Search Results

Typically, it takes ⅔ of Congress and ¾ of state legislatures to amend the Constitution; Vivek Ramaswamy decided to skip the hassle. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. At last night's GOP debate, Vivek Ramaswamy showcased his flair for oratory eloquence, even if, perhaps, not his aptitude for constitutional understanding. He announced with gravitas, “I favor ending birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal immigrants in this country.” Then, in a move reminiscent of a student who proudly answers a question in class only to get it wrong, he stated, “Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I’ve actually read the 14th amendment.” To prove it, he did what most people do after bragging that they’ve read the Constitution –– misquote it. Ramaswamy's confidence would be admirable if it weren't undermined by a fundamental misunderstanding. He claims that no child of a Mexican diplomat in the U.S. enjoys birthright citizenship and equates that child with the child of an illegal immigrant. While drawing loose comparisons might be effective in rhetoric, it's a perilous slope in legal matters. Vivek wants to connect his nativist approach to a constitutional interpretation espoused only by lawyers on the fringes. John Eastman, the Claremont Institute lawyer who tried to overturn the 2020 election, has argued that the 14th amendment prohibits Kamala Harris from serving as VP because her parents are immigrants. Adding to the confusion is that Vivek mentioned on NBC that at the time of his birth, neither of his parents were citizens –– implying he benefited from the birthright citizenship he now wants to abolish. It's seemingly consistent for a candidate who didn't vote in a presidential election until his 30s, yet wants to stop people younger than 25 from voting. Vivek’s misinterpretation becomes glaringly evident when one revisits the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Ark, an American by birth but of Chinese heritage, was denied re-entry into his homeland, the U.S., under the shadow of his parents' nationality. The court declared Ark a U.S. citizen by birthright. Why? Because he was born here and wasn't a child of foreign diplomats or officials from China. Seems straightforward enough. A deep dive into the 14th Amendment clarifies that anyone “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a U.S. resident. In layman’s terms, this includes anyone who has to follow U.S. laws—with the rare exception of a diplomat’s child and some specific cases of Native Americans. Ramaswamy would perhaps benefit from a more in-depth study session on this topic, as the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" debate was settled long ago. The framers of the 14th Amendment, in their debates, expressed a clear intent to grant citizenship to all born on U.S. soil, irrespective of their parents' heritage or nationality. During discussions on the ratification, Sen. Edgar Cowan from Pennsylvania voiced his reservations about the birthright-citizenship proposal, posing the question, “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Further, he queried, “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of these immigrants “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.” While the Wong Kim Ark case specifically examined a child born to legal residents, it's imperative to note that anyone subject to U.S. laws, including those termed as “illegal aliens,” is under U.S. jurisdiction. The very terminology “illegal” implies their subjection to U.S. laws. Thankfully, the 14th Amendment solidified citizenship beyond the whims of political gamesmanship of people like Vivek.

The following is an updated version of an article from April 2023 President Joe Biden has grown increasingly frustrated with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his attempts to rein in Israel’s military campaign. In their latest phone call on Thursday, Biden “reiterated his view that a military operation should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for the civilians in Rafah,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Yet student activists still act as though their colleges can have more sway than the American President. JVP and SJP’s pressure to ban Haifa is part of the larger Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to punish Israel to incite political change. Israel’s policies, particularly its blockade of Gaza, its retaliation against Hamas, and its settlements in the West Bank have inspired punitive action by American students and academics. The boycott advocates liken modern-day Israel to South Africa under Apartheid. If boycotts, divestment, and other economic sanctions helped to end Apartheid, the same tactics can work to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories – so goes the argument. But let us ask a simple question: on whom would a boycott put pressure? For one, it would make Jewish and Israeli students on campus feel ostracized, but the obvious answer is Israeli institutions of higher education, the ostensible targets of the boycott. Yet that answer unveils the confused logic of this SJP effort. Israeli universities, like American ones, are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to the Netanyahu government. An analogy would be trying to put pressure on an incoming Trump Administration by boycotting Pitzer. An academic boycott is the least effective of weapons. It punishes SJP’s natural allies while leaving the intended target unaffected. It would also prevent American students opposed to Israeli government policies from seeing and learning about their impact in person. Can you think of a better opportunity for 5C students interested or concerned about Israel-Palestine than a semester in Haifa? The program is an opportunity for students to travel to the region and learn first-hand from Palestinians about their experiences while attending the most diverse school in the Middle East. Among Pitzer’s core values is the promotion of intercultural understanding. Central to this is its robust study abroad program that, in the words of former Pitzer President Melvin Oliver, “enables students to reach their own conclusions about the world’s most vexing challenges through on-the-ground, face-to-face experience.” There is also an issue of consistency and double standards. Pitzer’s study abroad program sponsors students to travel to places that include Kunming, China, and Beirut, Lebanon. China is among the most egregious violators of human rights in the world, a non-democracy without basic rights for its citizens, charged with genocide against the Uighur minority and terrible oppression in Tibet. According to Amnesty International, Lebanon discriminates against women, migrants, and LGBTQ+ people. Certainly, Pitzer’s study abroad programs in those countries do not amount to endorsements of the human rights violations of their respective ruling regimes. Just as those programs are not endorsements, the banning of a study abroad program in Israel is not a meaningful act of criticism or an effective approach to changing government policies or military strategy in Israel. It’s a symbolic posture that would accomplish nothing other than increasing our own ignorance of what’s really happening there.

