the brown spectator: may 2006

www.brownspectator.com

THE May 2006

Volume IV Issue IIBROWN

Inside

SPECTATORSPECTATOR

Designated SuppliersAnother Look

page 13

Repeat of 1994?You Must Be Joking

page 9

No More Starf*ckingNo More La*ghing Stock

page 3

Not Left EnoughSenator Hillary Clinton Booed at Brown University

page 2

page 5

Battle of the BookstoreTo Outsource or Not To Out-source?

Tolerance Is Crap page 4

BDH Guilty of Viewpoint Discrimination

page 6

page 8

What to do About Illegal Immigration

Brown at the Tipping Point

page 17

Why I’m Not Recycling page 7

2

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

Pratik Chougule

The Brown Spectator is a journal of conservative thought and opinion published by The Foundation for Intellectual Diversity and funded in part through the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Collegiate Network.The Brown Spectator is constituted through the Undergraduate Council of Students of Brown University.

Editor-in-Chief

Contributing

Editors-at-Large Stephen Beale Brian Bishop Travis Rowley

Joanna M. JolyProduction Editor

Letter From the Editor


Editor

©

The BrownMay 2006 SpectatorSpectator

Not Left EnoughSenator Hillary Clinton Booed at Brown University

“Hillary” continued on page 10...

Jason CarrLorenna EllisAndrew KurtzmanLindsey Brett Meyers

Pratik Chougule

The Brown Spectator is a journal of conservative thought and opinion

committed to the dissemination and discussion of the ideas and values of Western Culture. In light of President Simmon’s renewed commitment to intellectual diversity, we recognized that while intellectual diversity requires tolerance of the majority, it is equally contingent on the presence of an active minority.

A conservative presence is needed now more than ever to counter political

correctness, moral relativism, and other

consequences of the leftist domination. Travis Rowley’s new book, Out of Ivy: How a Liberal Ivy Created a Committed Conservative, for example, provides great insight into the challenges we continue to face at Brown.

We strongly encourage a broad coalition of open-minded liberals, and conservatives-

A conservative presence is needed now more than ever to counter political correctness, moral relativism, and other consequences of the leftist domination.

both paleo and neo conservatives,

libertarians and legal authoritarians, and “enlightened” Democrats to write for the Spectator. We also welcome letters to the editor concerning the contents of our issues.

Pratik Chougule ’08 is the Editor-in-Chief of The Brown Spectator.

Pratik Chougule

About 60 protestors gathered outside of Brown University’s Meehan Auditorium on Saturday,

ready to express their anger at the upcoming lecture about to begin. A ferocious crowd of students and faculty furiously chanted and waved signs with slogans ranging from: “TROOPS HOME NOW,” to “YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS” to “REMEMBER HIROSHIMA- REMEMBER VIETNAM.” Who were these leftist activists so enraged at? Bush?

Cheney? Rumsfeld? Actually no. It was Hillary Clinton.

Though Clinton had been invited by the University to lecture on women’s leadership, protesters were primarily objecting to Clinton’s complicity in the war in Iraq and her failure to take a stand against the “Bush Administration’s imperialism,” according to one of the organizers of the protest. She continued, “Clinton’s record on the war in Iraq and now on Iran is pretty terrible.” Another protester lambasted Clinton on her record on women’s rights. “How can she claim to stand for women’s rights?” she asked, “She

really doesn’t care about Iraqi women.” After criticizing American troops in Iraq for intentionally running over children on sidewalks, another protester screamed, “This is the democracy Hillary Clinton wants for the American people? … What deals are you making for the oil and for your presidency, Clinton?”

Things only got uglier as the lecture began. As Hillary was introduced to the crowd, an array of “BOOOS”

echoed throughout the auditorium. After

SPECTATORTHE BROWNSPECTATOR

Front page photos (from top to bottom) courtesy of the Brown Daily Herald’s Jacob Melrose, Jean Yves Chainon, and Jacob Melrose.

3No Starf*cking This Spring


Queer Alliance Prohibited From Embarrassing UsJohn Nagler

As a result of the Queer Alliance’s “Sex Power God” (SPG) party crashing and burning last fall,

“StarF*ck,” the dance’s spring incarnation, will not be held. My thoughts on the matter can be summarized with two words: good riddance.

For the past several years, the Queer Alliance (QA) parties have embarrassed Brown, alumni, and, according to several members of the QA, many homosexual students. Some believe that the parties are a wonderful chance for gays to come out and be themselves in a safe, open atmosphere. That, of course, is absolute malarkey: anybody who has heard stories, read EMS records, or seen Bill O’Reilly’s footage of SPG last fall, knows that these parties are anything but safe and open. (While this article is absolutely not an endorsement of Bill O’Reilly’s coverage of SPG, his video-recording serves as an excellent reference point.)

Instead of being safe and open, QA parties are out of control and lacking any sense of self-respect – a result not of the numerous gay students attending, but rather of the University’s reluctance to be sufficiently critical of the QA itself. No doubt this is because the left-leaning community at Brown refuses to make any moral judgment on leftist organizations and activities; otherwise, God forbid, they might be seen as politically incorrect.

Neither straight nor gay students, as far as I can tell, are particularly inclined towards rancorous parties any more than the other. But whereas the University has readily chastised the behavior or theme of groups not Queer related (fraternities in particular), only recently has Brown put its foot down with the QA, and softly at that. In the meantime, QA parties were allowed to escalate into vile free-for-alls. The QA parties may have once been safe and open venues for gays. But under the protection of the QA umbrella, the parties became safe-havens for immature students with little respect for themselves and none for Brown.

If there’s an upside to Brown’s ‘hands-off the Queer Alliance policy’ it’s that the QA finally hung itself with its own rope. This is a typical pattern when radical groups are let loose in sympathetic, rudderless communities: the QA was given extra freedom and responsibility, and blew it. The Alliance has, now, not only alienated its own community and other Brown students, it has made the University a national laughing stock.

It is time for Brown to wake-up and draw the line on student behavior, regardless of political leanings and political correctness. This includes both the administration and

If there’s an upside to Brown’s ‘hands-off the Queer Al-liance policy’ it’s that the QA finally hung itself with its own rope. This is a typical pattern when radical groups are let loose in sympathetic, rudderless communities: the QA was given extra freedom and responsibility, and blew it. The Alliance has now not only alienated its own community and other Brown students, it has made the University a national laughing stock.

the students. As a community, Brown has certain standards of dignity that ought to be upheld, and not just by non-“liberal” groups. The left at Brown - particularly administrators - should not hesitate to reprimand liberal-leaning groups. I think it almost pathetic that national disgust, thanks to the O’Reilly factor, was needed to kick the administration into gear and create demand for a review of QA parties.

To the Queer Alliance and other licentious groups, I say this: is it too much to ask you to behave with some decency? What you do privately is your

own business. What happens on Brown’s turf, however, is everybody’s business. You are not surrendering your rights or selling out by taking it down a notch. For those students who do not care, you should. Your reputation, like that of Brown’s, is suffering from indifference.

John Nagler ‘07 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

4Folks, Tolerance is Crap


Mark Fuller

In High School, one of my closest friends shared nothing in common with me. Our entire relationship was

based upon disagreement and intelligent opposition. She was a liberal, pro-social welfare, pro-choice Democrat. I was a conservative, anti-tax, pro-life conservative. All we had in common was

a love of being intellectually challenged and feeling as though we were learning from each other, even if we never changed our minds.

