The Hillsdale Forum - Spring 2006-07

the

hillsdale hillsd ale forum spring 2007

Volume IV, Issue III

THINGS TO FIND

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Church Tuxedo Flowers Family Friends Ring Bride

FULL STORY PAGE 5

2

the crawler

it’s everything you ever needed to know...and some things you didn’t April 2007 March 2007

The Crash of “Scooter”

by Briana Mulder

The trial and conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby is among the most shameful moments in the history of the American Judicial System. The Constitution promises the right to a fair trial; Scooter Libby’s trial did not meet that standard. On July 6, 2003, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. Ambassador, wrote an article in the New York Times accusing President Bush of misrepresenting intelligence reports to justify the Iraqi war. Eight days after Wilson’s article was published, Robert Novak’s column identified Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Novak cited two White House sources, but refused to name them. Libby was immediately accused of leaking the information to retaliate against Wilson, for his denouncement of the Bush Administration. Wilson alleged that Libby read, and then illegally leaked classified CIA documents regarding Plame. Libby claimed members of the media informed him of Plame’s CIA status. In October 2005, Libby was charged with lying regarding his role in the alleged Plame outing. This gives rise to the first problem. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent when Novak’s article was published. Thus, Robert Novak’s mention of Plame should have been irrelevant. Instead, a witch-hunt ensued, in which the American people’s emotions were used to create a vilification of Libby. The second problem is Richard Armitage, not Libby, was Robert Novak’s source. CIA spokesman Bill Harlow was Novak’s second source, confirming Armitage’s statement regarding Plame. Charges were never brought against Richard Armitage or Bill Harlow. Thus how could Libby be sent to court on charges that were seemingly excusable in the case of other

Cartoon courtesy of USBCI

spring 2007

men? The third problem is the manner in which the trial was conducted. During the trial, the jury was never informed Plame was not covert when her name was disclosed. If Plame wasn’t covert, revealing her identity wasn’t a crime. Nor was the jury made aware that Richard Armitage admitted revealing Plame’s identity. Shortly after the trial ended, jurors made public statements favoring a presidential pardon for Libby. Even if there had been significant grounds for the charges, the way the trail was carried out makes one question the impartiality of the American Justice System. In 2007, after having his name dragged through the mud, Libby was convicted on one count of obstruction justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury. This is curious. Wilson’s accusation results in Libby’s conviction on five counts. Why? It is speculated that Prosecutor Fitzgerald used Wilson to inflict maximum political damage to Bush’s White House and, perhaps, to enhance his own career. Libby could be sentenced to thirty years in prison, all because he was falsely accused of trying to discredit Wilson’s claims President Bush went to war in Iraq on insufficient evidence. Ironically, contrary to Wilson’s claims, the evidence regarding Iraq was later proven to be valid. This calls into question all of Wilson’s claims, as he has obviously seems to have little trouble in asserting falsifications. America prides itself on having a justice system that seeks the truth. In the case of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the truth was known. The truth was pushed aside to make a spectacle of a member of the rival political party. Mr.. Libby has served America honorably and should receive a full pardon. Such a pardon would be a small step towards a return to the justice desired by the Founders for this free nation.

Britain’s National Health Service recommends that medical personnel no longer use the terms “mum” and “dad,” but “guardian,” in order not to confuse the children of gay parents.

*

The South Korean government agrees to provide students who complain of bullying with privately funded bodyguards to and from school grounds.

*

Students in California teamed up to increase their scores in upcoming state-wide tests. How? By dividing themselves racially, then urging one another to outscore the other groups.

*

For a flat rate of $3,000, in addition to hotel and meal costs, cabbie Douglas Guldinez has agreed to drive a New York couple to their new home in Arizona.

*

At the Antwerp Zoo in Belgium, officals have urged visitors not to make eye contact with the chimps because it is “delaying the social integration of animals in the group.”

*

After trying to conceive for five years, a Michigan couple has turned to the Internet in seach of birth mothers. Where are they looking? MySpace.

*

Nearly one year after Rosie O’Donnell set out to anger every activist on earth with her ranting and raving, she has decided to leave The View in June.

After being lost in a dense fog, two anti-whale activists were rescued by a whaling boat. To show their appreciation, the pair later approached the boat * and hurled two cans of acid on Next month, check local listboard, injuring several crew ings for ESPN’s National Rock, Paper, Scissor tournament. The members. winner will take home $50,000 * Angelina Jolie, in an attempt to and the title of a lifetime. adopt a kid from every country * on Earth, added Pax Thein Jolie In Sherdian, Wyoming, a womto her collection. an is currently housing a goat in the backseat of her mini-van. * Under pressure from Liberals Despite complaints, officials say who find the Fox network bi- that as long as the car remains ased, Senators Hillary Clinton clean, the animal can stay. and Barack Obama both pub* licly refused to participate in a Just in case you needed proof that our society knows how televised Fox News debate to spend it’s money wisely, an * Police arrested a man, who after anonymous music excutive reescaping the day before, robbed cently purchased the diaries of the same bank again the next Anna Nicole Smith at auction day. for over $50,000.

h

forum theHillsdale forum Emilia Huneke-Bergquist

Julie Robison Editors-in-Chief Samantha COnn Business Editor Mary Kate Cavazos Subscription Manager Brian Johnston Kate Martin Stohn Nishino Scott Rozell G. Stolyarov II Staff Writers Anastasia Ealey Thomas Leonard Christina Miller Anthony Mocny Roger Pattison Heather Shell Contributing Writers

h

forum The Hillsdale Forum is a student publication distributed four times throughout the school year. Questions? Comments? Submissions? Contact The Hillsdale Forum: [email protected]

news

3

The Earth, The Earth, The Earth is on Fi-yah! okay...maybe not on fire, but according to Al Gore, it is gettin’ hot in here

