Statement from Deans Feldblum and Holmes on Alleged Disruption of VOX Event, Response and Fact Checking to Come

Dear Students,

Last week, on February 19th, a group of students interrupted an event hosted by VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood) held at the Women’s Union in Walker residence hall on campus. This event was part of Pomona College’s Abortion Awareness Week. The students began asking disruptive questions, and one of the students was secretly videotaping the event without the knowledge or consent of the college or the individual participants. When the student organizers became aware of the videotaping, they requested that it be stopped. The students who were doing the recording refused. [Emphasis Added: Also, not true.]

This event was advertised and organized as an opportunity for students from across the Claremont Colleges to learn about deeply personal narratives regarding the experience of abortion, and to possibly share their own thoughts and feelings about this challenging and controversial subject in a supportive and safe space. The individuals who disrupted the events last Thursday failed to respect one of the central values of the Women’s Union by attempting to create an antagonistic space. Secretly recording conversations is a violation of the Women’s Union space and is contrary to the values of the Pomona College community. The Women’s Union, like many other spaces on our campus, is identified and recognized as a space on the Pomona campus where individuals are invited to participate in these kinds of discussions.

At Pomona College, we welcome and encourage respectful, thought-provoking, honest and, at times, difficult dialogue about a variety of world, national, local and personal subjects. It is our hope that the illumination of subjects by people with either direct involvement, expertise or personal experience can shape our understanding and empathy, and inform our own decisions and choices when we are faced with challenging issues in our lives or the lives of those close to us. This level of dialogue is impossible to achieve when members decide to conceal recording devices and refuse to hold themselves accountable to the people participating in that discussion.

We would like to remind all students to be aware of your rights and responsibility to uphold respectful dialogue and to report any instances of harassment or hostile behavior to individuals such as the dean on call or to campus safety (X72000). If you have any questions about this, we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dean Feldblum

Dean Holmes, Dean of Women and Associate Dean for Student Support and Learning

Pitney on Our Socialist Presidents

Professor John J. Pitney Jr. has written a blog post comparing the rhetoric of Obama and Nixon. It would appear that Obama and Nixon have similar hobbyhorses: 1) solar power 2) higher education access 3) health insurance 4) disliking quitters. Both promised to end unpopular wars and both wars seem to be ramping up. You can read the whole thing here.

I've long believed that Nixon was America's most socialist president. He supported wage and price controls, the EPA, and affirmative action -- all of which I find anathema to modern conservatism or just good sense.

I'm Sorry I'll Miss Michael Eric Dyson at Pitzer With Update

UPDATE: Apparently Professor Dyson decided to stand up Pitzer to go on Anderson Cooper's show, according to sources within Pitzer's "Dining with Democracy." In any event, here's what I've written on him. (He came to speak at the Athenaeum several years back.)

I'm disappointed that I shall be missing Professor Michael Eric Dyson's talk before Pitzer's "Dining with Democracy" this Thursday evening. I shall be away in Kansas City, MO for work and will be back sometime this weekend.

All and all, I have found the more recent Dining with Democracy events to be quite the intellectual treat. Christopher Hitchens was masterful, loquacious, and provocative and Pitzer deserves credit for bringing the very best to its campus. (Hear that, Pomona Student Union?)

Dear readers, read very carefully the words I am about to post for I mean every word of what I say.

Dyson has been hoping to stir up a race war for quite some time. He has attacked Bill Cosby's serious remarks to the black community from his prism -- or is it prison? -- as a Marxist critic. He's an apologist for Communist Cuba and has caled American policy toward Cuba as "simply obscene" and "white supremacy in its reckless, destructive mode."

He's even authored a book that basically goes after those of us who believe that the high crime rate and illegitimacy rate among black Americans isn't the fault of structural racism, but of individuals failing to act at their best. Pat Buchanan really lays into Dyson. Watch the video and their response to Eric Holder's odd statement about America being "A Nation of Cowards."

In this video, around 8:10 or so, Dyson calls for the "pain" of the current economic crunch to be "redistributed" to white people.

Hmmm... where have I heard that before? Might it have been from this man? At least, he's going to hurt all Americans.

A Response to the Forum's Request for Civility

Dear Patrick,

You betray yourself as a rare reader of the Claremont Conservative. I seldom mention the Karl Rove vandalism -- I reject that it was a protest -- and when I do it is always in the context of another event. But I take your general point: that civility is needed on campus.

I started The Claremont Conservative to have that dialogue many claim they want -- only I have discovered something rather sad about a lot of progressives on campus: they don't want to talk. They need to yell. Some need to demonize. Why is it that it is always progressives that want to shout down speakers at Pomona or Scripps? Other than yours truly (and occasionally Dan O'Toole), can you name a conservative that even asks pointed questions at the Ath? Of course not. We're respectful and wouldn't dare censor anyone.

I have never thought less of progressives on campus because of their misguided views, but some certainly think less of conservatives. A recent examples include the boycott of Fox News by Claremont Political Union.

Now it is certainly true that liberals outnumber conservatives on this campus, but why should bipartisan events only show one channel? Can't we at least flip between the channels?
Given the awful track record of CNN, can't we balance it out between the networks? I'm not saying Fox is great or bad, but I'd just like to occassionally hear another side.

I asked one time why we only watched CNN and was told that that's because "all of the liberals will leave if we change the channel." What more fitting metaphor for "dialogue" on campus!

I have always taken the view that disagreement -- or as some call it, "intellectual diversity," -- is the only difference worth preserving. Life is boring if we all get along and oftentimes that means arguing. But it would seem lately that anytime a pointed argument is made it is an "attack" or an "assault" on that person. I reject that and fear something much more insiduous -- the Pomonaization of our campus -- where controversial speakers aren't invited because they might "offend" someone and where debates become "conversations" as "debate" is too "harsh" a word. (One can only imagine what the Lincoln and Douglas "chats" would look like.)

On the road to that would be dialogue through this blog, I have found my email hacked; I have had scurrilously attacks launched against me and those I cared about by anonymous commenters; and I was told that I was unwelcome at a college because of my views -- really shouldn't all views be welcome at a college? and so you'll forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of people to have a real dialogue. What does it say about a campus where something like Claremont Confessions, an anonymous gossip, website takes off?

Ross Boomer, the not so august editor of The Forum has said it himself -- that we're a campus that obsesses about sex in government seminars and stalking people on Facebook. Never you mind that there are a great many of us who have come to this college to debate and contemplate ideas. Claremont McKenna isn't just another liberal arts college. Don't believe what you've been told. It's a place of exceptionalism and tragically, we've turned away from that.

