguments appear to be even more relevant now, when in the wake of the horrendous incidents of sexual violence in India, thousands of women have petitioned the government for more gun

Gandhi Championed Right To Bear ArmsKushagra AniketNational News Editor

Continued on page 11

National

6 February 12, 2013

CR

Feature

1. That it is contrary to the spirit of a purely merit-based system, which is the cornerstone of a competition-driven, market-oriented civil society.

2. That it instills a mindset prone to perpetual self-victimization in Latino and Black students, suggesting that they need some sort of extraordinary institutional-intervention to succeed in life, and cannot overcome through their own endeavors. This paternalism assumes inferiority: “I have less faith in you to achieve on the basis of your own capacities, and through these overcome obstacles autonomously.”

3. [Or] That it may breed an undue sense of entitlement in Latino and Black students: "because my ancestors were oppressed, surely I deserve extra favors and breaks.” This makes a mockery of the ideal of social equality. How can one be equal when they are automatically eligible for institutional charity?

4. That it disproportionately awards and inordinately favors applicants deemed culturally “unique” or ethnically “exotic”, thereby denying opportunities to students that are supposedly less exotic and less unique (often whites). Implicitly designating non-whites as “exotic”, it erroneously presumes that “generic” white applicants somehow will offer less value, less exceptionality or less cultural distinctiveness to the campus community than their nonwhite counterparts. This is problematic because it unfairly frames whiteness as bland, pretending that whiteness is something necessarily dull, boring or anti-diverse. By strictly measuring diversity by the percentage of nonwhites included in its application pool, racial affirmative action fails to recognize the vast amount of cultural and ethnic complexity and diversity existing among Euro-American groups.

5. That it has enabled abuse of the college admissions system based on the knowledge that outright favoritism is offered so generously. Many applicants regularly and gleefully mislead college admissions officers, making it seem like they are more culturally “exotic” or ethnically “unique” than they truly are. Often, these students are your run-of-the-mill assimilated student, and no more culturally exceptional (rare) than any white student. Some deceptively claim affiliation with a given ethnic minority status, exaggerating the degree to which they identify with a particular cultural group. Such beneficiaries go so far as to proclaim that they belong to an oppressed segment of society – even when they are only marginally affiliated with said

group (and are not so personally disadvantaged themselves), or when they are only a part of that group in a formal sense. This charade is happily maintained to manipulate the admissions process to the fullest extent possible. Doing so arguably constitutes a variation of fraud. The vulnerability of the admissions system to this manipulation is so notorious that it has become a source of ceaseless amusement on the part of its beneficiaries.

6. That observers (White and Asian students) will question the presence of Blacks and Latinos on campus, and that future prospective employers will second-guess the qualifications of Blacks and Latinos suspected of having benefited from racial Affirmative Action; are you truly qualified? This makes it more difficult for minority students to be taken seriously and treated as if they were just as qualified as other matriculated students. The mere existence of racial Affirmative Action diminishes these students in the eyes of their peers; respect will be harder to come by. For those Black and Latino students who did not benefit from racial affirmative action, this is particularly problematic and maddeningly frustrating.

7. That, in turn, it induces self-doubt by making these students wonder: “Did I truly earn my way on the merits of my own grit, or am I merely the recipient of charity from some unknown benefactor?” Inordinate psychological uncertainty and anxiety of this kind is unhealthy for any student.

8. That it stokes White and Asian resentment and is harmful to race relations on campus and in society. Those students who doubt the deservedness or qualifications of Black and Latino students are driven to hostility and animus. These pervasive attitudes contaminate social relations on campuses. The attitude could potentially instill a sense of racial animosity on the part of those tens of thousands of well-qualified applicants (and families) who are denied golden opportunities solely on the base of their race or ethnicity. The bitterness surrounding the system makes it a chief source (causative factor) of still-palpable racial tension in American society.