Public Policy Center, his mansion near than 22,000 pounds of carbon dioxide Nashville uses more electricity in a month into the atmosphere. So not only is his When one thinks of Al Gore, one does than a typical American home does in one issue a questionable qualification for a not think of peace-one may think of the year, not to mention the trip he recently peace prize, but he is not even adhering to Clinton years, An Inconvenient Truth made to the Nobel Prize Committee it! Did you just gasp again? You can let it and embarrassing attempts at stealing in Oslo. According to a Reuters article out this time. If even the prophet of manthe Presidency, dated March 29, Gore made global warming doom isn’t walking but rarely does made a prize-lobbying the walk, why should anybody else? anyone think of trip to address the Nobel The broader question is whom in their peace. However, Peace Prize Committee right minds gives a hypocrite a peace only a few about the dangers of prize for a practice that he doesn’t follow months ago, after global warming. He and that doesn’t have anything to do with winning an Oscar got a minute-long peace? The answer is, to Al Gore and the for his role in a standing ovation, Noble Committee, like so many other documentary on and two heads of the liberals, the issue of man-made global global warming, committee made overly warming is a religion. Many people rumor has is favorable comments on even remotely interested in science have that he has him as a prizewinner. pointed out that the cooling and warming been nominated Nevertheless, did they we are experiencing are all natural for the Nobel stop to consider how cycles in the Earth’s progression (anyone Peace Prize. much CO2 he must remember El Nino or La Nina?). Belief Coincidence? have emitted into the in man-made global warming is like As C.S. Lewis atmosphere on his trip any other false religious belief; the cold, wrote, “If you hard facts are staring you in the face, photo courtesy of AP to Oslo? Or how much believe that, Al Gore is prepared to fight anyone who CO2 he personally has and you stomp your foot and haughtily you’ll believe generated throughout exclaim, “This is what I believe, so it refuses to live green. anything.” his career? In a must be right.” What is the difference, Yet, what on the ever-toastier Earth does Newsbusters.com article dated February then, between Scientology and Global global warming have to do with global 20, Noel Sheppard did a write-up of Sean warming? Well…Scientology has Tom peace? If anything, it leads to global H a n n i t y ’ s Cruise. despair. When people devote themselves take on In another ten years, to the dogma of “being green” it is a Al Gore’s when the world is wonder they do not die from the stress “ c a r b o n sizzling up and polar of making sure that everything they do f o o t p r i n t . ” bears vie for beach is green. Especially now, that, according Apparently, umbrellas, will to Matthew J. Traum of MIT, the U.S. when Mr. anyone look back at Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that carbon Gore was Al Gore and say “Ah dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant subject to VP and yes; that man made federal regulation. Never mind that trees campaigning our world more use it to make breathable air, and humans for the peaceful?” Maybe breathe it out every time they exhale, it presidency, they’ll be too busy pollutes the Earth. So, if you want to be he used holding their breath really green, you have to cut down on private jets to while arm-wrestling how much you’re exhaling because it’s fly to many each other for bottles polluting the environment. Did you just campaigning of SPF fifty to protect gasp at the news? That’s okay…just don’t sites, never against the glowering let it out. caring that sun, which will By advancing a supposedly scientific private jets be an entertaining consensus about the environment that emit more spectacle for the rest photo courtesy of AP has everyone living like hippies and c a r b o n of us gas-guzzling, Don’t worry America! We have Chuck Norris on breathing less, Al Gore almost has a dioxide than heavy-breathing, our side. Nobel Peace Prize in the bag. However, if commercial non-Green Earth you ask him, it’s not easy being green— airliners. On January 27th of 2000, Gore destroyers. And that is the only in fact, he apparently has no idea how to made an extensive trip through multiple Inconvenient Truth on this planet. do it himself. According to the Tennessee states via private jet, and chugged more

by Anastasia Ealey

debate

4

SPRING 2007

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ruling by Julie robison

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as constitutional in Gonzales v. Carhart. This is the first national law to prohibit a method of aborting a fetus. This law does not stop prevent women from having abortions, but rather prohibits a particularly gruesome method of performing an abortion. Signed into law in 2003, the PartialBirth Abortion Ban Act was immediately opposed and declared unconstitutional by three different U.S. district courts because it didn’t have a clause which provided for an exemption if the woman’s health was in danger. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that a health exception was not needed. The ban takes into consideration ethical and moral reasons for opposing partial-birth abortions, including an interest in the life of the human fetus. Like all abortions, a partial-birth abortion is a technique which kills the fetus. However, while most abortion procedures focus on the immediate removal of the baby before the end of the first trimester— before the woman is visibly pregnant—this procedure does not usually occur until the

ABORTION:

20

a timeline

1860

Twenty states have laws limiting abortion

1965

The Supreme Court overrules a Connecticut law prohibiting couples from receiving information on contraceptives

1967

baby is at or beyond a point of viability. During a partial-birth abortion, the physician removes the developed baby out of the birth canal except for its head. Up to this point, the human fetus is alive. The skull is then punctured, the brains are sucked out, and the human body is pulled out, dead. The body’s organs and tissues are then suitable and often harvested for science experiments and organ donations. Abortion advocates lament the loss of the partial-birth procedure, claiming it is safest for a woman because it minimizes the chances of injury to the uterus. However, they have yet to provide factual evidence to support this claim. Physicians, on the other hand, maintain that there are other methods to abort the fetus that are still legal and just as safe. The American Medical Association endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America believes that “This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.” The argument that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act rejects precedent is ironic because

CO

Colorado becomes the first state to legalize abortion--Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Washington soon follow

that is exactly what the original Roe v. Wade ruling did in 1973: it ignored the existing precedent and based its opinion on then current medical thinking and science. Roe v. Wade held that abortions should be allowed “until the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” The Court further ruled that any state may enact laws to regulate or prohibit abortions at or after the point of fetal viability. The Court indicated that viability, at that time, “is usually placed” at about 7 months or 28 weeks, but may occur earlier. With advances in medical science, that age has now been reduced to 20 weeks, which is when partial-birth abortions usually occur. 20 weeks has been documented to be the earliest a human fetus can survive outside the womb, thanks to the vast increase in neonatal intensive care units and greater medical knowledge and skill. The debate over human fetus viability comes from recent science discoveries and technology that allows human fetuses to survive at a much younger stage, making the state question if there should more stringent regulations concerning when a human fetus’s life can be terminated. Opponents of abortion also maintain that there is emotional and psychological damage done to women, as many of them

