Parking, Pomona, and Privilege

A blogger at Pomona College by the name of Amanda is at it again. You might remember her suggestion that are smokers suicidally depressed and that the Coop ought to prohibit selling them cigarettes.

Now she's in effect declaring that her parking space is worth more than an estimated $1.6 million dollars that a bunch of alumni have already given in anticipation of their one-day event. Here's her email chain with one of the people overseeing the alumni weekend.

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:40 AM
To: Nancy Treser-Osgood
Subject: Re: [ALL_STUDENTS] Dining Hall Closures & Parking Restrictions

Hi, Nancy,

Is there any way to let the alumni know not to park in the Lawry parking lot? There are way too many cars in that lot already, and if alumni decide to park there, it will cause huuuge problems.

Thanks!

Amanda

On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Nancy Treser-Osgood wrote:

I don’t think many alumni will park there, Amanda, since we only have one event in Frary on Friday afternoon. But that lot is listed on the campus map as an area where alumni can park.

I know it’s going to get crowded this weekend, but I appreciate your understanding as we welcome these alumni back to campus. By the way, this group of reunion classes has already pledged or donated $1.6 million to the College.

-Nancy

From: Amanda
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:51 AM
To: Nancy Treser-Osgood
Subject: Re: [ALL_STUDENTS] Dining Hall Closures & Parking Restrictions

Okay, that’s fine. Are there going to be additional lots where students can park (or, since it’s the weekend, faculty/staff lots that will be opened to students)? Unfortunately, it’s not just that it’s crowded, it’s that there are frequently no parking spaces at all.

On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Nancy Treser-Osgood wrote:

I have not made any special arrangements for student parking this weekend. I’m just trying to accommodate our alumni guests. Sorry!

-Nancy

She follows it up.

Gosh, that’s really annoying.

I really hate the attitude Pomona has about a lot of this stuff–like “you’d better be grateful for what we’re giving you, peons.” Why? “Because some old rich people are donating money.” News flash: I give approximately one-sixteenth of a shit that these particular alumni have donated $1.6 million.

As Claremont McKenna would (and frequently does) say: “Puck Fomona.”

Way to be loyal and differential to your school, Amanda!

Maybe she believes that parking, like free medical counseling paid for by the school, is a "right." Free parking isn't just for Monopoly anymore.

Pipes Punctures State-Run Govt. Myths at Ath

Sally Pipes felt like detox after the Pomona non-debate on health care. I'm so glad that I finally decided on sitting at the head table.

I didn't even much mind that she insulted my eating habits when she suggested that I might have eaten less had I been paying for it. (Milton Friedman be damned, there is such a thing as a free lunch at an Ath event! Never you fear, I got my dig in against the Trayliban during the Question and Answer period.)

She's quite right, of course and Milton Friedman would agree with her critique of my rather ravenous behavior. After all, he wrote the introduction for her book before he passed away.

I've already blogged about the five myths that Ms. Pipes debunks about the health care crisis. You can read those five arguments here. Or you can listen to her talk about the issue here.

I thought I would just send along some of the stuff she's written against Mitt Romney's shame health care. It's worth reading just how bad mandates end up being.

Faisal Alam: Reckless tool for the Queer Resource Center

Yesterday evening, at the behest of the Queer Resource Center, Faisal Alam, founder of the "LGBT" Muslim group al-Fatiha, spoke at Balch Auditorium on the subject of "The Lives of LGBT Muslims." While one would expect a responsible organization to attempt to unite the student body around common values of human dignity, the Queer Resource Center, in the pattern of its past actions, pandered to the radicals in the "LGBT" community and played Russian roulette with its own credibility.

Faisal Alam, himself a rather amateur public speaker, behaved more like a CAIR apologist than an advocate of human rights during the first section of his talk. Alam went through a typical list of CAIR-esque talking points, including the derivation of the word "Islam" from the word "salaam," peace (thus Islam is a "religion of peace"), the relatively small number of radicals in Islam, and how conflicts in the Middle East, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have been "hijacked" (no pun intended) by Islamic religious radicals. The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, however--the dictionary used in Arabic classes at CGU--makes very clear that "Islam" itself means "submission." As for radicals comprising a "small number," polls show that around 40% of British Muslims favor implementing Sharia law in Great Britain. And certainly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, but undoubtedly Grand Mufti al-Husseini played a large role in escalating it. Based on flimsy claims such as these, Alam tried to argue that there is no "clash of civilizations" between the West and radical Islam; rather laughably, he cited Pope Benedict XVI's visit to a Turkish mosque as proof that Islam and Christianity have "no conflict"--perhaps he would do better to read this pope's words rather than just stare at him in photographs.

CAIR's version of Islam was only an unnecessarily lengthy precursor to the main part of Alam's talk, though. Alam described the experience of growing up in a very religious Muslim home, becoming very committed to Islam himself, and then gradually discovering his homosexuality. Of his time during college, Alam says that he "exploded out of the closet where over the course of one summer I knew every gay bar in Boston." Alam quickly followed this thought with the hint, "If you guys are ever in Boston and want to know where to hang out, let me know and I'll tell you." That's right, the Queer Resource Center sponsors speakers who publicly encourage promiscuity. With no mention of drug-resistant staph infection or that syphilis is skyrocketing among the "gay" community in our own back yard. Just one more piece of evidence that the Queer Resource Center is a cynical organization that cares little for the welfare of homosexual students, so long as it can manipulate them as political pawns.

During the question and answer session, Alam asserted that the Islamic world only began to look down upon "LGBT" lifestyles after Victorian sexual mores were exported to the Middle East by colonial influence in the 19th century. Recalling the last line of this event's flier, I asked Alam, "Since we're talking about exporting western values, could you comment more on the 'war on terror' and how that's affecting LGBT people in the Middle East? Do you think, given the huge influence of fundamentalist evangelicals in the Bush administration, that this war is their attempt to export their beliefs and affect LGBT people in the Middle East?" Alam's emphatic response was, "Yes. Exactly." He then went on to mock ABc (Abstinence, Being faithful to one's spouse, and condoms as a last resort) prevention programs in Africa, apparently oblivious that Uganda, the most successful African nation in combating the spread of HIV, has benefited entirely from this approach.

So there you have it. The Queer Resource Center hosts a speaker who says that the Pope likes Islam, encourages youth to have promiscuous, risky gay sex, and thinks that Evangelicals started the war on terror to persecute "LGBT" Muslims. And this is the organization that we trust to help homosexual students?

Pomona Debate on Healthcare Disappoints , Just As All Their Debates Do

I've come to realize that Pomona's PSU debate program is something of a joke. Its topics include religion, the youth, (yes: really!) immigration, and now health care.

In the religion topic, they picked an extremely liberal Christian to debate an atheist. (No Dinesh D'Souza here folks. Move along.)