On Saturday, the 8th of April, I went to the Third World Transition Program’s Teach-In. As one might expect, here at Brown, I was in the minority as a conservative. However, the most wonderful moment came as I was leaving. A member of the group running the event approached me. She recalled my name and had been in both workshops with me. She thanked me for coming and sharing an alternative view, even if it was unpopular. I am inclined to believe she,

too, recognized the merit of debate.A few weeks ago, we had an incident in

my dorm where supposedly a homophobic slur was uttered and a gay rights poster was keyed. On Tuesday, the 3rd of April, Aqua, an LGBT group, was brought in to speak with the residents of my dorm in a mandatory meeting, as a result of this incident.

Seeing an opportunity for some debate, I decided to see if my expression o f v iews , views others might not be comfortable with, would

receive such tolerance. I then posted, amongst other things, a list of well-known, anti-feminist quotes on my door. This is not to say they were misogynistic. They were simply perspectives on why some rejected feminism. I posted this list about 9pm on Sunday, the 9th of April. Then I went out about 10pm and came back at 2am. My list was gone, torn down. Of course I immediately approached my floor’s counselor. I was understandably upset, that my rights of “free exchange of ideas and orderly protest” and to live in an environment “free from harassment on the basis of … gender expression,” had been infringed upon, not to mention that

Some people will always be bigoted and close-minded and feel that others are not entitled to disagree with them.

my list had been stolen. These are all well defined in the

Academic Code and Non-Academic Conduct booklet, under Standards of Student Conduct, p17. As a male I have certain notions about the roles of men and women (“gender expression”), one of which is that I disagree with feminism. I posted a series of quotes on my door (“free exchange of ideas”), which advanced my general anti-feminist cause (“orderly protest”), even if they were not my specific and personal arguments.

Well, as you may or may not have guessed, she was totally unconcerned. I was told to go contact DPS. I may just do that. However, as a rational person, I know there’s no reason to do so. Some people will always be bigoted and close-minded and feel that others are not entitled to disagree with them. Who really knows if I put those quotes up to express myself or simply to raise Cain? A point was still made. In the words of Thomas Ross, my high school International Studies teacher, “Tolerance is crap, folks.” Thank you to whoever tore down my quotes and thanks to my counselor for her indifference. You’ve shown me the true and warm embrace of diversity.

Mark Fuller ‘09 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world,

is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.”

~ Ronald Reagan


5Battle of the Brown BookstoreTo Outsource or Not To Outsource?

“Bookstore” continued on page 12...


Lindsey Brett Meyers

*Note to the Reader: All cited material is from the Brown Bookstore Review Committee Summary of Findings March 2006. An Online copy of report can be found at: http://www.brown.edu/web/bookstore-committee/report.html

There is a political battle being waged on campus over the recommendation of the Bookstore Review Committee to outsource the Brown Bookstore to a vendor like Barnes and Noble College Booksellers. Given the validity of the competing interests involved in this controversy, it should come as no surprise that there are persuasive arguments on each side of the issue. However, with this question, as with many political disputes at Brown, overblown rhetoric tends to obscure, rather than illuminate, the issues. Let us concede that we cannot reach a correct answer on this issue until we first ask the right questions. And let us agree that we cannot ask the right question unless we understand both what needs to be fixed and preserved at the Brown Bookstore.

A logical starting point for our analysis is the Committee’s observation that the University has an obligation to ensure that the Bookstore provides “a more comfortable, academic, and welcoming destination for both Brown and the community.” This observation is as candid as it is correct. Brown should have a Bookstore that is commensurate with its standing as one of the leading universities in America. Where our peer institutions have renovated bookstores, Brown does not. In fact, the University has not refurbished the Bookstore in over a decade. As a result, the Bookstore contains “physical and operational” defects, which the Committee sensibly believes should be remedied.

That the campus and the community

will be enhanced by these improvements should be self-evident, even to the most ardent opponents of outsourcing. A renovated Bookstore featuring the updated architecture, the improved traffic flow, and the increased browsing comfort the Committee recommends, will benefit all those who use the Bookstore. Likewise, the operational improvement the Committee suggests, such as better selection of academic books and improved Brown branded products, will serve the best interests of Brown and the community.

H o w e v e r , t h e s e b e n e f i c i a l improvements a lone wil l not be a comprehensive solution unless the University also preserves what is uniquely valuable in the Bookstore’s current operation. Inarguably, the Bookstore is run by dedicated employees who need to be protected. Also, the Bookstore has a unique Brown identity that should be maintained, a lenient book return policy that should be preserved, and discounted book prices that should be continued.

Judged in this light, two principles should govern the campus debate on the Bookstore. The first is that physical and operational improvements for the Bookstore will be advantageous. The second is that these improvements should

be part of a comprehensive plan that preserves what is best about the Bookstore. Given these twin goals, the question we should ask as a campus community is how the University can best fix the physical and operational defects of the Bookstore, while maintaining its unique benefits?

From the standpoint of economic efficiency, outsourcing is the best alternative to remedy the deficiencies in the Bookstore. Physical refurbishment and operational improvements respectively require capital expenditures and specialized business expertise. As a major corporation, Barnes and Noble College Booksellers has the financial resources to fund the Bookstore renovations. As the leading college bookseller in America, it has the demonstrated expertise to improve the business operations of the store. In fact, Barnes and Noble College Booksellers successfully operates the campus bookstores at peer institutions of Brown such as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Dartmouth, MIT, and Stanford.

It is true that Brown could fund these physical improvements and hire outside consultants to institute the operational changes at the Bookstore. However, is it prudent for a financially-strapped university

6The BrownMay 2006 SpectatorSpectator

Political Correctness at the BDH“Herald” Guilty of Viewpoint DiscriminationMark Fuller

Based upon what appears to be nothing more than political correctness, the Brown Daily

Herald has publicly denigrated a student writer, and then privately refused to publish his subsequent articles. On February 27th, The Brown Daily Herald published a column by Jason Carr entitled “Why I’m Not Recycling.” The BDH later alleged that Jason plagiarized an article by John Tierney from the NYT magazine. The Herald issued an Editor’s Note on March 1st apologizing to Herald readers for publishing the article. That same morning, Jason Carr received an e-mail from the Herald’s editorial board informing him that he would be unable to publish in the Herald until the Spring of 2007.

I was surprised that Jason would have plagiarized his article. However, I withheld my judgment. I read John Tierney’s article and compared the two. Yes, statistics were shared. And the word “imposition” was used by both after citing a statistic properly attributed to “A. Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University.” That’s about it. I challenge the Herald to concretely show any shared phrases or sentences.

If the Herald’s standard for plagiarism is the use of similar images and concepts, then the Herald has a great many people to silence. If this supposed standard were actually applied to every op-ed published in the Herald, there would be no op-eds, unless they were to be restricted to ideas so outlandish that no other human had ever written similarly. The issue, then, is not plagiarism, or even pristine originality; rather, it is political correctness.