1973

1992

Roe vs Wade... you know the details

$

1976

The Hyde Amendment bans the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortion procedures

1977

States allowed to restrict abortion 2000 access as long as it does not place an Nebraska’s ban on partial “undue burden” on women seeking birth abortion is overturned, the procedure thus negating a ban in 29 of 31 other states as well

They revise the amendment to allow funding only in the cases involving “rape, incest, or severe long-lasting physical damage”

1988

are prone to severe depression and other mental health problems after abortions. The ban does not violate a woman’s right to an abortion. While some abortion advocates maintain this is a constitutional right, a casual observer of the Constitution would be unable to find the words ‘right to an abortion’ in the Constitution. In Justice White’s dissent for Roe v. Wade, he said, “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.” Roe v. Wade supports a woman’s right to an abortion in the first trimester but does not carry this right into the second or third trimester. The ruling permits for states to place more restrictions on abortions. The Roe v. Wade decision emphasized its “modern” and “scientific” evidence during the process of deciding when and under what conditions abortions may be performed. As medicine and science further push back the barriers to fetal survival at an even earlier age, Roe’s philosophical rationale continues to erode. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may reject Roe v. Wade’s factual conclusion but is entirely consistent with Roe’s methodology; today’s medical achievements permit the Courts to recognize the life within the woman and to protect its sanctity, as well as adhere to the spirit of the 1973 ruling.

The “gag rule” prohibits federally funded medical facilities from providing information and referrals concerning abortion

F A C E

29/31

1994

The FACE Act prohibits the use of violence or force to keep women out of abortion clinics and prosecutes those who attempt to do so

2003

President Bush passes a federal ban on many abortion procedures

All information courtesy of the National Abortion Federation

h

forum

spotlight

She doesn’t want a diamond?!?

5

why bagging today’s bride is harder than it used to be

by Christina Miller “Marriage is the end of everything,” claims Amanda, and Carly could not agree more, “Men are dogs. I couldn’t imagine living with one,” while Katherine muses, “I think I’ll start a sect of Protestant nuns.” What do these three girls have in common? Well, to begin, they are all friends of mine—and though for purposes of this article I haven’t used their real names—they all echo a common sentiment among young American women today: They don’t want to get married. Ever. Across the nation, more and more women are remaining single, and not because they cannot find an eligible man, but because they don’t want to find an eligible man. These women view marriage as worthless at best and evil at worst. Why this shift in attitudes towards marriage? Had I grown up in my favorite period of history, the 1940s, chances are that at twenty years old I would have already married my high school sweetheart and either have had a baby or one on the way. I wouldn’t be in college with my parents paying for the air that I breathe. I would be a responsible, mature woman (one would hope). Yet, since I grew up in the 1990s, I am currently single and working on a college degree. I probably won’t be married for a few years yet, and maybe not be a mom for the next decade, but if I choose not to marry, I can still support myself. What’s changed? Many things. When the feminist movement came along in the 1960s, women became more independent. In span of twenty years, women went from getting married out of high school and spending the next decade having and raising babies to attending college and having careers. Today, it is not unheard of for women to bear children without men. Suddenly we can support ourselves entirely—without husbands. We no longer need men. The feminist movement also gave rise to the anti-male attitude. American society spends a good deal of time criticizing and demoralizing men. Our sitcoms especially show the husband as clueless and fumbling while the wife is wise and discerning and always cleaning up his mistakes. In school our boys are

taught that their natural male behavior is morally repugnant. If a young man holds a door open for a young lady, she may launch into a “chivalry is dead” rant. Yet if he treats her like his male friends, she may just as easily tell him what a pig he is. Men only have to hear that they’re

live in a world where the sun rises on our left shoulder and sets on our right. A recent article, written by Dawn Yanek, and featured on MSN.com, detailed the benefits of being single: one has more money and uninhibited spending habits, freedom to travel, and the freedom to

The Hillsdale Forum’s Top Ten Reasons to Tie the Knot the tax break * the chance to produce a more conservatives * higher among happiness levels are high married couples * an escape from your crazy family * haven’t you always wanted a mother-in-law? * married couples live longer * you’re guaranteed a lifetime companion * save money on rent * you don’t have to bear any burdens alone * true love

dopes and good-for-nothings a few times to start believing it. So what do they do? Act like dopes and good-for-nothings. We have all laughed at Ray Romano a few times, but I think most of my female counterparts will agree we would not want to marry someone like him. A third reason is the increasing selfishness of American culture. We

make their own decisions without being accountable to anyone. All are selfcentered motives. Marriage requires compromising and sacrificing our own needs for those of our husbands or wives. When, a single woman can do what she wants, when she wants, and if she lives in a society that promotes such a lifestyle, the question becomes, “Why

should she give that up for marriage?” While many people claim there is no problem with this trend, I say otherwise. I believe the growing school of thought that marriage is a loathsome burden rather than God’s plan for uniting male and female indicates a problem with American culture. First, marriage has a way of forcing us to grow up and mature. I have seen this in my high school friends who have taken the long walk and heard tales of it from adults who have been married for decades. When you are married, you have to take your spouse’s needs and desires into consideration when making decisions. You can’t just decide to go get your law degree or take that promotion that will have you move across the country. Learning to consider the needs of others is a valuable life skill, and the mark of a mature Christian, and being married helps to hone it. Marriage also teaches conflict resolution. If you have a spat with a coworker, you can go to your separate cubicles until you’re ready to talk again. If you disagree with a friend on the phone, you can hang up on. Have an argument with your significant other and you can go back to your own apartments until the next day. But if you have a fight with your spouse, there’s no escaping. Women especially like to mope around and pretend nothing is wrong when we are really plotting the offending party’s tragic accidental death. In marriage, we cannot do that. We have to learn to fight fair. Finally, marriage was created for the purpose of providing a stable environment for children. It’s not all about us. Children need two parents who love each other and love their child for a stable home. A right marriage fosters this environment. I’m not saying women should stop going to college. Nor am I saying that women should leave the workforce and bear children every couple of years from the ages of 20 to 40. I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a bad thing to be single—God has a different plan for each of us. What I am saying is today’s young woman might consider not writing off marriage so quickly. Marriage is God’s ordained institution for bringing male and female together. Through it we grow, mature, and learn. And really, isn’t that what the Christian life is all about?

