11 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/30/05 12:00pm)
The year is 1968. The United States is embroiled in a war in Southeast Asia, and former colonized nations are struggling with independence. Student rebellions are rocking cities and universities around the globe. The new generation of student activists largely rejects parental conceptions of politics, religion, morality and sexuality.
The United States is not exempt from this campus turmoil. Students are occupying administration buildings on Columbia University's campus, including President Grayson Kirk's office. They protest the newly built Morningside Heights gymnasium in Harlem (that denies residents access privileges), the University's support for the destructive war industry and the Victorian doctrine of "in loco parentis."
The campus uproar reflects students' frustrations with the stifling, conservative atmosphere at colleges and universities. Tom Hayden, a journalist and New Leftist, calls for "two, three, many Columbias," in emulation of Che Guevara's call to action for America's students.
Also in this year, David Horowitz, an acquaintance of Hayden's, begins editing a California-based newspaper called Ramparts. The paper features pieces on Fidel Castro, Marxism-Leninism and the Black Panther Party. Many people consider Ramparts the definitive voice of this new American Leftist movement.
Chances are few people have heard of Horowitz these days. He committed apostasy some years later and joined the growing neo-conservative movement as a "Leftist For Reagan." But you may have seen a manifestation of his leftist-turned-rightist pathology on the College's very own campus.
In the last couple of weeks, flyers have appeared advertising a group called Students For Academic Freedom (SAF). Horowitz, under the guise of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (a conservative front group backed by powerful right-wingers) has sponsored SAF as a vehicle for his particular brand of politics.
He has proposed a so-called "Academic Bill of Rights," which seeks to secure students' freedom from political indoctrination at the hands of faculty and an end to what Horowitz implies are rampant incidences of discrimination against conservative faculty.
This statement reminds me of the old tautology, "When did you stop beating your wife (or husband)?"
The assertion of egregious academic violations should be predicated on actual incidences, rather than those concocted in Horowitz's fertile imagination.
Rather than providing actual evidence of this discrimination, Horowitz and his followers offer shoddily researched surveys to demonstrate that many more college professors vote Democrat than Republican.
Bravo, neo-cons. As if we needed a social science survey to determine that. Sarcasm aside, it is somewhat frightening that this group is using political affiliation as a barometer for professorial suitability.
Furthermore, it is particularly interesting that the campus conservatives have now painted themselves, appropriating the rhetoric of progressives, as an oppressed minority in academia.
I have yet to shed a tear for our poor, downtrodden neo-conservatives, who hold the reigns to most other positions of power.
As Russell Jacoby quipped in this week's edition of The Nation, "If life were a big game of Monopoly, one might suggest a trade to these conservatives: You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want."
SAF misinterprets the purpose for higher education. In the humanities, scholars don't strive to "objectively" provide all sides of an issue with no purported "bias." Rather, we should learn to create and defend arguments, using a variety of evidence.
Objectivity is an impossible goal. Right-wingers throw the derogatory term "bias" at any argument with which they emphatically disagree.
The humanities departments that Horowitz targets have no obligation to cover all intellectual positions in a suitably "objective" fashion.
In addition to being impossible, it does a disservice to us as students.
The bland, antiseptic atmosphere that SAF proposes, with its purported commitment to "free inquiry," lacks the intellectual rigor and passionate engagement with the material that a liberal arts education can provide.
As students, we should be learning how to formulate arguments and to provide evidence for our opinions. This can only occur in an atmosphere with no pretenses about objectivity and in which everybody should be encouraged to profess their opinions, including the instructor.
Conversely, SAF completely ignores the economics and business departments.
Where is my academic freedom to demand Marxist instruction from a heterodox capitalist economist?
SAF seems unconcerned about its purported aim of presenting all sides of an issue if an opinion does not fall within its overly narrow range of acceptable opinions.
Horowitz and SAF perpetuate a similarly flagrant double standard when dealing with campus groups. The Progressive Student Alliance's antiwar events frequently receive the ire of these campus neo-conservatives. They accuse us of presenting "biased" information and neglecting other viewpoints.
Has anyone ever asked the College Republicans to feature other parties' candidates at their events?
What about pro-lifers? Their upcoming event is nondescriptly titled "Stem Cell Research Lecture: Adult vs. Embryonic - What's an Educated Person to Think?" It features a lecturer from the New Jersey Right To Life group imparting "all the REAL information about this issue."
Where is the self-righteous outrage at this obviously "biased" and one-sided lecture masquerading right-wing ideology as factual truth?