Whipping open an old BDH, one can find dozens of uncited facts and figures, as well as frequent use of recycled logic from outside sources. Even a survey limited to the first three weeks of the Herald’s 2005 print-run provides numerous examples:

Rob Sand’s Jan. 26th, 2005 article, “Mr. Bush, Look Under This Rock,” cites some statistics but not others, and surely has a viewpoint that a great many in the past have shared. David Segal’s February 3rd, 2005 article, “Affordable Housing in Providence,” contains uncited statistics and common liberal arguments regarding

housing. Emily McAteer’s February 8th, 2005 article, “Renewable Energy at Brown University,” uses very little citation and woefully common environmental appeals, and yet the Herald took no offense to the publishing of the article. It appears that the Herald begins to take notice of citation only when someone dares to step outside the traditional liberal discourse – like questioning the value of recycling.

In any case, if there were such standards, wouldn’t Jason have been notified upon submission that he needed to add some footnotes? This was part of the “oversight” for which the BDH apologized to its readers. The feedback Jason did get before publication foreshadowed the ideological bias that he would face. This paragraph appeared at the end of the edited draft that the Herald sent back to him:

“You wrote us a letter saying that you were worried that people might not realize you’re joking. The solution to this is be funny. Your last paragraph does an admirable job of this, but it is completely unlike the rest of your article, which actually comes off as a fairly erudite, if morally misguided, criticism of recycling.

The stylistic jump you make in the last paragraph is way too jarring. Either do the whole thing more over the top and with a certain wink at the audience, or write an unapologetically assholish criticism of recycling and hopefully the sheer ballsiness of it will at least get you style points. Since we just recently published

one of your inflammatory articles, we’re probably going to sit on this one for a little bit. On a level of content rather than style, I think everybody knows that recycling is not very fiscally efficient. You’re avoiding actually confronting the moral arguments for recycling and placing value on the environment. Your article would be more powerful, and perhaps funnier, if you could think of a way to engage the opposition on their own terms rather than just writing from the more explicitly conservative ones of economy and fiscal efficiency.”

Their initial efforts at intimidation having failed, perhaps the editors thought Jason’s recycling arguments would fall flat in print, and the transcendent brightness of the politically correct view of recycling would be evident to all. I can only surmise that the editors became worried that the

If this supposed standard were actually applied to ev-ery op-ed published in the Herald, there would be no op-eds, unless they were to be restricted to ideas so outlandish that no other human had ever written simi-larly. The issue, then, is not plagiarism, or even pristine originality; rather, it is political correctness.

“PC” continued on page 16...

7Spectator Exclusive:“Why I’m Not Recycling”

“Recycle” continued on page 15...


Jason Carr

RecycleMania has been proclaimed! From Feb. 4th to April 8th, Brown will be waging an epic battle with

93 schools over who can be the most “green.” We are informed that last year, of all the Ivies participating, we only beat Yale and Dartmouth. Environmentalists on campus are vigorously promoting recycling as both cost-effective and beneficial to the environment.

Yet again, the typical Brunonian political melodrama is being played out. A group of idealists propose an emotionally palatable initiative, and that initiative is pursued without question by the student body. In reality, recycling programs are most often not cost-effective, and in many cases they actually hurt, rather than help, the environment. Recycling is not profitable for communities for many reasons. First, large amounts of time must be spent sorting the recyclables initially. Then, the city must spend the money to have trash collectors pick up each additional bin. Costs are added on as the waste is transported to and processed in the recycling factories. Once you add on the final cost of bringing the g o o d s b a c k to market as w e l l a s t h e bureaucra t ic costs, it seems r e a s o n a b l e that businesses would have no interest in buying highly priced recycled goods, and indeed they don’t. This was the dilemma the E.P.A. faced when it first established percentage goals for the amount of recycled products used by businesses. The environmentalists, clinging to their self-justified moral superiority, promptly forced the businesses to buy the recycled goods. Businesses and

employees were hurt in exchange for the environmentalists being able to feel good about themselves.

So just how much money is being lost when communities pursue recycling rather than resorting to landfills? In some cases, depending on the availability and cost of landfill space, recycling is the best option. However, in most cases it is more efficient to resort to landfills. According to a 1996 New York Times Magazine article by John Tierney titled “Recycling is Garbage”, New York City in 1996 spent $200 more

per ton of waste to have it recycled than it would if it were simply placed in a landfill. The labor and time costs to sort and clean the recyclables drove up the cost per ton of waste to an estimated $3000 per ton. Though that was 1996, as incomes rise into the future, the costs of sorting and cleaning recycling will only increase because people’s time will become more

valuable. Cities around the country are facing this problem, but they are unable to act because of the culturally entrenched pro-recycling rhetoric. Recycling has become an end in itself, and shame on you should you question its benefits.

The prospect of using landfills raises some environmental concerns. First, the environmental movement’s alarmist rhetoric on the availability of landfill space is completely unfounded. According to A. Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University, if garbage production rates

remain constant for the next 1,000 years, all that garbage could be placed in a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles on each side. This landfill would occupy only .000199 % of the nation’s area - hardly an imposition. There are legitimate health concerns concerning the runoff from landfills. However, according to the E.P.A., the vast majority of landfills pose a negligible health risk. True, there are some bad apples, but those can be rooted out through adequate federal regulation that would come at a lesser cost than mandated recycling programs. In those cases where the costs of placing waste in a landfill are too high, businesses

will resort to recycling. In this manner, you are getting rid of the same a m o u n t o f waste, but in a more efficient manner.

One fact that is never

considered is that in many cases recycling is detrimental to the environment. You never hear this from environmentalist groups; as mentioned before, to them recycling has become an end in itself. In almost every evaluation of recycling programs, the issue of environmental and monetary costs is skirted by simply

Yet again, the typical Brunonian political melodrama is being played out. A group of idealists propose an emotionally palatable initiative, and that initiative is pursued without question by the student body.

8What To Do About Illegal Immigration


“Illegal” continued on page 18...

Boris Ryvkin

On March 27 of this year, an estimated 24,000 students in 52 schools across the Los Angeles

area exchanged books for Mexican flags, paralyzing city traffic as they protested House Bill 4437 authored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. If passed, the bill would make illegal immigration a felony, reduce visas for legal entrants by 50,000, and endorse the building of a 700 mile fence along a part of the 2,000 mile border between the US and Mexico.

With 62% of Americans in a recent Zogby poll demanding stronger immigration laws, and an estimated 9 million illegal immigrants already in the US, the Bush administration and congressional leaders have presented three major immigration reform plans that require serious discussion.

Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy have one proposal, with backing from the Bush administration. The plan would strengthen the Border Patrol, construct a more effective border fence, and implement more stringent workplace enforcement rules. These elements, however, are political window dressing for

the ill-advised Temporary Guest Worker Program that is the core of the plan. The rhetoric seeking to validate this guest worker plan is as illogical as it is hollow. Bush speaks of a “humane” approach to immigration reform, and talks about the need to “fill jobs Americans would not do.” Ted Kennedy, the ever-enlightened

patriarch of all things sensible, observes that “all undocumented immigrants deserve this chance.”

There is little to say about this plan aside from it being terribly unfortunate. No politician dares call the “temporary” worker program amnesty, but their rhetoric falls flat in the face of reality, for what politicians call a temporary guest worker program is tantamount to immigration amnesty.

Given the Mexican government’s heavy hand in encouraging millions to break American law and violate our national sovereignty, we need to take matters into our own hands. Even Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City and CEO of a 4 billion dollar company, declared the Bush-McCain-Kennedy plan foolish.