9. That it does not target or benefit those whom it was initially designed to assist. It was intended to help financially and educationally disadvantaged Afro-Americans from inner cities and the South. It instead helps those blacks who do not necessarily need institutionally provided financial assistance as desperately—those students from upper middle

therefore be it resolved…

After seriously grave reflection, I've concluded that I cannot countenance nor endorse racial affirmative action as it is currently practiced in universities. Having struggled with this issue for some time, I’ve surrendered to the inescapable conclusion that it is immoral on so many accounts. Indeed, the arguments mounting against it are increasingly potent and compelling. I no longer feel comfortable about keeping silent about this issue and, hence, do not intend to.

February 12, 2013 7

CR

Feature

class or wealthy black households who are not in grave need for support.

10. That it tends to disproportionately favor blacks from Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Barbados, West Africa etc. (or the children of recently arrived well-to-do black families and immigrants from those countries), instead of descendants of slaves in the Continental US.

11. That its primary social objective is hardly being met. A primary assumption of racial Affirmative Action’s proponents is that its beneficiaries, equipped with solid skills upon graduation, will embark on missions to assist the needy communities of their socio-racial kin through economic and educational empowerment, or even community activism. But typically these graduates don’t embark on the sort of social philanthropy they are urged to perform. Instead, they largely conform to an upper-middle-class suburban lifestyle, often highly specialized and professional in nature, even moving into predominately white, financially privileged neighborhoods.

12. That it promotes a culture of outright favoritism.

Applicants, however qualified, are fleeced because they do not meet ethnic criterion. It does so simply on the basis of racial and ethnic categories, largely at the expense of Whites and Asians. It is the epitome of blatant racial discrimination. How ironic! Proponents seek to eliminate racial discrimination in society by creating even more racial discrimination. They are convinced that it is just and fair to promote a new form of racial bias, but this time under a different name.

13. That, in particular, it unfairly singles-out White students, punishing them for historical injustices that they themselves had no part in perpetrating. The invocation of “historical injustices” subtly sends a message that white students should feel guilty about that which they played no role in perpetrating. Those past historical injustices do not give any institution the moral authority to presently deny duly earned opportunities to an applicant simply because of her race, an “accident” of birth. Denying opportunities to particular individuals who were uninvolved in historical transgressions is plainly unjust on its face. So it operates as if the injustices of the past are sufficient to warrant the commission of new injustices today.

14. That the point at which the policy can be abolished has not been specified. It remains unclear just exactly when the cost of past injustices will be fully paid? When will it end? When we completely eradicate racism and establish full social equality? Are these goals even attainable? Should it indefinitely continue to compensate the victims of the past by finding new victims?

15. That its continuation would constitute exclusion of a vast segment of American Society which has struggled to access premium opportunities in higher education for a few decades. Blatant favoritism is often at the expense of White working class and lower middle class applicants, those from the Appalachian region, the Bible Belt, White Southern applicants, applicants from military families, applicants from agricultural families, Whites from rural areas, and White applicants of Protestant Evangelical and Roman Catholic faiths are dramatically underrepresented. Although Blacks and Latinos are labeled underrepresented, many elite schools are themselves unrepresentative of America’s demographic composition racially, ethnically, religiously, ideologically, socio-economically and religiously! The real underrepresented people are

the aforementioned. These groups form a growing number of underprivileged and resentful citizens.    

16. That instituting a meritocratic search for diversity makes far more sense with respect to the ends of maintaining diversity and allocating opportunities equitably. It casts a wider net by securing:

• Socioeconomic diversity: Better representation among working class and lower-middle class people of a variety of backgrounds.

• Religious diversity: Inclusion of more Protestant Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics will be better represented.

• Regional diversity: More applicants from the Bible Belt, Appalachian, and rural areas.

• Ideological diversity: Intellectual enrichment through debate: more conservatives to challenge Center-left thinking and culture.

• Ethnic and cultural diversity: after all, White Americans as a group are rather ethnically and culturally diverse themselves, no?

When will it end?