6

open forum

“And the politically correct, pro-choice, minority, anti-war, tree hugging award goes to...”

Statue images courtesy of the AAMPA and Oscar.com

by Kate Martin

The Super Bowl is a widely accepted part of the Americana. We throw parties and make bets on the winners, all in anticipation of that great game. While I love parties and predictions, my big night comes a few weeks later: the Academy Awards. Friends gathered in my room for a small gala, complete with a red carpet-walk and sparkling cider. I watched pre-shows and was eager for the celebration of one of my favorite diversions. Unfortunately, this year’s festivities left me feeling a little less festive than usual. My worries had begun weeks before when the nominees were announced, with An Inconvenient Truth nabbing a nomination for Best Documentary. This nomination capped my growing fear that The Academy lacks an understanding of documentary. A documentary is based on facts, and the number of scientists and sources who question the science in Truth lead me to believe that the facts behind the piece are less than sound. While upset by the inclusion of the film in the evening, I assumed that the documentary category would be a small portion of the night. After all, when March of the Penguins won last year’s Best Documentary award, penguins did not become the highlighting theme. Little did I know how greatly I underestimated the Academy: what awaited

Bring it on Karl... Bring. It. On. Thats right, they modeled Oscar after me, and thats is one sexy award

me was a meeting of politicians and entertainers, each seeming to be presenting themselves as an authority in the other arena, rather than presenting the awards. As a Political Economy major, I have nothing against politics, but I find it alarming when politicians are standing on a stage, giving a face to the entertainment world. When only one side of the political spectrum is represented, it traps the entertainment world into a box half the size of what it could be. Former Vice President Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for his role in Blood Diamond, shared the stage to make a Public Service Announcement about the importance of the environment and taking small steps to work for an end to the global warming crisis. Gore personally thanked DiCaprio for his efforts for the cause, leaving little doubt in the audience’s mind to DiCaprio’s politically leanings, a sentiment backed when DiCaprio gushed about the honor of sharing the stage with Gore. The Academy was pushing an agenda and they left subtly on the red carpet. Gore and DiCaprio did not appear on stage to present awards; their sole purpose was to give instructions on how Americans should live their lives. They urged the viewers to check out www.oscar.com in order to get more ecofriendly tips. The directives on the web site fail to give any sort estimate of the cost of

It doesn’t matter Bono, because EVERYONE GETS A BAG!!

some of their suggestions, or, in some cases, even provide actual alternatives: “Farmers: cut down on pesticide use. Innovative and successful farmers around the country are switching from conventional pest management practices, which are heavily reliant on pesticides, to profitable alternative agricultural practices that substantially reduce pesticide use”. This suggestion fails to provide even one example of an alternative. DiCaprio promised the audience that “the American Film Industry has always taken it’s obligations to society very seriously.” At this point, I was unsure of what which obligations DiCaprio was speaking. It certainly could not have been its obligation to entertain me, as the lack of anything to do with movie industry was causing me almost physical pain. I remain unconvinced that making sure Americans live their lives in the most environmentally conscious manner falls under an obligation of the American Film Industry. I turn to the American Film Industry to provide me with movies. If they have something to say about the environment and recycling, make a movie about it, but do not use actors who their use fame to appeal to a false sense of

authority. DiCaprio has been nominated for three Academy Awards, but that does not qualify him to lecture on environmentally-sound principles. This is a smaller component of the world where actors and entertainers speak out supporting or belittling political parties with an air of authority. Americans have come to accept that having any sort of name recognition gives a person the right to an almost unquestioned level of authority on all topics, whether or not the speaker is truly educated in the subject. Sean Penn, an Oscar-winning actor, was recently quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle talking about the war in Iraq, saying, “You and your smarmy pundits -- and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket -- can take your war and shove it. Let’s unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable.” A quick look into Penn’s background reveals that Penn’s highest degree is a high school diploma, meaning that Penn has not be recognized for his study of foreign policy and national defense by any college or university. I do not begrudge Penn his

I wonder if my cell phone is on vibrate...

opinions or feelings, but I resent that his celebrity status means that his comments will be given the same, if not more, news attention granted to those whose profession involves the studying of these issues. The Oscar’s green theme was felt again in Melissa Etheridge’s performance of “I Need to Wake Up,” the Oscar-nominated song from An Inconvenient Truth. While she sang about the importance of waking up to the crisis and speaking out against it, eco-friendly suggestions such as “Vote for leaders who will solve this crisis” and “Pray that people will find the strength to change” glided across the screen behind her. The Academy showed their support for her song and ideas by presenting her with an Academy Award to match the one awarded to An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore was praised yet again after Melissa kissed and thanked her incredible wife. A political agenda eclipsed the celebration of movie-making at the awards show this year. Besides the issue of global warming, the actresses who were insisting upon conflict-free diamonds—diamonds that do not come from or fund governments that conflict with the regulations of the UN Security Council—made a few headlines in the weeks leading up to the Oscars. This sudden awareness was spiked by the movie Blood Diamond, a harrowing tale of

oppression under a power-hungry regime. The movie was also nominated for five Academy awards. I found the demand for conflict-free diamonds a little vexing, as I found myself wondering if this newfound advocacy will see them through to another awards season. I become annoyed quickly by celebrities who use the politically correct bandwagon as their main means of transportation. Actors show up to awards shows with their red ribbons and conflict-free diamonds, showing their disgust with slave labor and I have to wonder, “Did you really need a ribbon to prove that?” Just as the global warming crisis inspired the Oscars to go green, conflict free demands were in high demand. As I look ahead to next year’s awards (February 24th), I find myself wondering what will replace the green and the diamonds next year. What new issue will have been found that Hollywood must crusade, in order to save America from utter destruction? The Academy was hitting their points hard, which says to me that they are aware that they do not have the total support of the country. Maybe it’s time that I take a cue from Melissa Etheridge and help Hollywood wake up to the idea that while excellent acting and movies are greatly appreciated, their insistence of bringing a liberal agenda to the entertainment world only alienates me, rather than the “reform” for which they hope.