If SAF feels that conservatives are being penalized for expressing dissenting views, this should be addressed within our academic community.
However, their drive for objectivity, led by their puppeteer, Horowitz, transcends mere desires for intellectual fair play and belies their true intentions - to label any opinion with which they disagree as biased and attack academic free speech using McCarthyist intimidation tactics.
(02/23/05 12:00pm)
I admit, with a twinge of pride, that I made Sodexho's "Enemies List" as a member of the "group of 15 to 20 students" who took advantage of their Free Breakfast for Students Program each morning this semester, as detailed in last week's Signal.
As soon as I realized Sodexho's technical error, I made sure to rise early each morning, head to Eickhoff Hall and enjoy a leisurely, free breakfast courtesy of Dick Macedonia, the American CEO of Sodexho, Inc.
One morning, the proverbial gravy train ran dry. I cut my losses and started paying the $3.75 for my cereal in the morning.
However, while reading the Feb. 16 edition of The Signal over breakfast that morning, I nearly choked on my Rice Krispies to discover that the "Free Breakfast 15" and the other hardened bagel criminals would be retroactively saddled with the burden of reimbursing Sodexho for their $1,800 technical blunder.
To put it mildly, Sodexho sure has some nerve.
First, for Sodexho to penalize students for its own mistake is audacious to say the least. The management will consult its Orwellian computer database, detailing the minutiae in the eating habits of the College's student body and retroactively charge us for a glitch in its system.
Ironically, the computer problem leading to the free breakfasts resulted from the Carte Blanche system that Sodexho foisted upon us.
The amount of hubris contained within this action is astounding. But no matter. According to my right as a red-blooded American consumer, I can issue a loud "harrumph" when displeased with the actions of a company and indignantly take my business elsewhere, right?
Wrong. This is certainly not the case with the food service on our campus.
Privatization of services on our campus and in other kinds of self-sustaining environments operates the same way as Robber Baron company stores during the Gilded Age.
As you know, if you live on campus, a meal plan with Sodexho is mandatory. The corporation is free to gouge us with high prices and engage in questionable business practices without fear of losing customers. And the latter is perhaps the strongest motive for protesting the monopoly that Sodexho holds over the College.
Sodexho's corporate practices range from unethical to just plain illegal.
Did Jim Crow discrimination end with Brown v. Board of Education, whose anniversary the College celebrated this year?
Apparently not for Sodexho, a company to which we students are forced to fork over thousands of dollars each year.
On April 25, 2005, a federal judge will hear class-action lawsuit filed against Sodexho for alleged systematic racial discrimination in the hiring and promotion of its black employees.
Sodexho has successfully stalled the case since 2001, when 10 employees charged the multinational corporation with racial discrimination.
Since then, the number of plaintiffs in the case skyrocketed to over 2,600. Sodexho's institutionalized racism will likely cost it $1 billion. Witnesses in the lawsuit charge that Sodexho consciously railroaded its black managers into the less prestigious locations, which they dubbed the "black accounts."
Additionally, an astounding two-thirds of all Sodexho locations have no black managers, according to the lawsuit.
Just to make clear that my anger resides firmly with the Sodexho executives and corporate stuffed-shirts and not with the workers, we need to call attention to Sodexho's blatantly unfair labor practices.
Among union folks, Sodexho is reviled for its widespread union-busting tactics. Only between 12 and 13.75 percent of Sodexho employees (excluding non-eligible managers) are unionized.
To achieve this dismally low number, as compared even to its competitors, Sodexho actively engages in anti-union activities.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that Sodexho actively violated workers' rights by forbidding meetings during scheduled breaks and intensely interrogating employees about their union sentiments, giving them the impression that their jobs were at stake.
Sodexho claims on its Web site that it pays its employees a "living wage," which they consider to be "between $7 and $8 per hour."
It doesn't take an economist to realize that living on a wage of $7 per hour is damn near impossible today, without even accounting for a family.
And these numbers don't even include benefits, which are hard to come by in the Sodexho family.
I hardly feel guilty that I ranked among the students who took advantage of Sodexho's free breakfasts. In 1999, the international CEO of Sodexho paid himself $25 million, which is more than 1,700 times the wage for non-union workers.
In 2003, Sodexho announced its full-year profit as a robust $191 million.
I think that the executives in this multinational corporation can afford to absorb their $1,800 computer glitch at the College, without passing it onto the students or further harming its poor workers.
However, the picture is not entirely bleak. Though we now have no choice but to give our money to Sodexho, they operate on a contract with the school.