It's clear that the Forum, too, has failed to provide, well, a forum for views that differ from those of its editor, the censor-in-chief, Ross Boomer whose emotional response to my comment forced him to delete it rather than engage me. He should have been removed for failure to perform his duty, instead he whines about all the "haters" out there.

But let's try something new. Here's an open invitation to any progressive on campus to debate me in front of the entire school. We'll agree on the topic and the time. It's an offer I extended to the Claremont Port Side, only to be rebuffed -- they don't really like to have dialogues -- but let's make it school wide. You know where to find me. As someone who isn't really a great public speaker, I'm taking a risk that I might lose.

Contrary to what has been argued before, I'm not a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity of America conservatism on this campus. I didn't know who the later was until I Googled him long after I arrived. (It was rough not having cable as a child.)

I'm trying really hard to be a Bill Buckley Jr.'s whose program, Firing Line, did liberals and conservatives both a favor by encouraging them to sharpen their arguments.

A Quick Thought on the Roberts Environmental Center's New Report

CitiGroup is among the companies that received a low ranking in the Roberts Environmental Center's latest environmental report.

You'll have to forgive CitiGroup from being concerned with its environmental "sustainability." Currently, with a nationalization plan in the offing, it's worried about its financial sustainability -- you know, the one companies are supposed to worry about...

On Jindal's Lackluster Speech

Here's a photo of the way it could have been. 

Let's be real. Jindal tanked tonight. Jindal's not a speech giver and it shows. Just look at his victory speech from 2007. It's not the "I can get you to do anything" speech that Obama can give, but it's solid. He plays off the crowd. 

Professor Pitney said it best in Politico. 

“Obama gave a polished performance, as usual. Jindal’s act needs a lot of work,” said John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at California’s Claremont McKenna College. “His basic message was sound but his language was hackneyed and his performance was wooden. Fortunately he has a lot of time to improve his delivery. In the year 2040 he will still be younger than McCain was in 2008.” 

What Pitney said. 

Might Jindal's weakness as a speaker be his strength against Obama? Here's the slogan: He's not a talker, he's a doer. By then, I wager that Obama will have given hundreds of speeches and the American public will be tired of speechifying and spending. 

Of course when the debate between Obama and Jindal rolls around, I predict Jindal will mop the floor with him. And he'll be able to say to Joe Biden, who made a very racist remark, "See, I don't run a 7-11." 

That's the kind of humor that would serve him well. Humor shows confidence. Reagan knew that. Romney and Jindal should take note. 

Professor Burdekin on Indian TV Discussing Stimulus

Thanks to Vishnu Narasimhan CMC '12 who directed me to this video.

Vishnu, who is taken Macroeconomics with Burdekin, has written a summary of Burdekin's interview, which I have posted here. Thanks, Vishnu.

Professor Richard Burdekin last week appeared on the Indian Business channel CNBC-TV18 speaking about the stimulus plan and its probable (in)effectiveness.

He spoke about his views on the stimulus package and why it will not be as effective in reviving the US and world economy as claimed by White house and congressional democrats. This is of interest in India because the Indian government has also come out with such stimulus packages, though much smaller, with a similar mixture of spending and tax cuts. It is as unclear in India as in the US as to whether the plan will be successful. The new, market oriented Indian media looks at the government's plan as irresponsible as it greatly increases the fiscal deficit that was already very high to start off with."

For those looking for a transcript, you can find it here, though I think there are some errors in the transcribing.

NYU Example Should Be Followed at the Five Claremont Colleges

In case you haven't heard, NYU laid down the law against student protestors who demanded that the endowment be disclosed, among other ridiculous things. Here's the raw video if you want to watch the students get taken out of the place. 

The New York Daily News, by way of PhiBetaCons, has more.

NYU did not "bend" to student demands, and the malcontents were banned from all NYU buildings until their expulsion hearings, Brown said.

The end became evident at 10 a.m. when four student negotiators went up to the sixth floor of the building to talk with NYU officials — and were ambushed by campus cops.

After that, cops tore down the barricades barring the entrance to the third-floor cafeteria and started evicting the Take Back NYU! Coalition protesters.

When they took over the cafeteria, the students' stated cause was a demand for greater transparency in the NYU budget.

Then came talking points in which the protestors demanded scholarships for Palestinian students — and supplies for the Islamic University of Gaza."

One of the lines from the video is that "other schools haven't acted that way." The filmmaker is right, unfortunately. You might remember the misbehavior that Pitzer students visited upon our campus when we brought Karl Rove to speak. After damaging school property, no students were punished. 

Might this mark the beginning of more serious policies at the campuses? Let's hope so. 

The Port Side's Silly Birth Control Editorial

Andrew Bluebond, the editor of The Port Side, latest editorial uses positive rights to argue in favor of the stimulus's birth control bonanza. He writes,

Pelosi and Obama should have argued that individual rights are useful only when individuals have the means to express them. I doubt that either of them believes that a woman’s right to control her body should be limited by her socioeconomic status, but that is the reality for many women in the United States. Women living in poverty are four times more likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times more likely to have an unintended birth than women who live above the poverty line. The family planning funding in the stimulus plan would have increased the reproductive freedom of thousands of women, but both Obama and Pelosi let them down.

First, let's demolish Mr. Bluebond's argument about how "individual rights are useful only when individuals have the means to express them." Why should we be considered about the "utility" of rights? More often than not, rights push us into uncomfortable territory, but we recognize them nonetheless. Would you eliminate speech rights merely because they offend someone and are not "useful" to promoting a dialogue ? One should hope not. How about the right to self-defense? Would that be eliminated when, weight on a cost-benefit analysis scale, it was determined that it wasn't effective? Finally, if I am bigger than you, do I have more rights? (We'll return to that argument later when we look at so-called reproductive freedom.)

Even if we assume that Mr. Bluebond is correct -- that the stimulus plan would have increased the reproductive freedom of thousands of women -- that was not and should not have been the purpose of the stimulus. A stimulus is Keynesian economics is intended to increase consumption and therefore increase economic growth by use of the multiplier effect. Even if one believes in the Keynesian model, which I do not, you must concede that there are better multipliers out there than the individual birth control consumption of thousands of women. (We will stipulate that 1) such women exist and 2) that they are currently being denied access to birth control, which is something that Planned Parenthood claims it doesn't allow.) Infrastructure projects would seem a safer bet, given how many millions of people traverse our roads. It might even expand our economy (though to be fair, I favor privatization.)

Bluebond then makes this silly argument: that "family planning investments" -- just how does the government "invest" again? -- will help the economy.