I’m surprised to find myself as The Forum’s resident Israel defender. Growing up, I shied away from my Jewish identity: I never had a bar mitzvah and felt Jewish holidays were a burden. My parents and sister sometimes teased me for being one of those ‘self-hating’ Jews. Yet, since October 7th, my Jewishness has been inescapable. I grapple with the weight of Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions, feeling an unwarranted personal culpability. I'm equally disturbed by some stances on the pro-Palestinian side, namely those veering into tacit or explicit support for Hamas. The instinctive alliance that many American liberals, including a notable Jewish contingent, have traditionally maintained with Israel has been in decline for some time. Just look at the evolution among American Jewish commentators, like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who this past summer, suggested a reassessment of U.S. aid to Israel—a stance with which I agreed. This shift was marked, though not initiated, by the exasperation various officials in the Obama administration expressed about Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Biden Administration’s vociferous assertions that relations remain unaltered are less than fully convincing. The primary cause of this estrangement is Israel's enduring occupation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza, a consequence of the 1967 war. The protracted and oppressive occupation has cast Palestinians, many of whom have been in favor of a two-state solution, in a sympathetic light. The West Bank settlements, fueled by Biblical territorial claims, have tremendously tarnished Israel's moral image, alienating liberal allies who view the settlements policy as impractical and unjust. In some analyses, Israel serves as a stand-in for American power, or for bygone colonial struggles. Jewish leaders and organizations wonder why human rights abuses in, say, Syria or Afghanistan—where the perpetrators as well as the victims are Muslim—stir less concern from the Left. One should be able to call out the double-standards, hypocrisy, and rhetorical excess that prevail in leftist circles without being accused of being in favor of Netanyahu and all Israeli policy. The Claremont SJP and Claremont Jewish Voice for Peace, along with a dozen other groups, issued a statement in the wake of the October 7th attacks—a statement that, to me, seems not only offensive but factually unsound. Here is my response: On War With Hamas Dissecting the decolonization narrative, one finds many ways in which Gaza doesn’t fit. To begin with, it is not under conventional occupation—for nearly twenty years, no Israeli soldiers have patrolled its streets. Israel withdrew from the Strip in 2005, dismantling its settlements. Two years later, Hamas usurped power, exterminating its Fatah opponents in a brief but brutal armed conflict. It instituted a draconian Islamist regime that suppresses dissent within Palestinian society, criminalizes same-sex relationships, subjugates women, and promotes the extermination of Jews. When anti-Israel demonstrators declare their quest for a secular democracy with equal rights, it seems only fair to take them at their word. Yet the most vehement detractors of Israel may be losing sight of the core issue: Hamas’ aspirations are utterly at odds with their own. Hamas doesn’t want a pluralist state. It wants an Islamic theocracy with all the Jews removed. For a time, Israel sought to maintain an uneasy peace with Hamas, disrupted by the attacks on Oct 7. These provocations legitimize self-defense, though the resultant civilian casualties are no less tragic. On ‘Genocide’ Jews, who have themselves been victims of horrific crimes throughout history, now stand accused of crimes they once suffered. Among these accusations is the charge of “genocide” against Palestinians, a term that does not accurately describe the reality on the ground. The blockade on Gaza by Israel and Egypt was instituted following Hamas' seizure of control there, and Israel has conducted military operations in response to the barrage of rocket attacks from the territory. The 2014 Gaza War, for example, erupted after over 4,000 rockets were launched into Israel by Hamas and its affiliates, leading to a tragic loss of life