Enough pressure from the student body about the terrible manner in which Sodexho treats its employees and customers will force concessions from the company in the interests of renewing its contract.
We might have to temporarily live under Sodexho's monopoly, but that doesn't mean we must live silently.
(09/23/03 12:00pm)
"Don't Be A Pussy! Be a Panther" read the flyer I saw posted in my residence hall, and later noticed all over campus. An advertisement for the fraternity Alpha Psi Chi, the flier also featured a heavily muscled depiction of the forementioned member of the feline family.
In case you didn't pick up on the wickedly hilarious double-entendre, the slogan asserts that you should be a big cat such as a panther, not a puny pussycat.
Further, it can also be interpreted on a "deeper" level that you should aspire to be muscular and tough, not a "pussy," or wimp, fairy or any number of other terms used to denigrate men who fail to live up to societal expectations of uber-masculinity.
I can't fathom how this particular flier made it through Campus Life to be approved. And this is far from a free speech issue. As far as I'm concerned, free speech on campus does not include marginalizing or intimidating any member of our community.
With that disclaimer out of the way, we need to examine exactly what the word "pussy" implies, because the issue is larger than some fliers posted by a fraternity.
As we all know, use of this and similar invectives is not monopolized by one group, or limited to the campus. This kind of language and the mentality it infers is saturated in our society.
On the literal level, "pussy" is a term for a woman's vagina. The vagina would, I suppose, constitute the most basic symbol of femininity.
Sex is a biological fact. It isn't much of an insult, when you really think about it, to state that a certain man is a woman. It is an allegation which the target of the insult can easily disprove.
However, this type of insult is not directed toward biology, but rather towards gender. The difference is that gender, as opposed to sex, is a social construct. This distinction opens the floodgates to societal implications stemming from the concept of gender and gender roles.
Since birth, we have been indoctrinated with our gender roles. In nearly every facet of life, certain expectations are created for young boys and young girls.
A plethora of examples spring forth from my childhood. I played with action figures, not dolls. I participated in neighborhood football games, not hopscotch or jump rope.
The onslaught of puberty added a new dimension to my and my male peers gender identities. Now, in addition to previous gender expectations, we were forced to constantly assert our heterosexuality.
This leads to the other implication of such insults as "pussy," which is a reference to homosexuality in the pejorative sense.
Beginning around the middle school years, this charge became the ultimate insult. Men had to prove that they were "real men." This usually involved macho posturing and usually the degradation of women in an effort to assert heterosexuality. The panther on Alpha Psi Chi's poster evidently symbolizes that this is not a thing of our middle school past.
In addition to the muscular stereotype of men, we are supposed to be aggressive and emotionless, except for anger, jealousy and other manly emotions.
It is taboo for men in our society even to show non-sexual affection for other men in public. Cooking, cleaning and nurturing are probably out of the question for anti-pussies such as Alpha Psi Chi. I could go on for much longer, but I'll leave it up to the reader to add examples from her or his own life.
Further, failure to comply with these rules will lead to being branded gay. Are we really so backwards as a society that somebody's expression of human love and affection is used as an insult?
In college, it seems that gay baiting is less public and pronounced than it was in middle and high school.
However, as evidenced by the poster, it still very much exists. In society at large, although many legal strides were made recently, homophobia still exists.
Ultimately, gender roles keep people from reaching their fullest potential as human beings.
In addition, it is irresponsible for campus organizations, with tacit support from the school, to contribute to the solidification of confining gender roles and the vilification of homosexuality.
(09/09/03 12:00pm)
Upon my acceptance to the College, I encountered the same question from relatives, friends of the family and coworkers: "Which college of New Jersey are you going to?"
Most people it seems are still in the dark about the name change. Many need to be told "Trenton State College" to be able to recognitize the institution.
As the name change happened in 1996, years before my time at the College, I was unable to witness firsthand the outrage of students, faculty and alumni alike. However, into my second semester here, my fellow freshmen and I received a taste of the same thing in both the logo change and academic transformative change.
These are topics which have been driven into the ground with debate. However, fresh issues connect these events and some other changes being implemented within the administration.
These issues are power and consent.
For all of these changes, the slap in the face was the lack of consent among the campus community. Both were done very quietly, and announced after the fact, limiting campus voices.
With transformative change, there were meager opportunities for students and faculty to express concerns.
The catch was that all of these opportunities for dissent came after the policy was announced for the next semester, making any kind of questioning irrelevant and nothing more than a planned public relations event.
