the brown spectator: may 2008

May, 2008 — 1

The Brown UniversiTy SpectatorA Monthly Journal of Conservative and Libertarian Thought

Volume VI, Number VII / May 2008 / TheBrownSpectator.com

H Carcieri Cracks Down: Rhode Island gets serious about illegal immigrants.H Common Sense: Why aren't we using the Common Application?H The Libertarian Case for McCain: No pain, no gain.H The Spectator says, "Good-bye" to our departing seniors.

Also Featured

2 — Brown Spectator

Table of Contents3 – Letters to the Editor

5 – The Month. . . Thomas Friedman. . . Darfur protestors Colin O'Brien '10 and Scott Warren '09. . . The Pope, Time Magazine

Brown University6 – A Day on College Hill: A day when liberals come out of the woodworks by Bryan Smith7 – Economists challenge Gore hype: Leave Iwo Jima to the Marines by Brian Bishop9 – Tom Brokaw at Brown: Faulty comparisons and bad rhetoric by Keith DellaGrotta10 – The Common Application: Just common sense by Christina Cozzetto11 – The Need for Deconstruction: On Brown's perpetual rat race by Sean B. Quigley

Local13 – Fascist Democracy on the Center Stage: How "Funk the War" flunked free speech by Andrew J. Migneault14 – Our Heritage, If We Can Keep It: The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations by Travis Rowley16 – Carcieri Cracks Down: Rhode Island gets serious about illegal immigration by Kristina M. Kelleher

National18 – Since When Are Sports Democratic? The problem with boycotting the Olympics by Susannah Kroeber19 – Libertarians and McCain: No pain, no gain by Peter Catsimpiris

Staff Editoral21 – The Spectator says, "Good-bye" to our seniors

Winners and Losers24 – The "bitter people" of Pennsylvania & Aliza Shvarts (Yale '08)

The Brown SpectatorFrom the Editor

As a journal of conservative and libertarian thought and opinion, we are committed to

the dissemination and discussion of the ideas and values of Western culture so often lacking on this University's campus. Should some of the viewpoints expressed here prove hateful to the Brown community's majority opinion, we are reminded of the majority's fallibility and the academic virtue of ideas held in contention. We seek to provide the Brown University community with an intellectual voice and a regular forum for engaging the campus in constructive dialogue around issues of national, local, and campus concern. We welcome letters to the editor concerning the content of our issues. We are funded independently of the University by the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity.

Kristina M. KelleherEditor-in-ChiefThe Brown University [email protected]

Spectator StaffEditor-in-Chief Kristina M. Kelleher

BusinessBryan Smith – Managing EditorChristina Cozzetto – Asst. Managing EditorJoshua Unseth – IT Manager

ContentSean B. Quigley – Managing EditorAndrew J. Migneault – Asst. Managing Editor

ProductionAnish K. Mitra – Managing EditorSusannah Kroeber – Asst. Managing Editor

ArtRoxanne Palmer – Senior ArtistMiguel Llorente – Cover ArtistChristina DeOrchis, Kearsley Lloyd – Contributing Artists

Senior EditorsPeter Catsimpiris, Lorenna Ellis

Contributing Editors and WritersNathaniel Brown, Keith DellaGrotta, Phileda Tennant

At-LargeStephen Beale, Brian Bishop, Pratik Chougule, Joanna Joly, Joseph Lisska, Christopher McAuliffe, Eric Neuman, Travis Rowley, Boris Ryvkin

May, 2008 — 3

Letters to the EditorMay, 2008

Mr. Mitra responds –Madam:

I really do not know where to start. I guess I should begin by saying, kids, never under-estimate the power of propaganda.

Effective Venezuelan propaganda is stronger than Colombian cocaine, as we can see from Ms. McFadden's atrociously mislead opinions.

The first point I would like to address is about Venezuela's "honest" national elections. While the author makes a snide re-mark about the 2000 and 2004 elections (2004? I thought Bush won that one fair and square), she fails to realize points I had already made in my initial article. Quite frankly, Venezuelan elec-tions are a joke; after all, if they're so fair, why did Chavez basically prevent European Union officials from monitoring them? Further, why was Jimmy Carter's society the only organization (other than the Chavez administration of course) claiming that these elections were legitimate?

I do not know of this US-led coup that Ms. McFadden talks about; on the contrary, the coup I mentioned in my article dealt with enraged Venezuelan oil executives that protested Chavez's atrocious economic policies and Statist nationalization of the oil industry. Ironically, it was because of my very thesis (Chavez = tyrant) that the coup occurred. I guess they have a different expla-nation down in Venezuela; don't you love revisionist history?

The "benefits" that Ms. McFadden talks about are rather sim-ilar to the "benefits" Stalin and Krushchev offered to the Russians; equalization of income, food for the hungry working class, etc. Of course, Ms. McFadden doesn't mention that these benefits come at the cost of something else that might be important: freedom.

I don't understand how Ms. McFadden can say Venezuela is a "hotbed of true democracy" when Chavez initially tried to seize power with a coup to begin with. Further, given his intentions through his radical referendum (a topic that Ms. McFadden wise-ly chose not to address), it is evident that Chavez is completely unconcerned with democracy, and is rather focused on becoming an aboslute statist ruler.

Regardless, I am competing with a tyrant; although Mr. Chavez has won this round of "brainwash the blind," I hope that the individuals that read Ms. McFadden's letter truly see why I'm proud to be an American. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would probably vomit at the sight of Ms. McFadden's grotesque ramblings; more importantly however, they would re-affirm the dangers that await free men when tyrants like Hugo Chavez are allowed to assume power. •

Sincerely, Anish K. Mitra '10Managing Editor for Production, The SpectatorPresident-elect, Brown University Model United Nations

Hugo Chavez strikes back –Sir:

For a Spectator writer who claims to be an official in Brown’s “Model UN”, the intellectual arrogance coupled with utter

ignorance about the subject under discussion astonishing.I am a highly educated American living and teaching in Ven-

ezuela. I see the operations of the Chavez government on a daily basis and it should serve as a model for the kinds of program we desparately need in the U.S. right now. Venezuela is booming eco-nomically. The standard of living has risen dramatically under the Chavez government.

Venezuela has, since 1998, had a series of national elections all of which were honest, unlike the presidential elections in the U.S. in 2000 and 2004. Their election system has a verifiable paper trail so votes can be re-counted, unlike many jurisdictions in the U.S. And, unlike elections in the U.S., the presidential elections and referenda in Venezuela have been monitored by international agencies and found to be honest.

Comparing President Hugo Chavez to Hitler is absurd: Presi-dent Chavez has neither invaded nor bombed any other countries; he has never been accused of condoning torture of prisoners nor extra-judicial executions, as has the U.S. and its drug-infested ally, Colombia. The majority of newspapers and media here are pri-vately owned and routinely publish criticisms of President Chavez without prior restraint of any kind.

The social missions instituted by the Chavez government have radically changed the daily lives of the majority of citizens, providing free medical care where none was available at all before, vastly expanding free high school and university access, providing pleasant public housing in place of slums, and providing low cost food so every family has access to the basic necessities.

The U.S. government has long been engaged in a campaign to oust President Chavez and his democratic government, fund-ing an opposition who, upon kidnapping President Chavez and seizing power in a short lived coup, immediately abolished the National Assembly and the Supreme Court. The U.S. funded op-position here is hardly a force for democracy.

Having failed at removing the democratically elected Chavez by coup, the U.S. next concentrated on an anti-Chavez publicity campaign, of which the instant Spectator column is representative.

The facts about Venezuela are the very opposite of what the Spectator’s author describes. I know. I live here. Come visit and see the real Venezuela. It is beautiful and a hotbed of true democracy.

Sincerely, Bonnie McFadden

Letters to the Editor


The Spectator would like to acknowledge the Political Theory Project for the work it has done over the past year to promote invigorating

political discourse on campus. Directed by Political Science Professor John Tomasi, the Political Theory Project strives to “encourage discus-sions that are more than merely ‘academic,’ or intellectually ‘fashionable,” by driving “beneath the familiar and easy ideological labels.”

The Political Theory Project represents a model for how the concept of intellectual diversity can enrich the dialogue at Brown. Over the past year, the group has invited prominent speakers from a multiplicity of perspectives to discuss and debate issues which strike at the heart of American society. These include ideology in the academy, gender re-lations, and morality in constitutional interpretation. Moreover, it has pursued changes in the curriculum through its postdoctoral research program and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics concentration to help expose students to a wider array of courses.

Starting this Fall, the Political Theory Project plans to support the launch of the Brown Political Union as a means of further facilitat-ing student led debate on pressing political issues. The Political Theory Project demonstrates that “intellectual diversity” is not simply a guise for conservative affirmative action; rather it represents an ideal for rigorous campus discussion.

May, 2008 — 5 The Month

Susannah Kroeber '11

The last ten days of April were chock full of reminders that the spring flowers have finally heralded in the belated season.

Not only did “grass” and other such natural products dominate on what I will term Brown’s Spring Appreciation Day, held annually on 4/20, but in addition Earth Day brought with its festivities New York Times star reporter Thomas Friedman. Being green was the topic of his talk, and Margaree Little ’08.5 and accomplice en-sured that the green message was taken as seriously as possibly by kindly presenting him with green pies. Too bad he could not catch them as they flew at his face! Although I am sure free pie must be a traumatic experience for anyone, let us reflect momentarily on the important message that Mr. Friedman taught us by resuming his speech after being so horrifically accosted. I am sure there is some great lesson about dignity and standing up for your cause in the face of such horrible opposition. But all I see is free pie.