In the youth topic, they picked one scholar and one rapper to talk about how great we are as a generation and how we're going to solve all of America's problems by growing the welfare state in new and glorious ways. (Is that before or after they tax us to death to pay for the generational Ponzi scheme we call "social security"?)

In the immigration topic, we had a radical, open borders enthusiast versus a protectionist. Both sides simply went through their talking points without addressing any of the substance of what the opposition had argued. (Of course, the debate ended prematurely with the pro-open borders, pro-illegal immigrant side shouting down the protectionist. So much for facilitating discussion. In fact, Pomona's students showed how poorly they see debate by founding a new group, W.O.R.D., which has worked to silence serious debate on the immigration issue.)

Now we have the health care debate. As Aditya already pointed out, this debate seemed doomed from the get go. To PSU's credit, they did mention that David Beier worked for former VP Al Gore and the House Democrats. What they did not mention is that his position argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property was completely opposite to that of soon-to-be-President John McCain, whose position he purported to half-heartedly represent. His track record as a lobbyist is against free markets, not for them, and yet he represented McCain's position all the same.

Moreover, PSU's moderator in the debate referred to several erroneous figures during the debate, like the whole 47 million uninsured lie, which Sally Pipes exploded tonight at the Ath and in previous arguments. Although Beier suggested that that figure might be might lower, he gave no indication of just how low and was easily mopped up by Dr. E. Richard Brown, a specialist in big government health care bureaucracy.

We called them out for this in the comment section of Aditya's blog post. What we did not know at the time was just how crooked PSU's set up for the debate really was. For starters, Beier's own daughter brought him to speak on behalf of McCain. (It makes you wonder how hard Jenn really worked to find someone to represent McCain's position.) What makes matters even more problematic was that Beier brought Brown to the attention of PSU. In other words, Beier picked his own debate partner.

Towards the end of the debate, Brown suggested that we all ought to give a round of applause to Mr. Beier for defending the "indefensible" McCain policy. The audience dutifully complied.

As I left, I heard someone say how "civil" the debate was. Of course it was civil. Both "sides" were the same.

FIRE Responds To Oxtoby

Last week, The Student Life interviewed President Oxtoby on the letter sent by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) As usual, TSL lied, plagiarized and misrepresented the side they disagreed with. Janet Ma, News Associate TSL, gave the false subtitle, 'Group [FIRE] Said To Threaten Legal Action Against 5C's.' (CJ's response from last week)

Erin Royce, Program Associate, FIRE, just posted an article on the FIRE blog responding to Oxtoby's statements.

"The article's sub-headline reads "Group Said to Threaten Legal Action Against 5Cs." As we said before, FIRE does not litigate and has no plans to. In our letter to Walton, we wrote:"

"Pomona President David Oxtoby acknowledges FIRE's commitment to free speech, but also "feels these email notifications of bias related incidents do not suppress free speech at all and that these actions are necessary to publicly condemn the actions."

'Publicly condemn the actions'? The emails from Oxtoby, Wood and the like, clearly stated that the act in question 'would not be tolerated'. If you don't tolerate something, you ban it or make an active attempt to stop it. Intolerance of speech is not the same thing as publicly condemning speech.

Just like the Coca Cola debate yesterday, Oxtoby has maneuvered his way around FIRE. Even though FIRE does not litigate, Pomona could be in violation of California's Leonard's Law if they continue to suppress free speech on campus. FIRE will continue to monitor the 5C's for free speech violations and so will we.

Pomona's REC Votes In Favor of Oxtoby Writing a Stern Letter Against

Fun fact: Coca-Cola used to taste a whole lot better and be more addictive.

Today I attended this event on Coca-Cola entitled Oxtoby v. Pomona Round 1. (Curiously President David Oxtoby could not make it, but the members of Pomona's Responsible Coalition Endowment have informed me that they shall be giving a recorded discussion.)

Pomona's unelected and unrepresentative Responsible Endowment Coalition argued in favor of President Oxtoby writing letter to Coca-Cola encouraging it to create a "human rights" over cite commission. The issue has salience because Pomona is a large shareholder in Coca-Cola.

They made this recommendation based upon their perhaps not-so-well-informed understanding of several allegations pending against the Coca-Cola Company. I shall be addressing their arguments in the manner in which they presented them, but first allow me to make a few general observations. My sources for the arguments I made are presented below.

Professor and supposed moderator, Professor Steve Erickson called me a "corporate shill for Coca-Cola" and towards the beginning of the presentation gave a short rundown for why the Responsible Endowment Coalition formed. (You figure out why a philosophy professor is moderating a discussion about the school's endowment.)

He said that it formed to oppose the College's investment in apartheid South Africa. The connection became apparent. Coca-Cola's human rights record was at least comparable to apartheid South Africa. Somehow I don't find the conduct of a company that employees hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly exactly comparable with the conduct of an officially racist government, but I guess I'm old fashioned. (By the way, divestment didn't destroy apartheid, according to former member of the opposition, Tony Leon. You can watch his arguments here, about halfway through.)

He then suggested that it might be desirable to boycott China, but given the everyday world in which we live, it might be problematic given that so many of our products come from China.

Professor Erickson probably sensing that I knew more about soft drinks than he or any of the other members present --it happens to be a weird hobby of mine-- decided that I should not be permitted to address actual points made against the evidence I presented. He insisted that everyone get a chance to speak first, even though I was only one present arguing that the human rights record of Coca-Cola is actually quite good. Even when members made direct questions to the points I had previously raised, he wouldn't let me respond.

When one girl said something about how the judge that dismissed the charges against Coca-Cola was corrupt and I wanted to respond, but he wouldn't let me, saying something about how everyone has a right to an opinion. Fair enough, but not everyone is entitled to their own set of facts. As Coca-Cola has been dismissed from the lawsuit by Judge Jose Martinez given that it cannot set labor standards in the independently-owned bottling companies with which Coke does business, I think it's fair to take Coca-Cola off the hook. In America, at least, we stop prosecuting someone after the judge has dismissed the charges.

In Colombia, they do that too. Two different judicial inquiries in Colombia -- one in a Colombian Court and one by the Colombian Attorney General -- have found no evidence to support the allegations that the bottler management conspired to intimidate trade unionists. Moreover, even the union, SINALTRAINBEC, a Colombian union representing bottler employees often against the interests of Coca-Cola management has conceded that it has "not a single indication" that Coca-Cola or its affiliates conspired with anti-trade unionist activities. (One student disputed that Uribe's government is democratically elected. He is wrong.)

I think it's fair to say that given that two countries judicial systems have exonerated Coca-Cola and its bottling companies of any wrongdoing, we might want to let bygones be bygones and find the actual killers of some of the trade unionists. One of the girls said that Coca-Cola has allowed people to come in and kill people under its watch. She criticized its security situation and its treatment of its workers, even though an independent assessment has put the lie to her statement.