—Roberto Matos

8 February 12, 2013

CR

The Secretary was furious dur-ing her Congressional testimo-

ny, cloaking the State Department’s failure in a mask of indignation. She railed against the Senate Foreign Re-lations Committee, throwing at her interrogators inane platitudes such as this: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” She was refer-ring to the laughable idea that her own administration had sprung up after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi—that the at-tack was a result of some anti-Islam video produced quite miserably by some sad man in California. Well, Ms. Clinton. It actually does mat-ter whether this video caused pro-testors to breach the walls of our consulate—as some in the Obama administration have claimed—or whether anti-American sentiment caused the attack.

In order to deflect more detailed questions about the decision-mak-ing process at State and the White House—which allowed top officials like UN Ambassador Susan Rice and Press Secretary Jay Carney to con-clude that one arbitrary video caused a group of armed individuals to kill four American public servants—Clinton stated repeatedly that she was more interested in making sure that America would never have to endure another Benghazi. But if this is the case, then is it not logical to want to understand the actual cause of the attack? Apparently not.

Of course, many have pointed to the obvious: that the George W.

Bush administration was not held accountable for the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or for taking the United States into a di-sastrous war in the troubled country in the first place. Yet, to argue that this administration does not have to provide an explanation for a spe-cific foreign policy failure because the previous administration was not compelled to provide in public testi-mony an honest account of the deci-sion-making process that allowed it to make a large blunder, is a misera-ble failure of responsible leadership.

After Clinton’s utterly unreveal-ing testimony, Obama and his out-going Secretary of State practically held hands and sang sweet nothings to each other in a 60 Minutes inter-view with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, who, by the way, has revealed himself to be an obsequious journal-ist when speaking with the President (In a 2011, Kroft fawned over Obama in an interview when the President claimed extraordinarily that he was, at worst, the fourth best modern president). The President heaped much praise upon the woman whom he accused in 2007 of lying to Amer-ican voters about the economic and foreign policies she would pursue were she to win the presidency. He proclaimed, “I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had.” Say it ain’t so, Mr. President.

What Clinton will be most re-membered for is the dignity and sta-bility that she brought to the State Department. This merits little more than praise for workmanship and competence. It does not, as Clinton’s

biggest supporters would like to claim, signify any extraordinary accomplishment.

President Obama should know that the list of great secretaries of state remains unchanged from be-fore Clinton’s assumption of the post. It includes such greats as John Quincy Adams, who, worked with the president in developing the Monroe Doctrine and oversaw the purchase of Florida from Spain; George Marshall, who helped craft the post-WWII policy of contain-ment and developed the Marshall plan for reconstructing postwar Europe; and Henry Kissinger, who helped implement the policy of dé-tente with China and established the concept of “shuttle diplomacy”. Unfortunately, for Obama, his Secre-tary of State will not join these dip-lomats in the annals of history.

What Clinton did during her tenure is represent America in a

dignified manner, a prerequisite for the position of Secretary of State, not a quality deserving of praise. She has no doctrine to her name. She has not solved any major global issues. She has been unimaginative. She has few notable accomplishments, one of them being the Asia Pivot. This, however, came down largely from the White House. In other words, her tenure has been neither troubled nor terrific. It seems that she has done just enough to build a path to the West Wing. It appears that over the past four years, she put to use the valuable knowledge that she gained from federal bureaucracy and the Washington cocktail circuit—do what you can to move up the ladder.

Raj Kannappan is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rk398@cornell.edu

National8

Raj Kannapan Columnist

Farewell, Madame Secretary

usnews.com

Only a Band-AidWhy Gun Control Won’t Solve Our ProblemsLucia RafanelliExecutive Editor

A Fortnight of FolliesI was enjoying a quiet night at

home, when suddenly the peace-ful silence was interrupted by the sound of gunshots.

A quick look out my window re-vealed nothing out of the ordinary. The normal sounds of Collegetown revelers had returned to the nearly-deserted street below. But the next morning I awoke to one of those all-too-familiar “Crime Alert” e-mails. Hurriedly, I read through it in more-than-typical detail, needing to find out if the incident reported was “shots fired”. And so it was.

Admittedly, I was rattled when I found out that the sound I heard the previous night was in fact the sound of a gun being fired quite literally on my street corner. I even contemplat-ed not writing this article. Perhaps the shots were a sign—a prohibition

against writing about the perils of the recent liberal push for stricter gun control.