Many have called the family planning funds an unnecessary gamble, but the move is both fiscally prudent and politically palatable. Family planning investments are often a net gain for governments. By reducing the services that they must provide in the future, governments reduce their future payouts on social welfare programs. Unlike many other transfer payments, subsidized family planning reduces costs by promoting choice. Making birth control available to women does not force a single person’s hand. The funding, which was not available for abortions, would have improved the lives of thousands of women who voluntarily sought services.

By that logic, governments should subsidize smoking. After all, social security is a generational Ponzi scheme in which the base of the pyramid must be larger than the top. We want those smokers to pay in and then die off quickly. Similarly, we would want to subsidize women to have children, as some countries actually do, rather than discourage them by subsidizing their contraceptives.

What Bluebond really means to say is that an abortion is cheaper than raising a child and here he is exactly right. We can't fault his calculus. But I seem to recall so-called progressives getting awfully upset years prior when a certain Bill Bennett suggested that aborting black babies would lower the crime rate. (Of course Bennett, who is pro-life, merely answered a caller's theoretical question.) Bluebond, to his credit, makes no such distinction between black, white, Asian or Hispanic babies.

But we know well that it's a child, not a choice. If the fetus weren't, why is it that so many women regret their "choice"? Maybe President Obama was thinking about his own teenage mother who, thankfully, chose life.

Why doesn't Blubeond follow the argument to its logical conclusion? Voluntary sterilization. It seems to have worked so very well in India.

Finally: A Great Op-ed in The Student Life

I often read The Student Life expecting the worst arguments and unfortunately, it often delivers.

But Rebecca Golden's op-ed, titled misleadingly, "The Israel/Palestine Conflict: A 'Proportionate Response,'" finally provided the response to the anti-Israel arguments that have become far too commonplace at the Claremont Colleges. Go out and get a copy of The Student Life for this powerful rebuttal to the old saw about Israel's "proportionate" responses.

Those of us who have become friends of Israel find ourselves shaking our heads at the kinds of silly arguments written up in the most recent Claremont Port Side or in past issues of The Student Life.

The final paragraph is one of the strongest.

A "sense of historicity" shows that the Middle East is rife with dozens of fault lines -- religious, ethnic, geographic, gender, generational, and economic. Israel did not create these fault lines, and blaming Israel as the root cause of the Middle East problems won't solve any of them. There's nothing terribly interesting about disagreeing with Israeli policies, since not even any two Israel's [sic] can agree on Israeli policies. But placing all of the problems of the Middle East on a country with a tiny fraction of the area's land and population is, well, a bit much.

Grade Inflation on the Front Page of The Student Life

I was thrilled to see Jenny McCartney's piece in The Student Life about grade inflation. As astute readers of this blog will know, I'm a critic of grade inflation so it's nice to see that Oona Eisenstadt, a Pomona professor, agrees with me on the problem presented. Here's what she is alleged to have said.

"The statistics are pretty simple," said religious studies professor and TLC member Oona Eisenstadt, who believes that grades are artificially inflated. "The median grade at Pomona has been rising steadily pretty much from the 1940s to now. The median GPA is now a 10.57. That' s closer to an A- than a B+. The second stat is that we give more A's than any comparable top-ranked liberal arts college."

Looks like I know where I'm taking some of next semester's classes!

The Incident Response Team: Did They Mean to Say "Wetback"?

Dear Pomona College community,

During the evening of Monday, February 16th, equipment commonly used by our Housekeeping staff was defaced in a way that amounted to a biased-related act.  A yellow, "Caution Wet Floor, Cuidado Piso Mojado" sign in Harwood Hall was altered in such a way that resulted in a racial slur.  

The racial slur targeted the Latino/Latina community.  Any racial slur directed at any community has no place at Pomona College and this applies to all members of our community:  staff, faculty and students. . However, the fact that our Housekeeping staff is predominantly Latino/a makes this act even more intolerable.  Our Housekeepers are an important part of our community and work hard and tirelessly to contribute to our campus.  They deserve nothing less than our respect and appreciation. This bias-related act has violated the trust that is implicit in a community like ours that demands dignity, respect and civility. 

The Incident Response Team discussed this matter and decided not to re-print the slur in large part to avoid giving the offensive "author(s)" of the slur a larger audience.  The defaced placard was problematic enough and we did not want to widen the audience.  The slur that was used, like all others, has a historical context that cannot be ignored.  Its roots as a derogatory slur for Mexican immigrants to the United States go back to early in the 20th century.  However, the term gained notoriety in the 1950s when the US government, involving the border patrol, military, and local police, drove thousands of Mexicans immigrants from the US in mass operations, which included the use of fear tactics, force, and the illegal deportation of Mexican-American citizens.

Pomona College just recently ended a second run of the landmark play, "Zoot Suit" in which similar themes of injustice toward Mexican Americans were played out on stage. Faithful to the tradition of a liberal arts education, the College community was able to learn about past racial injustice and societal dynamics through the arts. Playwright Luis Valdez chronicled the racism and the scapegoating many Mexican Americans suffered during the time when the racial slur used in Harwood gained notoriety.  It seems those lessons were lost on the person(s) responsible for the bias-related act.  

Students, faculty and staff will have an opportunity to further discuss some of these issues at an all-campus forum that will be held on Thursday, March 12^th at noon in the Frank Blue Room. This forum is sponsored by the Workers Support Committee and Empowered Latino/as in Action.  

If anyone has information about this bias-related act, please contact either the Office of Campus Life (7-2239) or the Dean of Students Office (1-8017).

Sincerely,

The Pomona College Incident Response Team

Miriam Feldblum, Vice President and Dean of Students

Daren Mooko, Associate Dean of Students

Sarah Visser, Associate Dean of Campus Life

Student Representatives from:

Asian American Mentor Program

Latino/Latina Liaisons

Queer Resource Center

Women’s Union

Daren Rikio Mooko

Associate Dean of Students for

Student Development & Leadership

550 N. College Way 105

Claremont, CA 91711

(909) 607-0416

fax (909) 607-7288

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain information that may be confidential. You may not forward this message without the permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

On the Port Side's Conversation about Israel

The Claremont Conservative will be writing responses to The Claremont Port Side's newest issue.

Out of a total of eleven articles, the Port Side lamentably wrote comparatively little about the actual campus. Indeed the only article expressly addressing school issues and not the trip of some students was written about an article that initially appeared in The Claremont Independent. (I'll have more on why that article written by the Port Side is inaccurate, but I'll save my words for then.)