Her first accusation is unfounded. Coca-Cola's other independently owned bottling companies allowed that action and it wasn't so much as allow as not pay for the security. People just walked in and killed people. Now that we know that Coca-Cola has become a target, Coca-Cola has paid for rather substantial security measures for its own workers.

Somehow the activists want Coca-Cola to have more power over its independent bottling companies and yet paradoxically they believe that Coca-Cola should have less say over its own internal policies. Which is it?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Responsible Endowment Coalition presented a report from a non-biased source which they link up on their Facebook group. The report cites an instance of prison labor involving one individual, but they way in which it was presented during the meeting would make you think it was systematic. (I, of course, spoke out and explained his situation, which you can read here.)

Of course the notion that Coca-Cola or its bottlers are encouraging slave labor is groundless.

When the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics, one of Coke’s employees, by the name of Paul Austin, negotiated exclusive rights sell soft drinks behind the Iron curtain, giving many their first taste of American life. That very year Austin, in talks with the Chinese Communist party, had Coke become the first American consumer product sold in China, scoring a victory for human choice and liberty. That demonstrators at Tiananmen Square protested over and celebrated the American way of life by building art projects honoring the American brands Coca-Cola and McDonald’s should give us pause if we are considering eliminating or working against the very symbols that many hold dear.

Today, Coca-Cola has an ownership stake in 24 bottling joint-ventures--in most cases indirectly through two Hong Kong-based companies that it partly owns: Swire Beverages and Kerry Group. Coca-Cola also operates a wholly foreign-owned enterprise that produces beverage concentrate in Shanghai and is the direct joint-venture partner in a similar facility in Tianjin. Coca-Cola has invested more than 1.1 billion dollars in China and employs directly 14,000 and indirectly 400,000 employees.

As for the criticism on the U.S. of slave labor in China, even though Coca-Cola has found “no evidence” to support a claim made by UK businessman who alleged he was part of a prison labor team, we must take these complaints seriously, but not too seriously.

Given that Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of the Chinese Olympics and given that counterfeit merchandise is rather common in China, it might just as well be true that counterfeiters are trying to reap some of the revenue Coke is expected to take in.

Still, let’s assume that Mr. Jon Simms was actually working for one of Coke’s suppliers. Given that some of those bottled suppliers tend to be state-run and allow Coca-Cola to operate only with state given labor, it would not seem odd that Coke would have some dealings with the vast Chinese state.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's turn now to India. Most of my history for this section is based upon the book, Secret Formula: How Brilliant Marketing and Relentless Salesmanship Made Coca-Cola The Best-Known Product in the World by CNN commentator Frederick L. Allen.

In 1977 PM Indira Gandhi lost power and the new Indian government moved to appropriate the profits from Coca-Cola’s syrup factory and twenty-two bottling plants. They ordered the company to cede majority ownership to local shareholders, a step that jeopardized the secrecy of its formula. Rather than take the risk, the company spent $2 million grinding up its bottles and pulled out of a market with sales of 900 million drinks a year.

After Coca-Cola Company’s withdrawal, a state-owned enterprise began selling an ersatz cola called ‘77’ in honor of the year of political change. Its poor flavor and lack of popularity led a cartoonist for an Indian newspaper to depict a tube of “78 Toothpaste” under a sarcastic announcement, “Great Things to Come,” Limited supplies of smuggled Coke began selling for 35 cents a bottle, triple the previous price. (Allen, 370)

Coca-Cola was very much hated by the Indian Communist party for refusing to give up its secrets. To be fair, the Communists had a reason to hate Coca-Cola and its wealth. One of Coca-Cola’s initial stockholders was none other than the Maharajah of Patiala, who oversaw his holdings from his ornate palaces.

Nevertheless, Coca-Cola returned to India in late 1993, forming a strategic alliance with Parle Exports, the nation’s largest soft drink company, and moving quickly to upgrade existing plants…. As in China, the Company paid new entrepreneurs to wheel tricycle Coke carts down alleyways to bring the bubbly drink to new customers. “I used to drink Coke 20 years ago,” one 50-year-old Indian spectator called as he hugged a Coke official during the opening ceremonies for the first Coke bottling plant in India. “I will drink it again.”

Since its return to India, Coca-Cola has become one of the fastest growing foreign companies in India and has invested more than $1 Billion. The company owns 24 bottling operations and another 25 franchise-owned bottling operations directly employing 6,000 local people and creating employment, indirectly, for more than 150,000 people. Those people simply wouldn’t have jobs if people boycotted Coca-Cola.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Many of the students have cited the water misuses by Coca-Cola in India. These accusations are false as numerous government and scientific reports have made clear.

• · October 2002, Dr. R.N. Athvale, Emertius scientist at the National Geophysical Research Institute in Hyderabad, India studied The Coca-Cola Company’s bottling plant in Kerala and concluded: “There is no field evidence of overexploitation of the groundwater reserves in the plant area.” He added that any aquifer depletion cannot be attributed to the water extraction in the plant area.
• · In Kerala, where groundwater levels have decreased, the rainfall has been well below average for several years. The Kerala State Groundwater Department has said that any depletion in groundwater was due to poor rainfall and not the planet.
• · The Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which conducted a detailed study, inspecting samples of sludge, well water, treated water and soil, concluded that the concentration of cadmium and other heavy metals in the bio-solids are below prescribed limits, and therefore, are not considered hazardous.

Coca-Cola has installed more than 300 rainwater harvesting structures across 17 states, including locations at schools and farms. As in most developing countries, most water is owned by the state. In India, this process has led to corruption as middle class and upper class bureaucrats have no incentive to bring water mains out to the poorer areas. Often, this shortage produces a black market in which city officials truck in water in jugs which they sell to the poor at exorbitant prices. The poor sometimes pay more than 17 times what that water is actually worth.

As is typically the case when the state owns water, there are shortages. Even though the beverage industry in India is responsible for less than one-half of one percent of total water usage in India – which makes it one of the most efficient water users in the country – they’ve been attacked by their political opponents. In many cases, this is simply the former Communist government’s anger transposed a generation after Coca-Cola refused to share its secret formula.

In Kerala, they’ve politicized Coca-Cola, going so far as to ban its sale! (The State Supreme Court of Kerala eventually overturned the ban and said that it was permissible for the plant in Kerala to reopen.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In light of my debunking of the supposed human rights violations of Coca-Cola, Pomona's Responsible Endowment Coalition voted in favor of creating a special human rights commission and decided to encourage President Oxtoby to write a letter to Coca-Cola telling them to shape up their human rights act.

The more moderate members of the group argued that the creation of another overseeing committee couldn't hurt and that it might even improve the image of Coca-Cola abroad. Though I very much suspect it was unbeknownst to them at the time, they made the corporate P.R. argument.