Anish K. Mitra '10

Earlier this semester, two foolish Darfur protes-tors, Scott Warren '09 and Colin O'Brien '10,

stood in front of the White House while chanting protest slogans in order to convince President Bush to magically fix the situation in Darfur. While protesting is certainly a patriotic endeavor and the genocide in Darfur is certainly a pressing interna-tional issue, this act of "protest" was rather idiotic. Af-ter Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Warren were both arrested 15 minutes into their revolutionary act of defiance, Mr. O'Brien was jokingly told he would have to spend one night in jail. In response, Mr. O'Brien was ap-parently "ready to die." Wow. Although I admire his activism and interest in this important world issue, I serverely hope he truly wasn't dreading spend-ing one night in prison. Not that I've done time in slammer or anything, but did Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. shudder at the idea of imprisonment for a cause they valued? Did Nelson Mandela kill himself during his 20+ year prison term before he ultimately became President of South Africa? Mr. O'Brien seems passionate enough to get some attention, but when push came to shove (through the form of a joke, no less), he threw his principles and overzealous activism right into the garbage. The funny thing is, even the cop knew he was just another loud, spineless protester.

Sean B. Quigley '10

With the Pope's recent visit to the States in mind, I am less than elated—and even shocked—that so many in the Ang-

lo-American world have forgotten why the Pope has traditionally been regarded as the enemy of, and the Roman Catholic Church as incompatible with, the idea of self-rule and a republican form of government. Nearly 320 years ago, the English Protestants "ex-

iled" King James II (some will claim that he willfully abdicated his throne, and others that he alienated his right to rule through tyr-anny), the last Stuart, as well as the last Roman Catholic, monarch of England. To ensure that papist tyranny would never return, the Declaration of Right was then asserted in convention and later the English Bill of Rights passed in Parliament (with royal assent, constitutionally similar to a presidential signature, granted by King William III, a Protestant from the Netherlands). A century later, the American Founders essentially cribbed each document when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the first ten Amendments to the Constitution (the American Bill of Rights).

We are doomed to see a resurgence (continuance?) of tyranny and the extirpation of our Anglo-American rights and liberties if we neglect the past, and ignore our inheritance. And while I would

never want unnecessarily to offend Roman Catholics, with whom I share Christian fellowship, the simple fact of the matter is that the only governments in his-tory ever to protect mankind's natural rights and to guarantee true liberty have been Protestant in spirit,

if not in law. Thus, vote liberty (read: Republican) on November 4th, and burn Guy Fawkes in effigy on November 5th.

Christina Cozzeto '10

Leave it to Brown students to turn an academic lecture into Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice

Awards. Although the possibility that a speaker, at any moment, could be slimed, may up the excitement

(and the attendance) at every speaking engagement at Brown, pieing a speaker is essentially the dumbest

thing you can do to get your message across. Since Thomas Friedman kept his composure and delivered the lecture, the protesters ended up looking stupid. They also wasted their time plotting this hit-and-run when simply handing out their literature at the door would have been less elaborate and far more ef-fective. And to the activists, just a tip: you also might want to check your literature for spelling errors next time, too.

Kristina M. Kelleher '09

Time magazine sought to make headlines of its own by unveil-ing its cover commemorating Earth Day by manipulating the

iconic Iwo Jima image into a statement of Green Revolution. Ap-parently Time has not invested too much energy in the sensitivity training so universally adored by the Left. Of the six Marines cap-tured by Joe Rosenthal’s photo, 3 of them, Pfc. Franklin Sousley, Cpl. Harlon Block, and Sgt. Michael Strank, made the ultimate sacrifice for their country on the island before sunset. Veterans were right to be angry for the dishonoring of those who gave their lives in service of our country when Time used that iconic image of patriotism for a political cause. Shame on Time. •

The MonthStaff Editorial — May, 2008

6 — Brown Spectator Brown University

A Day on College Hill:A day when liberals come out of the woodworks

BRYAN SMITH '10

WELCOMEto Brown

We don’t

know

what we’re

prote

sting

we only on sunny days

protest

i was dragged

here

i don’t even

go here

As some of you may know, April 15th-16th brought A Day on College Hill (ADOCH) to Brown, when about 700 accepted students descended on our campus to see all that Brown has to offer. Now, to most Brown students, all ADOCH meant was that some classes were more crowded than usual, or that hoards of wide-eyed accepted students were moving in packs in the Ratt. But to the hundreds of students who beat the odds and were ac-cepted to Brown, these days meant much more than that. To many of the accepted students, ADOCH was the make or break factor that would dictate the next four years of their lives. Clearly, they were trying to observe as much as possible and take in all aspects of Brown’s campus -- the good, the bad, and the liberal. My hat is off to those who planned this year’s ADOCH; all reports claim that it was not only one of the best that Brown has ever had, but also that it was head-and-shoulders above similar programs at our peer insti-tutions. I know first-hand about the long nights and earlier morn-ings that were required to pull off an event of this size so seamlessly, and as such I cannot give enough congratulations to those who gave many long hours to a good cause.

So what made me so mad about this otherwise great event? It is no secret that Brown students like to protest. Whether it

is trying to dance troops home, or stupidly getting arrested while protesting in Washington, D.C., I politely roll my eyes and keep walking. However, the protests that sprung up on campus dur-ing ADOCH really got under my skin. When the accepted students were com-ing to campus for ADOCH they were greeted by not one, not two, but three demonstrations, each more ridiculous than the last.

The first demon-stration was on Lin-coln field and consisted of 40,000 little red flags, each representing ten people killed in the Darfur region of Sudan. While I think all the money spent on those flags could have gone to other things -- like, oh I don’t know, aid for the people in Darfur -- I do not have that big of a problem with this because Lincoln Field looked kind of pretty with all the red flags on it. One of the good things about this

protest was that it was not overtly in your face. Sadly, it only went downhill from there.

On the Main Green, right next to the tent that was put up for ADOCH, there was a protest comprised of pictures from the violence and genocide in Burma. There were wooden stakes hammered into the ground and pictures of emaciated, dejected, and overall dismal individuals who were directly affected by the violence and genocide in this region. So this one was pretty bad because it was right up in your face, destroying the Main Green, but at least there was still some artistic value to it.

The third and final demonstration was also on the Main Green, right in between the tent that was set up, and Faunce

House, the location of registration for ADOCH; it came in the form of a graveyard. This graveyard, which accepted students had to walk through in order to get to the welcome tent, was set up for all of those individuals who died in try-ing to cross the border between the United States and Mexico. There was also a sign that informed

students that more people have died trying to illegally enter this country than there were people who entered the Brown Class of 2011. Not only did this display make the Main Green look awful, but also it was in terribly poor taste. How the administration did not take issue with this was beyond me because this graveyard was despicable.

It never ceases to amaze me how closed-minded some people at this school can be.

These demonstrations overlapped with ADOCH as a calculated attempt

to alter the perception of Brown to the accepted

"The problem that I see time and time again on this campus is that people mindlessly fol-low what others do, never considering to take a step back so as to think about what it is they are doing or why they are doing it."

May, 2008 — 7 Brown University

Economists Challenge Gore HypeLeave Iwo Jima to the Marines

BRIAN BISHOP (Editor At-Large)

The Janus Lecture Series at Brown concluded with an Earth Day theme presenting an unlikely triumvirate of socio-

economic thinkers discussing climate change. Global Warming wreaked havoc upon the presentation with glorious spring weath-er filling the Pembroke Green rather than the lecture at Alumnae Hall (although weather-norming could only report that the event was quite well attended).

For those who bucked the trend and went indoors, the lec-ture was refreshing. The typical presentation of the purportedly controversial Bjorn Lomborg in academia has amounted to a brief caricature of his work which is then subjected to withering emo-tional diatribe masquerading as substantive criticism. The Janus Steering Committee instead exhibited an ability to recognize nu-ance in this area of debate and presented a panel of distinct, but not antithetical, ideas.

The Brown Daily Herald focused on areas of agreement amongst the speakers, which were actually more style than sub-stance, and drew media attention to the absence of hype—a unique and newsworthy event when it comes to discussing climate change. The Herald did not really miss the point, however, as the universal absence of apocalyptic tone at this forum was the de facto answer to the question debated: “Global Climate Change: The End of the World as We Know it?”

This is not to say that Janus presented the complete range of serious scientific discourse on climate change. The only specific substantive agreement amongst all the panelists was a prejudice to the viewpoint that “global warming” is principally, or actionably, a result of human activity. There remains many serious scientists who question both the predominant attribution of current climate trends to humanity and the uncritical reliance on models that pre-dict a self-reinforcing acceleration of effects.

If Lomborg is so conformist in this respect, what has made him so controversial? Ironically, it is his adherence to welfare eco-nomics, a progressive utilitarian brew of Pareto efficiencies com-pounded with a contradictory predilection to redistributive effects – think Marxist Benthamites doing cost benefit analysis.

You would not think that a gay vegetarian opining on eco-nomic justice could so readily turn the revolutionaries of the Left

to reactionaries calling for his head, but Lomborg’s conclusion that there were much more important things to spend money on than global warming was heresy in the church that Gore built. Not only did this diminutive Dane have the temerity to render such a judg-ment, but also he had the honesty to point to the gross exaggera-tions of potential harms from global warming by the high priest of climate change. Indeed, these exag’gore’ations have stampeded public discourse towards the sense that CO2 challenges the 21st century the way Hitler challenged the 20th.