This lack of school coverage is unfortunate as the Port Side justifies its school-subsidy on the basis of it being beneficial for the student body. How does it benefit the school to get a left-wing perspective on international issues when they could just as easily pick up the New York Times or the L.A. Times? Where's the value-added? Where are the school specific stories? In short, why should we care what students think about x, y, z issue if it has no relevance to the school?

Still, I suppose it's worth addressing the arguments outlined in the Port Side's February issue. Let's start with the cover. Here it is. The image is of how we focus on the terrorists rather than the civilian causalities of the conflict in Israel. The "press" focuses on the jihadi but not on the dead civilian. The assumption in the article and on the cover is that the jihadi gets disproportionate coverage to the dead civilian. The continued assumption is that the news is slanted towards Israel. How does that actually hold up?

That anyone would make the claim that the media is "biased" in favor of Israel doesn't pass the blush test. Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group, has been called to task for disproportionately condemning Israel, while simultaneously ignoring far graver threats elsewhere. The BBC has long held an anti-Israel bias and tried to block a FOI request that would have revealed their bias.

Of course, many campus newspapers on campus, The Port Side and The Student Life among them, disproportionately depict Israel as an aggressor. This is unfortunately the coverage that The Port Side gave to Israel when it included a "conversation" among several students. In the spirit of that conversation, I thought I would go through their arguments and facts and see how they hold up. My responses are in italics.

What do you think Israel accomplished by going into Gaza?

David: I think it is a form of asymmetric retaliation, and all they are doing is reinforcing Hamas. They are punishing the Palestinian people, and anti-Israel backlash is imminent. It’s just like the United States during the invasion of Iraq: it’s shock and awe all over again.

CJ's response: When has anti-Israel backlash not been imminent? Even before the move into the territories, majorities of Palestinians supported suicide bombing against Israel. And just how is the situation comparable to Iraq? Israel wants to no longer be attacked by rocket fire, which it seems is a reasonable request. Should Israel have to wait for one of their citizens to die from rocket fire before they retaliate? I think not. Israel has every right to defend its citizens and to respond as proportionately as it sees fit.

Solon: I agree. Israel made a strong statement that they are increasingly willing to take internationally unsupported actions in the Middle East. It is a continuation of a trend after the war in Lebanon; Israel is readying itself for a showdown with Iran, with or without international backing.

CJ responds: "Increasingly willing to take internationally unsupported actions in the Middle East"? If by "internationally unsupported" actions, you mean defending its citizens, the U.N. charter is very clear about a state retaining its right to self defense. And if you use the U.N. as a proxy for legitimacy, the U.N's anti-Israel stance has been evident for quite some time now.

How is Israel readying itself for a showdown with Iran? Might it just as easily be that Iran has been readying itself with a showdown with the West? Iran, not Israel, has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

Becky: This disregard for international condemnation is pretty frightening, yet it has deep roots. Israelis feel like they were abandoned during the Holocaust, and that they’re abandoned now in fighting terrorism. They are understandably cynical and suspicious. Why should they trust anyone?

CJ responds: Well said. Finally something I agree with!

David: The rhetoric of the Holocaust is essential to Israeli identity. As time passes, though, I think that’s fading away among newer generations. Personally, as a Jewish person, I am fed up with the attitude that if you criticize Israel, you’re anti-Semitic.

Becky: It’s horrible. It makes me think: “What’s wrong with the Jews? Why aren’t we allowed to criticize them?”

Solon: It is a way of stifling dissent and opinions that question the infallibility of Israel.

CJ responds: The criticism against Israel is clearly disproportionate. If you single one group out for special treatment -- i. e. Israelis -- isn't it possible that you are being anti-Semitic? Where's the leftist outrage over suicide bombing, forced marriages, FGM, and more? Maybe it's easier to go into a free country like Israel and report. You had the right to go and ask questions and go about Israel.

David: At the same time, there are many Jewish people in the United States who feel obligated to support Israeli policy. So, in that sense, Israel’s policies become Jewish policies. Still, other Jews who desire a state of Israel but question the injustice of Israeli policy often are marginalized as relativistic traitors with a wavering faith.

Becky: You find the same thing in the pro-Palestinian camp. They will condemn anything Israel does, or support anything the Palestinians leadership says.

Solon: Basically, neither side is open to competing facts.

On the contrary, it might just be that your weighing of all the sides as equal to one another is more complex than simply equating Israel and the Palestinians. Israel is a multi-party state that recognizes different levels of religious pluralism, that have elections, that has a free press, that encourages the education of women, on and on and on, the arguments go. If you can't see that the Israelis are clearly being led to the slaughter, you really didn't notice much in Israel.

My FIRE Op-ed on Cato Campus's Home Page

Yours truly just became a finalist for Cato Campus.

Here's the mention in its entirety. (I ended up giving a friend the autographed copy, but I'm looking forward to (finally) reading the book that they sent.)

January Op-Eds of the Month

Congratulations to Jonathan Slemrod and Charles Johnson for winning the January Op-Eds of the Month!

Jonathan Slemrod is a junior at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His op-ed, "Cap-and-Trade Fantasies," cites Patrick Michaels (who also spoke at the University of Michigan) to argue that Obama's plan to impose cap-and-trade regulations to protect the environment will not provide the many benefits its supporters claim and will only further harm the U.S. economy. The op-ed was published by the Michigan Daily on January 27th, 2009 and is available online here. Jonathan received an autographed copy of Chris Edwards and Dan Mitchell's book, Global Tax Revolution.

Charles Johnson is a sophomore at Claremont McKenna. His op-ed "FIRE and Free Speech on Campus: Are the Claremont Colleges Violating the California Constitution?," takes a look at several historical examples where Claremont Colleges limited student free speech and the role that outside organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have played in checking the university's actions. The op-ed was published by the Clarement Independent on August 28, 2008 and is available online here. Charles received an autographed copy of The Dirty Dozen by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor.

Both Jonathan and Charles' op-eds will also be considered for the Cato on Campus Op-Ed of the Year, with a chance of receiving a full scholarship to Cato University.

PSU's Not So Great Debate Part III

Anyone ever wondering about the value of a Claremont McKenna education need only walk to Pomona during their so-called great debates. Whereas a debate by definition usually involves two people of character with an honest disagreement over the resolution before them, PSU has taken a habit of bringing speakers who agree with each other. (Remember government-run health care versus government-run health care?)

This wouldn't be bad in and of itself -- so long as people knew what they were getting -- but each time the PSU organizers promise that the debate will be well, "great," and all the while, disappointing us every step of the way.