Other argued that the cost of this program is negligible. The real question is negligible for whom?

When you impose a regulation, that money would pay for it has to come from somewhere. Often that money comes from improving conditions for workers.

Coca-Cola’s field man in Colombia, for instance, put $28 on his expense account after he had to buy sneakers for his barefoot sales force! (Allen, 12)

Had that 28 bucks gone to making sure those people weren't exploited, they might not have had shoes.

I'm Defending Killer Coke: Pomona College Discussion on Coca-Cola

First they came for the alma mater, then our trays, and now they've come for our soft drinks!

Pomona College is having a "discussion" (read: a thought reform session) about whether or not it should write letters to Coca-Cola telling them to change their behavior. Generally, these types of letter writing campaigns become Trojan horses to ban the product outright.

They've held that discussion at the oh-so-convenient time of 12:15 - 12:45 PM on a Monday when most of us have class. It'll be in Frary's "private room." But, I, nevertheless, plan to be there defending Coca-Cola and liberty. The crux of my argument is that Coca-Cola ends up creating meaningful employment opportunities wherever they go. Not, you know, entirely different from this situation. Just think of all the people they are employing! I sure hope they are paying all of them a living wage!

There's even some evidence that Coca-Cola can appeal to the better angels of our nature.

They are also pro-ginger and so they have my identity-based vote.

Given that I'm pro-liberty, I'm generally pro-Coca-Cola, but you'll have to come if you want to hear all the arguments. (Okay, I lied, I'll be linking up my whole speech and those arguments tomorrow after the "discussion".)

I sure hope it doesn't get this ugly. I don't speak Chinese or play War Craft.

In any event, I'll be sure to practice my Spanish so that I can recite this advertisement fully.

Outside Community Sounds Off on Banning "Hail, Pomona, Hail"

Update (06/10/08): If you are a Pomona alum that is upset by the decision to ban "Hail, Pomona, Hail," please contact me, Charles Johnson, at chuckwalla1022@gmail.com. Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H/t: Claremont Insider.

Throughout the land, people have been sounding off about the most recent decision to ban "Hail, Pomona, Hail" at Pomona's graduation ceremony.

The letter appeared in both the Claremont Courier and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

I've reprinted it here. I couldn't agree with its last line more.

Enough is enough

Dear Editor:

I continue to be amazed by the political correctness that has overcome the educational system as they rewrite the history of our country and their institutions. Most recently, this is being demonstrated by the highly educated administration at Pomona College, which has decided to can (suspend) their beautiful and historical alma mater, “Hail, Pomona, Hail” for next months graduation. Their decision is based on the always known fact that the songs first appearance was at the conclusion of a college black face minstrel show almost 100 years ago. Heaven forbid the college remembers that at that time it was an acceptable form of entertainment throughout the world, not just in the United States.

As long as Pomona College is revising history I have a few other suggestions for them. I guess they should ban the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem. You see, the tune to that music was the drinking song of the Anacreontic Society, a British gentleman’s only private club. Heaven forbid the college allows the playing of a national anthem sung to the tune of a song for a club that excluded women.

“Gary Owen” the song of the 7th Calvary Regiment, currently serving in the war on terror, is an Irish drinking song that talks about tearing up the town and assaulting the sheriff. They probably need to ban this one and all the movies that use it in their soundtrack from the campus too. Of course they can also forget the graduates of their school who have served in that unit of the army during war and peace since the song was adopted by the regiment in the 1870s.

Finally, let’s not forget to ban “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee.” After all, the lyrics to that song are sung to the British national anthem. I am sure the college wouldn’t want that. Someone might actually change lyrics midway through the song and ask God to save a monarch. How could we possibly justify that in a politically correct world?

The list can go on, and on, and on. It is time for the folks at Pomona College to get back to preparing students to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and to leave their alma mater alone.

James M. Weigand
Carlsbad, CA

CMC Grad, Soldier, and Blogger

Serving his country, doing us proud

I've been following a fellow stag's blog post-graduation. His name is Mordechai Sorkin CMC '05 and he's stationed in Afghanistan. His blog is a sober assessment of our involvement there. Unlike some on this campus that talk about real leadership, he lives it. In one of his posts, he talks about how some people at Claremont McKenna took umbrage at his decision to join up.

Anyway, before I joined I was excited that I had finally steered my life with a purpose that made me proud. Yet not everyone shared that view. I remember one day in particular, sitting in the Athenaeum at Claremont McKenna College, finishing my dinner and waiting for the evening's speaker to mount the podium. The woman who sat to my left must have been in her 60s, and we had only exchanged pleasantries throughout the majority of the meal. As I started my dessert, she asked—almost as an aside—about my post-graduation plans. I told her I was going to serve in the Army, and she looked up at me, aghast. Her surprise, however, was not due to the fact that our country was at war with violent and radical people. No, she just couldn't understand why I'd choose the Army, when she was certain I could have done so much more in the civilian world.

I, for one, am proud of you. Stay safe.

Ethos Water: Solution or Scam? Or, Looking For Real Water Solutions

This past week several Claremont McKenna students encouraged me to save the world and children by spending $1.80 on a bottle of water. It seemed too good to be true and so it is. Naturally, I assume those students paid tax on every bottle...

When Peter Thum CMC '90 developed Ethos water, he wanted to change the world by providing water to poor, dying children. The tagline on the bottles shows his life's mission: "Helping children get clean water."

Thum has a worthy -- and pressing -- goal. After all, who doesn't want to help children?

At the cost of a nickel per $1.80 bottle, it sure doesn't seem like a lot, but Thum says it goes a long way to helping the children.

Thum teamed up with Starbucks, became its VP, and has helped build water sources across the globe. Starbucks, enjoying the favorable corporate PR, has promised ten million dollars over the next few years to help tackle the problem, provided, of course, that Ethos water sells.

There's only one problem: It won't solve the problem and may, in fact, make it worse. If Starbucks plans to give away $10 million in nickel increments, it will have to sell 200 million water bottles. Something tells me that we're going to be waiting for a long time, seeing as most other water bottles don't cost anywhere near that much. In fact, if you bought a bottle of Ethos water every week ($93.60 a year!), you'd only be donating about 4 bucks.

Let's really think this one through. If Ethos were so insistent on saving children, why don't they have a donate feature on their website? Might they be more interested in moving product than in saving lives? Might it be then that Ethos water has an incentive in keeping the world's poor without water at all? What would happen to its business model if tomorrow all the world had access to water?

I'm not suggesting that Ethos has some nefarious plot that keeps the poor from their water, but the net effect of some its policies end up doing more harm than good in the long run.
Like most in the political correct NGO community, Ethos Water doesn't want to privatize the water supply. Effectively all of Ethos Water projects are nothing more than collectivist undertakings that often end up wasting more water than is necessary to provide the service.