Hehehehe! Oh Tommy I love you!

But Oprah, the Oscars aren’t liberal!

President Bush has nothing on Dr. Evil My hair represents carrots, which grow in the Earth. Save the Earth Oscar!

Whatever, just try to keep the baby hidden under that dress

spring 2007

8

viewpoint

spring 2007

The Illusion of Success Through Luck by g. sTOLYarov III

Luck exists. Success through luck does not exist. A coin can be tossed; money can depend on the outcome; you can bet, and it can come up your side. That is luck. If you follow that as a systematic strategy, however, probability theory states quite clearly that you can expect to end up approximately where you started. Realworld outlets that sustain themselves on their customers’ expectations of success through luck will not give you such generous odds. No lasting and permanent good comes to man through luck. It might seem at first that money could. After all, some inherit enormous sums of it—others lack any to begin with. Some win the lottery. Some profit from a rise in stock prices they did not foresee. Yet this is not success; success lies in keeping those chance gains—and no accident of fortune can assure this. The wealthy heir will not remain well endowed for long if he recklessly squanders what he has. To continue to enjoy prosperity, he must abstain from frivolous consumption, engage in prudent, f o r e s i g h t e d investment, ever remain productive to gain the stuff his affluence is made of. This is not luck: it is thrift, innovation, d i s c i p l i n e , consistency; it is the human character at its best. If an heir has kept his fortune for decades, it is all his own doing; no luck need be invoked. The man who wins the lottery expected success to come to him by chance. By a minuscule chance, his expectation was fulfilled, once. If he continues to maintain this expectation, however, the laws of nature dictate that prosperity will be lost to him just as quickly as he gained it. He will have more money to bet with; the stakes will be higher; the astronomical probability of loss will not change. To become successful, he will need to reverse his past habits entirely and resist the temptations

that suddenly gained vast sums of money inevitably pose. He will want to spend his winnings to live in luxury; if he does, his prosperity will be as a shooting star, extinguished drastically after a mere few seconds of radiance. Only the wisdom and prudence of putting all his money away and letting the law of compound interest augment it to furnish a perpetual income stream will save him from once again plunging into the gambler’s desperate rut. But luck cannot furnish this outcome. Only forbearance and foresight can. Nor is it different with great discoveries of science—though popular myths have unfortunately spread the contrary impression. An apple might indeed have fallen on Newton’s head. The apple did not create the Universal Law of Gravitation. It was neither necessary nor sufficient for the discovery to arise. Other apples also fell on other heads—thousands of them. No other man would have arrived at Newton’s insight if struck by a similar apple—because he did not do what Newton did. To what moments ought history credit the discovery of the Universal Law of Gravitation? To the hours Newton spent in his study, day after day, year after year, inventing the Calculus, analyzing astronomical data, writing, reasoning, struggling. The struggling was likely the most important of these. A genius succeeds not through flashes of inspiration, not through some light-headed caper in the land of the muses. This misconception is the reason why those who hold it do not accomplish on the level of Newton, Leonardo, or Voltaire. The great man works,

he strains himself to conquer problems at a level of difficulty unimaginable to most. The true genius is a man, in body and mind like other men, who chooses for himself an exceptionally difficult task and gives it the full effort it demands. No luck is involved; he was not just born that way; no intricate combination of genetic base pairs can predetermine a man’s resolve and the number of hours he puts in at night after the rest of the world has long gone to sleep. Nor were special, mystical faculties anywhere to be seen. One does not intuit the Calculus or the motion of planets. The men who make history understand that the results of their work ultimately depend on the strength of their will, the potency of their effort, and the rigor of their reasoning—on them and them alone. Serendipity might offer an occasional clue to the proper path—but it is a man’s own responsibility to notice it, interpret it, and apply it with the utmost diligence. Another man, had an apple struck him, might have thought it only an occasion to get his head inspected for bruises. The delusion that any success can be easy—attainable through mere chance—is the reason for the continued prominence of disappointment, disillusionment, and unhappiness in an age which abounds with material goods and opportunities alike. If a man thinks he can succeed through mere chance, he sees no need to exert himself; if a man attributes his failure to pure luck, he will not accept responsibility for his own predicament. The great man accomplishes more precisely because he recognizes that—in the long run—he is the sole determining factor of his fate. No obstacle, not even death itself, can ultimately undo the fruits of his resolve; Newton’s discoveries have survived him by centuries—and the generations that followed him did not preserve his work by random chance or whim. The Nobel, Ford, and Rockefeller fortunes continue to shape the economic and cultural dynamic of the world, over a century after they were accumulated. Others watch the great man—Mozart at his piano, Edison at his laboratory—and

Must have... LOTTO TICKETS!