First, it is difficult to think that individuals who come to the US as “guests” after braving desert sands and the blazing sun would warm up to the necessity of leaving once their stay as “guest workers” has expired. Secondly, the program would

make already dependent low-wage labor US companies completely addicted, divert funding away from labor-saving technologies, and deny employment to millions of undereducated Americans (particularly recent high school graduates with no college prospects).

Illegal immigrants are mostly

employed in a few specific job sectors, and it is in these sectors that unemployment for undereducated American citizens is twice the national average (at 10%). Even before Hurricane Katrina, the Census Bureau estimated that there were almost four million unemployed adult natives (age 18 to 64) with just a high school degree or less and another 19 million not

in the labor force. When these available workers are combined with the welfare population, there are enough Americans to fill jobs that now employ over 50% of the illegal aliens. As a result, evidence of a labor shortage is belied by statistical evidence, notwithstanding Bush’s rhetoric to the contrary.

T h e M c C a i n -Kennedy plan is a blatant sellout from start to finish. It will compromise America’s borders, have a negative affect on new workers beyond the industries dominated by illegal immigrant labor, retard technological investment, provide a cake walk for Islamists seeking a repeat

of 9/11, and cripple our social benefit system. Can you even fathom the social dislocation that would result if the current 9 million illegal aliens gain “earned citizenship” unde r t he McCa in -Kennedy bill and then brought an estimated 21 million family members to America? The resultant onrush of aliens would unduly burden already

severely strained social services. Forget the welfare system; illegal aliens already have access to Medicaid services and drivers licenses in certain states. In addition, the new plan would greatly expand in-state college tuition subsidies

The McCain-Kennedy plan is a blatant sellout from start to finish. It will compromise America’s borders, have a negative affect on new workers beyond the industries dominated by illegal immigrant labor, retard technologi-cal investment, provide a cake walk for Islamists seeking a repeat of 9/11, and cripple our social benefit system.

9

If They Expect a Repeat of the 1994 ElectionDemocrats Are Dreaming


Ryan Wyrtzen

Things are not going well for Republicans. Bush’s approval rating has stagnated around

40%, the resignations of Tom Delay and Randy “Duke” Cunningham have invited questions about the integrity of Congressional Republicans, and the immigration debate has fiercely divided the party. Yet amid these hard times for Republicans, Democrats have continued to be equally depressing and void of solutions. As a moderate / conservative Democrat, I find it appalling that the Democratic Party seems only capable of anti-Bush polemic and empty attack lines on Iraq, Social Security, and the Dubai Ports controversy. To have any chance in November, Democrats must change

course and offer their own solutions rather than simply opposing the Bush agenda.

The speech Senator Kerry gave at Brown last fall exemplified what is wrong with the Democrats. As he did so many times during the 2004 campaign, Kerry virulently attacked President Bush. Looking at a transcript of the 3050 word speech, by my estimates, Kerry spent just 200 words discussing his solutions for creating a better America in a clichéd enumeration of the standard Democratic platform (energy independence, more funding for education, no tax cuts for the

rich, and stronger environmental laws). The remaining 2850 words took on a negative, angry tone. One memorable jab compared Bush with 12 year old Boy Scouts: “If 12 year-old Boy Scouts can be prepared, Americans have a right to expect the same from their 59 year-old President of the United States”. This balance of less than 10% ideas and more than 90% attacks will not give Democrats the boost they need to win control of the House or Senate in 2006.

Kerry is not alone in this misguided course. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold both follow the “attack at all times” mantra. Dean, well known for his screaming ability and numerous gaffes, is exactly the type

of loose cannon that gives Democrats a negative image. Famous Dean quotes such as “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for,” are not the types of remarks that will help Democrats extend their appeal to more moderate voters. Efforts such as Russ Feingold’s high-profile campaign to censure President Bush don’t help either. If the Democrats are able to pick-up any seats in 2006 it will be in spite of, not because of men like Dean and Feingold.

Bill Clinton, Mark Warner, Ken Salazar, Brian Schweitzer, and Tom Vilasck, all Democrats from Red States,

As a moderate / conservative Democrat, I find it appalling that the Democratic Party seems only capable of anti-Bush polemic and empty attack lines on Iraq, Social Security, and the Dubai Ports controversy. To have any chance in November, Democrats must change course and offer their own solutions rather than simply opposing the Bush agenda.

were able to win elections because they campaigned on tangible goals and ideas and were willing to at times reconsider the policies of the hard left. Sadly, as the Election of 2006 approaches, it seems that many Democrats have not learned from their experiences. Looking at the Electoral

Map, unless Democrats can broaden their appeal in some red districts and states, they will not gain 15 seats in the House or 6 seats in the Senate necessary to take control of Congress. The only way for the Democrats to have any chance of a 1994 repeat is if they become the party of Bill Clinton, Mark Warner, and Brian Schweitzer. This type of shift, however, appears improbable in a party dominated by the likes of Senator Kerry, Chairmen Dean, and Senator Feingold.

Ryan Wyrtzen ‘08 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

Be Heard: Write for the Spectator!


from page 2...“Hillary”

The BrownSpectatorSpectatorwrite for

contact: [email protected]

Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired?Inspired?Inspired?

the crowd finally quieted and Hillary began to speak, four protesters stood up and began shouting. Two who would not cease shouting were physically escorted out of the auditorium, including one who had smuggled in a large banner under his jacket that read “Clinton War Senator.” The officers who dealt with the protesters offered to allow them to stay and continue to hold the banner if they would be quiet and sit down, but the protesters did not respond. As the officers dragged the man out, he shouted, “This is what freedom looks like.”

Whi le p ro tes t s d i rec ted a t conservatives are commonplace at Brown University, a school with a long history of leftist activism, I was surprised by the intensity of objections leveled at Clinton. Over the last year, the University had invited a host of liberal speakers including John Kerry, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Howard Dean, all of whom were greeted with overwhelming praise. Dean received 3 standing ovations before

even uttering a word. Nor were these protests simply

organized by a fringe group of extremists. The demonstrations at the lecture were

the culmination of a series of objections launched at Clinton throughout the week before she spoke. The Brown Daily Herald, for instance, published an open letter to Clinton, signed by several notable professors and student leaders, criticizing her for “hawkish” views on Iraq and national security. Even after the event, most of the Brown community, as seen by articles and letters published in the BDH, were generally sympathetic. Only one editorialist chastised the lecturers,

not because she did not agree with the protestors, but only because she “came to the lecture to hear an influential, successful woman address the issues of women’s equality and international women’s rights struggles. These are vital issues that should not be silenced for any reason.”

Brown’s reputation for having a far-

left atmosphere is certainly well-deserved and it is difficult to exaggerate how overwhelmingly liberal the students and faculty on campus are. Yet at my time at Brown, I have not seen any evidence

that the majority of leftists at Brown are significantly more liberal than the mainstream of the Democratic Party at the national level.