Contrary to what polluting protesters argue, we know that water privatization is the only way to discourage the waste that occurs once water is collectively owned. In part, we know this truth from the research of none other than Dr. Rod Smith, a former professor of economics at Claremont McKenna College, who has written extensively on using market mechanisms to allocate water resources. Dr. Smith works for the Water Strategist Community and has written for Regulation magazine.

Smith and others show that once water becomes state run it becomes part of the political process and there are few incentives to keep the quality up as Fredrik Segerfeldt makes all too clear in his masterful book, Water for Sale: How Business and the Market Can Resolve the World's Water Crisis . Segerfeldt rightly notes that 97 percent of all water distribution in poor countries is public and yet contrary to popular assumptions, we use a mere 8 per cent of all the water available for human consumption.

As it currently stands, the poor are some of those most hurt by public ownership of water. Ronald Bailey notes in a review of Water for Sale for reason.com.

Segerfeldt points out that public water systems in developing countries generally supply politically connected wealthy and middle class people, whereas the poor are not hooked up to municipal water mains. Segerfeldt cites one study of 15 countries that found that in the poorest quarters of their populations, 80 percent of the people were not hooked up to water mains. Of course, the poor don't just die of thirst; they just pay more—generally a lot more—for their water.

"Contractors often drive tankers to poor districts, selling water by the can, in which case the very poorest of the world's inhabitants are already exposed to market forces but on very unfair terms, because water obtained like this is on average twelve times more expensive than water from regular water mains, and often still more expensive than that," notes Segerfeldt. A survey of major cities in developing countries found that the poor in Lagos, Nigeria pay four to 10 times more for their water than people who are hooked up to water mains do; in Karachi, Pakistan they pay 28 to 83 times more; in Jakarta, Indonesia, four to 60 times; and in Lima, Peru, 17 times more. Essentially, the rich get cheap tap water while the poor pay the moral equivalent of Perrier prices.

Well, at least Perrier is cheaper per fluid ounce than Ethos... .09 cents ($2.00/22 fl oz) versus .11 cents ($1.80/16.9 fl oz).

In fact, it's almost two whole cents cheaper, or roughly half the cost of what Ethos offers to the poor each time you buy a bottle.

FIRE: TSL Plagiarizes Again, Researches Sloppily

Let's get my allegations out of the way quick.

1. The subtitle of Janet Ma's piece, "Group Said to Threaten Legal Action Against 5Cs" comes directly from this article from The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. By the way, Mr. Ma, when you don't reference someone from whom you've gotten information, it's called plagiarism.

2. It's also inaccurate and has been refuted and explained on FIRE's blog. FIRE has not once litigated a case. They have a core group of lawyers that would take up a case should one arise.

Hey, at least, TSL is consistent. Gotta give 'em that much.

---------------------------------------------

Before we begin analyzing the article, let's bring everyone up to speed. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a group dedicated to defending student liberty. Its co-founder, UPenn Professor Alan Charles Kors, just received the Bradley Prize for Defense of Free Speech, and its members include some of the most distinguished attorneys and thinkers in the country.

As a student at my former prep school, I contacted Dr. Kors and started receiving their email alerts and legal material.

They've been an invaluable research for me as I probe into the morality and legality of the conduct of some student administrators with respect to free speech and they've written a letter to all of the Presidents of the Claremont Colleges to respect free speech on campus.

I've already written about the bias-related incidents and their free speech implications already. Here, here, here, and here.

I've also written about numerous hate crimes or bias-related incidents on the campuses that also weren't hate crimes or bias-related incidents when the facts emerged. You can read about those incidents here, here, here, here, and here.

My personal favorite is Stanley Crouch, a former Claremont College professor from 1968 to 1975, who said that it was not uncommon for black students to send themselves racist material when they wanted to manipulate the campus debate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we clearly have a problem at the Claremont Colleges where The Student Life distorts what actually happens to advance its own agenda. For that reason, Dean Wood always give them quotations because she knows that TSL will spin it favorably on her behalf. You might remember Dean Debra Wood from earlier in the year when she overreacted to the Claremont McKenna White Part and effectively called all of the Class of 2010 "racists."

Here's what TSL quotes Dean Debra Wood as saying about FIRE.

It is clear that [FIRE] did not read what we wrote and why entirely, nor understand it," Wood said. "We support free speech and I had acknowledged that right to free speech in my email to the Scripps community. [But] free speech do not give us the right to alter others' property with our thoughts and beliefs."

Putting aside the grammar problems, Dean Wood just lied to TSL. In the first place, let's take a look at what Dean Wood actually said back in February.

While principles of free speech may protect these students' rights to advertise in this manner, free speech is best exercised with common sense, intelligence and sensitivity. I am saddened and dismayed , and angered, that students in the year 2008 would use this kind advertising to promote a party.

...

I urge any other campus which received these invites to take a similar stand against racism and sexism and communicate their anger and dismay to the CMC Class of 2010 through appropriate ways- such as not attending the party, writing letters to the class leadership and/or student news papers, and refusing to tolerate this kind of treatment of members of our communities.

A logical person who read that last gerund phrase as indicating some kind of threat. After all what are "appropriate ways" to "refuse to tolerate this kind of treatment of members of our communities"?

Wood then says that "free speech rights do not give us the right to alter others' property with our thoughts or beliefs."

Notice what she is doing here. She tries to conflate the destruction of property common to many graffiti crimes with her attack on the Class of 2010 for distributing fliers she found to be offensive. Dean Wood knows well that the subject of FIRE's response was her email to all 5-Cs involving the White Party. There was no physical damage done by the leaf letters as she knows well, but you wouldn't know that if you just read her quotation.

Dean Wood continues and defines bias incidents for us. (Ellipses and brackets are from TSL.)

"Bias incidents are . . . anonymous expressions of beliefs or thoughts usually in the form of vansalism -- writing on a hall wall, another student's door, someone else's poster. The Constitution does not protect those acts," Wood said. "[And] remember, we have free speech as well and are members of the community."

And this woman passed the bar? Dean Wood, who has never been questioned seriously over her email calling the Class of 2010 racist, is not only trying to conflate the issues around vandalism, but she's also lying to you about what the Constitution protects. (The Leonard Law also protects that speech and goes entirely unmentioned in the article.)

If she knew anything, she'd know that writing "Hillary is a foxy lesbian" on your own white board does not constitute "vandalism." Nor, do I think, writing it on another student's white board. (There's no property damage and you can always erase it.)

Meanwhile, President Oxtoby, as always, gives us a weak statement on the importance of free speech.

"We're not trying to reduce or cut back on free speech," Oxtoby said. "We're not going to stop you from saying anything you want to, but recognize that when you say something or do something it has consequences on other people."