But this doubt that I once thought could be the voice of some prophet-ic prudence, I later realized was the voice of fear. Freedom, after all, can be a scary thing.

It is easy to tell ourselves that people die of gunshot wounds, and so guns must be outlawed. It is easy, this act of scapegoating, and it ful-fills a common human desire to find

“the bad thing” and “root it out”. And while guns may be obvious tar-gets for this desire, we must remem-ber that people killed each other long before guns existed. Guns are

not the problem. The truth is that people sometimes do terrible things, and that will continue to be the truth whether or not they are allowed to own guns.

Perhaps it is hard to admit that the real problem lies not with weap-ons technology but at the very root of human nature. After all, that cannot simply be rooted out. We are stuck

with humanity and all its flaws. We should not, though, let our instinc-tual drive to find something dispens-able to blame for society’s worst ills deceive us into thinking that the

presence of guns is the root of vio-lent crime.

It is frightening to think that our fellow man is both the true source of such violence and that he is a free creature, but this fear must not stop us from allowing him his freedom. We must not be compelled by our fear to slowly imprison ourselves in laws and regulations, to strip our freedom to do this-and-that simply because, “It might be dangerous.”

Everything might be dangerous. Such is life, but to let our inabil-

ity—or, rather, our unwillingness— to cope with such a permanent state of potential threat drive us toward some terrible fate of democratically-imposed tyranny—that would be a great tragedy.

We must live with each other and rely on each other to act justly. That is the price of society. We must do this even when it is uncomfortable. That is the price of free society.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

“Perhaps it is hard to admit that the real problem lies not with weapons technology but at the very root of human nature. After all, that cannot simply be rooted out. We are stuck with humanity and all its flaws.”

February 12, 2013 9

CR

National

The Obama administration’s de-cision to nominate Senator

Chuck Hagel has undoubtedly been the source of partisan controver-sy since Christmas. Since 2002, the Nebraskan congressman—who du-tifully secured two purple hearts as a veteran during his time serving in Vietnam—has puzzled political an-alysts with his bizarre deviations from his rank-and-file conservatives on major foreign policy questions. His antics range from bizarre posi-tions concerning the US-Israeli al-liance and the Iranian Nuclear pro-liferation to blatantly inaccurate predictions with respect to the Iraq Surge in 2007.

Most troubling of late, however, is Hagel’s bumbling and inarticulate performance at his recent confirma-tion hearing. The strikingly unre-hearsed Hagel was unprepared to respond crisply to the exceedingly pointed GOP questions, which he and his advisers surely knew were due, given the whirlwind of con-troversy surrounding his nomina-tion in the first place, and given Ha-gel’s reputation as an unorthodox Republican.

That Hagel was so unprepared to withstand the onslaught which McCain and Graham unleashed is perplexing. Even more bewildering is the subpar quality of his offered responses.

First, he botched a direct ques-tion regarding his mistaken pre-diction that the 2007 surge in Iraq would fail. McCain brooded over the opportunity to address the Sen-ator, taking him to task on his fail-ure to support the escalation of in-volvement. The Nebraskan refused to admit that he had been in error, which incited McCain’s ire

“Your refusal to answer wheth-er you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether I vote for your confirmation or not,” remarked McCain.

The perception that Hagel’s re-cord of inaccurate predictions on foreign policy might continue is growing, even among dispassionate observers and moderate journalists.

Second, and more embarrassing-ly for Hagel according to the New York Times, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham directed Mr. Hagel to “name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of

the pressure from the Israeli or Jew-ish lobby.” Mr. Hagel, who in 2006 claimed that the “Jewish lobby” in-timidates Congress, failed to name even one example, and admitted to this with a sort of lamblike submis-sion. Ted Cruz, who arranged for Senate aides to play a damning re-cording, insinuated that Hagel be-lieved that Israel had committed war crimes. In 2009, Hagel wrote a letter to Obama, urging him to ini-tiate negotiations and direct talks with Hamas, a position which the Washington Post calls “so extreme that” even Obama seemed appalled.