The protests last weekend are a microcosm of what Clinton will face in her bid for the presidency. The left at the grassroots level, the people who will raise money, volunteer, and vote in primaries, have moved so far to the left that Clinton, once an icon of the movement, is no longer acceptable. In light of what I witnessed

last weekend, I am not exactly sure whether to be happy or terrified. On the one hand, it is encouraging that Clinton is facing so much opposition within her own party. Hopefully, the left will defeat her before the right is forced to deal with this despicable character. Yet on the other hand, it is disturbing to see that the party of Truman and Kennedy has descended to the point that even Clinton is unable to appease the base. It makes me wonder, is Clinton now the voice of reason on the left?

Pratik Chougule ’08 is the Editor-in-Chief of The Brown Spectator.

It is disturbing to see that the party of Truman and Kennedy has descended to the point that even Clinton is unable to appease the base.

Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired?

The protests...are a microcosm of what Clinton will face in her bid for the presidency.

Inspired?Inspired?

Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired? Inspired?

11

GOP @brown.edu


from page 14...“Bonds”

player of his time. Do we need to put an asterisk next to Babe Ruth’s records because he played before Jackie Robinson crossed the color line?

If indeed Bonds’ alleged use of anabolic steroids was not unfair, he’s not to blame for the Major League dropping the ball on the substance abuse issue, and in fact the “purity of the game” remains preserved despite the steroid era, why are we so quick to boo him? My theory is that even in a nation built upon the heroism of entrepreneurship and the success stories of hard-workers, Americans, deep down, hate frontrunners. I myself am guilty of the nearly pathological scorn for the New York Yankees, whose prodigal owner George Steinbrenner is guilty of nothing more than spending as much as he can to try to win championships. And remember the overblown and specious prosecution of Martha Stewart for insider trading, or the Lou Dobbs syndrome of suspicion over any and all corporate profits? It seems today that we should expect a prickly sports star who appears invincible to be despised. Barry Bonds is the very embodiment of the American dream: a man whose single-minded devotion to success has earned him one of the most remarkable baseball careers in the history of the sport. No matter how obnoxious and unfounded the jeers may be, it’s simply the American way.

Peter Castimpris ‘08 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

oomph!

12from page 5...“Bookstore”


to incur further debt and expenses when it is already incapable of providing adequate housing for sophomores? Ask yourself: if the University had the discretionary funds to refurbish the Bookstore, would it have waited over a decade to do so? And if the University must hire an outside consultant, does that not suggest it lacks the competence to operate the Bookstore as effectively as it should? After all, the University’s academic expertise does not necessarily encompass the competence to operate a bookstore.

Still, the question remains whether

outsourcing will preserve what is uniquely valuable about the Bookstore. Opponents of outsourcing are correct to argue that the current employees of the Bookstore are an invaluable resource that must be protected. However, the Committee shares this legitimate concern with them. It strongly recommends the “continued employment of current staff with a minimum commitment of one year with no detrimental change in the overall salary and benefit package.” It also observes that the “experience of other universities is that turnover rates beyond the one-year minimum are very low” with college bookstores operated by Barnes and Noble College Booksellers.

Opponents of outsourcing also question whether an outside vendor would be likely to maintain the unique Brown identity of the Bookstore. They assert that the “Web sites of the Harvard, Yale, and MIT bookstores all use the same basic template.” While it is true that these stores share some common characteristics, this

argument tends to misdirect our attention from the more important fact that each of these stores has a unique collegiate identity. Unlike the cookie-cutter Barnes and Nobles stores that one finds at malls, the stores that the college division of Barnes and Noble operates have a unique identity that arises from university-specific signage and design as well as university-specific branded products and merchandise. For example, the signage, design, and products of the Yale Bookstore are as uniquely associated with Yale as the signage, design, and products of the Harvard Coop are exclusively connected to Harvard. Even if this were not the case (which it is), the Committee

expressly recommends that the Bookstore be designed and branded as a Brown institution “with virtually no overt vendor signage” and a “store aesthetic” unique to Brown.

However, supporters of outsourcing should be concerned about the degree to which an outside vendor would maintain the Bookstore’s beneficial book return and used book selling policies. Given the dramatic increase in text book prices, the Brown Bookstore has a very desirable discount book policy. In fact, some protesters assert that the Brown Bookstore sells more used books than any other Ivy League bookstore. Moreover, no one should deny that the current Bookstore policy which allows returns during the Brown shopping period is valuable.

While the Committee understands the importance of these issues, it can and should provide the campus better assurances regarding them. Thus, where the Committee recommends “efficient” textbook return polices, it should commit

to maintaining the current return policy of the Bookstore. And while the Committee proposes “competitively priced textbooks,” it should ensure the continuation of the current used book policy of the Bookstore, or provide a functional equivalent for it.

While outsourcing is not a perfect alternative, it remains the best solution for the Bookstore. Based upon the sensible recommendation of the Bookstore Review Committee, outsourcing will provide badly needed capital and the expertise to renovate the Bookstore and improve its operations. And it will do so by adequately protecting the Bookstore’s employees and maintaining the unique Brown identity of the Bookstore. While more work needs

to be done to maintain the Bookstore’s lenient book return policy and control book prices, the actual benefit of having a dramatically improved Bookstore o u t w e i g h s t h e s e potential problems, provided the Committee t a k e s s u b s t a n t i v e steps to ameliorate t h e s e p o t e n t i a l

shortcomings.It is one thing to say that the

University should accept the Committee’s recommendations, and it is quite another to judge how the University implements those recommendations. The devil is always in the details, and if the University approves the Committee’s recommendations, it should negotiate a lease with an outside vendor that comprehensively achieves the twin goals of improving the Bookstore and faithfully maintaining what is uniquely beneficial about it. Only then will the University fulfill its obligation to provide a first-rate Bookstore to Brown.

Lindsey Brett Meyers ‘09 is a Contributing Editor for the Brown Spectator.

Based upon the sensible recommendation of the Bookstore Review Committee, outsourcing will provide badly needed capital and the expertise to renovate the Bookstore and improve its operations. And it will do so by adequately protecting the Bookstore’s employees and maintaining the unique Brown identity of the Bookstore.


“DSP” continued on page 19...

Analysis: Designated Suppliers ProgramJason Carr

One of the latest progressive efforts at Brown has been the anti-sweatshop campaign. Led by the Student Labor Alliance, this campaign seeks to improve the working conditions in factories in far off lands by mandating that all Brown University licensees only purchase apparel from factories that are pre-approved. These suppliers would be Designated Suppliers, hence the program name Designated Suppliers Program, or DSP. With the help of organizations such as USAS (United Students Against Sweatshops) and the WRC (Worker’s Rights Consortium), the SLA is trying to drum up support for this program with the University.

Efforts such as these are quite popular with the Brown student body. Armed with the best of intentions, they make a genuine effort to address global inequities. Everyone, including myself, believes that efforts should be made to help those in other countries - we simply disagree on the means. The SLA proposes to help sweatshop workers through the distortion or outright elimination of markets. What they fail to realize, however, is that in doing so they will hurt the workers and help the criminals.

Output will fall and people will starve – a “progressive” effort indeed.

Let us begin with a quick description of the DSP. The DSP is designed to commit University licensees to purchase clothing only from factories that meet stringent requirements. Factories are required to have a living wage, follow all university codes of conduct, be represented by a labor union (or equivalent), and produce exclusively for the university market. To

put it in economic terms, the DSP would create a cartel of suppliers who would supp ly only to the universities who have adopted the program. In exchange for this commitment, the universities involved would agree to pay the suppliers high enough prices to cover the costs of such extravagant standards. An outside group, the WRC (to whom the universities pay dues), would be in charge of inspecting said factories to make sure that they are following the rules. When all is said and done, the SLA believes that by guaranteeing worker representation and stable orders you can avoid many of the evils that occur in the general market.