think: how easily and how effortlessly these prodigies seem to accomplish their feats! But such observers see only the results; they do not see the process that attained them. They do not see the hours of methodical preparation, the days of developing incomplete but promising thoughts, the months and years of building on a base of skill and knowledge at the expense of leisure and luxury. The regular times Mozart spent alone, experimenting with combinations of notes to find those fruitful few; the thousands of failed attempts Edison made at a technical problem before finding one that solved it—those the public does not see. This omission distorts, discolors, and impoverishes the prevailing view of men who succeed at monumental tasks. There exists no special breed of men with extraordinary faculties or propensities for success. Biologically, all men are quite indistinguishable from Paleolithic savages who lusted after nothing less ignominious than the blood of the neighboring tribe. The men who build a civilization, the men who through inaction allow it to fall into disrepair, and the men who wantonly tear it apart, differ only in how they choose to approach the world. Those who succeed in their endeavors—at whatever level or occupation—do so because of a thorough and active reliance on themselves. Those who fail waste time in idleness, hoping for luck to bring success to them. Or they accumulate resentment of the successful— wishing to expropriate, to equalize, to pull down those they consider undeserving of riches and honors. The jealous think that they will somehow become better off if they undermine the men who struggle to produce, to furnish the goods and ideas used by the rest of mankind—who ask for nothing more in exchange than the liberty to act as they reason fit and the right to keep what they have earned. Yet the expropriators will ultimately be as undermined—as greatly worse off—as the expropriated; they will think that they suffer only because their luck has changed for the worse. Yet reality will remain adamant. Like millions in the oppressing and oppressed, regulating and regulated, commanding and obeying nations of the world, those who believe success is a function of luck will continue to suffer.

h

forum

viewpoint The Mid-Life Crisis of the EU

9

Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | Spain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | Spain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France Yet, asked if they agree that “immigrants The 50th anniversary of the EU brought j. Buchanan | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom Greece by Patrick contribute a lot to my | country,” only | 40Portugal | Spain to the fore as many questions as telegrams Guest COlumnist of congratulations. Quo vadis? Where is percent of EU citizens said, “Yes.” Hostility | Austria | FinlandThe| 50th Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | to immigration is strongest in Eastern birthday of the European Europe going? Europe. Not one five Hungarians, Czechs, Other | than commerce, what is the| EU Union,| born in Rome| inBelgium March 1957 Slovakia | Bulgaria Romania | France Germany | Italy Luxembourg |inNetherlands | Denmark | Ireland Estonians, Latvians or Slovakians thinks as the European Economic Community all about? Why is Europe so strategically | United Kingdom | Greece | Spain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus Czech | Estonia | immigration is good for|their country.Republic They impotent? What happened to the continent or Common Market| --Portugal of Germany, want to remain who they are, and their France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and that was the cockpit of history? Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | PolandAccording | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy to a poll published by The country to remain what it has been. Luxembourg -- was a pallid affair. When Chancellor Angela | Merkel, not half the citizens of so. For|though the EU has| Washington | Luxembourg |Understandably Netherlands Denmark Ireland |Times, United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal Spainhostess | Austria | Finland of the party, drafted a “birthday card,” expanded to embrace 27 nations and boasts its 27 member states think positively of the | Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic Estonia | Hungary Latvia Lithuania | Malta | Poland Slovakia | Bulgaria | Declaration, even that| created EU. Only 28 percent of|Brits think | well of the Berlin an economy equal to that of the United| States, dissension and division. it is like a man well into middle-age whose it. Only a third believes EU membership is Romania | Belgium | France | are Germany |Great Luxembourg | Netherlands | nations Denmark | United Kingdom Some objected| toIreland any mention good for Britain. career accomplishments behind him.| Italy of theRepublic new constitution. Vaclav Havel of After|a Sweden committee led by ex-President The EU| birthday party was further proof, | Greece | Portugal Spain | Austria | Finland | Cyprus | Czech | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | the Czech Republic called the declaration were any needed, that no transnational Giscard d’Estaing of France wrote a “Orwellian Eurospeak.”|Poland to setting the|EU on course toward institution can elicit love and loyalty of constitution, Lithuania | Malta | Poland | the Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania Belgium | France | Germany Italyobjected | Luxembourg | Neththe failure to mention Christianity as birth a country. World Government is a vision a “United States of Europe,” France and erlands | Denmark United Greece | Resentment Portugalof|theSpain |ofAustria | Finland |called Sweden | Cyprus | mother Europe. Pope Benedict XVI it down. of elites|noIreland patriot will|ever embrace.Kingdom Men Holland|voted the failure to credit Christianity an act of died in the millions for Poland, France, “faceless bureaucrats of Brussels,” where Czech Republichave | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | “apostasy.” The Christophobic French elite Italy, England and Germany. Who would the European Commission sits, is rampant. got their way again. Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | As the votes in Holland and France|show, walk through the European Union? France | Germany | Italyfire|forLuxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark Ireland | United What the malaise of the EU tells us is what The EU’s champions claim its great nationalism is tearing at the aging fabric Spain | Austria |achievement Finlandis|toSweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Democracy Lithuania patriots have already known. and| Malta | Poland have kept the peace of of European unity. Nor is the EU deeply free markets are not enough. Dry documents, Europe. “Sixty years of peace means that democratic. Giscard is demanding another | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Irethe image of the EU as a bastion against vote because, as he says, the French “got it no matter how eloquent, abstract ideas, no matter how beautiful, do not nation make. They|must vote again again, ‘til| Sweden war is losing|its resonance,” said Jose wrong.” land | United Kingdom Greece | Portugal | Spain Austria | and Finland | Cyprus |aCzech Republic | Estonia What makes a people and a nation is a Manuel Barroso, head of the European they get it right. This is the soft tyranny of an | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | arm Malta | inPoland | knows Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy unique history and heritage, language and elite that better than the people what Commission, the executive that sits literature, songs and stories, traditions and is best for the people. | Luxembourg Brussels. |Intending Netherlands | Denmark | United | Portugal | mystic Spainchords | Austria | Finland customs, blood, soil and the Many in Europe oppose Kingdom plans to bring | in Greece no disrespect to Barroso, it| Ireland of memory. new members, especially Turkey, an | Islamic was not|the EU thatRepublic keep Europe | secure | Sweden | Cyprus Czech Estonia | Hungary | Latvia Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | The EU is a thing of paper, an intellectual and at peace. America kept the Red Army nation of 70 million, which will soon be Unlike a nation, has no heart more populous than Germany.|This raises construct. from the and the Rhine. America| Italy Romania | Belgium | Elbe France | Germany | Luxembourg Netherlands | Denmark | itIreland | United Kingdom and no soul. And if and when it passes saved Western Europe from the fate of the another issue. | Greece | Portugal | Spain Finland | member Sweden |EUCyprus | Czech Republic | Hungary | Latvia | into history because | of Estonia some irreconcilable Not one of the has a birthrate Hungarians in 1956, | theAustria Czechs in | 1968 dispute, many may regret it. Few will weep. and the Poles in 1981. America pulled the among its native born to enable it to survive Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | NethBritish and French chestnuts out of the in its present form. Europe’s welfare states are failing| toSpain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus | Balkan| fires of the 1990s. erlands | Denmark Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and German-French amity is a product of produce the babies to replace the aging and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers Czech Republicstatesmanship, | Estonia but | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | also of the defeat shrinking population. Thus, virtually all the and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web of France in 1940 and the reduction of nations of Western Europe are undergoing page at www.creators.com. France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | Germany to rubble by the American, invasions -- from the Mahgreb, Middle East, Asia or Republic sub-Saharan Africa. and Soviet armies in 1944-1945. COPYRIGHT| 2007 CREATORS INC Spain | Austria |British Finland | Sweden | Cyprus South | Czech | Estonia | Hungary Latvia |SYNDICATE Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | Spain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria | Romania | Belgium | France | Germany | Italy | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Denmark | Ireland | United Kingdom | Greece | Portugal | Spain | Austria | Finland | Sweden | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Poland | Slovakia | Bulgaria |