Third, although (the otherwise meek and equivocating) Hagel set forth an assertive and staunchly forceful endorsement of American might in order to stave off claims that he would oversee the dwin-dling of America’s diplomatic and military influence abroad, conserva-tives on the panel expressed skepti-cism toward his commitment to this worldview.

Of particular worry was the am-biguity of his stance toward reme-dying the Iranian nuclear crisis. In 2007 Hagel wanted to open direct,

unconditional talks with Iran, a po-sition which still baffles foreign poli-cy strategists. Moreover, Hagel’s his-tory of opposition toward “keeping all (including military) options on the table” with respect to preven-tion seems troubling, given that the agency which he’ll oversee may very well be forced, sometime in the next 18 months, to launch a preemptive military strike in conjunction with Israel against the Persian state.

In a moment that caused both sides of the aisle to grow weary, Hagel promised that he strong-ly supported the Administration's (non-existent) support of “contain-ing” Iran, a claim which is self-ev-idently preposterous, since Obama supports prevention, and not con-tainment. This blunder was so strik-ing that Hagel had to be handed a note reminding him that no such “containment” policy exists.

In light of his prior votes against imposing harsh sanctions on the Persian state, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a ter-rorist group, and his tepid support for the US-Israel alliance, the pros-pect of Hagel overseeing operations at the Pentagon has proved harrow-ing for skeptics and casual observers alike.

After all, how can a man who is to oversee and operate one of the

most vital national security and in-telligence organs in the country, be so confused about his administra-tion’s core foreign policy stances (especially one of the most critical of national security questions)? Dur-ing the hearing, there were points at which it appeared that Hagel didn’t even know his own position on cer-tain matters - like sequestration and defense budget slashing - that will be of such spectacular import dur-ing the coming months of possible fiscal austerity.

The matter has even irritated a few Democrats. Most notably, re-ports Politico, former White House secretary David Gibbs remarked on a NBC “Meet the Press” panel that he found it “disconcerting” that Hagel was not ready for some of the questions directly linked to running the Pentagon.

“The disconcerting thing, ob-viously, for anybody that watched it was [that] he seemed unimpres-sive and unprepared on the ques-tions that, quite frankly, he knew were coming,” Gibbs said. Having witnessed her colleague succumb to McCain’s relentless siege, even Claire McCaskill attested to his impotency.

Furthermore, although White House strategists are confident that the Nebraskan will be confirmed, none have argued that Hagel per-formed well during the hearing. In fact, Hagel has created second guessing in the White House. The New York Times and Washing-ton Post report that, according to a member of Obama’s team of advisers on Iran, the stumbling performance seemed “somewhere between baf-fling and incomprehensible.”

At this juncture, it remains un-clear why, precisely, Obama decided to select Hagel to replace Panetta, who insists that Hagel was victim-ized by an inquisition of overzealous conservatives.

What is clear, however, is the de-cidedly acute irony which has be-come evident to historically-minded observers of this debacle. This is a man who not only once claimed that Sarah Palin (a staunch opponent of Obama) was qualified to be Vice President in 2008, but whose record is “precisely the anti-sanctions, anti-Israel stance” which Obama furious-ly denied was the embodiment of his foreign policy worldview in the 2012 election.

We can now candidly declare that politics makes for strange (and strik-ingly misguided) bedfellows.

Very comforting, no?

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu

Chucky Strikes Again!Roberto Matos Columnist

The Clarion Call

Source: salon.com

...how can a man who is to oversee and operate one of the most vital national security and intelligence organs in the country, be so confused about his administration’s core foreign policy stances?

CR

Sports10 February 12, 2013

The stadium erupted and emo-tions began to run wild. The Big

Red had just clinched the Ivy League championship. For the first time in a decade, players, coaches, parents, and fans were celebrating the suc-cessful end to their teams’ season.

In 2012, this was the setting for two growing programs within the Big Red community: Men’s Soccer and Baseball.