In an environment prone to such excesses as postulating bib-lical floods of 20 feet or more when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually predicts a sea level rise in the realm of a foot or two this century, it is little wonder that Time magazine chose to co-opt the image of Marines of the greatest generation atop Iwo Jima’s Mt. Surabachi as the missionary metaphor for the latest generation.

Lomborg’s “anti-deluvian” ruminations have earned him the moniker of “delayer”, the newest derogatory ad hominem in the climate change battle, used by believers to belittle participants in the public discourse who cannot be labeled “deniers”. In the view of these fervent global warning [sic] believers, acknowledging anthropogenic climate change but faulting Gore and others for worst case scenarism leads inevitably to delaying the anti-fossil fuel measures they deem necessary.

Unsurprisingly, given the consequentialist underpinnings of his economic philosophy, Lomborg’s best examples of hyperbole relates to this perception of welfare effects. In particular he illus-trated the absurdity of fears being generated by warming-related sea level rise.

Lomborg examines social resiliency in the face of similar change in recent history, pointing out that sea level has already risen a foot well within the memory of contemporary human in-stitutions. Indeed this rise began around the mid-1800s and is almost in the memory of contemporary humans. Thus Lomborg supposed, if we found a centenarian and asked her (statistics sug-gest it would be a woman) to reflect upon important changes in society over the course of her lifetime, major trends might be suf-frage, communications and other technology, and transportation.

students. By walking around campus during ADOCH, one would feel that Brown was over the top with political activism; this prob-ably turned off many students from our University. People may call me an optimist, but in my heart of hearts, I believe most Brown students are not as liberal as people think. The problem that I see time and time again on this campus is that people mindlessly follow what others do, never considering to take a step back so as to think about what it is they are doing or why they are doing it. Some of the smartest, brightest people I know who attend this school, when pressed on their actual political beliefs, fold under the pressure because they do not truly know what they are. Never-theless, they are certainly good at telling you what they have heard

on the news or read in The Brown Daily Herald, or the same tired lines that their peers have given.

These protests during ADOCH are a classic example of this unfortunate tendency. It seems that these protests were planned specifically to start the brainwashing and the indoctrination of the new crop of “good” liberals. I cannot stress this point enough: after reading this article, please just take a step back and think about what you truly believe and why you believe that; it can only make you a stronger, better rounded person. It is a shame that this event had to be scarred by such tasteless protests. All I can hope for is that more dissenting voices start to arise, and continue to make Brown an interesting place. •


But she would be highly unlikely to mention that a noticeable change in her lifetime had been in sea level.

Humdrum changes in climate and terrain are simply not ma-jor challenges to the human condition. Humans adapt. Even the drought scenarios presented by co-panelist Robert Mendelsohn, whose work has encompassed redistributive effects on precipita-tion, pointed out that these impacts will unfold slowly. This will allow adaptation through changes in crop choice and cultivating methods, a reliable strategy even for developing countries that may face a precipitative deficit under future climate.

When one can reasonably believe that widely available ad-aptations promise an inexpensive future value solution set for any likely effects of global warming in the next century, it becomes necessary to believe in the worst case in order to defend any seri-ous investment of present value in mitigation. But Mendelsohn was sanguine in the face of such precautionary arguments. We know how to cool the earth, he said – volcanoes do it all the time by lofting particulates. If we really faced an unforeseen climate emergency, an outlier to current predictions, we can put this knowledge to work.

Finally, the audience was treated to Michael Shellenberg’s futurist proposals that we cease and desist from treating global warming as a classic pollution problem to be addressed by drastic energy rationing (an area in which he and I agree), and instead embark on a Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy.

Indeed, Shellenberg and Lomborg were almost peas in a pod on this argument, with Lomborg offering the sense that $25 bil-lion in government energy research might do it while Shellenberg is looking for $50 billion or more. But given their general concessions that climate change poses no immense or imminent risks and, especially with regard to Lomborg, that alter-native expenditures would go much further towards improving the human condition, it is hard to see how they can justify raiding the government piggy bank for a bunch of alternative energy earmarks.

Certainly the Manhattan Project is an example of govern-mentally chartered collective action that yielded the very outcome towards which it was directed, and without scratching too deeply you can come to NASA and the Apollo Program for another. But rather than embolden Manhattanites, this should be a sobering realization. That would also be the NASA of the space shuttle, an

agency with no mission and unable to accomplish even that.NASA is the epitome of an agency that has to define a way

to consume money in order to stay in existence. It did not write its earliest charter to reach the moon, rather the Cold War im-pelled the technological mission laid down by John F. Kennedy and embraced by a nation – especially in consequence of NASA’s swift recovery and notable successes in the space race. An even more explicit technological arms race gave rise to the Manhattan Project itself. And while the public could not embrace the specific goals of a secret undertaking, the country was committed to the war effort.

The situation with global warming is completely opposite. The vast majority of people is not particularly concerned and has in-ductively reached the same conclusion as Lomborg, that there are better things to spend their money on. Given the recent steep rise in energy prices, frustrated environmentalists turn to the energy independence mantra in support of their Manhattan Project.

But the government has made historically fickle decisions in this arena. Billions were poured into clean coal research during an era of concern over direct pollutants, only to have environmental-ists scorn the result just as some productive concepts were finally emerging. It is far more likely that consumers directing their own expenditures for energy or alternatives will drive useful market responses.

There will always be a measure of regulatory risk, but this is an area where government can help. In an era when rivers are not burning, the government would do much better to loosen its

regulatory grip than to go about creating new, artificial Manhattan Projects. While Lomborg does not use the titular formatulation, he nonetheless favors tens of billions flowing into the earmark soup that is alternative energy research. It is hard to square his work with the

Copenhagen Consensus, which placed carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies in the negative return on investment category, with countenancing billions in global warming expenditures. •

Brian Bishop is on the Board of Advisors of the Foundation for Intel-lectual Diversity and directs the Foundings Project for the Ocean State Policy Research Institute. The Foundings Project uses the organic lens of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions, their text, structure, and history, to inform debate over contemporary public policy.

"In an era when rivers are not burning, the government would do much better to loosen its regulatory grip than to go about creating

new, artificial Manhattan Projects."

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." – Milton Friedman (1912 - 2006)


Tom Brokaw at Brown:Faulty comparisons and bad rhetoric

KEITH DELLAGROTTA '10

While not as prominent a figure in my lifetime as in the gen-eration before me, I figured it would be worthwhile to see

Tom Brokaw in person, and to hear the voice that filled the living rooms of so many American households before me. Known as one of the “Big Three” news anchors, along with Peter Jennings of ABC and Dan Rather of CBS, Tom Brokaw was anchor and manag-ing editor of NBC from 1983 to 2004. The Office of the President sponsored his lecture on April 21 in the Salomon Center for Teaching. Although his accomplishments may be impressive – such as being the first American to interview Mikhail Gorbachev and the only American correspondent to report, in person, the fall of the Berlin Wall – I found his talk less than superb. Full of unfounded and dire comparisons of the current U.S. situation in Iraq to the Vietnam conflict forty years ago, his words were little more than a weak attempt to stir a liberal audience.

Brokaw began his address on the light side, initially stating that he wanted the lecture to be instead a “conversation.” The packed Salomon room was quick to laugh when he sarcastically mentioned the effects of Harvard's having rejected his applica-tion: he was forced to lead a life “wandering in the wilderness.” After a few more jokes, Brokaw quickly progressed to the meat of his message, claiming that America is at an “important passage in time.” Surprisingly, this passage in time is similar to that which came during the presidency of Lyndon Baynes Johnson, at least according to Brokaw.

Let us explore the reasons why Tom Brokaw might assert such an obscure claim. Brokaw began his history lesson of the 1960s by mentioning LBJ and the Vietnam conflict. At the time, Johnson was wrongly assuring Americans that Vietnam was mak-ing considerable progress. Of course the Democrats in the au-dience quickly drew the comparison between Johnson’s shallow words and President Bush’s comments on the Iraq conflict, but this link is hardly justified.

The Vietnam conflict and today’s conflict in Iraq are starkly different, mainly because the former was destined to be a disaster and the latter has every chance to be a success. First, American soldiers were ill-prepared to fight in the Vietnam terrain and were not trained adequately for the type of warfare that the conflict entailed. U.S. soldiers today are very well equipped to fight in Iraq. Second, a majority of South Vietnamese did not back U.S. involvement in the fight against the Viet Cong, whereas liber-ated Iraqis rejoice in Sadam Hussein’s removal and are actively involved in fighting the minority resistance. Third, the U.S. armed forces never succeeded in diminishing the Viet Cong threat throughout the Vietnam conflict, but today in 2008 there is an obvious decrease in the violence in Iraq. On average, the Vietnam

conflict saw substantially more American casualties per year than have occurred since the start of the Iraq conflict.

Brokaw continued his conversation by mentioning the “moral crusaders” of the 1960s. He praised Eugene McCarthy for chal-lenging Johnson, a member of his own party, with an anti-Viet-

nam platform. Martin Luther King, Jr., was next in line to receive glorification due to his non-violent protests in favor of civil rights for blacks. However, it would be incorrect to refer to any mor-al crusaders today, whether the title is valid or not, in the same light as either McCarthy or MLK. As I have already stated, today’s war and the Vietnam War are incomparable. Though I would

never claim that America has achieved perfect equality in rights and opportunities for every American, the discrepancies in King’s era were much more apparent.