10

politics

spring 2007

What Exactly is “Conservatism?”

by Brian Johnston Ask a typical person who would describe themselves as “conservative” what their main beliefs are, and that person would likely say that they are in favor of limited government, more religion, a strong military, etc. They would likely be against abortion, gun control, wasteful social programs, or other “liberal” reforms. While it is good to be well-informed and have an opinion on important policy issues, defining conservatism based on what it is for or against can be difficult, if not dangerous. When defining conservatism, the obvious question that we must ask is what we are trying to “conserve.” In light of everexpanding government and deteriorating morality in culture, most conservatives today would agree that society as it currently is should not be conserved. So already, we have a problem defining the term. Perhaps then we could define conservatism in terms of “Right” and “Left,” on a political scale. Policies that are more traditional or tested by time are on the Right, while newer or more contemporary policies are on the Left. But defining beliefs in terms of Right and Left can be problematic as well. A policy can be on the Right in one way and on the Left in another. This applies especially to moral issues. For example, a constitutional

amendment banning gay marriage would be an effort to promote morality, but it would also involve the federal government in an area that has traditionally been left to the states. This is also true in our current War on Terror. While having a strong military may be a more conservative policy, spreading democracy and foreign intervention itself were not advocated by many of the Founders. Historically, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” also have changed meanings. Today, conservatives usually support government intervention in morality but not in economics, while liberals advocate limited government regulation of morality but intervention in economics. The term “liberal” used to refer to more liberty in all areas of life, while conservatism once did not have the emphasis on religion that it does today. Technology also is a factor, because recent innovations such as the Internet and more powerful weaponry require new applications of old, constitutional principles. Even though it is difficult to define what conservatism is, perhaps Russell Kirk offers a solution. In The Politics of Prudence, Kirk tells us to use prudence instead of adhering to ideologies. This means being “judicious, cautious, [and] sagacious” instead of thinking of politics “as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature.” Kirk identifies

The Hillsdale Forum

ten “principles” of conservatism: 1.) Belief in an enduring moral order 2.) Adherence to custom, convention, and continuity 3.) A principle of “prescription” from things past 4.) Using prudence, or thinking of the longterm consequences of actions 5.) Emphasis of variety, or individualism instead of equality 6.) A belief that human beings cannot be perfected 7). A belief in private property, which allows for freedom 8.) Community, or locals making their own decisions instead of a centralized administration 9.) “Prudent” restraints on power and human passions 10.) Belief in change, but a rejection of “mystical Progress” (what is new is not necessarily better than what is old) In short, we need to reject the idea that enacting or preventing a certain policy will solve all of our problems and should therefore be pursued at all costs. Instead,

Dear Mr. Congressman, How long has it been since you have read a letter from a constituent? How long has it been since you took the time to personally respond to a letter? The intern who read this before you and the staff assistant who will respond to this letter may never even tell you about the thoughts I am expressing. I know you’re a busy man, but how often do you sit down and read the opinions of those who elected you? Do those opinions go into your voting decision? Are you too busy befriending those around you, logrolling bills to become more powerful in Congress? Granted you cannot read all the mail, or take the opinions of a passionate minority when thinking of the dispassionate majority, but how dedicated are you to your district? Will you taint your honored office by pulling a William Jefferson, or just not store your money in your freezer? Or will you be a man of your people, meeting with Capitol tour groups, getting to know the names of your free labor interns, occasionally responding with a hand written letter to a hometown group about an issue? Are you more focused on lobbyist receptions, drinking in the “perks” of your office, or more concerned with being in your district, getting to know those who you represent? I have spent time in Washington and know the many pitfalls you have to avoid, but in today’s politically correct, question dodging, fluff issue den that is politics, are you going to vote on behalf on the constituent, or for your own gain? I respect the work you have done to achieve what you have, but I ask that interns and staffers aren’t the only ones who read the mail, respond to the letters, or answer the phones. I hope you do not only take calls from influential businessmen and lobbyists, but from the people who matter. This letter is filled with questions, but also a charge that you draw upon the roots of our Republic and fulfill the obligation of representing the electoral, and not yourself. Sincerely,

photo courtesy of www.radicalhippie.com

See? Even Hippies like it! Support the paper today! [email protected]

when a particular issue arises in society, each person should weigh the pros and cons of a possible solution before making a decision. A solution may solve a problem, but it could create new ones. For example, outlawing guns may cut down on accidental injuries, but violent crimes would certainly go up, likely outweighing any positives. Defining conservatism may be difficult, but it is important because conservatives must know what the driving force is behind their beliefs. Conservatives must not only have ends they want to achieve, but a means of getting there as well. It is therefore important to be skeptical instead of simply accepting everything that some politician or media pundit tells us to. Above all, we must be careful, analyzing every situation, so that we can make informed and prudent decisions.