When the Cornell community thinks of athletics, their minds im-mediately turn to some of the best teams in the college sports circuit. The Ice Hockey program for both men and women has been a power-house for many years. Going into the upcoming season Men’s Lacrosse is ranked 7th in the country, as is the Wrestling team midway through its season.

In the early days of last May, the baseball team clinched their first conference title since the Ivy League Conference incorporated base-ball into their ranks in 1993. Just six months later, the Men’s Soccer team clinched their first outright Ivy League Championship since 1977.

Today, these teams represent two of the most popular and tight-ly-knit group of athletes that Cor-nell offers. The stories of these ath-letes and their struggles to reach the top, which have been overlooked by many, are the true sign of their character and an indicator of future success.

So just where did these two teams come from and what has lead to their phenomenal performance on the field over the past regular season?

The Big Red baseball team fin-ished in last place in 2011, posting a disappointing 10-30 record. Down the road, the men’s soccer team had been making steady improvements since hitting rock bottom with a 1-15 record in 2008.

Through grueling training, hard work, determination, and unique team atmosphere, both of these teams were able to make the jump from the basement of the Ivy League to league Champions.

“Nothing but our best was expected in every moment that we were on the field whether it was practice or in games,” said junior second baseman Brenton Peters. For the baseball team, success came in the form of a senior class of veteran leaders supplemented by a phenom-enally upbeat and talented freshman class.

Now graduated players such as Brian Billigen, Marshall Yanzick, Brendan Lee, and Frank Hager had been freshman when Head Coach

Bill Walkenbach became head coach and the team finished tied for first place back in

2009. These players experienced success very early in their collegiate playing career, and were bred into Coach Walkenbach’s program from day one. They were able to convey a calm yet aggressive clubhouse atti-tude that carried the team through-out the season.

“I think the intensity that we approached the game with in prac-tice everyday definitely benefitted us when we got into the situations where everything was on the line,” continued Peters.

On the field, Billigen led the team in nearly every offensive category and signed a contract to play profes-sional baseball in the Arizona Dia-mondbacks system. Rick Marks, a transfer, mentored a young Big Red pitching staff while posting a stel-lar 3.48 ERA over the course of the season.

Filling in the holes in 2012, the freshman class was tenacious and made an immediate impact on the Big Red rotation and lineup. In order to go from worst to first, the team needed a strong group of in-coming players and this class fit the bill.

Utility man Kevin Tatum who started 43 games for the Big Red last season had the team’s third best bat-ting average and on base percent-age, providing a key offensive spark in the order. Starting pitchers Brian McAfee and Brent Jones combined for a 10-3 record accounting for a third of the teams overall wins.

Closer Kellen Urbon broke the single season saves record with 9 and received recognition after rec-ognition from Ivy League Rookie of the year to most recently being named a pre-season all-American for 2013.

“I just tried to go out there and not let my team down. They had worked hard to get us in a winning position, and it was my turn to help the team win,” said Urbon in regards to his approach as the Big Red’s closer.

The Big Red baseball team also saw incredible improvements from returning players in 2012. It is hard not to mention Chris Cruz in any ar-ticle written about this team. The sophomore right fielder broke the single season record for home runs last season recording his 12th homer in the bottom of the 11th inning at Hoy Field to win the Ivy League Championship Series.

Sophomore Connor Kaufmann threw a no-hitter against Dartmouth early in the season, and then went on to secure three Ivy League Pitch-er of the week recognitions en route to a 7-2 record. Peters flashed the leather last season and developed into one of the toughest outs in the league, posting a .442 on base per-centage out of the leadoff spot in the lineup.

“Baseball to me is all about con-fidence, and nothing takes it out of the pitcher and the fielders behind him more than a guy who has long at bats and then gets on base after the whole ordeal is over,” Peters said.

While all of these accomplish-ments allowed the team to statisti-cally defeat their opponents, it was what happened behind the scenes in the clubhouse that allowed them to make such a terrific run. Coach Walkenbach and his coaching staff stress a team oriented and mental skills approach to playing the game that is truly unique to the Big Red.

“We needed to expect to win in order to be successful, it really is all about the mental game and it was a key to our success last season,” re-marked Walkenbach.