Springboarding off the topic of activists in the 60s, Brokaw then challenged the audience to take action. At the turning point of his speech, Brokaw articulated, “Forty years later in the election of 2008 we need to take stock in what we are keeping [from the decade of 1960] and what we are leaving behind.” In Brokaw’s words, the upcoming election is the “most important election since 1968.” Brokaw’s following advice, interestingly, was rather contradictory.

With regard to the conflict in Iraq, full of “broken promises” and “broken premises” (a statement in itself which is conflicting since we are succeeding in reducing terrorism and in bringing free-dom to a previously oppressed people), Brokaw recommended we “find a far more effective way” to deal with Islamic rage. (But I am not so sure peace talks with terrorist leaders will solve the problem, as Obama claims.) He then went on to say that Americans still need to honor our men and women in uniform, no matter how much we might disagree with the war. Here is a thought: since most of our military wants to finish the war against terrorism, how about we honor our soldiers by listening to them? Brokaw even complimented Americans who in World War II “rebuilt their en-emies,” like Germany, by investing in the country’s industry and installing a government. Iraq will see the same beneficial results if we do not pull U.S. troops out of the country recklessly.

After an inspirational story about how United States reached the moon in 1969, Brokaw closed with the words of Steward Brand saying, “It is more important what unites us, not what di-vides us.” I agree with this statement. I listened to Brokaw preach for an hour about the illogical similarities between now and the 1960s, and as usual, I observed attentive liberals who were mes-merized by the exaggerated, distorted assertions that supported their own personal agendas. Democrats should heed Brokaw's words, stop dividing America, and see the light, so that we can stand united. •

"Here is a thought: since most of our military wants to finish the war against terrorism, how about we honor

our soldiers by listening to them?"


The Common Application:Just common sense

CHRISTINA COzzETTO '10

According to a recent article in The Brown Daily Herald (“Unique no more? U. may require Common App,” Apr. 9), there is a very real possibility that Brown will require its Class of 2013 to apply using the Common Application, and only the Common Application. Luckily, there has been very little complaining or controversy over this possibility, since it should be essentially a no-brainer: the University should certainly adopt the Common Application.

The Common Application, or Common App, is (according to its website) a “not-for-profit organiza-tion that serves students and mem-ber institutions by providing an admission application – online and in print – that students may submit to any of [its] nearly 300 members.” The site allows its students either to download paper versions of the application or to submit it electroni-cally; last year there were nearly half a million applications submitted. Each member institution either uses the Com-mon Application exclusively, or gives it and the college’s own application equal consideration. Membership is limited to colleges who evaluate their students us-ing a holistic process, meaning they cannot use only objective criteria to evaluate their students: a school that relies solely on test scores and grades is not eligible. Some kind of subjective analysis must be done, including “at least one recommendation form, at least one untimed essay, and broader campus diversity considerations.” Any institution can also add additional requirements to the application; for example, many colleges require an additional short essay asking the applicant why he or she would like to attend that specific college. The Common Application also provides an easy way to report midyear and final grades, gives a template for a recommendation, provides essay topics, and even has supplemental forms for athletes and those involved in the arts. In short, the Common Application has everything the Brown application has, in a clearer format that is easier to use.

The Brown application requires the same set of personal and contact information as the Common Application. It asks for your high school grades in the same way, and leaves enough room to fill out all the standardized test scores received by the applicant, including space for the TOEFL, which is vital for many interna-

tional students. Both applications ask for a list of activities impor-tant to the applicant, awards received, and work experience. The Brown application does not list a specific essay prompt, like the six listed by the Common Application, but this should not be an issue, as the sixth essay prompt on the Common Applica-

tion is, literally, a “topic of your choice.” The prompts are there essentially to help an applicant to think of a topic, if that is where he or she is struggling.

The Brown application includes a section asking about how the appli-

cant became interested in Brown, and several additional forms if the applicant is applying for specific academic areas (such

as chemistry, computer science, physics or engineering), or to the Brown-RISD dual degree pro-gram, or the Program in Liberal Medical Education. These forms, clearly, are unique to Brown, but

most of the colleges and universities participating in the Common Ap-plication require a supplement. Cer-tain aspects of the Secondary School

Report also ask for an additional assessment of the student’s character, but these questions can also be addressed in a supplement, and a ma-jority are already addressed as concerns in the Common Application’s teacher evaluation and secondary school report.

In adopting the Common Application, Brown would be do-ing nothing but eliminating unnecessary paperwork. There is no reason for a student to spend any additional hours (or even a few minutes) filling out basic information like an address or a school

phone number or SAT scores. The Common Application’s website phrases it perfectly: “[The Common Application] allows you to spend less time on the busywork of applying for admission, and more time on what’s re-ally important: college research, visits, essay writing and senior year coursework.” And to say a willingness to fill out Brown’s “unique” application shows a dedication to the school

is just silly; a (potential) dedication to Brown can be found in the short answer portion of the current application asking the stu-dent why he or she chose to apply. This section would normally be found on a supplemental form, anyway.

Additionally, although this is probably not a significant part of the deliberations over adopting the Common Application, the application is available only to schools who use a “holistic” ap-

"In adopting the Common Application, Brown would be doing nothing but eliminating

unnecessary paperwork."


proach to admission: there must be some subjective criteria on which the student is evaluated, one of which is a consideration of “broader campus diversity considerations.” For a university so unconcerned with test scores that students can take every class S/NC, this seems like a great idea to support. Although it may be ironic for unique Brown to adopt an application that over 300 colleges already use, its principles are nearly perfectly in line with

what Brown promotes.Brown prides itself on what makes it unique: its grade op-

tions, its lack of a core curriculum, its writing requirement – and it is true that what makes Brown different is what makes it great. However, there is no reason to force students to fill out unneces-sary forms simply to retain a “special” application. The Class of 2013 should be allowed to fill out the Common Application. •

The Need for Deconstruction:On Brown's perpetual rat race

SEAN B. QUIGLEY '10

In the two years that I have been attending Brown, one aspect of the school’s environment has been particularly annoying, and even infuriating at times. And while I am tempted to write that the statist impulses and cries of many fellow students is the cause of this deep-felt annoyance, such is actually not the case. Rather, the perpetual construction, as well as the infernal noise which inevitably accompa-nies it, has drawn my fierc-est ire – and I would venture that I am not alone in having these sentiments.

Barely a day passes when the men with orange vests do not descend on our campus, replete with drills, cranes, and a bob-by or two. While some may claim that the capital improvement implemented during this construction only benefits the student body, I would say that this is not a profit-making business with the sole, or even primary, intent of attracting customers. Despite the administration’s shameless pandering and advertising to prospec-tive students and donors, I still hold fast to the idea that this is a liberal arts university, charged with the responsibility of encourag-ing reflection, scholarship, and community. We are not a commer-cial enterprise; we are not a research university; we are not a tabula rasa to be radi-cally changed or rebuilt at the fancy of a few.

Brown, as I am sure that most students are aware, was founded in 1764 (as the College of Rhode Island) as a liberal arts university with a Baptist affiliation. The Protestant Christian roots of this University, then, are clear and undeniable – although the rabid amount of construction presenting taking place on our campus would seem to suggest that it was founded as a school with sole objective of churning out as many degree-holders as possible.

Our charter writes that the University would focus on pursu-ing an education policy whereby students are inculcated “in the liberal Arts and Sciences” – but the logical inference from the ad-

ministration’s actions is that our University instead intends merely to attract attention, expand its tentacles throughout the city, alien-ate its own history and founding purpose, and foster an environ-ment whereby studious reflection and cultivation of gentlemanly manners are virtually impossible. The manifest consequence of

the insufferable amount of construction is that a com-munity has been destroyed – the unassuming has been relegated to the sidelines, while the egotistical has not only been given full rein, but also encouraged quite vigorously.

I fully understand why Brown may want to increase its prestige in the academic world, but the somber truth is that the University no longer seems to value what had initially made it so laudable. An American outgrowth of the long English tradition which gave special emphasis to, and placed sincere value on, liberal arts institutions, Brown was meant to be a reflective, temperate, disci-plined academic setting, whereby tranquility and serenity would facilitate, nay actively promote, several years of ascetic, scholarly devotion. That the current administration, and its predecessors

since the 1960s, has disregarded this key purpose, in favor of artificial improve-ments that greatly hinder proper de-votion, is not only rueful, but decid-edly shameful.

Perhaps I will be told that I am vainly clamoring

for a return to the values of a bygone era, which will never re-turn. Perhaps I will be told that money and status trump virtue and manners, in this modern age of ours. Such responses would be quite regrettable, even condemnatory, as they betray a funda-mental misunderstanding of why education is to be valued and pursued.

Despite the pretensions of materialistic modernists, educa-tion is not solely a means to an end, whether that end be a greater

"I fully understand why Brown may want to increase its prestige in the academic world, but the somber truth is that the University no longer seems to value

what had initially made it so laudable."


social status, an ability to command a higher income in life, or a time for “experimentation.” Indeed, I would claim that the deg-radation of modern institutions of higher learning can be traced precisely to the prevalence on college campuses of students who possess a life philosophy that values educations simply as a means for those ends.

Education, much as the institutions which facilitate it, is an intrinsic good, which allows man to fulfill a part of his nature that would go unsated without it. Education refines men, for it humbles even the most arrogant, as they are confronted with the sobering fact that the living are merely one generation, the in-heritors to thousands of years of human history which has come before. How dare we overvalue our own importance!

Sadly, the contemptible arrogance of the modern man is not palpable only in the actions of our University’s administrators. My own parochial high school – ironically, given a religious institu-tion’s typical deference to accumulated wisdom via tradition – has fallen victim to this wholly modern tendency to alter, if not radi-cally change, our inherited culture and values. Upset by this fact, last year I wrote the following words in a letter to the President of the school:

"I am worried by the possibility that the school has evolved into a business that sates competing interests, rather than the den

of discovery, learning, and refinement that any true educational institution should be."