The fact remains that we are getting 20 percent less instruction time for our money, and "transformed" seems to only mean reading an extra book or completing a longer paper.
This is power, the ability to make major changes without consent. The administration wields this power with arrogance.
Which brings us to this year's underhanded dealings. Without any campus input whatsoever, the administration is restructuring Campus Life, a department essential for anyone working with campus organizations.
The restructuring of Campus Life has recently been announced to the student body by Student Government Association (SGA). This restructuring will cause many changes, including the reassignment of some student organization's advisers.
The power motif again surfaces with this burgeoning debacle. Decisions and changes are being made behind closed doors, with the campus in the dark. Any attempt they make will simply be a waste of breath, as the changes are already in the works.
To add insult to injury, the attitude conveyed by most members of the administration to representatives of the student body inquiring about the issue have been that they can do whatever they want because the students will do nothing about it.
And because of this conception of the students, the administration has felt they can do whatever the hell they feel like doing because they know they'll get away with it.
This is the final straw. Too much has been done behind our backs and without our consent. In no other realm of society is this kind of abuse of power tolerated. In politics people form interest groups, write letters and protest to have their voice heard. In the workplace, people join unions to increase the democracy of the office, place of business, or jobsite.
But yet we are made to feel like we simply have to accept whatever is thrown our way, even if it is not in our best interest. And we're paying good money for this?
College is supposed to be a microcosm of the so called "real world." I would like to believe that the world functions more democratically, but perhaps I am being naive and our College administrators are simply showing us how society actually works.
As members of the campus community, we need to recognize these power trends. They are not isolated issues, such as logo or name changes, but rather part of a larger picture. We are not doormats to be walked upon, nor puppets to be manipulated for the gain of others.
I urge the administration to help facilitate the same facets of societal democracy on our campus.
This entails actively striving to incorporate all members of our community into the decision making process, including students, faculty and campus workers.
The hubris that has been shown over the past years is utterly amazing, and if not curbed, will cause irreparable damage to the intellectual and democratic fabric on which the nature of our institution is based.
(04/29/03 12:00pm)
Well, my first year of college is coming to an end, so I'm gonna be a clich? and reflect upon it. If you are a prospective freshman on a tour and pick up The Signal, here's the real deal.
I had no idea of what to expect when coming to the College. In the time leading up to the Fall 2002, I heard a lot about the school. The first thing many people said was, "It's all white kids!" The second thing I heard from some current students was something usually like, "You have to join a frat to have anything to do."
Needless to say, I hoped neither was true.
What I found upon arrival was actually a mix between truth and rumor. Statistically, the number of minorities on campus is small compared to many other schools. I have found, however, that they make up for small numbers in other ways.
The minority student organizations have consistently arranged some of the best cultural and social programs, ranging from Affirmative Action mobilization to Chuck D of Public Enemy performances.
As for the Greek life, the minorities again saved the day.
Some members of the frats and sororities often appear to strive to be the stereotypes depicted in "Animal House." I've read about the petty disagreements between sports teams and the frats, or about the ridiculous squabble over stolen pizza reported in the April 15 edition of The Signal.
However, the minority frats and sororities do a lot of meaningful things in addition to social events, including community service and helping to introduce a class on the American Holocausts, which sounds incredible.
While these two myths about the College were partially dispelled, there were other things, both positive and negative, which I found out for myself upon arrival.
I have found the faculty here to be amazing. I have been in contact with so many great professors, both in and out of the classroom. Some people bemoan the College's "liberal faculty."
Sometimes the word "liberal" is being used to disparage and discredit these professors, rather than provide an accurate assessment of the faculty.
It's a shame that College professors who are forward-thinking, compassionate and possess a social conscience are simply dismissed as liberals.
The student body of the College as a whole is another interesting aspect of school. I'd have to assume that the students here are pretty typical, as at any similar college. I have met many great people and made some stong friendships. I've gotten involved with some great groups as well.
On the whole, I think it is hard to accurately categorize a large group of people as "active" or "indifferent." As in any situation, there will be those that don't give a damn about anything outside their little spheres. In terms of our campus, I've encountered some instances of apathy.
However, I have arrived at the conclusion that most students here do care about the world around them. Everyone shows compassion in different ways. Some take the streets in protest. Some write letters to the editor. Others simply discuss their ideas in class. All are valid forms of activism.
Finally, I'd like to thank the staff of The Signal for printing me week after week. They are a great group of people, and, above all, fair to all points of view.