This idea is nice on its face, but even a few basic questions reveal how utterly misguided it is. For instance, why must there be a labor union in each of these factories? In the probable case of corruption, don’t we want these people to

be able to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to support their union? If the declining power of unions in the U.S. is any indication, then unions are clearly not in the best interests of a great many workers.

The DSP creates a cartel of a small number of suppliers who have to meet strict standards. This begs the question: where is the incentive for price and quality control on the part of the supplier? The

SLA has no answer to this other than that the WRC will work its hardest through inspections to make sure that such things don’t occur. But from the supplier’s perspective, it is rational to exaggerate costs in order to extract more money from unwitting universities. After all, it is far more difficult to drop a supplier under this program than it would be in the typical free market scenario.

Now that we have established that it is rational for suppliers to lie about their costs in an effort to increase the prices they can extract, let us turn our attention to the question of demand. The SLA claims, with absolutely no basis, that demand for college apparel is relatively price inelastic, so therefore an increase in price will result in a negligible decrease in demand. Though I have no information

The SLA proposes to help sweatshop workers through the distortion or outright elimination of markets. What they fail to realize, however, is that in doing so they will hurt the workers and help the criminals. Out-put will fall and people will starve – a “progressive” effort indeed.


Listen and participate! Contact Brian Bishop at 401-439-7877

Brian Bishop and WARL 1320 Reality Radio present

A live local forum for the liberty minded and anybody else with an AM radio.Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-5 at WARL 1320 AM

Rule Free Radio.

“Bonds” continued on page 11...

touchdown in the Super Bowl this year, which he admitted shouldn’t have counted to David Letterman. Both of these plays are theoretically “against the rules,” and yet no one would think of badmouthing either player for what they did: it’s the players’ job to do what they can to win, and it’s the job of the officials to ensure fair play. Even so, Barry Bonds never s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y snuck a baseball over the wall in San Francisco for a home run – the steroids he may have taken would have done nothing more than made it possible for him to work until he was “in tears,” as a reporter described Bonds’ off-season weightlifting regimen – something equally available to all of his peers. The fact that Bonds chose to put his health at risk in order to do everything possible to improve his game while some of his peers may not have (for health or publicity concerns of course – no one is so naïve as to think anyone refused a needle for “the purity of the game”) speaks to his single-minded devotion to winning and excellence – it doesn’t make him a cheater.

If Bonds’ bulking up with steroids was neither unfair nor out of the ordinary in the late nineties, why has he become such a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of performance-enhancing drugs? As the “face of steroids” in baseball, general dissatisfaction with the game’s mishandling of the issue in recent years is bound to wind up affecting his image, right or wrong. Steroids are regulated drugs in the United States, and

although the hazards of their use may be greatly exaggerated (see www.steroids.com, for instance), the menacing slippery slope of junior high school would-be major leaguers injecting themselves in the locker room is horrifying. Such health risks are not limited to injected drugs. Take for instance the problem of packing on excessive pounds for NFL offensive linemen, which has long-term consequences for players’ cardiac health.

Ultimately, however, all of these concerns need to be resolved by the

commissioners and organizing bodies of each of the sports leagues. As such, our anger over such issues seems misplaced if we direct it towards the athletes themselves, who have no control over the rules of the game, but rather must seek every possible advantage in order to compete. If anyone is to blame for a possible budding health crisis, it’s cretin commissioner Bud Selig, not Barry Bonds.

But what do we say to the baseball

purist? Need we place an asterisk next to all records under suspicion of being impacted by steroid use? I think this to be beyond pointless. To begin with, nobody who knows anything about sports would tell you that you can compare players and teams that played in different eras – it’s apples and oranges! As such, Bonds’ needs to be evaluated in the context of the game when he played, and he is undoubtedly the most dominant and feared

from back cover...“Bonds”

Barry Bonds is the very embodiment of the American dream: a man whose single-minded devotion to success has earned him one of the most remarkable baseball careers in the his-tory of the sport. No matter how obnoxious and unfounded the jeers may be, it’s simply the American way.


looking at the gross benefits of recycling without subtracting the gross costs. This is further distorted by the fact that environmentalists often place a nearly infinite value on the environment. The result is that, according to the aforementioned Tierney article, even though recycling a ton of newsprint produces an additional 5,000 gallons of waste water, these costs are ignored in favor of looking solely at the perceived environmental benefit of reusing the paper (which of course is estimated to be quite high). It is this irresponsibility with numbers that has produced the mind-boggling pro-recycling statisticsthat are pounded into the heads of fourth

from page 7...“Recycle” graders around the country.

S o i n s t e a d o f p o t e n t i a l l y environmentally damaging programs such as Recyclemania, I propose a new set of measures. First, ramp up environmental regulations on both landfills and on recycling operations to whatever level is deemed socially acceptable. This will make sure that no matter what option is taken, the environment will be protected as we see fit. Second, once the regulations are in place, lift the recycling mandates and allow the free market to decide how much recycling will occur. With these measures, the environment will be protected in the most cost-effective way possible.

Jason Carr ‘09 is a Contributing Editor for the Brown Spectator. awwwwwwwwwww!

from page 17...“Beale”

These numbers are further reflected in the student body. In 2003, The Brown Spectator published a poll of students, with two-thirds of the respondents saying they were liberal or very liberal. Only 4.1 percent of students said identified themselves as libertarian and 9.5 percent described themselves as conservative.

Those numbers are nearly identical with the findings of a February 2006 poll conducted by the Brown Daily Herald. The paper reported that 62.8 percent of students classified themselves as Democrats, while committed Republicans constituted only 5 percent.

The political demography of Brown shows that it will take much more than the occasional hit-and-run conservative speaker to have a lasting effect on the campus environment. Instead, speakers should be seen as one part of a comprehensive program of reform, one

that engages all aspects of the academic life of students and professors.

Such reform is possible only through some outside stimulus. To that end, I

havejoined several other alums in organizing

the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity. It is our vision that this group will become something of a watchdog group, cheering the administration when appropriate, prodding them forward when the opportunity arises, and correcting them when necessary.

The Foundation is currently raising funds for an aggressive program of speakers, conferences, publications, and

Gone are the days when sensitivity trumped sensibility, when diversity had little to do with the intellect, and when theft of newspapers was a legitimate act of civil disobedience.

innovative academic initiatives that we believe critical to continuing the tradition of free-thinking individualism of which Brown is so proud.

Otherwise, this precious moment may become nothing more than a reflective pause in Brown’s headlong rush into a seething cauldron of untempered radicalism, with little breathing room for freedom.

Stephen Beale is an Editor-At-Large for the Brown Spectator.

It is our vision that [the Foundation for Intellectual Diversity] will become something of a watchdog group, cheering the administration when appropriate, prodding them forward when the opportunity arises, and correcting them when necessary.


from page 6...“PC”

poor sheep (their readers) would not understand how wrong Jason was after publication. Hence their plan to 1) denigrate him in public and 2) deny him a venue to respond.