And though I would love to be able to claim that, for once, I can concretely prove that it is indeed the Protestant who has more respect for actual tradition than the Roman Catholic, that claim would be fruitless. For, though I do regard Protestantism as the true keeper of Christ’s Church, the hope here is that the Protes-tant and Roman Catholic would be able to unite behind a desire to maintain respect for tradition (after which we would naturally debate over what that tradition actually is), when an atheistical, progressive view of history seeks to destroy such respect, root-and-branch.

Alas, even the self-identifying conservatives cannot recognize what is taking place in the modern world. Even they fail to un-derstand that everything we cherish, everything which has been handed down to us, everything that gives meaning to the institu-tional structure of our Anglo-American world, is under attack.

But maybe, just maybe, my fellow students will acknowledge that something is irrevocably lost when material improvement and pursuit of glory are valued over spiritual enlightenment and cultural refinement. Maybe they will join me in rejecting constant construction on this campus, such that our highest academic ide-als will not go unfulfilled. Maybe they will join me in being truly liberal. •

May, 2008 — 13 Local

Fascist Democracy:How "Funk the War" flunked free speech

ANDREW J. MIGNEAULT '11

The dance was slated to begin at 6:00 p.m. sharp on Friday, April 18. The time was relatively early compared to the dances most

students partake in at Brown University. This particular instance, however, would not feature some student DJ showcasing his iTunes library, or a bar with one dollar drinks in a crowded room. Rather, as the fliers for the event instructed, the group was to meet in downtown Providence to “take back public space with pure FUNK!” This was the second coming of the “Funk the War” dance party, and the participants were all riled up to display their contempt for the conflict in Iraq by doing nothing other than dancing in opposition and using signs to display their stance to passersby. This gathering and the first Funk the War dance party have highlighted what is wrong with liberal activism today.

The fliers that decorated nearly every door on campus were posted by the Brown and Providence Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radically liberal organi-zation which dates to the anti-Vietnam War student activism of the 1960s. On March 19, 2008, amidst a revival in the organization, the attendees were to “Dance…in solidarity against the War in Iraq and imperialism in Afghanistan,” coinciding with the five year anniver-sary of the start of the War in Iraq. The first “Funk the War” event had an estimated 50 to 60 students who, as Brown Daily Herald reporter Isabel Gottlieb wrote, “spent over an hour dancing in Kennedy Plaza” ("Protests mark five years of war in Iraq," Mar. 20). The following day, a larger demonstra-tion was held by SDS in which, at one point, upwards of twenty students occupied an Army Na-tional Guard recruiting office in nothing short of a classic sit-in. Police were dispatched once employees of the office noted that the door was being blocked by the protesters, resulting in the arrest of seven Brown students – something that SDS was quoted as being “very proud of.” Funk the War II was described to me as being much the same as the first dance party. Once again the stu-dents dressed themselves in ostentatious clothing, to complement their music, and were flamboyantly “[celebrating] resistance” – but the democracy ended there.

I am not going to attempt to attack SDS for failing to effect a real change in U.S. policy in Iraq, or for having the sense of elite en-titlement in thinking that their dancing in downtown Providence would somehow have an inflammatory effect throughout the state or country. In fact, I would be willing to wager that their intention was certainly not to seek real change, but rather, as they clearly

stated, to come together in solidarity and express their rights of demonstration and free speech against a government that they see as acting unjustly. If that is the case, then I wish all the power to them both now and in the future. It is our constitutional right as citizens of this country to speak up and out against laws that we regard as unjust. I give them credit for coming together in person

and for sitting-in at the recruitment office. No, I do not agree with some of the stances they have been taking, nor do I feel that targeting an Army National Guard recruiting office was worth imprisonment, but I agree with their taking action. It comes in stark contrast to the overwhelming apathy of our generation (ever heard, “I’m going to write in my blog

about this!”?); this indifference has cost us the credibility of many baby boomers that got out

there and did something.That being said, my praise for

the Students for a Democratic So-ciety ends there. Much of what has

come from that event and in the time after it has left me with very conflicted opinions on how they define a “demo-cratic society,” and how I do the same.

One example immediately jumps to my mind. In my attempts to obtain

a more holistic understanding of the events and goals of SDS, I reached out to

hear from the group and was initially told that a press contact from the Providence chapter would soon get

back to me. Not too long after, how-ever, I was informed that because some of the College Republicans staging a

counter-demonstration had “conducted themselves inappropriately,” and because

the group was hesitant to contact me at all, I never received adequate answers.

If democracy is to be defined as expressing oneself regardless of social norms and constraints, then why was

SDS so secretive with me about the events of its public protest? Were the counter-demonstrators from the College Republicans not allowed to “take back public space…in solidarity" like SDS, simply because their views did not match the goals of that organi-zation? Why were they censored?

The inappropriateness of SDS did not, however, end there. Several members of the counter-demonstration reported being nothing short of sexually harassed, as scantily-clad SDS dancers encroached, grinded, and otherwise made unwelcomed physical advances to the point where the tensions were close to becom-

14 — Brown Spectator Local

"Expressing the right to free speech does not extend only as far as the scope of the goals of one person or group. Free speech encompasses all points of agreement and

disagreement, and in any form."

ing violent between the two groups. Beyond that, the censorship continued when the College Republicans tried to air their views. That is, several of the signs that those counter-demonstrators brandished were forcibly stolen and then torn by members of SDS. Per-haps their content was too “radical,” or for one reason or another, SDS just did not agree with them. You do not have to agree with what the signs may have said in order to understand why this was morally and socially incor-rect. What right does a “democratic” society have in telling a group that their ideas are wrong and that they must be suppressed with physical force? Similarly, as in the case with the Army National Guard recruiting office, what right does a “democratic” society have in deciding against a voluntary enlistment for somebody? All that was planned by both groups was wholly democratic in nature, but

apparently even democracy was too much to handle for SDS.The events that unfolded that Friday evening and thereafter

should come as a great embarrassment to both the Brown and Providence Students for a Democrat-ic Society. Expressing the right to free speech does not extend only as far as the scope of the goals of one person or group. Free speech encompasses all points of agreement and disagree-ment, and in any form. SDS earned my respect for being an active group, but it exemplified the sorry state of liberal activism, specifically what it means to be closed-minded, a term that is too often thrown at conserva-

tives. Just as this article can be disagreed with, so too can anything and everything else. Perhaps someday, SDS at Brown can actually become a group of the people, by the people, for the people, but without excluding the people. •

Our Heritage, If We Can Keep It:The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

TRAVIS ROWLEY (Editor At-Large)

The United States, a nation long thought of as being com-prised of a unique citizenry, who dedicated themselves to

revolutionary propositions before subscribing to much else, offers much to reflect upon regarding its remarkable national character, and much to ponder in terms of how such a formidable society could founder.

Over the course of more than two centuries America has embraced a distinct personality, directly derived from its citizens’ inherent suspicion toward government. As much as America was born from exhaustive political theory, it was a country enabled by individualism – rugged individualists with an aptitude for self-reliance.

So America became not only the land of the free, but also the home of the brave – believed only to survive if her citizens remained moral, determined, and vigilant. A free country, it was early cautioned, would be difficult to sustain. Leaving the Consti-tutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin was approached by the wife of the mayor of Philadelphia. She asked what the new form of government would be. Franklin responded, “A republic, madam. If you can keep it.”

The rest is history. Even the Founders could not have en-visioned the future magnanimity of the United States, and the beacon of hope it would become for the rest of the world.

It is important to understand what made this all possible. So important, in fact, that I dare to sound repetitive. The key ingre-dient to all of this nation’s landmark achievements has been the resiliency of its citizenry – their culture of independence. Just as the country’s constitutional framework was brilliantly crafted, so too was the spirit of the American people.

In his first State of the Union address, President Reagan ex-pressed the central worth of the American culture by invoking

another great President—“President Washington began this tradition in 1790 after re-

minding the Nation that the destiny of self-government and the ‘preservation of the sacred fire of liberty’ is ‘finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.’”

When the character of a people is the critical component to their way of life, what should always be examined first when so-cietal changes are proffered is the potential effect those changes could have on the hearts and minds of the populace.

So when Rhode Island State Representative Joseph Almeida (D), chairman of the Rhode Island Minority Leadership/Legisla-tive Caucus, sponsored legislation that would amend the state’s official name, what must be considered is the impression his pro-posal might have on the mindset of Rhode Islanders.

Almeida’s recently submitted legislation, that he has made a “high priority this year,” seeks to expunge the word “plantations” from Rhode Island’s official name – The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The chief justification for his pro-posal seems to be found in Almeida’s rhetorical question, “Who doesn’t think of slavery when they hear that word?” He has also noted, “It’s high time for us to recognize that slavery happened on plantations in Rhode Island and decide that we don’t want that chapter of our history to be a proud part of our name.”

The temptation for sarcasm is all too palpable. For the sake of a larger point, however, this writer will abstain from mocking Almeida’s odd notion that Rhode Islanders have failed to recog-nize their state’s participation in slave trading, and his attempt at justifying legislation based on word-association tests.