I've heard some criticism about the paper.Again, that dreaded L word, liberal, is used to describe the paper and the staff. However, I have found that they are very fair, impartial, and professional.
All in all, I'd say that this year has been far from a waste. Personally, I have grown a great deal and learned so much in such a short time. Although the College seems to get a bad rap in many respects, no school is perfect.
Despite all the problems, I plan to be here for the remaining three years. With the College, you have to be in it for the long haul, for better or worse.
(04/08/03 12:00pm)
"Virtually all students asked about the logo change said they were against it," read a sentence of the lead article about the logo change rally in the Trenton Times last Wednesday. The article went on to quote a College student who said, "Every little thing, there are rallies about." Then came the qualifier that made my jaw drop: "This actually matters."
I recognize that the logo change is important to the campus community. Although I won't go too deeply into it, I am displeased with the change and the way in which the College handled it. However, to claim that this issue is the only thing on campus worth rallying for is mind-boggling.
The U.S. is at a crucial point in history. There are thousands of lives on the line in this, as well as other, global conflicts. These lives include not only innocent civilians, but also the U.S. servicemen and women.
The point of this piece is not to attack the particular student who made this comment, but rather address this mindset, which I think is fairly common among our campus community.
Our campus has been active regarding the war, holding rallies presenting different perspectives.
There have been several anti-war rallies and vigils on campus. There were two marches and a large student/faculty teach-in. In addition, there has been a good deal of fliers and literature available on the subject.
On the other side of the issue, flyers reading "Support Our Troops" have been placed around campus. The College Republicans, held a rally earlier last week in support of the troops.
I think it's fairly safe to say that on campus, all bases have been covered in terms of the war. There are opportunities to express sentiment on both sides of the issue.
Apart from the war, there are many other issues at the forefront of society, and therefore at the forefront of the campus community (as the College is a microcosm of society).
In our world there is strife in the Middle East, questions of the extent of our civil liberties at home, the issue of abortion and many others. Again, there are ample opportunities to voice opinion on either side of these issues.
Like I mentioned, I feel the logo change was done for ridiculous and pretentious reasons, was economically wasteful and was done behind the backs of the students and faculty. However, it is hardly a life or death issue.
The quote in the Trenton Times unfortunately projects a poor image of College students to the surrounding community. It suggests that, with everything else going on the world that is weighing heavily on America's people, the future of the nation is preoccupied with a graphic design.
Forget all that administrative garbage and marketing crap about image. Think about the image we as students and members of an intellectual community are projecting with this type of attitude.
The College is a good school, a "public ivy," as our administration will spew and, thus, must have intelligent students. It would seem natural that the intelligence of the student body would manifest itself in an interest in current events.
I think that the problem lies in the insular aspect of the campus. We need to recognize that there is a world beyond the College and the clock tower.
This is a world with many problems and it is a world that we will inherit from our parents.
We can only improve ourselves and the world around us by recognizing that, indeed, a world does exist outside the bounds of the College.
I agree that the underhanded logo change warrants protest, but there are certainly more pressing issues in our communities. This is an important fact for our campus to recognize.
(04/01/03 12:00pm)
"Support our troops" seems to be the battle cry from those in power these days. Not support our President, not support this war, but support our troops.
Unfortunately, this insidious bit of propaganda lends tacit support to the actions of President Bush and his ruling coterie.
After all, who wouldn't want to support our troops? These are our sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends and parents. However, they are also victims.
They are victims of an evil game of chess, wherein they are pawns moved by the administration without a care.
It is not the ruling class that will risk their lives to reap these profits. I believe N.Y. Rep. Charles Rangel in his assessment of the military, stating that "a disproportionate number of the poor, and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."
Evidence for this disparity can be seen frequently in advertisements featured in magazines and on television channels targeted to youth.
Enlistment is pitched to young people, promising rewards of college tuition and job training. It is evident to which socio-economic classes military recruitment is geared.
I support the U.S. soldiers. I support them because they are victims, unwittingly placed in harm's way for an unjust cause
I protest not only because I value the lives of the Iraqis, but because I support our troops.
Now that the United States is actually at war, the inclination is to abandon former feelings about the issue and get behind our soldiers. However, this mindset is dangerous.
Consider this example: a woman feels that war with Iraq would be wrong, mirroring the feelings of a large percentage of people pre-March 20.
This woman feels that sending American soldiers to fight in Iraq would be wrong.