It’s clear that the Herald’s editorial board doesn’t like this sort of opinion – one that steps outside and assumes an unconventional and perhaps offensive position. If the Herald wants this to look like anything other than viewpoint discrimination, they would do well to issue an apology and allow Carr to continue to publish with the same privileges as any other student.

Mark Fuller ‘09 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

from page 19...“DSP”

endorsement of either graft or starvation - two very unattractive options. Instead of interfering with markets, there are a great many things that Brown can do that have great potential for helping workers.

Instead of playing with people’s lives via manipulation of the supply chain, Brown could instead impose a small surcharge on all items in the Brown Bookstore and then use that money to fund legitimate private charity efforts in these countries. In this manner Brown could endure the cost with full knowledge of its effects, and private charities would carry out aid operations far more effectively. The basic problem with the DSP lies in its attempt to limit choice to supposedly extend equality. It appears the supporters of such proposals would prefer shared suffering to unequal benefits, coercion to free choice. As Milton Friedman once said, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

Jason Carr ’09 is a Contributing Editor for the Brown Spectator.

When Travis Rowley entered the Ivy League he was “politically disinterested.” To the dismay of campus liberals, Brown University changed that. While naively simmering within one of the nation’s most activist universities, Rowley’s personal character ultimately compelled him to engage Brown’s most radical progressives, and he suddenly found himself immersed in campus controversies that were forcing him to develop his own political mind. Now he offers up Out of Ivy, a damaging tell-all of his alma mater, and an unapologetic condemnation of leftist ideology.

Out of Ivy is Rowley’s personal story, and it demands special attention. He was the captain of Brown’s football team, a Catholic raised on traditional values, and a politically oblivious youngster, who somehow became a controversial columnist for the university newspaper. Through his narrative readers are offered an up-close look at a fierce cultural clash of two worldviews—a chance to better understand the sharp contrast between liberalism and conservatism.

Out of Ivy is not for the sensitive reader. The author is stunningly forthright with his opinions, and pulls no punches from those whom he feels deserve the harshest reprimand. With uncompromising certainty and a mocking tone, he tells of his negative reactions to almost everything sermonized by Brown’s campus left. From university speech codes to the open curriculum; from the Brown Democrats to the Queer Alliance; and from abortion to multiculturalism Rowley lays his mind bare, deriding everything he found distasteful with Ivy League liberals—right down to their “incessant, pandering concern for people’s feelings.”

Of course, Ivy League doctrine considered Rowley primitive and bigoted—a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe. Indeed, he was labeled as such by his classmates. But he “had come from a family that taught [him] to be kind and charitable…from a beautiful religion that taught [him] to never judge, and to always forgive.” So he set out to identify his own principles, or otherwise succumb to the pressures of intellectual conformity. In the end we discover that this controversial campus character wasn’t adopting traditional ideals in protest to the liberalism that pervaded Brown’s campus. Rather, he was attempting to quickly define the conservatism that was already inside of him, the values he had arrived with.


Brown at the Tipping PointStephen Beale

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, a little revolution now and then can be a good thing, and at Brown

these days, it seems that the revolution is tending towards conservatism.

The difference between the Brown of 2001 and the Brown of today is as dramatic as it is heartening. Gone are the days when sensitivity trumped sensibility, when diversity had little to do with the intellect, and when theft of newspapers was a legitimate act of civil disobedience.

Intellectual diversity, once the rallying cry of campus conservatives, is now trumpeted from the chambers of University Hall and echoed in the cavernous lecture halls on the Main Green.

In speech after speech, President Ruth Simmons has extolled the virtues of free inquiry and open dialogue, reinforcing that message last spring with the creation of a fund for speakers who bring intellectual diversity to the campus.

On the faculty side, the Political Theory Project is specifically applying these virtues of the mind to the pursuit of political philosophy. Even the wayward committee on slavery and justice made a slight bow to intellectual diversity, by including reparations critic John McWhorter as part of its speaker program.

The student conservative movement, meanwhile, is thriving. In 2001, meetings of the College Republicans, one of which I actually attended, had the air of an underground movement. Today, the

group is one of many likeminded student organizations basking in the sunlight of a Socratic renaissance.

These developments are significant and ought to be applauded, but they should be put in their proper context. One of the most useful barometers of campus opinions is party affiliations, which unfortunately have barely budged in the past few years.

In 2002, a survey of the liberal arts

professors found that 94.7 percent were registered as Democrats, with no Republicans in the departments of English, History, or Political Science. In the administration, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 16 to 1, as of this spring.

“Beale” continued on page 15...

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil

is for good men to do nothing.” ~Edmund Burke

What are YOU doing?write for the spectator.


from page 8...“Illegal”

The 2006-2007 ISI

HONORS PROGRAM

Get theEducationYou DeserveJoin ISI Today and ReceiveThese Membership Benefits:• Receive a FREE subscription to the

Intercollegiate Review

• Compete for graduate fellowships• Host campus lectures and debates• Obtain financial support for

alternative student newspapers• Network with leading conservatives• Develop leadership and career skills• Attend conferences and seminars• Membership discounts

on ISI Books• Affiliate or found an ISI group

Intercollegiate Studies InstituteP.O. Box 4431Wilmington, DE 19807-0431(800) [email protected]

Membershipis Free!

Join Today!

www.isi.org

for illegal aliens. In the process, supporters of the bill like Ted Kennedy would compromise the interests of American citizens legitimately seeking a college education in favor of illegal immigrants who willingly broke US immigration law and potentially compromised our national security.

One would hope that we could trust our elected leaders to put an end to this insanity. Alas, Bush is so out of touch with the American public that common sense no longer resides in the White

House. Nor can we take solace from Democrats who live in an impenetrable bubble of political idiocy.

At the other end of the political extreme from the McCain-Kennedy bill is Sensenbrenner’s hard-line proposal in House Bill 4437. While emotionally appealing to many Americans, this plan is also flawed. First, its provision to lower legal immigration rates is overly restrictive because it would deprive

the US economy of experts and eager workers from around the world willing to uphold US immigration law. The guest worker program, despite the rhetoric of proponents, is so littered with loopholes and overly broad measures tha t i t wou ld make

domestic companies almost completely dependent on cheap labor and reward those who have broken the law. However, the US is still a nation of immigrants, and bringing us back to the 1920s is very counterproductive. Secondly, defining illegal immigration as a felony is based on pure emotion and is unnecessary. Temporary visas for experts seeking a legal route to immigration are the solution over Senesenbrenner’s heavily isolationist proposal. In order to encourage investment, allow us to properly select our immigrants, but not undermine the rapidly changing economy, HR 4377 is the wrong way to go.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist advances the proposal that seems the most sensible of the ones discussed. This plan would keep most of House Bill 4377’s border protections and workplace enforcement rules, and it would deport all illegal aliens caught penetrating from Mexico. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, of the 9 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the US, 78,000 originate from countries of importance in the War on Terror (including Iran and Saudi Arabia). Any sensible person should wonder whether these 78,000 are here to pick lettuce. We do not have the luxury of blind trust, and we cannot allow our borders to be undermined either by the extreme free traders or the far-left radicals.

Frist’s bill offers the best compromise among the three plans discussed. It lowers visas from 500,000 under the McCain-Kennedy plan for those here illegally to 100,000 but greatly expands green cards for legal immigrants. The plan would prevent the disasters inherent in the guest worker sellout, have a sensible immigration policy to appease both business and the American majority, preserve the

We do not have the luxury of blind trust, and we cannot allow our borders to be undermined either by the extreme free traders or the far-left radicals.