The primary evil of Almeida’s crusade is found within its attack on the American heritage, and the far more immediate and damaging impact it will surely have on the state’s minority


population.Almeida’s insistence that everyone preoccupy themselves with

crimes of the past has become an all-too-common practice that has repeatedly revealed a tendency to inflict minorities with un-healthy sentiments of anger, and whites with undue sentiments of guilt. Despite the fact that Almeida claims he is innocently “rais-ing awareness,” his methods have proven actually to restrict the free exchange of ideas, expand racial mistrust, and obscure the truth concerning America’s ra-cial history. Political correctness never “raises awareness.” It just scares the hell out of everyone.

Racial fixations ultimately contribute to the radical trans-formation of the entire country by severely degrading the Amer-ican spirit – particularly among minorities, as they are the ones who become inflicted with a crippling sense of victimhood.

It is difficult not to determine that this is actually Almeida’s intent, as his proposed legislation is deep-rooted in the treacher-ous rotgut of political correctness.

After all, Almeida himself admits that his legislation is largely “symbolic.” According to his press release, “The name change would not be any great inconvenience to the state, since most of the time it is referred to as simply ‘Rhode Island’ anyway.” This attitude is a far cry from Almeida’s antithetical, sensitivity-seeking declaration about the word “plantation” being “a painful reminder”…“to a lot of us.” If the state’s official name is rarely employed, then it cannot be a reminder that is causing pain. This is because, by the simple nature of reminders, they usually need to be visible in order to remind people of something.

Almeida’s dishonest dramatics seem to be another shallow attempt to conjure up images of past crimes in order to perpetu-ate the politics of guilt and victimhood – to reinforce collectivism within the minority community, as they reside in a nation based on the individual. The perfect recipe for failure.

The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to “know your enemy…[and] you need not fear the result of a hun-dred battles.” If one understands that the United States is more of an idea than it is a land mass; that it is more of a mentality than it is a military – then one could begin to formulate America’s demise (or at least its total transformation). Diminish the value of inde-pendence, and make its citizens subjects of the state. Instill guilt where pride once was. Erase their national memory and replace

it with tales of genocide, slavery, and witch-burning. Take from them their moral certainty. Bring shame and despair to the Christians, and they will surely repent (read: surrender).

The Left has found much success in exploiting America’s black population. We need to look no further than Brown University to find evidence of the dam-age liberals have done to

minorities. In 2001, conservative activist David Horowitz penned an advertisement for The Brown Daily Herald that articulated the reasons why reparations for slavery was a “bad idea…and rac-ist too.” For years, politically correct speech codes had insulated Brown students from opinion that could have possibly offended their sensibilities, so the campus reacted with the totalitarian vitri-ol that has become expected from college communities. But worse than the deplorable suppression of free speech that occurred, was that the expression of conservative theory so handicapped Brown’s minority students that some of them lost the ability to “perform basic functions like walking or sleeping.”

Rugged individualists indeed. •

Travis Rowley is a board member of the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity, and author of Out of Ivy: How a Liberal Ivy Created a Committed Conservative.

"Almeida’s dishonest dramatics seem to be another shallow attempt to conjure up images of past crimes in order to perpetuate the politics of guilt and victimhood – to reinforce collectivism within the minority community, as they reside in a nation based on the individual. The perfect recipe for failure."

"We are but too apt to consider things in the state in which we find them, without sufficiently adverting to the causes by which they have been produced and possibly may be upheld." – Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

16 — Brown Spectator Local

Carcieri Cracks Down:Rhode Island gets serious about illegal immigration

KRISTINA M. KELLEHER '09

While the smallest state in the nation may be geographically far away from the border, it has not managed to avoid the

problem of illegal immigrants who, along with their support-ers, think they are above the law. Luckily, on March 27, 2008, Governor Donald L. Carcieri signed an Executive Order aimed at bringing them back to the real world, in which criminals are pursued and corrective action taken against them. And he also took a stab at the $550 million budget shortfall in this state. Carcieri said that he made the decision to implement the program because “the fed-eral government has not effectively addressed the complex issue of illegal immigration.” That would be the understatement of the year.

During his press conference in which he unveiled the new program, Carceiri cited a Pew Hispanic Center study that concluded that there are ap-proximately 40,000 illegal immigrants in Rhode Island. The Governor was quick to point out that that number of illegal immigrants was “more than the population of 32 of our state’s cities and towns. This puts a tremendous strain on our public schools, hospitals, state and local human services organizations and law enforcement agen-cies. That, in turn, has an impact upon state and local budgets. In these difficult fiscal times, we barely have enough resources to take care of the neediest amongst us who are here legally.” That is right liberals — money does not grow on trees, and every dollar illegal immigrants drain from our cof-fers is one not spent on education, welfare, and other services for Americans.

I am all for getting new Americans through le-gal immigration, but it has to be legal; I cannot sup-port law-breaking in a democracy where we, the legal citizens, make the laws. If we are truly to have a gov-ernment "of laws and not of men," we must enforce those laws.

The Executive Order was designed to “enable a vast array of state government agen-cies to better address the issue of illegal immigration in Rhode Island.” According to the Governor’s website, “the measure requires state agencies and vendors to verify the legal status of all employees, allows the state to inform people whose identity was stolen, and directs the Rhode Island State Police and the Department of Corrections to work with U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] to ensure federal immigration law is enforced.”

The Executive Order included six provisions. One provision requires the Department of Administration to use E-Verify to

confirm the legal status of all workers being employed by the executive branch or by companies, contractors, and vendors doing business with the State of Rhode Island. Imagine that the state government only hires people who are not breaking the law — that would contradict a few hundred years of corruption.The Ex-ecutive Order also establishes a system to notify all citizens who have had their identities stolen by ille-gals who then take the benefits they should receive,

including child care, health care, or drivers licenses. That is right — there are victims of these lawbreakers, not that the

Left ever cares about the vic-tim. Another provision of the

order establishes a Memorandum of Understanding with the Rhode Island

State Police, the Department of Corrections, and ICE, to allow the state police to access

federal databases for the purpose of as-sessing the immigration status of prison-ers. It will also enable the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections to work with ICE personnel to provide for the parole and deportation of crim-inal aliens. The cops will be empowered to do something about people breaking

the law, a revolutionary idea!To be generous, the reaction to

Governor Carcieri’s Executive order was mixed.

In fact, even many top officials in Rhode Island's government criticized the order. Colo-

nel Brendan P. Doherty, superintendent of the state police, had a lukewarm response. Doherty said that he was “not overzealous,” and was “not here to do anything other than the right thing

and to pursue criminal aliens and get the job done.” In addition, Patricia Martinez, a member of Governor Carcieri's cabinet and director of

the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, said that the Governor's executive order "is really slamming immigrants" by creating a climate of ra-cial profiling and "hatred." That is like saying that

arresting terrorists creates a climate of "hatred." The fact is that law-breakers should be caught; the law does not discriminate; and it is not going to turn a blind eye to an entire community just

kearsley


because some of its members do not want it there.While Governor Carcieri went out of his way to make it clear

that he believed “that we are a nation of immigrants and most Rhode Islanders are descendants of immigrants,” and that, like his grandparents who emigrated from Italy and Sweden, most immigrants desired “to come to the United States to build a better life,” he could not escape the onslaught of liberal attacks and protests.

For example, on Thursday, April 3, a group of nearly 75 protesters believed to be associated with the group Direct Action for Rights and Equality, tried to storm into the Governor's policy office, demanding that Governor Carcieri re-scind his Executive Order. Holding signs reading "No Human is Illegal" and chanting, "El pueblo unido no sera vencido!" ("A people united will not be defeated!"), the group reportedly filed into the office until six Capital Police officers escorted them out of the building — obviously a very dedicated group if they exited quietly given their overwhelming majority. No one was arrested, although all should been (and depending on immigration status, deported).

While those protesters stormed to the Governor's office, other opponents of the Governor's initiative blitzed the media with vi-cious criticisms. Tim Grilo, executive director of the Rhode Island Democratic Party, characterized Governor Carcieri’s remarks as being “closer to a hate rally than a press conference.” Grilo did not stop there. He went on to say that, with his executive order, Gover-nor Carcieri “chose the low road and took another cheap political shot. Given his plummeting public-approval numbers, this looks like little more than a desperate attempt to throw a little red meat to his withering right-wing base.” Rev. Eliseo Nogueras, chair-man of the Advisory Commission on Hispanic Affairs said that the executive order "caused widespread panic in the community."

Meanwhile, Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy coalition, said that Carcieri was “the one that’s inflaming the debate” by his actions, and that he

“scapegoated the immigration population for political gain and along the way has undermined the safety of each and every resident of Rhode Island.” In addition, Anibal Lucas, director of the Maya K’iche Organization in New Bedford, said that “people are terrified” of Rhode Island’s new initiatives and that "if they go to work, they don't know if they'll end up in jail at the end of the day. It's horrible."

It is a crazy idea I know, but it seems to me that criminals should never feel comfortable by thinking that they will not get caught. If you speed down Inter-state 95, do you blame the state trooper when you are pulled over? (Although this country does need an Autobahn.) And getting those committing crimes off the street makes law-abiding citi-zens safer -- meaning that each and every legal resident of Rhode Island will have their lives improved by this order, provided that Carcieri does not chicken out of it under the media's pressure.

Governor Carcieri went on CNN’s Lou Dobbs to defend himself against these baseless criticisms. Asked by Dobbs why it was necessary to issue the executive order, Carcieri replied, “at the end of the day, the states and governors around the country are bearing the burden, and our citizens, hard-working citizens are bearing the burden. We're seeing it in our hospitals, we're seeing it in our schools, we're seeing it in our prisons, in all the social ser-vice agencies” and that “if Congress isn't going to do (something), I feel as a governor, I'm responsible for enacting and following the laws of our state and our nation.”