Isolating each at bat or each pitch and taking the game one step, one-inning at a time, the team found ways to scratch out victories in games they never should have won in ways no one could have predict-ed. The team atmosphere and ca-maraderie that exists amongst the players on this team is unprecedent-ed. They are not just teammates as their friendships extend far beyond baseball. Many live together and you would be hard pressed to find one player on the team without at least one of his teammates at his side.

“To see the way the team gelled was just a dream come true; every-thing fell into place,” continued Walkenbach. “And the guys enjoyed the heck out of each other’s compa-ny. We had a blast on the road. Peo-ple were stepping up in big situa-tions and playing.”

Similarly to Coach Walkenbach, Head Soccer Coach Jaro Zawislon joined the Cornell Athletics commu-nity four seasons ago. Tasked with improving upon a 1-15 season, Za-wislon came prepared with an es-tablished program designed to make his team a contender. His program stresses four core values: academ-ics, passion and love of the game, lifestyle, and soccer playing ability. In other words, this team has been

built from day one on the prospects of working hard inside and out of the classroom, loving the game enough to sacrifice everything for the goals of the team, and putting together a lifestyle that allows players to bet-ter themselves as individuals and as student-athletes.

“This season is an outcome of our players commitment to hard work, to self improvement; it is an out-come of their hunger for success, credit to the players in how we got there,” said Zawislon.

With this program in place, the team began to improve year by year. In 2011, they made huge strides to-wards accomplishing their ultimate goal of winning the conference by finishing 8-2-6. The players put in the time individually throughout the off season, hitting their benchmarks and were primed for a big 2012 sea-son; a season in which they posted a 15-1 record to clinch the Ivy League title.

“This team surprised a lot of peo-ple this year and that's a credit to the team as a whole,” said senior goal-keeper Rick Pflasterer.

The team itself operates as a unit, and in a sport like soccer where the individual is much less impor-tant than the group, this synchrony amongst players makes their 2012 success even more understand-able. Ask any player or coach on this team about themselves and they will quickly point you in another direc-tion, recognizing the importance of the overall team performance.

“Throughout the last four sea-sons there is no star on this team; the star on the team is the team itself. That’s where the strength of this team has been from the beginning, that’s what makes this team success-ful, and what will continue to bring them success,” Zawislon said.

That being said, without the on field success of certain individuals, an Ivy League Championship would not have been possible. Daniel Haber’s production on the field was

Alex GimenezSports Contributor

Parallels in Men’s Soccer and BaseballHow New Coaches Found Success Within Four Years

Continued at right

Painting the Ivy League Red: The Big Red look to extend the school’s Ivy League competitiveness across all sports.

February 11, 2013 11

CR

A student club at Cornell called the “Islamic Alliance for Justice” has launched an awareness campaign to alter and redefine the controversial word “jihad,” likening the term often associated with terrorist acts to in-stead mean moral struggle.

“Jihad is a human experience of internal struggle,” argues the organiza-tion’s website highlighting the campaign. “It holds a very sacred mean-ing in Islam, often associated with bettering oneself, achieving patience or finding balance.”

In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice uses “jihad” to refer to the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Muslim extremists under the guise of Holy War.

But students at Cornell chide the Western media for using the word jihad “in the context of terror, portraying the word in a politicized and terrify-ing manner”. The Islamic Alliance for Justice describes its campaign as a struggle against Islamophobia and the alleged misappropriation of the word “jihad.”

The campaign recently culminated in “Cornell’s 161 Faces of Jihad,” a Tumblr photomontage that shows students posing with a small whiteboard on which they have written their own interpretation of jihad.

In one picture, a young woman sits on a concrete step, and smiles as she displays a whiteboard on which she has written: “My jihad is to stop try-ing to change the cards I was dealt, and rather the way I play my hand.”

In another photo, a young man smiles as he holds up his definition of the word: “To keep things light and happy, like whipped cream!”

Other student definitions include: “finding my voice in politics,” “being a role model to my little brother,” and “reconciling who I am with who I want to be.”

Another student offers up his definition as: “My jihad is against social injustice and apartheid. Free Palestine!”