That's funny. Oxtoby says they aren't going to do anything to you if you speak up. Little does he know that few students are going to speak out with the cards stacked against them and a fear that Dean Wood or whoever will stick a permanent black letter in their file.

Oxtoby tries to downplay, but we all know its true. After all, the consequences seem to only be for the people who speak out and not the people who overreact.

I guess the incident involving two football players who were intimidated and threatened by Pomona Dean of Women DID NOT happen.

I also guess the expulsion of a Claremont McKenna student in 1997 for writing a newsletter DID NOT happen.

FIRE Burns Claremont University Spokeswoman on Blog

Barbara Jefferson: Was she mistaken or deliberately misleading?

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) blogged about the double standards at the Claremont Colleges.

You might remember the letter FIRE wrote to Robert A. Walton, CEO of the Claremont Colleges Consortium, over the infringement of our liberty and violation of the law that becomes quite routine on our campuses in the name of political correctness. You can read about the letter in more detail here.

Here's the essential bit.

FIRE never heard back from Walton or anyone at the Claremont Colleges, but the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a local newspaper, wrote an article on FIRE's letter. The article included a quotation from Claremont University Consortium spokeswoman Barbara Jefferson:

FIRE has threatened with litigation. We have no comment.

We're not sure where Jefferson got that idea, since FIRE does not litigate and never has. We do have a Legal Network and will sometimes refer cases to attorneys who share our value of free expression, but such a move was not contemplated here, and there's no way they could have read our letter to indicate that it was.

Let me just get my gripes out of the way before we go to comments. Why was their no Claremont Conservative mention? After all, Aditya was the one who broke the story... *smacks head against table and mutters the thankless life of the college blogger.*

Why Did C.M.C. Hire Assistant Coach Coberly?

Morgan Coberly Bonita High School's volleyball coach on Monday, Dec. 17, 2007. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Watchara Phomicinda/Sports)

From Pasadena Star News:

LA VERNE - A Bonita High School volleyball coach left his job at the district amid allegations he behaved inappropriately with a player, officials said Thursday.

William Brinegar, Bonita Unified School District assistant superintendent of human resource development, confirmed that Morgan Coberly, who was the varsity girls' coach for more than five years, was no longer an employee with the district.

He declined to comment further.

Coberly and Bonita High officials did not return phone calls Thursday.

Police and school officials previously said an investigation started two weeks ago was prompted by a complaint.

Coberly is listed as an assistant girls volleyball coach for the combined athletics department of Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd and Scripps colleges. He is also listed as a coach with La Verne-based Club West Volleyball, a private travel team.

Officials with Club West and the Claremont colleges could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The La Verne Police Department has declined to provide details surrounding the allegations.

From SGVTribune.com:

Coberly is in his third year as an assistant girls volleyball coach for the combined athletics department of Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd and Scripps colleges. He is also listed as a coach with Club West Volleyball, a private league based in La Verne.

Officials at Club West said Wednesday the club is conducting its own internal investigation. Two different men who answered phone calls refused to identify themselves or comment further.

Michael Sutton, athletic director at the Claremont Colleges, said he was unaware of any investigation into Coberly.

"I hope it's not true," Sutton said. "There have been no issues in the past to make us concerned."

Coberly's page at CMSAthletics.org is down. That's not a good sign.

Memo to AARC: U.S. Internment of Japanese Families Is Not Equal to Treatment of Muslim Terrorists

Pomona College's AARC (Asian American Resource Center) is sponsoring a pilgrimage to Manzanar, one of the Japanese internment camps during WWII with the Manzanar Committee. Though it is unclear at this moment as to whether or not the flyer was written by AARC or simply sponsored by them, it is the group that dispensed this flyer.

In the event's promotional material, it is suggested that the round up and forced relocation of 120,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals is somehow comparable with the imprisonment of 1,200 men of Middle Eastern decent who have been interned since 9-11.
The flyer reads,

World War II: 120,000 Individuals of Japanese Descent Sent to Internment Camps

2001: 1,200 Men Perceived to Be of Middle Eastern Descent Detained and Jailed

History Repeats Itself.

Get Informed.

Get Involved.

Manzanar Pilgrimage.

Manzanar was one of the Japanese relocation camps during WWII. There will be a day-long event remembering Manzanar and its legacy, and also discussing current parallels in American policy.

Sponsored by the AARC [CJ note: Pomona’s Asian American Resource Center]

FMI: PKimes@gmail.com

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0627-03.htm

http://www.manzanarcommittee.org/manzhistory.html

As if the entire forced relocation of 120,000 Japanese Americans and nationals within the United States isn't disgusting enough, Pomona's AARC suggests that the there are "current parallels in American policy" in the U.S. detention of an estimated 1200 men of "middle Eastern descent." (Where they get the number of 1200 men is anyone's guess...)

In so doing, AARC implies that the detention of men picked up on the battlefield is one in the same with the detention of whole families by the U.S. military during the Second World War.

This comparison is not entirely new. As early as 2003, Bush administration opponents cited the case of terrorist, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a former U.S. citizen who was picked up fighting against U.S. and Afghan Northern Alliance forces in days following 9/11 in the same breath as the Japanese internment.

Sue Embrey, 79, who lived in the Manzanar camp with her family for 17 months and is chairwoman of the Manzanar Committee is quoted in that very Boston Globe article. Even she concedes, "You can't say it's exactly what happened to us, but it's wrong."

But that doesn’t stop her promotional material from saying “history repeats itself.” (I guess when you need to bring tourists on their “pilgrimage” you bend the truth.) What a pity.

The Americans of Japanese descent and peaceful Japanese nationals deserve better than half truths about an ugly chapter in the West Coast's history. Claremont students deserve better than the politicization of American history.

The Vacuousness of VOX

Charles Johnson recently alerted me to the "Condom Carnival" taking place this weekend at Pomona's Walker Beach, sponsored by VOX. VOX is a student mouthpiece for Planned Parenthood operating on the Claremont Colleges. If the event's flier (pictured right) is any indication, there is much for denizens of the Claremont Colleges to be concerned about.

The basic concept for the event is troubling in its juxtaposition of two elements that should never mix: condoms and carnivals. A carnival is typically an event meant to entertain children. But sex and condoms should be the domain of mature adults. The implicit message that VOX is sending is that you can mix children and sex and expect a "safe" and "happy" outcome. VOX's "Condom Carnival" encourages a childish approach to sex and declares that sexual intercourse shall now be as common and inconsequential as cotton candy and merry-go-rounds. The mark of the pervert is the destruction of the basic categories of human beings: male and female, adult and child. This is not surprising coming from VOX--they are a mouthpiece for Planned Parenthood, which has recently been documented covering up statutory rape.