I for one am glad someone is finally stepping up and doing their job concerning these outlaws, since the federal government has clearly indicated that it will not. •

"I am all for getting new Americans through legal immigration, but it has to be legal; I cannot support law-breaking in a democracy where we, the legal citizens,

make the laws."

"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law; and every time they make a law it's a joke."

– Anonymous

18 — Brown Spectator National

Since When Are Sports Democratic?The problem with boycotting the Olympics

SUSANNAH KROEBER '11

Boycotting threats by Olympic athletes represent the most heinous realization of growing international anti-Chinese

sentiment, beyond the refusal of politicians to attend the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. The boycotts will inevitably be ineffective at realizing their aims because the aims are elusive to everyone involved. The hysteria caused partially by the media in the West has led us away from dialogue and rational action, in-stead favoring ultimatums and empty-handed pseudo-symbolic gestures.

The modern Olympics were estab-lished in 1896 in an effort to avert in-ternational conflict by allowing hostile nations to face their perceived enemies in a sports arena, and thereby mitigate tension. Although this may no longer be an applicable use of the Games, the Olympics have in recent years been used to foster international coopera-tion and understanding, something that is desperately needed in the current environment of tense diplomatic relations with China. Given the Chinese government’s obsession with the Olympics, corresponding with the overwhelming governmental spending that goes into training athletes in athletic schools, it seems that perhaps the most effective mode of action would be for the United States to compete in the Games, and to rack up a higher medal count. This would effectively nullify much of the propaganda cur-rently in circulation pertaining to China’s superiority in sport and the importance of hosting the Games to China, perhaps in small part turning public opinion.

Although I believe strongly in the ability of boycotts to work in specific circumstances, I do not feel that the current situation with China provides such a straightforward opportunity because issues such as democracy and human rights cannot be quickly realized goals. During the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, in the United States, boycotts in tandem with demonstra-tions were effectively utilized to bring about equal protection under the law, in order to begin instituting far-reaching cultural change with regard to how race is perceived and dealt with in the United States. In the world of sport, the sporting boycott against South Africa lasted more than two decades; however, it was pre-cipitated not by apartheid, but rather by the fact that international multiracial teams could not compete in South Africa by virtue of South African law. The sporting boycott in tandem with much other international maneuvering, diplomacy, and other boycotts effectively isolated South Africa, and over time caused the change of the specific practice that was under attack: apartheid.

Other boycotts, when not coupled with diplomacy and far-ther-reaching action, are often detrimental to all parties involved. The economic boycott of Cuba, for example, has done nothing more than foster resentment and deprive Americans and Cubans of the ability to trade freely. The complete isolation of North Korea

has not improved the lives of the citizens of that country, and has instead led to a propaganda machine that paints Americans as the enemy. North Korean children are taught to count with pictures of dead American soldiers while the government develops a nuclear program without hope of international regulations. What these

boycotts lacked was an end plan: there was no specific action that could lead directly to these boycotts being lifted. I maintain that boycotts are only effec-tive if those being isolated are given a reasonable way out, a concrete action that would lead to conciliatory results on all sides.

Isolating China from the 1950s and into the early 1970s created an en-

vironment of resentment on both sides, and did not benefit either side economically. With Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, a dialogue between the two countries began, and was followed by trade and tourism, which has greatly benefited the United States, especially in terms of increasing consumer good availability and capital spent by Chinese citizens in the United States. In China, Nixon's visit helped foster capitalism and a greater recognition of Western democratic principles that had been previously unacknowledged and ignored. Growing U.S. discontentment with China in re-cent years has more to do with economic troubles in the United States, and mismanagement by the U.S. government in regulat-ing the flow of safe goods from China into the United States. At such times, the Chinese government acts more as a scapegoat for American complaints rather than the object of legitimate criti-cism. Scapegoating the Chinese is easily accomplished in Western politics and the media by focusing on human rights issues such as Tibet, or better yet, the fact that China is not a democracy but rather ruled by a communist authoritarian system.

When the American public thinks about the authoritarian system in China, we often forget that the United States has been, and still is, complicit in the support of many human rights violat-ing dictators throughout the world. In comparison to all those U.S. authorized dictatorial regimes, it seems the current Chinese government's most critical problem is clinging to the commu-nist name when capitalism permeates modern Chinese culture. Combined further with the historically tenuous relationships the United States has had with the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and China, it is hard to believe that the communist name does not contribute to China's negative appearance on the world stage.

The problems China is dealing with today are so inevitably linked to international popular opinion and institutionalized problems in the Chinese government that they cannot be solved quickly or effectively by an international boycott. There is not a concrete way for the Chinese government to respond to the boy-cott because there are not any specific goals of the boycott. “Stop-ping human rights violations” or “instituting a democracy” may

"It is unreasonable to think that such mammoth issues as human rights and democracy can be combated by something as flimsy as boycotting a

sporting event."

National

May, 2008 — 19

be important steps for China to take, but they are not issues that can be resolved overnight, or even over a few months. It took 13 years after the American Revolution for American politicians to draft the Constitution and almost 200 years more to enforce equal rights for its citizens.

It is unreasonable to think that such mammoth issues as human rights and democracy can be combated by something as flimsy as boycotting a sporting event. The most that it has the potential to accomplish is to briefly embarrass the Chinese gov-ernment, which would just cause the propaganda machine to go into overtime, as it tries to convince the Chinese population that the United States is the cause for their national disgrace. We have already seen the Chinese people rally behind the government as protests sprung up around Europe protesting the Olympic torch, viewing the protests as a symbol of attempted injury at their na-

tional pride, pride being one aspect of Chinese culture that will not be injured without great outcry from the entire population.

A boycott could also turn to humiliate the United States: the Chinese government will claim victory at the Olympics when the Chinese top the medal charts without American athletes. The athletes themselves are also often ignored: I would be very upset by a boycott if I were an athlete forbidden to compete for my Olympic gold. But the most important thing for Americans to consider is how we are perceived globally, and where our allies are going to come from if we continue to isolate country after country. There is no better ally than a country trying to follow in your own footsteps. In terms of trying to instill our values of equality and democracy around the world, what better gateway do we have than to let our citizens interact with China in an open forum and show the Chinese the respect that democracy champions? •

Libertarians and McCain:No pain, no gainPETER CATSIMPIRIS '08

The outlook of the 2008 presidential race is hardly a dream come true for libertarians. Then again, we have not really had a viable candidate (other than maybe Reagan and Goldwater) in post-FDR Amerika. While the prospect that one of three great luminaries, all of whom have made their names and fortunes squabbling over how worst to spend your money, will infest the White House might force the hopeful to the bottom of a whiskey bottle, the least of these three evils is at least slightly more palat-able than, say, chugging a jar of mayonnaise. In other words, while it may not be morning in America, Senator John McCain (R-Az) does not seem to be promising total war against the Sun.

I fell “in like” with McCain this fall when he told Michi-gan primary voters that they had better get used to the idea that their auto-industry jobs were not coming back, and then took a thorough spanking in the vote from the more tactful (read “demagogical”) Mitt Romney, who made veiled promises of a glorious resurgence of the state’s “Golden Age” of assem-bly lines and union intimida-tion. This storied “straight talk” has made McCain the darling of the media and Middle America, and in an unctuously manicured political age, his cantankerous “shoot from the hip” and “fight-all-comers” approach is both inspiring and adorable. Furthermore, in the wake of a presidency that promised so much and delivered so little, McCain’s immaculate candor at least lets us know what we are in for.

What is more, it seems McCain’s “maverick” reputation has ironically forced him to genuflect very publicly at the altar of limited government, which, conjoined with his near-patholog-ical honesty, more or less guarantees a decent presidency. With mounting pressure from the Right, McCain has repeatedly and

publicly pledged that he would appoint strict constructionist/originalist judges, after the order of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court, find a healthcare solu-tion that does not involve nanny-state socialism, and work toward the extension of the Bush tax cuts past 2010. Such promises from the mouth of a manifestly honest man make the prospect of a McCain presidency not only preferable to the abominable four-year plans of Comrades Clinton and Obama, but also positively Reaganesque.

Two other critical differentiae elevating McCain over Bush are his political realism and anti-spending fervor. No matter how I try to forget that our current President invaded a nation because a voice in his head acknowledged that it was a good idea, the neo-conservative and quasi-Christian cocktail of cow-eyed idealism

splashing around Bush’s skull makes for an undeniably scary Commander-in-Chief. Mc-Cain’s sober political realism, chastened by his experience on the business end of the hell that is war, will serve him in good stead as our chief inter-national liaison and allow for a tough foreign policy geared at preventing rather than

pursuing armed conflict. And with no bizarre manifest destiny aspirations built up out of revivalist theology and neo-con dogma arousing an irresistible desire to “spread the seed(s) of democracy,” McCain’s military goals seem blessedly to be far more mundane than his predecessor’s.

While his support for tax cuts is encouraging, it is McCain’s pork-slashing, belt-tightening enthusiasm that should excite the economic libertarian. During the Bush funny-money years, con-tinual and drastic expansions of spending and entitlement pro-grams have not forced immediate tax hikes, but it has inflated

"...while it might be attractive to throw a vote at Bob Barr or whoever turns out to be the Libertarian Party nominee in November (I am still toying with

the idea), McCain really is not a bad choice."