The latest self-styled "conversation" took place in Pomona's Edwards Ballroom this past Thursday night between Nadine Strossen, formerly of the ACLU, and Mari Matsuda, a self-described critical race theorist. (Curiously, I'm reminded of something Kissinger once said of the Iran-Iraq war, " A pity they both can't lose.")

This debate was replete with the usual leftisms. As now seems policy, the moderator, true to form, mentioned the "likely" racial origins of the song, "Hail, Pomona, Hail" -- despite a total lack of evidence affirming it. Matters got worse when a student question in the Q & A said that students felt "harassed" and worried about getting home safely after PSU brought Jacob G. Hornberger, a libertarian, and Marvin Stewart of the Minute Men. (Seriously? In Claremont? Who would have attacked you? It's not like you are Republican or anything. You know, the people who have real property crime committed against them?)

Both speakers were members of the A.C.L.U. and made me remember why I have so long ago given up hope on such an organization. (To be fair, Ms. Strossen did have several good points when she argued in defense of the Brandeis professor who explained what the term "wetback" meant -- only to be punished by the administration. But if you cannot defend the right of a teacher to explain something, you really have no claim to be a "civil libertarian.")

The debate started curiously enough, with both sides citing their own ethnic histories -- Ms. Matsuda is an American of Japanese ancestry, while Ms. Strossen is an American of Jewish ancestry. Whenever someone makes an identity based argument in an issue of freedom of speech, they mislabel the entire debate. We aren't arguing for First Amendment rights because they are nice or even good, but because they are rights. A right, after all, is something that is accessible to all people at all times, irrespective of station. Any deprivation of that right must meet strict scrutiny, not the whims and fancies of other people's like or dislike.

Ms. Matsuda argued that whenever someone calls her a "J-A-P," she gets offended because that word has such "history". Presumably people should know that history and so they should defer to her and not use it. Otherwise, the word can be taken as "assault." For the sake of Ms. Matsuda's argument, we will put aside for the moment that the term "Jap" means different things in different cultures, something sure to befuddle multiculturalists who like to have their cake and eat it too. Indeed, even in the United States among Japanese-Americans, opinions are mixed about the word, "Jap." As with any good trial lawyer, she favors civil penalties for hurtful language. Such censorship, she argues, would be good because some people "misuse" their speech rights and the "collective conversation becomes too noisy" when we adhere to individual notions of free speech. She said that words can hurt people's "psyche."

Ms. Strossen to her shame conceded Ms. Matsuda's point that we need hate crime laws. This policy translates into the mistaken belief that some citizens are more equal than others and undermines the very notion of law itself. She believes that if you beat someone a Jew or an Italian and call them a kike or a Dago you ought to be punished more. Essentially, context matters and calling someone a bad name doesn't mean you should be punished more.

But true civil libertarians recognize this act of government to unravel intent as something that is totally out of the power of the sovereign. To think that you can concedes too much to an all-knowing leader who can know if we are good or not in our hearts. The state isn't Santa Claus or God. (For those looking for an entertaining attack on hate crimes, watch this clip from South Park.)

Finally, I thought it interesting that both Ms. Strossen and Ms. Matsuda said that you ought not racially profile someone. Now I happen to think that racial profiling is a perfectly legitimate practice and here's the essence of my argument, but imagine if I didn't condone it.

How do I keep in mind the history of the woman or man before me who may or may not be of a certain racial group without racially profiling? Namely, how could one that Ms. Matsuda would be offended by calling her a Jap without her as ethnically Japanese? And more importantly, should citizens be in the business of constantly thinking what the ethnicities of their fellow citizens are before they make an argument or appeal? I would wager not.

Rather Creepy Quotation from Wallace Before His Suicide

I recently came across a quotation from The Weekly Standard's June 19, 2009 issue. Given that it was a topic that had profound ramifications throughout the Pomona College community, I thought I might share it with you in its entirety. Bolding, as per usual, is mine.

In June 2005 David Foster Wallace walked onstage at Kenyon College to deliver the commencement address. Himself a writing professor at a small liberal arts college (Pomona in Claremont, California), Wallace used his speech to interrogate the cliché that a liberal arts education teaches you how to think. He summed up the basic notion as: "Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think." Fail to do this, he said in his characteristic argot of scholarly-sounding slang, and "you will get totally hosed." You may even fail to learn how to live.

Wallace then mentioned suicide:

It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.

Eerie, no? And of course, tragic. Reading the lecture today one realizes that here is a man who thinks about killing himself, but at the moment is persevering, finding the power to affirm life.

Obama and the Aztecs? A CGU Prof. At Inauguration

Change -- Aztec style

(I missed this the first time around, but I was directed to it by a friend.)

The quotation of the day is from The American Spectator and occurred at the inauguration ceremony where a CGU professor was wearing some rather, colorful clothing. The bolding, as usual, is mine.

Professor Javier Gálvez, a professor of pre-Colombian music, dance and culture at Claremont College in California, was dressed in rather impressive Aztec regalia that included feathers at least five feet long. He directs an Aztec dance group called Danzantes del Sol. He was also a local organizer for the Obama campaign and was given tickets for the inauguration.

"I support Obama because he is an indication of a new path, a change in the world, a change in this nation, and an opportunity for everybody," said Gálvez. "I believe he will bring the changes necessary to see that we have a better nation and a better world."

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at the image of a man dressed in Aztec regalia talking about the better nation and better world that Obama will usher in, but then I guess liberals have already been eating their hearts out over Obama for quite some time now.

CMC Alum, Lucas Morel, on Lincoln

CMC alum and Lincoln scholar, Lucas Morel, discusses the legacy of Lincoln with Peter Schramm of the Ashbrook Center. Schramm has taught at Claremont McKenna.

You can listen to the audio here. All in all, a nice way to end Presidents' Day.

CMC Econ. Professors on the Stimulus Package

You might remember the blog post I wrote awhile back about Professors Burdekin and Weidenmier being less than optimistic about the current economic stimulus package.

In early February, Professor Weidenmier had some tough words for it.

The president says he hopes the stimulus plan can jump-start the economy within two years, but that's a "pipe dream," according to economist Marc Weidenmier of Claremont McKenna College in Claremont.

"You might be able to do a couple of small-scale projects, but to think you can transform the U.S. infrastructure in a couple of years is ridiculous," he said.

There may be long-term benefits of the stimulus plan, but they will unfold slowly, he said, adding, "It has an economic payoff. The problem is the economic payoff is in decades, not 24 months."

On February 12, Professor Sven Arndt put in his two cents. He was a bit more optimistic, but not much.