Not only is this message demeaning and infantilizing to college students who deserve to be treated like mature adults, but it is dangerously cavalier and irreverent. VOX's actions say: sex = Six Flags. No big deal. I want to eat lunch with you, I want to the movies with you, I want to play tennis with you, I want to have sex with you. No big deal, all in the same breath. It is no wonder that UCLA psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossmer can lament, "We are losing the war on sexually transmitted diseases and depression on campus." The VOX-Planned Parenthood dogma that places all faith and security in a piece of rubber has been tried and failed. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's own research arm, reports that over 50% of women who submit to abortions used a contraceptive. The fruits of the VOX-Planned Parenthood model are more sickness and more sadness.

Meanwhile, VOX received at least $1350 in club funding from 5C student governments this year. It is almost certain that the "Condom Carnival," as other VOX activities, is being paid for with 5C money. Pomona ponied-up $600 this year alone, the most of any of the 5Cs. Pomona also sponsors an advocacy internship with Planned Parenthood's local arm in Los Angeles. This is the same Planned Parenthood that was founded on eugenic principles and implements them to this day in its practical policies.

It is no wonder that VOX, the Planned Parenthood mouthpiece, has since the start of this year refused to debate Live Action publicly. With a background as sordid as theirs, who would want to lay the facts on the table?

Environmentalists Can't Do Math

We already know that they only like certain kinds of science that fit their agenda, but apparently they also pick and choose results when it comes to math. Or maybe schoolin' ain't their first priority.

In my last post, I pointed out how badly the traceless day reduced the number of people at Collins dining hall that evening. I was actually using the very numbers that the Environmental Crusaders were reporting.

I also noted that the reduction per person was about 5%, while they report a reduction of 15% (so they inflated the data by 3 times). I'm not surprised to tell you that I am right.

They say that 113 lbs. of food were leftover for 656 people the first night. If you convert this to ounces, then the average "waste per person" is 2.76 oz. They were close, reporting 2.7 oz., but I would have rounded up.

But on the second number they were way off. They report 81.6 lbs. for 501 people, which gives us an average "waste per person" of about 2.61 oz.--even though they report it to be 2.3 oz.

So this means the difference was only 1.5 oz., not 4 oz. as they said--and yes, this means the percentage jump was about 5%.

Now 5% is hardly a number to write home about, in fact it could very easily reflect natural fluctuations in how much waste people generate daily. This is why you'd need to do the experiment over many evenings to report anything of substance (and for the love of God, don't do that).

And of course, the difference could have been made up because all the people who actually wanted to eat a lot of food decided to stay away from Collins that evening.

You can't but help feel a little bit of pity for the Crusaders. The apocalypse is near, and nobody cares.

Environmentalists Won't Clean Up Their Mess

Kevin Callahan cleans up the waste.

Charles has already written about the silliness behind the recent trayless day, in which a bunch of self-righteous students decided to making dining difficult for everyone.

In the picture, you'll see the ugly display they used for their cheap political stunt. The crusaders, of course, were too good to take it down themselves. That's why we pay people! (Hey wait, don't we pay for trays as well?)

Now the college students have been weighing our food waste for years, but they never measure the change over a long period of time. The only measure the change after one day of harassment--then they congradulate themselves for saving the world. And every year they do the same old ritual.

Another question that no one seems to ask is whether or not food waste is actually a problem, let alone if a handful of college students eating less will ever make a difference. And if it is a problem, would they consider a solution that actually might have an effect--like charging people for what they buy? Wait, but you can't do this because then people make bad choices, liking eating cheese and beef. Better for Emily and friends to make the decision for them.

And then you have the problem that actually occurs--no one comes to the dining hall! Did you notice how sparse it was inside? (Probably not, because you avoided the dining hall that night.) According to the numbers, the two nights saw a drop in people from 656 to 501. That's a 24% loss!

In terms of pounds of food per person wasted, the drop was entirely negligible (about 5%--which means the average person spared about an eighth of a chicken bone). So it's hard to say this was a success, unless you judge success in terms of chasing people away so they don't eat at all. Unfortunately for the crusaders, I suspect they just went to the other dining halls to avoid them.

Oh, well there is one way in which they were successful. They felt a lot better. And after all isn't that why we do good things. To make ourselves righteous and pure of heart. And we feel better when we make others follow along. It's okay, it's for your own good. You don't know better. We do. Trust us, the pizza is better without cheese.

Claremont Conservative on L.A. Times Blog, An Examination of Pomona's Supposedly Racist Past

The Claremont Conservative made it onto The Los Angeles Times's blog today.

The mention is brief. They link to us and cite us as having had a "field day with the alma mater's suspension" without addressing any of the arguments we've made in prior posts. (Ah well, who could blame The Los Angeles Times? They are but a regional newspaper anyways...)

I wonder on the use of the word "field day". Let me get my Merriam-Webster dictionary. I looked for a satisfactory definition for "field day." "A time of extraordinary pleasure or opportunity."

Am I having an extraordinary amount of pleasure? Do I take the decision to ban the alma mater as somehow indicative of a great opportunity?

The only opportunity here is to examine the role of historiography and identity politics and how the two join to create a sanitized version of the history in the hopes of perfecting the present.

You see the argument that Pomona College is making is an insidious one. The argument is that back in the day, Pomona College was racist and that therefore it must atone for it's racist past. Even though the song's text is not racist and even though generations of Pomona students have sung it, it becomes racist because of the context surrounding the song.

Hence, Pomona's administrators must "suspend" the song. In reality, they are just testing the waters to see if it ought to be banned outright. Its their way of saying if alums complain, "hey, we just suspended song."

The problem with Pomona's argument is that it means that each of the students must have knowledge of the institution's past before they make a substantive decision based upon the merits of the work given the context of the time. Allegations of bigotry or racism are enough to justify censorship, which if not official, is meant to be social. God pity the soul who dares sing the song at graduation!

Given that the people who celebrated this song and who were there when the song was song are now long dead, the people who would dig them up must re-bury them as "racist" so as to exculpate their collective sin. Of course I reject any such notions of collective sin and find the song perfectly unobjectionable. Its past is complicated, but not worthy of throwing it out.

I welcome Pomona College's decision to sponsor two summer research opportunities to study songs in the context, but I wonder what would happen if the students come back finding that the song is completely consistent with history or if the students who will be drawn to this research opportunity will be inclined to have the conclusions formed before the research.

Still, I find it awkward that Pomona bends itself over backwards to eliminate a song, but never mentions its very real racist past (and present) treatment of Jews and white males. This kind of racism is all the more insidious because it is official Pomona policy to discriminate against individuals whose only crime was that they were not of a favorable ethnic group.

I've alluded to this racist past before when I mentioned current Claremont McKenna professor, Frederick Lynch, who has written he was discriminated against by the department chairman at Pomona College, who told him that the only sociologist Pomona could hire had to be black.