“Illegal” continued on page 19...

19from page 18...“Illegal”


authority of American immigration law, and maintain our reputation as a nation of immigrants.

The illegal immigration crisis poses a series of potent challenges for the United States in the present, and

if we fail to adequately confront it, into the very distant future. Any proposal to address the issue must be economically rational, focus on predictable long-term outcomes as well as likely precedents, and uphold the national interest of the United States as a sovereign power. The McCain-Kennedy option does not conclusively prove the economic necessity of illegal immigrant labor, nor does it attempt to balance temporary gains of earned citizenship via a guest worker program with the long-term losses of

an overextended social benefit system. Similarly, acceptance of the bill will produce a series of very real precedents for ignoring American immigration law and undermining our national security and territorial integrity as a sovereign entity.

HR 4377 faces similar problems, but from the other extreme. Placing emotional response above rational analysis, Rep. Sensenbrenner’s plan reduces the amount of willing, educated, skilled workers who choose to uphold US law from entering the country. Classifying all illegal aliens as felons will not only be a disaster for any courtroom, but will produce more enforcement problems than are necessary for any plausible solution.

The compromise plan advanced by Senator Bill Frist proves to be the way the wind is blowing. While tightening workplace enforcement and substantially

shoring up border defenses, the plan augments the number of legal, skilled workers in the United States, while substantially reducing such assistance for illegal aliens. In the long-term, the compromise approach meets the demand of a changing American economy, advances national security, reinforces the authority of US immigration law, reduces the numbers of illegals in the United States, and secures America’s long-held reputation as a nation of immigrants.

Boris Ryvkin ’09 is a writer for the Brown Spectator.

about the price elasticity of the college apparel market, it appears to me that such claims are incorrect. I bought my Brown sweatshirt not to serve as an essential article of clothing to keep me warm, but rather as an expression of my school pride. I would buy as much Brown gear as I could, but the price is often prohibitive and I really don’t need it, so I choose to wear my regular clothing instead.

Following this argument, one could reasonably d e d u c e t h a t the substantial increase in prices that will occur because of this p r o g r a m w i l l cause the quantity demanded to fall by a great deal. What will be the immediate result of this? Suppliers will be forced to cut workers, many of whom will likely starve. While the elasticity of demand of the college apparel market remains a question, I do not feel comfortable risking human lives on the basis of an unproved assertion. No matter what the elasticity (omitting the ridiculous possibility that demand

is completely price inelastic), some number of people will die. However, my classmates on the left side of the aisle are not subject to the nuisances of such moral dilemmas. It is convenient for them to exalt the intentions but ignore the consequences.

The astute reader will notice that the outcome of this program is totally dependent upon how effective the WRC will be in carrying out inspections and making sure suppliers keep their word. If the WRC is strong, then all of

the aforementioned effects will occur. Suppliers will have no option but to keep to the standards specified by the program. Quantity demanded will fall as a result of price increases, and the suppliers will have to lay off workers. The supplier, chained by the regulations and pressured by the union, might even be forced to shut down. In the more likely case that the WRC is weak in enforcing its regulations, an

from page 13...“DSP” entirely different outcome will result.

Factory owners will use the WRC’s weakness to balance their fear of shutting down with their desire to extort money from universities. Factory owners will keep costs down by not improving conditions, but they will lie to the universities about their costs in order to get a few extra bucks from them. The price increases will be modest, probably around 1-2 percent, just enough to give corrupt factory owners some change without affecting quantity demanded very much (they don’t want

to shut down, after all). This sort of thing has happened with past anti-sweatshop programs, and the SLA thought they could avoid fraud by simply withdrawing from

the market. The application of logic and basic

economic reasoning to the DSP has led us to a startling conclusion about this program. The Designated Suppliers Program, far from helping the needy, will impoverish them further. An endorsement of the DSP amounts to an

However, my classmates on the left side of the aisle are not subject to the nuisances of such moral dilemmas. It is convenient for them to exalt the intentions but ignore the consequences.

“DSP” continued on page 16...


Barry Bonds and the American WayBooing Bonds

Peter Castimpris

Tuning-in to SportsCenter Monday night to catch some opening day highlights, I was treated to the raucous boos of normally sedate San Diego Padres fans whenever arch-villain Barry Bonds took the field, came to the plate, or even so much as appeared on the jumbotron sitting in the dugout scratching his head. For nine innings Bonds trotted out to left field through an unrelenting sea of jeers more reminiscent of a Roman gladiatorial contest than an afternoon ballgame, and stadium security actually had to remove a number of fans who were holding obscene signs mocking Bonds’ family! Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that anyone is watching a game between two teams in the National League West – the worst division in baseball! In the firestorm of controversy that has followed commissioner Bud Selig’s announcement of an investigation into the “steroid era” in baseball (roughly from 1998 through 2004) the public opinion backlash against the era’s greatest slugger has been nothing short of colossal. But is such a reaction justified: does Bonds deserve the boos?

Two important facts should inform such a discussion. First, Barry Bonds has never tested positive for the use of any performance-enhancing drug, including anabolic steroids, and he continues to maintain that he has never “willingly” taken steroids. Nonetheless, let’s take his sudden balding, mood-swings, and a curiously expanding cranium as evidence that Bonds has been “‘roiding.” Even if this were so, Major League Baseball did not begin to systematically test all players until 2004, and did not even have an official policy on steroids until 2002 – the year after Bonds hit his record 73 home runs in the 2001 season. As such, it seems that Bond’s alleged substance abuse is limited to a time when it was not specifically illegal in the game.

Should we be outraged at Bond’s possible use of anabolic steroids in light of such information? It seems to me that a great

deal of the enmity towards the slugger’s possible use of performance-enhancers is due to the conception that it provided him with an unfair advantage over his competition – that he cheated. As wikipedia.com puts it in its article on anabolic steroids, players use the substance “to allow them to better compete with others who have a physical advan tage , pe rhaps from a more fortunate natural endowment of endogenous steroids or from steroid use as well.” Such natural advantages as height, weight, speed, and strength among others have a huge impact on a player’s performance – even Bonds’ natural left-handedness is a great advantage for batters. Is it unfair, however, for Yao Ming to tower at 7’6” tall, or Michael Vick to run a 4.1 second 40-yard dash? Of course not! And at a time in which anabolic steroids were

readily available to players and in which they were unregulated by the game, the notion that steroid use would’ve given Bonds an unfair or uncommon advantage is patently absurd: not everyone can bat left-handed or stand over seven feet tall, but any player can get his trainer to give him steroids. As such, a great number of players in fact did use substance during this time period, and the notion that Bonds should be singled-out for blame is silly at best.

On the same day that Barry Bonds had a syringe chucked at him at Petco Park in San Diego, Mets’ catcher Paul LoDuca was laughing with a reporter because of a botched play at the plate that the umpire didn’t notice – LoDuca dropped the ball as the base runner slid across the plate, but quickly recovered and fooled him into calling the runner out. And we all remember Steelers’ quarterback Ben Roethlisberger’s questionable

“Bonds” continued on page 14...

the brown spectator: may 2006

Documents