Sven Arndt, a professor of economics at Claremont McKenna College, is guardedly hopeful that the federal plan will have some positive effects.

"This package will do some stimulating, no question about it," he said. "The question is how much ... and no one really knows for sure."

Arndt said previous efforts have fallen short.

"We've had so many government programs and they've all been touted as the medicine that will fix us," he said. "This will probably give consumers a confidence boost but it's all going to take some time."

Arndt also noted that people who receive more money aren't necessarily going to spend it all.

"We know that consumers don't spend every dollar of the income they get," he said. "And they are heavily indebted, so you'll have less of an injection into the income stream."

Matthew Spalding, CMC Alum and Scholar, on His Favorite President

It's up at National Review Online and you can view it right here. With writing like this, you can see that Spalding was one of Jaffa's students. 

MATTHEW SPALDING 
This year, everyone’s favorite president ought to be Abraham Lincoln, and the bicentennial of his birth is the perfect occasion to reassess his legacy. This is especially the case for those who have been duped into believing the old liberal claim that Lincoln was one of them, indeed, was the father of today’s unlimited government. But the modern administrative state we detest comes out of the progressive transformation that rose up after the Civil War, when progressive intellectuals looked to European thinkers for guidance, rejected America’s grounding in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and set our nation on the course of endless change and constant centralization.

Lincoln took his guidance from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. His great achievement, in probably the most trying epoch of our history, was to preserve our constitutional republic while restoring its dedication to the core principles of equality and liberty. At a time when the conservative movement is looking for its principles, Lincoln points us toward those timeless truths, “applicable to all men and all times,” that form the central idea of America. It would do us well to reread his words, and take to heart his defense of freedom.

— Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

CMC Alum Chuck DeVore's Act of Statesmanship

DeVore Addresses Reporters, Wears Bad Tie, and Is Still Running For U.S. Senate

In Sunday's Sacramento Bee, DeVore took to task the California state legislature for refusing to solve its problem of spending like drunken sailors.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, countered that the plan didn't solve the fundamental problem of state government – overspending.

"We don't go far enough to reform government," DeVore said, "and we are asking the taxpayers of California for too much of their hard-earned money to cover over a problem of our own making."

In a so-called compromise budget, some Republicans broke rank and called for $14 billion in tax increases, according to Reuters. The bill needs three Republicans to pass, but so far only has two.

Temporary tax increases include a 1 cent sales tax hike, steeper income and gasoline taxes and higher vehicle licensing fees.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore resigned from the post of Chief Republican Whip, citing the tax increases.

"The St. Valentine's Day deal to raise taxes on hard-working Californians will neither close the budget deficit nor control spending," he said in a statement.

Good for DeVore. Here's more from The Orange County Register, with relevant sections bolded.

SACRAMENTO – State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore resigned Saturday as chief Republican whip over his opposition to a massive tax increase deal brokered by Republican legislative leaders.

DeVore, R-Irvine, who is running for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's seat, said, "The St. Valentine's Day deal to raise taxes on hardworking Californians will neither close the budget deficit nor control spending. I believe leadership thinks they are doing the right thing, but I cannot be a party to this agreement as I believe it will harm California."

The compromise plan to alleviate the state's $42 billion budget deficit includes $14 billion dollars in tax increases.

In a letter to Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Fresno, DeVore wrote, "the recent agreement you negotiated to increase taxes in exchange for a spending limit will not likely accomplish the twin aims of deficit reduction and budget control that you seek.

"This proposed agreement also strikes at the heart of our longtime opposition to tax increases. Excessive taxation both harms the economy and robs hardworking Californians of a portion of their liberty. Placing our caucus squarely in line with tax increases also demoralizes our supporters, people who were counting on us to hold the line.

Now is the time for principles. Good luck to you, Mr. DeVore and may we have you in the Senate soon enough!

A Response to Ross Boomer's Post

I saw Ross Boomer's blog post, titled "A Quick Note to Our Haters (and Lovers)." Here are some quick thoughts. I suspect much of it is addressed to me, but this being the Forum, they have blacklisted me and don't even mention me by name anymore. (That's not just me saying that but several members of the Forum have written me telling me just that.)

1. Ross writes,

"Although the Forum shares the same name of what once was CMC’s official newspaper, we no longer consider ourselves a news source like The Independent, The Port Side, or The Student Life. Web 2.0 is how our generation communicates with the world, and this is the format we’ve subscribed to."

That's nice, but the preponderance of The Forum's budget comes from student fees, which is an official source of funding. Indeed when The Forum still receives student fees, shouldn't it be accessible to all students and not just the ones that Ross thinks can write? That's sort of the school policy with other clubs. Why is the Forum exempt?

After all, some of the posts on the Forum don't reflect well at all on CMC. Ross himself writes, "we’re also a group of students who waste hours on facebook stalking classmates, who constantly think about sex during our government seminars, and who are very happy to see someone like Ludacris come to campus." Forgive us, but some of us actually enjoy listening to our government seminars, don't like Ludacris, and don't use facebook to stalk people. Oughtn't we be consulted on some of the more silly or downright disgusting things written on the Forum in our college's name?

Let's continue. Ross writers further, "With a mission to provide content that students enjoy, The Forum as a news blog and student portal has no political agenda and has never striven to solely provide dry news."

The idea of a non-partisan news blog would be nice. Unfortunately, The Forum has shown its unable to do that. With blog posts attacking Mormon students and those of us who opposed homosexual marriage, it's shown that it can't be fair, even when some students asked for equal time to write posts on why they support defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That Ross calls such content "inappropriate" testifies to his inability to be a fair and judicious editor.

Ross alludes to "Recent controversy surrounding our site's right to censor inapporpriate content is unfortunate." (Ross's probably refering to when he censored my comment about homosexual activists that have targeted pro-Proposition 8 people. This, by the way, is against the spirit of the Forum in the first place. ) But why's it "unfortunate"? Is it unfortunate that Ross -- and Ross alone -- gets to decide what content will be in our "community"? I think it is and I don't think I'm alone. I'd be more than willing to have a vote on who the next Forum editor-in-chief should be. After all, if it's a community, shouldn't the community get some say?

The Forum's supposed non-ideologicalness is of interest because many of The Forum's new writers have, and some still do, write for the Port Side, the school's left wing newspaper.

Claremont Independent's First Issue of the Semester

The wait is over. The Claremont Independent is now online. It is twenty pages. 

As always, credit goes to its writers, but I would be remiss if I did not point out the excellent worko of our new layout editor George Posner CMC '12. Tina Nguyen also drew an excellent cover.