NationalNational


the already bloated federal government – a more ominous event for taxpayers than a merely temporary tax increase. As we have witnessed since the FDR years, it is almost impossible to cut gov-ernment programs once they have become entrenched and para-sitically attached to the viscera of an interest group or two. No matter how much or how often we cut taxes, a constantly balloon-ing budget brings with it a bigger, more intrusive federal govern-ment and eventually forces a commensurate strain on our wallets. If McCain can balance the budget while maintaining his pledge not to raise taxes, we will witness the single greatest economic libertarian reform since the achievement of Gingrich’s Contract with America.

Finally, while it might be attractive to throw a vote at Bob Barr or whoever turns out to be the Libertarian Party nominee in November (I am still toying with the idea), McCain really is not a bad choice. In addition, with current polls showing that the Arizona Senator runs even with both Obama and Hillary in some unlikely places – e.g., hyper-liberal New York and Taxachusetts – the votes of those of us who live in perennially polarized states may end up counting after all. But if you decide to pull the lever for McCain this fall with the irritating pragmatism of a mature voter, it may not be that hard to convince the rabidly anti-statist libertarian within yourself that you are winning one for the Gip-per again. •

Like what you see in The Spectator?

Sign up for a monthly subscription to the Spectator! Independently managed and funded, the Spectator is known for its dry humor and

strong analysis of policy issues. Members of the Brown community respect the Spectator, even while frequently disagreeing with its political ideology. Indeed, respectful and off-beat dialog is the Spectator's purpose.•For $25 you can receive an annual subscription. That is 8 whole issues

of the Spectator conveniently mailed directly to you. (Students using on-campus mailboxes are free!) To subscribe, send your name and mailing address to [email protected]. If you want to be continually updated on the actions and other viewpoints that exist on campus, then there is no better way than the Spectator.

National

May, 2008 — 21

In Gratitude, The Spectator says, "Good-bye."

Anyone who knows a group of conservatives and libertarians will affirm that we often do not agree on much. But, one

thing on which there is widespread agreement at the Spectator, is that the departing seniors of our journal of opinion have made many important contributions.•Ms. Roxanne Palmer (Senior Artist Emeritus)

Perhaps the greatest contribution of all came from the brilliant artistic mind of Roxanne Palmer, who drew a Brown bear with a shotgun for an ar-ticle on the Second Amendment. That was in the fall of 2006. Little did she know at the time how popular it would become. Soon thereafter it was adopted as the Spectator's official mascot, grafted onto recruitment posters and even Spectator tee shirts and polos. For this gift, the staff of the Spectator will remain forever grateful.

But Roxanne has contributed much more than just a mascot. In her time at the Spectator, which has lasted well over two years, she contrib-uted a number of articles and more than thirty illustrations—ranging from Gerald Ford as an angel to Jesus hitting a bong. Roxanne, to be sure, was one of the few Democrats on staff, and so we are not too sad to see her go. Just kidding—she will be sorely missed, especially because her reliability in getting the Spectator truly original art was never in question.

Mr. Peter Catsimpiris (Senior Editor Emeritus)

As the President of the Students for Liberty, Peter Camsimpiris was always a staff member near and dear to the Spectator. At heart, we are an anti-statist, anti-collectivist journal of opinion, although the conserva-tive anti-statists and anti-collectivists on staff surely did (and still do) outnumber the libertarian ones. Regardless, when challenged, Peter was quick to defend his libertarian disposition, and always in a manner that would cut through rhetoric, so as to locate first principles.

He was able to offer searing analyses of many very sensitive issues, ranging from whether organs should be bought and sold on an open market, to whether torture is categorically unaccept-able. His article arguing that Christianity is a perfectly rational scientific worldview (and the subsequent, spirited response to a letter) was a truly wonderful addition to a journal of opinion that usually deals with the typical political issues of the day. Peter will be missed, especially as the scheming conservatives will now run the show.

Mr. Pratik Chougule (Editor-in-Chief Emeritus)

We could not say enough kind things about Pratik Chou-gule, who graduated early in the fall semester to take a political appointment in the State Department. We were a little upset to see our beloved Editor-in-Chief depart, but we know that he is

doing some great work, even though it may unfortunately be neoconservative work.

Pratik took over the Spectator in the fall of 2005, as a sophomore with little experience at the Spec-

tator. It was a time of turmoil, as the two previous Editors-in-Chief had

resigned in quick succession. Somehow, he righted the ship and captained it for two years. Not only did he steer us in the right direction, but also he knew how to attract more staff members to our crew—even if it meant making us all senior editors. With

his sincerity and kindheartedness, he took the staff from barely three to more than two dozen;

he also took the magazine from one issue a year to seven.

Mr. Andrew Kurtzman (Editor-in-Chief Emeritus)

Our departing Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Kurtzman, deserves no less praise. In his two and a half years on staff, he wrote more than a dozen

articles and completely transformed our production process. As Managing Editor for Production, or, as he would have prefered, Production Manager, he completely redesigned the magazine, doing every-thing for us that Pentagram did not do for Brown.

edu. In typical Kurtzman style, he looked at our production, de-cided that it was not good enough, saw the limitations of Page-Maker, and taught himself how to use InDesign instead. The rest, as they say, is history. Not only did he redesign the lay-out and help to get more artists to draw original art, but also he took us to a color cover and, recently, to a glossy one.

Andrew was one of the nicest and most dedicated people on staff. And while he always contributed to the congenial warmth of our meetings, often with cunning and witty wise cracks, he had at least one over-played joke which no one is going to miss. Yes, Andrew, we know that you are so fed up with us that you just might leave the country. Just do not forget to spend your stimulus package on English goods and services. For all of your adventures, Andrew, we wish you the best of luck.

Good luck and best wishes to all of our graduating seniors. Do not for-get to donate to the Spectator, and to all the little people who helped you, when you become fabulously wealthy. •

Obituary


The Foundation for Intellectual Diversityideas without labels

The Foundation is currently in the process of launching a fundraising campaign.

Proceeds will be used for:

• Support of The Brown Spectator• Speakers who challenge accepted ways of thinking• Conferences on differing political and social theories• Speaker series featuring fellows from leading think tanks

Here’s how you can help us:

Donate to the Foundation by visiting our Web site, www.idiversity.orgVolunteer by contacting us at 401-243-3713 or e-mailing us at [email protected]

The Foundation for Intellectual Diversity is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

www.idiversity.org • 401-243-3713 • [email protected]

About the Spectator•The Brown Spectator is a journal of conservative thought and opinion

published by the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity and funded in part through the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Collegiate Network.

The Brown Spectator is a publication distributed by concerned mem-bers of the Brown University community, and is managed independently of the University and the Undergraduate Council of Students.

The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of Brown University or the editorial board of The Brown Spectator.

If you are interested in writing for the Spectator, or in purchasing space for advertisement, please contact us via email:

[email protected].

May, 2008 — 23

ideas without labels

at Brown University

Foundation for Intellectual Diversity

The Second Annual

INDEPENDENT MANCommencement Weekend Reception

Graduates, Students, Faculty, Alumni and ParentsSaturday, May 24th 11:30 - 2:00 pm 72 WATERMAN ST.

Light Lunch and [email protected] 401-225-5629

Introduction of our Independent Thinker byour Independent Man of 2007

Robert G. Flanders Jr, Esq. ‘71fmr. Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice

Prof. Constitutional Law, Brown and Roger WilliamsChr. RI Bd. of Regents, Elementary and Secondary Ed.

This year, the Independent Man isthe first Woman elected Attorney General of a state

Arlene Violet, Esq., LL.D.a life in the religious, legal and political orders

a career in talk radio and musical theatera Rhode Island Icon and Iconoclast

www.idiversity.orgwww.thebrownspectator.com

The Foundation for Intellectual Diversity was formed by recent Brown alumni who found the university prone to coddle rather than enlarge the intellect, insulating students from ideas deemed controversial in a closed campus culture reinforced by a majority of the faculty.

Our efforts since have been not to change minds, but to open them. We have funded the rebirth of The Brown Spectator, an undergraduate journal of conservative and libertarian thought, dedicated to a broader political and social discourse than had been occurring on campus.

Our tradition of diverse discussion at Brown now extends to a commencement celebration pre-senting an unorthodox intellect epitomizing Rhode Island’s Independent Man, the iconic bronze figure astride the state house dome in Providence.


Winners and Losers, May 2008

Loser: Aliza Shvarts (Yale '08)

Winner: The "bitter people" of Pennsylvania

While campaigning for the votes of Pennsylvanians, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made a rather tasteless comment about the state's struggling Americans. He said, " So it’s not

surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward peo-ple who aren’t like them..." Basically, non-Ivy League educated, non-rich, and non-enlightened individuals have nothing better to do than grip their crutches when times get tough. After all, that is all that religion and guns are, right? Barack Obama never clings to his crutches; he's too good for God and guns. Anyways, sarcasm aside, the "bitter people" of Pennsylvania prevailed, and Sen. Obama ended up losing the highly contested state to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) during the state's primary. People of Pennsylvania, you can also cling to the Spectator!

The controversy over Yale student Aliza Shvarts’ senior art project, in which she claimed to have artificially inseminated herself, then taken herbal abortifacient drugs to induce

what she called “miscarriages,” is justified whether or not she actually performed any of the actions she described. If she truly performed these acts, she should be examined to determine the state of her mental and physical health, and whatever Yale professor approved her project should be immediately fired. If she did not in fact perform these acts, she needlessly trivialized an emotionally charged issue for “art” whose goal is completely unclear, especially after you read her submission to the Yale Daily News. Regardless of who lied and who told the truth, and when, Yale and Aliza Shvarts should be ashamed of themselves. •

the brown spectator: may 2008

Documents