The group notes on its Tumblr website that it was inspired to undertake the cam-paign in part because of recent subway ads that state: “In any war between the civ-ilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The mission statement of Islamic Alliance for Justice, officially described as a sec-ular student organization, is to “raise awareness and coordinate effective response to local, national, and global issues of social, economic and political justice.”

“The Alliance engages in informational outreach activities as well as advocacy and discourse,” its official campus description states. “This club intends to both pro-vide a way for students interested in the Muslim world to become active in the political realm, and to raise awareness of issues of injustice across campus and around the globe.”

But through social media, the group, besides championing the rights of women in the Arab world, also focuses on criticizing the “western” conception of human rights, media bias, the right of sovereign countries to engage in counterterrorism

strikes and even the freedom to question religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, many students and professors have lauded its jihad cam-paign. Related to this, in November, another student group Students for Justice in Palestine organized the “Solidarity from Ithaca to Gaza” rally and received the support of several on and off-campus groups ad-vocating Palestine’s independence from Israel.

Campus

nearly unstoppable. The Ivy League Player of the Year, who recently signed on to play professionally in Israel, scored an unprecedented 18 goals in 2012 season. Haber’s con-tributions on offense accounted for nearly half of the goals made by the entire team throughout the course of the season.

In addition to Haber, the season could not have been achieved with-out Pflasterer’s shutdown play be-tween the goal posts. Starting in all 17 games this season, he record-ed 40 saves and held opponents to just 13 goals. Pflasterer also record-ed five shut outs while preventing Ivy League foes Columbia, Yale, and

Princeton from scoring a goal on his watch.

“As a goalkeeper, I try to do all of the little things right and then make that big save every once in a while when the team needs it,” said Pflasterer.

With both teams coming off of their biggest years in recent history, 2013 brings with it high expectations and promise for big success. Keep an eye on these two teams moving forward as they may soon be steal-ing the show as top athletics teams at Cornell.

Alex Gimenez is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Re-lations. He can be reached at ajg322@cornell.edu.

Continued from left

Sports

licenses. In the capital, New Delhi, which was recently shaken by the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year old, some 1,200 women have asked the Police Department to issue them firearm licenses.

One might grant that the exten-sive and perhaps unconstitutional gun regulations proposed by Pres-ident Obama were a product of great public outrage due to a rush

of high-profile gun homicides. But these provisions might not help in achieving his goal of reducing mass shootings. More importantly, the President shouldn’t forget that the right to bear arms has been asso-ciated with struggles for indepen-dence from tyrannical rule around the world.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu

Continued from Page 5

Gandhi

CORNELLINSIDER.comCornell Student Group Promotes Jihad As An Internal Struggle Posted by Kushagra Aniket

12 February 12, 2013

CR

Wisemen & Fools

Read and comment online at thecornellreview.com

Come to GS 156, Mondays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu

Join the Review.

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.Adam Smith

The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.Samuel Adams

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

History will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation

of arms as the blackest.Mahatma Gandhi

It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands.Russell Kirk

The only purpose for which power could be rightfully exercised over any member of civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant.J.S. Mill

The feeding and clothing of me, could not atone for taking my liberty from me.Frederick Douglass

You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.Joe Biden

It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.Nancy Pelosi

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Thomas Jefferson

We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews.Mohammed Morsi, President of Egypt

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.Voltaire

So enter that daily thou mayest become more learned and thoughtful; so depart that daily thou mayest become more useful to thy country and to mankind.

A.D. White, Cornell Eddy Gate Inscription

Democracy is the worst form of government. It is the most inefficient, the most clumsy, the most unpractical…It reduces wisdom to impotence and secures the triumph of folly, ignorance, clap-trap, and demagogy... Yet democracy is the only form of social order that is admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice.Robert Briffault

[Justice Roberts] appears to believe that in order to get beyond politicization, he must first take account of politics. Perhaps instead the way to stop deciding cases on the basis of politics is to stop deciding cases on the basis of politics.James Taranto

Forward, forward, forward....Barack Obama