Here's a rundown of all the articles in the online edition. 

• We Stand With Ali
• Priorities, Please: ASCMC's "Lucacris" Expenditures and Accounting Are In Need of Reform
• No Heroes Need Apply: Oxtoby Says Pomona Won't Reexamine anti-ROTC Policy by Janet Alexander and Charles Johnson
• "There is No Moderate Islam": An exclusive interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Aditya Bindal, Bryce Gerard, and Charles Johnson)
• Diversity Groups and Academic Performance: Turns out, all that diversity stuff impairs success (Ilan Wurman) 
• Finances Force QuestBridge Hiatus: No QuestBridge Matches for the CMC Class of 2013 (Charles Johnson)
• Andrew Sullivan at the Athenaeum: Popular Blogger Offers Strong Emotion, but Flawed Arguments About Torture (Bryce Gerard)
• Genetics Don't Explain History: Henry Louis Gates at the Athenaeum. (Tina Nguyen)
  
• Dr. Imad Moustapha: Making Excuses for Syria (Ian Johnson) 
• Risky Business: Is It About CMC? (Chase Gray)
• Madoff Made Off with More than Money (John-Clark Levin)
• Alumni Spotlight with Miles Swarthout, the screenwriter for the Western classic, The Shootist. (Jeremy Grunert)
• Apres Bush: A Libertarian in France (Livia Romano)
• Victory in Big Sky Country (Dan Evans)

The Head Table Quota Folly

The recent policy of the Athenaeum to limit students to one head table a Fornightly is having the unintended consequences that so many of us predicted. It has meant vacancies at the head table and left the staff of the Ath scrambling to fill those seats before the speaker (or anyone else) notices.

The head table has all sorts of problems associated with it, chief among those is the requirement that the Ath fellows give introductions and sit at the head table. (Apparently, speech giving skills isn't a forte of either of the two Ath fellows this year.) 

Now I have always happened to think it's silly that both of the Ath fellows sit at the head table whenever a speaker comes to town. Sometimes the fellows know little to nothing about the speaker's accomplishments. I've called for this process to be more inclusive with more students getting to give speeches and sit at the head table. It would behoove the Ath to change the policy because the students who show an interest can also use the opportunity to network and get jobs with the speakers. 

But the current cap of one head table visit per Fortnightly is having a damaging effect on the Ath over all. I first realized this when I went to a lunch sponsored by the Salvatori Center on Chris DeMuth. The people at the Ath were asking me who ought to be bumped up to the head table. Last night, apparently, there was only one person signed up for the head table so they instituted a quick draft of the students who were present. This leads to awkward social arrangements, especially if the student had already come with someone else. 

In my view, it would be best for the Ath to repeal this policy and have a new one whereby you can only sign up for one head table per day. 

By the Numbers: 5-C Top Donors in the 2008 Election

Click on the image to see it in greater detail.

Charles and I used this website to identify the top twenty-five donations from employees of the Claremont Colleges to presidential candidates in the 2008 election. There were only four donations to Republican candidates. (We couldn't print this in the issue because we didn't have space.)

From the Claremont Independent: News in Briefs

The following didn't make it into the Claremont Independent. (The issue was simply getting too long.) We'll be sure to put it on the website when the issue is finally put to rest, but I hope you enjoy it.

· The new Athenaeum policy allowing just one head table visit per Fortnightly leaves much to be desired. Although Ath staff member David Edwards says "This new rule will allow more students to dine with our speakers," we predict that just the opposite will happen. It seems far more likely that the head table will have fewer attendees. Reserved for students with a particular interest in the speaker, the head table allows students the opportunity to break bread with some of the world’s best thinkers and is one of Claremont McKenna’s most valued institutions. What a shame then, that the Ath has instituted a policy of quotas. A wiser policy would allow students to register for one head table each day and would keep the "head table hogs" at bay.

· We wonder when the market forces of economics (or at least the babble of Organizational Pyschology) will be visited upon Story House, whose schedule vexed many a CMCer returning to campus. To quote one CMC student, its hours (10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) are equivalent to a typical work day in a European socialist state. The five hour window breeds an unwelcoming feeling among students. It would be best to pay the people at Story House overtime, stretch out the hours, and give them a few more days off during the middle of the semester. God knows they aren't using the time to bring us our mail any faster.

· Rutgers Professor Keith Wailoo’s talk at Pitzer, titled, “How Cancer Crossed the Color Line: Race and Disease in America,” promises to shatter one more glass ceiling. Before Professor Wailoo’s research, cancer discriminated and was, like the ROTC policy that so affronts Pitzer and Pomona, promptly banned. We applaud bringing cancer across the color line.

· The Forum’s Josh Siegel is at it again. We’ve been told ASCMC turned a profit on ticket sales from the Ludacris concert. We also don't know how much money they made. While in principle the concerts pay for themselves, the band fund exists to cover losses. The past two concerts, Ciara and Reel Big Fish, resulted in significant losses for ASCMC, with Ciara’s performance taking up most of the $15k budget. To cover the losses from Reel Big Fish, ASCMC had to hold a special vote to permit it to disburse additional retained earnings to cover loses. We’re sure ASCMC is prepared to give us some of our money back with all that “profit.”

· We've been informed that Pitzer's Class of 2013 is among the richest in recent memory. Not that we mind, as we don't begrudge a school for making tough choices in tough times. And tough times they are for Pitzer College. The L.A. Times reported that despite unusually good years financially, Pitzer's endowment was down 31%. We found it in especially poor form that President Laura Skandera Trombley, in her "Statement on Pitzer and the Economy," lauded her college's Gold LEED certified residence halls, at least one of which cost $29 million. Had they not gone for the gold, they might have had more greenbacks for their students.

· Staff writer Sam Corcos has uncovered something sure to light afire the standard Pitzer activism if they needed a cause célèbre du jour. Smoking is banned inside or near any of Pitzer’s Gold LEED-certified buildings. From weed to LEED, progress marches on!

· Bono, or as some would have it Bah-no, spoke to Claremont McKenna students last year. Bah-no cost $100,000 and gave barely 30 minutes of scripted questions and answers. Worse yet, students were forbidden from taking pictures of the celebrity. Compare that to Justice Antonin Scalia, who spoke for hours at various functions as part of Res Publica and cost only $10,000. Bono recently performed at a pre-inauguration concert for then President-elect Obama's coronation. Bono told MSNBC's Brian Williams that Obama’s election "strangely changes everything." We hope Bono left Obama with a bit more change than he left us.