However, the Bush administration, disregarding opposition, both international and domestic, attacks Iraq. Suddenly, social pressure forces this woman to "support our troops." Now, any sentiment against the war is uncouth, as it will supposedly hurt morale.
Is this really the kind of support our troops need or even want?
Even worse, this kind of mentality gives Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants, simply by placing the troops in the middle.
Call them human shields against popular dissent.
By exploiting the good names of American soldiers, faux support has been created for war. There have been several misleading surveys offering a "support the troops" choice.
When the surveys were made public by some news media, those who chose this option were counted among those in favor of war.
Also, take the example of these "Rallies for America," a name which insinuates that the anti-war rallies, a staple of democratic freedom, are not "for America." One was held recently in Valley Forge, Pa.
To sum up, both our troops and the Iraqis are innocent victims of the power struggles of our respective ruling classes.
The Bush administration has convinced many Americans that the only way to support our troops overseas is to stand behind the decisions of the administration, even if we don't agree.
I maintain the best way to support the troops is to protest this unjust war, and bring them home safely.
Simply falling in line with Bush, despite feelings that the war is wrong is doing a disservice to our young men and women in the armed forces.
(03/25/03 12:00pm)
After President Bush has proceeded with war, ignoring all dissent (as not to be ruled by focus groups), the storm of protest has been immense. On the morning after the war began, people took to the streets to express their displeasure with the Bush administration's actions.
As there has been all along, these demonstrations included a wide range of protesters. Students, union members, teachers, elderly, anarchists, Democrats and clergy, just to name a few, marched side by side.
What separated these demonstrations from the others leading up to this point was the prevalence of civil disobedience.
I have heard many people, both in the media and members of the public, criticizing these actions. However, what they all fail to realize is the necessity of civil disobedience to any social movement.
American history textbooks are rife with examples of civil disobedience. The American Revolution was instigated by such acts as the Boston Tea Party, which was simply property destruction to make a point.
Thomas Jefferson, in penning the Declaration of Independence, justified the disobedience of the colonists. Further, he stated that Americans from this point forward would have not only the right, but the duty, to disobey a government acting outside of their interests.
The great American author Henry David Thoreau wrote a paper on this subject. The United States was at war with Mexico in Thoreau's time, however, his words still ring true today. He declared the state was simply a tool used by the ruling class to reach their own goals in "the present Mexican war."
He felt that the American people should disobey the laws of the State, as the government failed to act in the interest of the masses. Replace the word "Mexico" with "Iraq" and you have an accurate assessment of the current situation.
I guess some things never change.
Martin Luther King, Jr., who read Thoreau, applied the theories of civil disobedience to the struggle for civil rights. The most famous and powerful images of the Civil Rights Movement involve instances of non-violent civil disobedience.
The point has arrived where the government no longer represents our interests, and direct action has become a necessity.
This war, a war of economic imperialism, is a prime example of the oppression of the ruling class, both in American and Iraq. Saddam is a dictator who has oppressed his people for years, stealing food from their mouths and giving it to his elite class.
Bush, under the guise of liberating Iraq's people and defending the world, has invaded Iraq to topple Saddam and install a new regime sympathetic to American business. Who will put their lives on the line to "decapitate" a dictator whose rise to power was assisted by the U.S. 30 years ago? Not Bush's kids, not Powell's kids, not Rumsfeld's kids and not Cheney's kids. The children of the working class will be the most likely to do this job. It is simply an example of the working class exploited at the gain of the ruling class, and, although not as pronounced, follows the same principles as Saddam's exploitation.
These are drastic times, as the lives of innocent American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians are on the line, and they call for drastic measures. All around the country, concerned people have been engaging in acts of civil disobedience. These actions are crucial to stepping up the anti-war activity. In our area, hundreds of people have submitted themselves for arrest by blocking streets, intersections and government buildings from pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
In fact, I would like to dedicate this article to my comrades at Rutgers-Camden, who are now facing heavy penalties for shutting down the Federal district of Camden in protest of the unjust actions of the government.
The willingness to disobey laws dictated by an unjust governing body shows incredible dedication to humanity. The civil disobedience in this era of social movement will stand in a long history, reaching back to the birth of the nation. Those who participated will be remembered among the true Patriots, rather than those who blindly followed Bush's death edict for our troops and innocent Iraqis.
(03/18/03 12:00pm)
Unfortunately, war looks likely for the near future. All anti-war sentiment aside, there is just one small problem with the push for war: it will violate international law.
It's funny because the main reason given by the Bush administration for war is that Saddam Hussein has violated international law, specifically U.N. Resolution 1441.