Scott Rozell Constituent 7th District of Michigan.

h

forum

profile

11

CCA: a Fund-Raiser in Disguise, or a True Hillsdale Experience? by Stephani Francl

Twice each semester, Phillips Auditorium fills to capacity and beyond for the week-long seminars we know as CCA’s. After watching the custom for four years, I have heard every constructive suggestion in the book. Students, frustrated with the difficulty in getting good seats request all seating be on a first-come, first-served basis. The eldest and wisest guests carefully make their way down the treacherous stairs because no elevator reaches the auditorium. The balconies can never open soon enough. Rarely do complaints arise against the school from the guests. Special dinners, receptions, and class visits keep them occupied. Complaints flow freely from the students often against those who work in the stately Moss Hall. Institutional Advancement brings guests to campus to impress them with the brilliance of us, the students. Dr. Arnn and his associates escort the rich and interested guests about campus disrupting the quiet of the library, the noise of the dining hall, and the atmosphere of the classroom. And we students complain. These people are not the purpose of the college. The college’s job is to educate, and we pay them much to do so on our behalf. We only require silent books, noisy food, and learning classrooms – not disruptions. The people that come to our campus come from all walks of life; yet, from student, to faculty, to housekeeper, to CCA guest, we all came to Hillsdale for the same reason. None of us came for the location, the size of the town, and certainly not for the weather. We came to Hillsdale College because of what it is – a college. The Oxford English Dictionary (a resource every college student should learn to use and will come to love) defines college as, “An organized society of persons performing certain common functions and possessing special rights and privileges; a body of colleagues...” We are a voluntary association here to perform a certain common function and possessing special rights and privileges and we students do not easily give up our

special rights and privileges! This body of colleagues is here for the purpose of our proper education, not to strut in front of outside guests. We are colleagues i.e. a confederate or an ally with all those who are a part of this college. But… it couldn’t mean… could it? No. Those who interrupt our studies, who take the best seats in the CCA’s, and who stop us for directions on the smallest campus in Michigan could not possibly be our allies… could they? Indeed. Each person who sets foot on this campus or who contacts our college in support of its mission is our colleague. We easily remember that the college needs us, its students, in order to function as what it is. Yet we forget that much as it needs us, we need it. Our administration, faculty, staff, donors, and guests bring to us rules, wisdom, cleanliness, money, and camaraderie. Our campus is beautiful and our learning is possible because of the league of people who make it so. At a dinner during the most recent CCA, I sat next to a guest who was somewhat new to the school. We struck up the usual conversation, “How did you learn about Hillsdale? What brought you here?” Finally, she came around to ask a question that had been bothering her for some time. She said, “I don’t understand. My husband and I don’t have much money. We can’t give much to the school at all; yet we are wined and dined and always so impressed with the programs put on here. Why does the school do this for people like us?” Then it hit me: the college isn’t just about getting money from donors. It’s about educating students. It’s about passing on the real meaning of the liberal arts. It’s about a true discussion of the highest things. And it’s about building an association of colleagues to fulfill these purposes. The disruptions in the library and the difficulty of finding a seat in the CCA are small prices to pay for the benefit of building our college’s allies. We can better serve our school and ultimately ourselves by escorting the lost guest to the proper classroom and on the way asking why they are taking the time to become one of our colleagues.

The recently release schedule for the 2008 Democratic National Convention: 6:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony 6:05 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N. 6:15 PM - Secular Prayers by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton 6:30 PM - Antiwar Concert by Barbara Streisand 6:40 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast 7:00 PM - Tribute to France 7:30 PM - Collect Offerings for al-Zawahri Defense Fund 7:45 PM - Antiwar Rally (Moderated by Michael Moore) 8:25 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast 8:30 PM - Terrorist Appeasement Workshop 9:00 PM - Roundtable Discussion of Taxes: “Higher Taxes For Everyone But You” 9:15 PM - Clinton Seminar on “The Successful Selling of White House Mementos on eBay” 9:40 PM - Gay Marriage Ceremony (Both Male and Female Couples) 10:00 PM - Posting the Iraqi Colors by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins 10:20 PM - Howard Dean Screamfest ‘Yeeearrrrrrrg!’ 10:30 PM - Seminar: “The Boy Scouts and Other Threats to National Security” 10:50 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast 11:05 PM - ‘Maximizing Welfare’ Workshop 11:50 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast 12:00 PM- Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast all cartoons courtsey of USBCI

the back page

12

spring 2007

the 2007 Campus Outrage Awards:

Each year, the Collegiate Network, a daughter organization of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, rewards stupidity as they expose the most ridiculous events taking place on college campuses today. And though Hillsdale loves being rewarded, let us hope this is one trophy we never bring home...

1st place: William & Mary College President Gene Nichol secretly removes a large cross from the college chapel, then, on Valentine’s Day allocated $1,200 of student federation funding to sponsor a “Sex Workers Art Show” featuring strippers, sex workers, and topless women.

2nd place: University of California-Berkeley

3rd place: Johns Hopkins University

After exposing the presence of a pornographic film Got a drug conviction? Great! director on their campus, The Carrollton Record Now there is a scholarship for found that 600 copies of their paper stolen, and anyou! In order to Remove Im- other 300 removed from dormitories. Upon investigapediment to Students’ Education tion, it was discovered that the school administration the $500 RISE scholarship now had decided to ban all offensive matieral from the for students with history exsists fo dorm, including The Carrollton Record. of drug use.

4th place: The University of Michigan Despite the new Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which many of you may remember voting on back in November, U of M has decided to not only rise above the law, but to fight it as well. With a pledge to “devote ‘full focus’ to ‘defending diversity’” President Mary Coleman has officially challenged MCRI in court, and refuses to implement its standards against affirmative action on her campus.

All information and facts courtsey of www.campusmagazine.org and the Collegiate Network

The Hillsdale Forum Hillsdale, Michigan 49242