· We've done a bit of reading on the history of the Athenaeum, which was modeled after the famous London locale of the same name. Our Athenaeum was founded to allow CMC students to hear and discuss issues with speakers known for their scientific and literary attainments. The building’s namesake, Ms. Marian Miner Cook, had hoped that "the Athenaeum would help students experience similar intellectual challenges and excitement" as those she and her husband had enjoyed.

· Naturally, we are glad the Athenaeum could add glorious and great thinkers like the participants of the Hip-Hop Conference. These modern-day Shakespeareans and Socratics bless our campus with their presence. Crooked I's lyrics in particular do not quite seem to embody the spirit of the fine arts. Still, there might just be something for the CMC student in at least one of his raps. From "Stop Snitching,"

Don't snitch, don't be a bitch

West Coast let's get rich

Flood the industry wit' gangsta hits

Smack some ass and grab some tits

Don't snitch, don't be a bitch

East Coast let's get rich

Ah yes, civilization surely prospers with the objectification of women, verbal assaults on homosexuals, and the glorification of gang banger violence. Never you mind, though, the Pomona Song Committee will censor any overtly racist, homophobic, and sexist lyrics infecting our campus. Right?

• We'd like to congratulate the Scripps students who made Dean's List last semester, but it's tough to know where to begin. More than 35% of the Scripps College student body made the cut. Don't worry, though. We're sure that the academically rigorous new class, "A Cultural History of Rap," seems a firm step in the right direction.

· Scripps Professor Gayle Greene is leading a conference on one of the more menacing things facing college students: "The Mystery of Sleep." At the conference, Prof. Greene will give a speech titled, "Sleep: Gender, Class, Race (is the Sandman an equal opportunity player?)." Presumably some groups face discrimination when it comes to a good night’s rest. Might we suggest something sure to please both diversocrats and lazy students alike? Sleep affirmative action where some groups get to sleep in longer than others. Unlike current affirmative action policies, this one might do some good.

· To the Scrippsies looking for a good night's sleep, we unequivocally suggest Pomona College. You’ll find none of it here.

· We read Andrew Benton’s Pitzer '10 from Nantes, France, where it seems Andrew and two other Pitzer students studying there have were visited by the ghost of the globalized administration. First, one of the students received a letter from the university in Nantes saying there was no record of her enrollment. Then a bill for the rent arrived, despite written promises from Pitzer College to pick up the tab. Mr. Benton, rightfully, was upset and wrote letters to the dean of Pitzer. We would, however, remind Mr. Benton that if he were looking for efficiency during his studies, he might have picked somewhere other than France (and Pitzer).

· The savage beating of 61-year-old Claremont resident Vince Gottuso, who approached those in the process of burglarizing his home, reminds us once more of the naked truth that our current campus arms policy has left us unarmed with target signs painted firmly on our doors. Just one year ago, Pomona's North campus was the scene of an armed robbery in which a girl was beaten. As unemployment numbers rise in the Inland Empire and with the hopes of deterring the dumber robbers out and about, Harvey Mudd might relax its stipulation that "water guns and handmade play weapons" "be decorated with bright colors so [that] they can be identified from a safe distance."

· We welcome the addition of another civic group in Claremont. "Drink Liberally Claremont" meets every Wednesday to drink and talk politics at a local bar. Naturally one would have to be a bit tipsy to find any arguments for socialism appealing. We counsel young women, especially, to travel in numbers and prepare their own drinks. Alas, we read in the newspaper that "people interested do not have to drink." Or was it think? We'll be rechecking the newspaper, but in the meantime, bottoms up!

· Now that the One has promised to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the policy banning homosexuals from serving openly in our nation's military, we've learned that Pomona President Oxtoby won't be ending the ban on awarding ROTC credit to Pomona students who choose to attend military science classes at CMC, despite an implicit promise from Mr. Oxtoby's predecessor to the contrary. What a queer policy indeed!

· In the august Chronicle of Higher Education, Carl Olson , a Pomona alumus, said that "having your official college song banned is a little like having your baby shot in front of you." (Just a little?) Though President Oxtoby all but banned the song, Mr. Olson promises that "Hail, Pomona, Hail," will be sung again at future campus events. (He defiantly signs all emails, "The fat lady will sing when we all get to sing.”) Mr. Olson says further that the ban came about due to "political correctness run amok." President Oxtoby, for his part, looked into the etymology of the word "amok" and noticed it came from a dead white male (Rudyard Kipling) and from Malay roots, "meaning mad with rage." A committee was convened, led by another computer science professor, and decided that such a word would offend those many students of Malay extraction and so, "amok" has now been banned at the urging of The Student Life, among others. We regret printing it.

Some Thoughts on Lincoln and Me

When I was a boy, I was a Lincoln fan. Now, as a young man, I'm a Lincoln worshipper. His is the story that we dig up to remind ourselves of the potential locked away in each American. Thank goodness for The Claremont Review of Books, which just came out with its edition commemorating Lincoln.

In fifth, sixth, and eighth grade, I won first prize in the Lincoln essay. This was a town wide contest put on by the Forbes Museum and at the time I remember that this was quite the coup. It was the first time I had ever had my picture printed in the newspaper. I remember that the year I beat the state senator's child was a special treat. It was widely thought that his Dad or someone higher up had written it on his behalf. I was thrilled that I could defeat an adult at something. I remember these three event as being decisive turning points in my life. When I won in eighth grade, I had pretty much sealed my acceptance to Milton Academy, an elite prep school in my town. At the time, it seemed as if I were going places, but whether this meant to the creamy top of the town or meant an entirely different adventure, I had no way of knowing. 

In any event, each prize came with a different book on Lincoln and a big glossy certificate, the first of which I would devour and the second of which I would lose. I got to shake hands with some of the town's leading citizens, some of whom offered to let me read their immense libraries when I complained that the public library had scarcely any books on Lincoln. I read everything they gave me, including Claremont McKenna professor Harry V. Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided, though it would be entering my freshman year of college that I fully began to understand it. And while we're on the topic of college, I remember a rather hilarious line that Lincoln had when he climbed through a college window to get to a speech, "At last I've gone through college." That such a man could rise to where he did without a single college class may say more about the state of education than any fact or figure I've read or heard. For more on Lincoln and college, might I direct you here? 

Here are my other two favorite quotations. 

"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Speech on the Sub-Treasury" (in the Illinois House of Representatives, December 26, 1839), p. 178.

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!" The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin" (September 30, 1859), pp. 481-482.

I think about both quotations whenever the times get difficult. You'll notice that neither one of them comes from the time of the Civil War. This is deliberate. I do not believe that greatness comes from events, but that it rises to meet it.