with more than 2,000 Palestinians killed. According to reports from Hamas, the number of Palestinian deaths in the current conflict has reached over 8,000, including a heartbreaking number of children. But that’s not genocide, which means the systemic attempt to eliminate an entire people. The Palestinians have been victimized in many ways, both by Israel and their own brutal and corrupt leaders, who have never been willing to agree to a compromise that would create an independent Palestinian state. The discourse often deteriorates into what journalist Matt Yglesias calls “discourse lawyering,” (which I have been guilty of) where the rhetoric is confined to legal justification or condemnation, rather than seeking tangible solutions. This manner of debate can shroud the pressing humanitarian crises, where civilians are unable to escape due to sealed borders—a stance maintained by Egypt for its own reasons, but also, unfortunately, contributing to the portrayal of Israel as the sole aggressor in Gaza. On ‘Settler-Colonialism’ The radical narrative that presents Israel as a colonial power or a byproduct of European colonialism applies a crude ideological overlay to a complex history. It ignores the continuous Jewish presence in Palestine, which arguably dates back millennia and certainly suggests a form of indigeneity. Immigration from the 19th century onwards meant a return to an ancestral homeland. The ensuing conflict arose not from an inevitable trajectory but through failed land-sharing arrangements and a series of missed opportunities for peaceful resolution. Despite the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Great Britain powerfully resisted Zionist aspirations in the 1930s and 1940s, supporting an Arab state in Palestine without a Jewish one. It was an armed Jewish revolt, from 1945 to 1948 against British colonial power, that forged the state. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestine mandate immediately following Israeli independence. In this brutal war, Israelis did drive many Palestinians from their homes; others fled the fighting; and many others stayed. They and their descendants are Israeli citizens with the right to vote. To say this displacement of approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs occurred because of settler-colonialism is false. It occurred because Arab states attacked Israel. It is also notable that a higher number of Jews – approximately 900,000 –- fled and were driven from Arab countries as a result of the same war. As in the partition of India and Pakistan, there was an exchange of populations. On Israeli ‘Apartheid” Labeling Israel as an apartheid state has become widespread in leftist circles that it is just taken as a given. While there is an aspect of truth to this analogy, it also amounts to a crude simplification. Israelis do not have different rights based on race or religion. Twenty percent of Israel’s citizens are Arabs with full democratic rights. Residents of the occupied territories of course lack those rights and have been subjected to shameful and humiliating treatment. But under the two-state solution long supported by a majority of Israelis, they would have citizenship in an independent Palestinian state. To demand an end to Israeli “apartheid” without a peace agreement is to demand a one-state solution that would effectively mean the end of Israel. The analogy also glosses over and misconstrues the political ambitions of Hamas. In South Africa, the ANC earnestly pursued a multi-racial democracy, a commitment that eventually won over many white South Africans who feared it. Hamas, however, has not embarked on a similar campaign of reassurance. It supports not racial and religious equality, but ruthless theocratic oppression on an Iranian model. Viewing the world through a stark dichotomy of good versus evil offers the solace of clarity. But bifurcating the world into rival teams – colonizer against the colonized, oppressor versus the oppressed, white versus other races – isn’t just an oversimplification of complex realities. It applies an American political framework as its own distorting lens. As the political theorist Yascha Mounk observes in his book The Identity Trap, “The American brand of anti-colonialism” is ironically colonialist in nature.