There are several problems surrounding the international law debate. First, Resolution 1441, passed last November by the U.N. General Assembly, is a reminder to Iraq that failure to disarm would be a serious matter.
Bush has interpreted this document to suit his own purposes. The resolution makes no references to use of force as a consequence. In fact, the U.N. General Assembly has no power to authorize force. Only the U.N. Security Council can sanction military aggression.
France has made it clear that under no circumstances will it allow the use of force against Iraq. French leader Jacques Chirac has even said that he will personally come to New York to cast the veto.
A tide of sophomoric American ire has been set loose on the French, as they are ensuring war with Iraq will not be legal in the eyes of the international community.
We've all heard the proposals in the U.S. House, such as changing the word "French" in certain cafeteria items to "Freedom," and even the morbid proposal to exhume bodies from the World Wars buried in France and bring them back to American soil.
I have seen my seven-year-old cousin act with more maturity when he fails to get his way. The juvenile whining of politicians does not stop with silly attacks against the French. The implications get much more serious.
Conservative pundits and letters to the editor have begun to attack the United Nations itself in the wake of its stalling on war with Iraq.
Its usefulness and its authority has been questioned. These attacks are to pave the way for an attack on Iraq without U.N. Security Council authorization, which will be the Bush administration's last resort.
An attack on Iraq without U.N. approval will be insanely dangerous and prove America's arrogance, once again.
All countries in the United Nations are expected to abide by its laws, which constitute international law. Such treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by Congress are supposed to be held to the highest respect, equal to the respect held by the U.S. Constitution.
It is debatable whether or not Iraq violated international law, with respect to Resolution 1441. At any rate, 1441 does not authorize military action. An attack on Iraq will make the U.S. guilty of violating international law.
Some conservatives have been stating what is becoming obvious to many: "so what if we violate international law, there is no official U.N. enforcement!"
Unfortunately, this is true. They also use this fact to bolster their case on the uselessness of the United Nations.
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the U.S. made sure that there would be nobody to enforce international law. This happened when the U.S. exercised its veto power, much like France is threatening to do now, in reference to the International Criminal Court, or the ICC.
The ICC was proposed to be a place to bring justice against those who have violated international laws. These include war criminals such as Saddam.
However, the United States recognized the threat that such a court would pose, including the potential to bring to trial every single living former President, not to mention top officials who orchestrated certain attacks or events.
Therefore, the ICC was voted down due to U.S. veto. When people take potshots at the effectiveness of the U.N., it must be recognized that some of its perceived official powerlessness is the fault of the U.S. and its killing of the ICC.
Although there may be no official international retribution from the U.N. for an unauthorized attack on Iraq, the United States will be vilified throughout the world. If Bush violates international law, it will simply be proof of American arrogance and hypocrisy.
Proceeding with military action will be horrendous. However, with all of the big talking on the part of the Bush administration, I unfortunately don't see them getting out of this mess without bombing something.
(03/04/03 12:00pm)
I love getting hate mail. The best part of my (pathetic) week is flipping to the letters section of The Signal to see if I've pissed anybody off. If so, I know that I've been doing my job.
Of all the things I've encountered at college, the apathy of students is the most frustrating. The malaise affecting college students - that too much work/too little sleep/partied too hard to care about anything attitude - makes me want to scream.
Sometimes it seems as if the majority of the College is doomed to easily make the transition into Middle America: a black hole of cultural and intellectual discourse, and a group of people too moderate to have a real opinion on anything.
So, when an angry letter comes back to the newspaper, I can take some solace in the fact that somebody has an opinion on something.
I hold no delusions of grandeur that my writing will make the student body rush to join the Socialist Party or denounce capitalism and become anarchists. However, my main goal in writing this time-consuming column each week is to influence students to examine their own beliefs and societal influences.
As young people, we are bombarded from all sides by forces attempting to mold us: our parents, friends, the government, religion, schools, the media and the list goes on. Each force has its own agenda. To hold an intelligent and well-thought-out opinion, we must examine and question these sources of information and the motives behind them.
For starters, you should be questioning my writing.
However, many of the letters printed in The Signal stink of reactionary thought and blind jingoism. My point in writing this rambling piece is to eliminate some of this garbage and encourage intelligent debate. Calling me names, like communist traitor, is not a valid argument. Just a simple concept we all learned in rhetoric class freshman year.
I've been noticing that as a war looms closer and closer, a greater number of people have begun to "rally 'round the flag." Unfortunately, this mindset hearkens back to stains on American justice.