But I've been digging into Pomona's past and have found another more sinister skeleton in her closet. According to CMC government professor, Ward Elliot, Pomona hired its first Jewish professor, Karl Kohn in 1950, fully four years after Claremont McKenna College. The decision was not without its political problems. Faculty members muttered that hiring Kohn would mean negating their obligations to pay "tribute to Christian Civilization" as mandated by Pomona's motto. It was then that Pomona's president E. Wilson Lyon threatened to resign if Kohn's appointment was blocked. It wasn't.

Should Pomona College have to apologize for the conflicted history during its tenure of professors? Should we suspend its appointment of professors merely because a few had irrational, anti-semitic feelings?

No, we should evaluate the professor on his merit and his merit alone. In much the same way, we should evaluate the song.

Yes, artistic and academic merit will be inherently subjective -- though I'd wager not as much as some might argue -- but I find its much better than digging into a past we cannot control.

Thomas Sowell Explains Rising Costs of College

Thomas Sowell has been running around explaining why the cost of college seems to rise so exponentially. His latest column on college costs examines why colleges have no incentive to reduce costs with all the lavish subsidies government throws their way and how research downgrades the quality of education undergraduates receive.

The criteria used by most accrediting agencies are based on inputs -- essentially spending -- rather than results for students.

Competition among academic institutions therefore seldom takes the form of lowering their costs of operation, in order to lower tuition. The incentives are all the other way.

Competition often takes the form of offering more upscale amenities -- posh lounges, bowling alleys, wi-fi, finer dorms.

Ah yes, the increasing country clubification of American campuses and how it leads to a vicious cycle of increasing student debt by increasing the cost of tuition to pay for things that have nothing to do with education.

My friend at U.Chicago put it best: Paying for college is like going to buy a fish and being told you have to buy a car and a lampshade.

Still, there are many who say that if we got rid of all those country club amenities, that we would somehow make ourselves less competitive at getting top notch students.

You've seen this argument before on this blog from many in the comment section. Many such students argue that if we somehow decrease the $230,000 plus dollars collected per annum for student activities students will be less inclined to come to Claremont McKenna. (One wonders what motivated their parents and all the alums who routinely give back...) Patrick Weisman, a friend of this blog on many issues, is quick to make this argument. I find it totally unpersuasive. Now as student fees rise again to pay for security for parties, we're seeing just another way that college is being more and more difficult for average folks to afford.

Yes, there will be a percentage of students who expect more amenities than colleges have erstwhile been unable to provide, but I would wager that those people will be in a small minority and will still come to college for the expected value of the degree alone, even if we were to do away with the parties and club funds entirely.

What should be the function of colleges after all, but education? Harvey Mudd seems to have understand this fact intuitively and world class thinkers are beginning to take note.

Sowell has written about how Harvey Mudd prepares more students for graduate work, an indication that supports the conclusion that Harvey Mudd gives its students a great education.

He mentioned this fact on NRO TV and wrote that,

You may never have heard of Harvey Mudd College but a higher percentage of its graduates go on to get Ph.D.s than do the graduates of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or M.I.T. So do the graduates of Grinnell, Reed, and various other small colleges.

Harvey Mudd is no Claremont McKenna, to be sure, but Claremont McKenna can rank its students by other means: number of applicants to law school, business school, or dare I say? number of dollars in bank account 5 years after graduation.

Surin Pitsuwan '72 Signs Historic Free Trade Agreement Between ASEAN, Japan

Surin Pitsuwan '72, completed the signing of a historic Free Trade agreement between the ASEAN and Japan on April 15.

The ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP) will increase ASEAN exports to Japan by 44.2% and Japanese exports by 27.5%. Additionally, ASEAN GDP is set to increase by 1.99% and Japanese GDP by 0.07% as a result of the deal.

"With the AJCEP, we hope to encourage regional cumulation that will benefit Japanese investors like Toyota, Mitsubishi and Sony, which are operating and have huge investments in ASEAN countries, and support ASEAN industries as well,”

(Partial) Courtesy of: Econ 50 GE, CMC legacy of Political and Economic Freedom

CMC Alum Appointed As Ambassador Extraordinary

C. Steven McGann (right) pictured with U.S. Charge d'Affaires, Mark Bezner in Palau

The Bush Administration made an announcement today to appoint C. Steven McGann '73 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, and the Kingdom of Tonga and Tuvalu.

The President intends to nominate C. Steven McGann, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, and the Kingdom of Tonga and Tuvalu. Mr. McGann, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as Director for Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs at the Department of State. Prior to this, he served as Maritime Security Coordinator in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Earlier in his career, he served as Director of the Office of Assistance for Asia and Near East in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Mr. McGann received his bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College and his master's degree from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Call That A Debate ?

Its Radical Universal Health Care vs. Less Radical Universal Health Care at Pomona next week. David Beier, VP Global Government and Corporate Affairs, Amgen and former Domestic adviser to Al Gore, will 'debate' E. Richard Brown, Director, UCLA Center For Health Policy Research and Current Health Care adviser to Barack Obama. Both speakers are guests of the Pomona Student Union.

"What kinds of policies are candidates proposing to reform the health care system? How will these proposals impact our generation? Come join us on Monday, April 28 at 7pm in Edmunds Ballroom as we examine the difficult questions shaping the national health care discussion with David Beier and Richard Brown."

As head lobbyist at Amgen, Beier spent $16.3 million lobbying last year, a 58% increase since 2006. He defended the sharp increase by stating,

"Amgen is a leading biotechnology firm and is highly regulated; we face a lot of legislative and regulatory issues," Beier said. "We resourced our advocacy to match our challenges."

Highly regulated, you say? Beier, of course, forgot to mention that as chief lobbyist with Amgen, and previously with Genentech, he made the case for stricter intellectual property rights regulation, licenses and larger tax credits.

So whose on the 'other side'?

Dr. E Richard Brown, Professor UCLA School of Public Health, is the author of Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. He is a strong advocate for universal coverage and finds socialized medicine to be cheaper and better than market driven models. What a right wing nut!

So there's your debate: Universal Health Care v Universal Health Care. As Kissinger would say, 'too bad they can't both lose.'!

For those interested in a real debate on health care, I would recommend Professor Frederick Lynch's lecture series: Markets, Mandates, or 'Medicare for All'?

The first lecture in this four part series featured Peter Harbage, Senior Program Associate in the Health Policy Program, New America Foundation. Harbage provided an excellent background into the current structure of the US Health industry, and the plausibility of universal coverage. Harbage worked as Health Care adviser to Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

The second and final speaker for this semester will be Sally Pipes, CEO Pacific Research Institute. CJ's preview.

Now there's a real debate with real ideological diversity and quality speakers.