For example, Rep. Howard Coble from North Carolina likened the situation of "Arab-Americans" to the WWII era situation of Japanese-Americans. He then defended the internment of Japanese-Americans (keyword being Americans), implying that this would be an acceptable solution to the "problem" of Arab-Americans and terrorism in this country.
Therefore, I urge everyone to see past this nationalist attitude when formulating opinions regarding current situations. Of the societal forces I previously mentioned, the government has been one of the most powerful influences on public opinion as of late. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of ulterior motives that first must be considered.
It is easy to simply submit to this popular tide of patriotism. What is harder to do is question the decisions of the people elected to speak for us.
Whether or not a representative democracy is the most desirable form of government is a subject for debate; however, most people do acknowledge that this system, as in any system of government, inherently has flaws. Why then, if it is generally agreed upon that our system has flaws, questioning the motives of our leaders is branded by many as un-American?
If you still disagree with me after sifting through the rhetoric, both on the right, the left and the government, as well as after examining all the influences in your life, I look forward to hearing from you in the pages of The Signal.
Only through careful consideration and impartial research can we participate in thoughtful discourse.
(02/25/03 12:00pm)
Although the strife within Israel has been overshadowed in the last couple of months due to media focus on Iraq, I predict that certain factors will cause issues involving Israel to surface in the near future. Groups on both sides, Zionist and anti-Zionist, will relate the conflict with Iraq to their own views on Israel.
I have come to reject organized religion as a personal and ideological choice for myself. I was still given a full Jewish upbringing, including attending Hebrew school for 12 years.
However, I am against the policies of the Israeli government, United States support of this government and their policies, and ultimately question the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
After the Holocaust, there were a large amount of Jewish refugees who were unable or unwilling to return to Europe. The Allies did not want to be inundated with these Jews, so they pushed for the creation of a Jewish state in 1948 to house the refugees.
However, 750,000 indigenous Palestinians had been living in the newly consecrated nation since the time of the Ottoman Empire.
When the Israelis entered, the Palestinians were either forcibly expelled from their homes or simply fled in terror at the sight of the powerful Israeli militias, who were soon to become the Israeli Army.
Although the U.N. mandated that the Israeli government pay reparations to these displaced Palestinians, they have yet to pay anything.
A second issue is the military occupation of the territories. In the War of 1967, Israel occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
They are forced to pass through humiliating military checkpoints. The checkpoints impede the transit of things such as food, medicine and even ambulances rushing to the hospital.
These are only a few examples of the acts of oppression committed against the Palestinian people.
These acts are not publicized anywhere close to the extent to which the American mass media highlights the acts of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Palestinian suicide bombers kill innocent people. However, the fact that the only solution they see is to kill themselves, along with Israelis, demonstrates the hopelessness of their situation.
And, to make matters worse, the Israelis respond to these attacks with brutal force against the Palestinian community from which the bomber came.
I am embarrassed to hear Zionist Jews speak about maintaining control of Israel at any cost, especially since the history of Jews since recorded time has been one of oppression.
From the repercussions surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus, to the Crusades, to the Holocaust, Jews have traditionally been on the receiving end of persecution.
It is boggling how in 1948, only a few short years after the liberation of the concentration camps, Jewish people could occupy the land of an indigenous people and use terror to force them into ghettos.
History teaches us that in order to justify the oppression of a group of people, they must first be dehumanized in the eyes of the general population of the would-be oppressors.
Slavery in America was justified to the majority of Americans, because blacks were portrayed as three-fifths of a human being.
The Holocaust was justified to the Nazis because the Jews were not members of the so-called "master race."
And the oppression of the Palestinians is justified because they are portrayed by many leaders in the Jewish community, the corporate mass media (news, television, movies) and by everyday people as bloodthirsty terrorists and killers.
Because Palestinians, Muslims and other people of Arab descent are given this subhuman status, the dominant Israelis are able to kill innocent people, steal land and property and subjugate the Palestinians with little consequence.
Non-Jews who speak out against the Israeli government and U.S. support of the Israelis are labeled as anti-Semites. Jews who speak out against Israel are accused of being self-hating.
These accusations imply that being Jewish and Zionist is one in the same. This is most certainly not the case.
Jews, and also non-Jews, need to apply the lessons of history to the current crisis in Israel.
Jews as a people need to acknowledge that what is happening to the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis is morally and legally wrong. Jews, of all people, should know how the hand of oppression feels, and begin to change policies and mindsets regarding the Palestinian people.