This morning at 8:00 AM, all CMC students received an email inviting them to vote on a resolution calling for a revision of 7C and CMC demonstration policies. Voting will close at 8:00 AM on Friday, April 19. Why are CMC students voting on this resolution? On April 5, 2024, Pomona College President G. Gabrielle Starr called the Claremont Police Department on student demonstrators at Alexander Hall, leading to the arrests of 20 students. President Starr also issued interim suspensions to the Pomona students who were arrested, revoking their building access. The arrests followed a series of escalations between protestors and administrators, which began when Pomona Divest From Apartheid (PDFA) initiated a sleep-in in front of Pomona’s Smith Campus Center eight days earlier. Campus staff began removing demonstration materials on April 5, including PDFA’s “mock apartheid wall,” attracting demonstrators who attempted to prevent the removal of the wall. Later that afternoon, protestors moved to Alexander Hall to voice their demands directly to President Starr. Soon after, Starr authorized the call, citing protestors’ refusal to identify themselves or leave the building as justification. Pomona administrators’ decision to call the police on demonstrators and subsequent disciplinary prosecutions drew criticism from organizations across the Claremont Colleges. The Associated Students of Pomona College (ASPC), Executive Board of the Pitzer Student Senate, and Scripps Associated Students (SAS) all issued statements demanding that disciplinary measures be lifted. On April 7, the Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) Executive Board discussed issuing a statement themselves. During an ASCMC  Senate meeting the next day, the Executive Board heard student opinions on the pending statement. Some students vehemently expressed their concern with the lack of transparency that accompanied the Executive Board’s decision to draft and release it themselves. After a lengthy discussion period, the Executive Board agreed to incorporate a list of items agreed upon by those present into their statement. The Executive Board released their statement on April 10. It said that ASCMC was “deeply disappointed” by Pomona’s response, expressed “solidarity with students and their right to free speech,” affirmed CMC’s commitment to open dialogue, and called for a revision of the 7C demonstration policy. Some students, dissatisfied  with the Executive Board’s statement, submitted their own statement, the proposed resolution sent out to the CMC student body this morning. According to ASCMC’s Constitution, the Senate has the authority to pass “resolutions reflecting the opinion of the student body on topical issues,” but it must be approved by a majority vote of Senators and the entire student body. On Monday, the Senate approved the resolution in a 11 to 3 vote. Now, all CMC students have the opportunity to assert their opinions on the statement. What does the resolution say? The resolution strongly condemns the Pomona administration’s response to the protests on April 5, argues that it is in direct opposition to CMC’s ethos of open dialogue, and calls for the revision of the 7C demonstration policy (and CMC’s interpretation of the policy). The resolution denounces the arrests and interim suspensions of students on the grounds that they caused a “chilling” effect on free speech. The decisions to call the police and issue interim suspensions, the authors of the resolution argue, were intended to silence opinions in opposition to the college and deter students from criticizing administrators in the future. They contend that, because CMC has a unique commitment to open dialogue between opposing viewpoints, Pomona’s actions directly contradict CMC’s values. The authors claim that CMC’s administration could justify consequences of a similar nature against its own dissenting students because the 7Cs share a single overarching demonstration policy. Thus, it argues that the policy — and CMC’s interpretation of the policy — needs to be revised to specify the circumstances that allow for administrators to call the police and make justifying interim suspensions of demonstrators more difficult. To do so, the resolution proposes a 7C-wide “committee that is comprised of students, administrators, and all relevant stakeholders” tasked with reviewing and modifying the policy so that it “can better protect the safety and rights of all.” To revise the CMC interpretation, it urges the formation of a similar CMC-specific committee that includes student activists. The resolution also underscores the disproportionate risk police presence poses to marginalized students. Citing a video of a student being shoved by police and the 2022 HEDS survey results, it suggests that the calling of police officers created a climate of fear for minority students who already feel unsafe on campus. Why does voting on this resolution matter? Whether the resolution passes or not will be interpreted as a reflection of the sentiments of CMC’s student body as a whole. The more informed students are and the more students vote, the closer it will reflect our true opinions. What will happen if the resolution passes? The results will be sent to the Dean of Students Office as a demonstration of the student body’s beliefs. What will happen if the resolution doesn’t pass? It will be eligible to be reissued for a vote after the Senate substantially alters it.

Everything I learned about being a woman I first learned by being a girl. On walks with a wiser older sister, in hushed voices at sleepovers, between the pages of trashy teen-romance novels. Being a girl was a necessary education—for everything which existed on the other side of adolescence. Lessons were gradual—before lipgloss and the push-up bra, there was chapstick and camisoles from The Gap. Before you knew you wanted to kiss anyone, you wanted to hurl at the thought. Before you were a woman, you played an internal match of tug-of-war: dollhouses and playdates on one side, the additions and losses of grown-up existence on the other. Often, it felt as though these lessons came at you in slow-motion; girlhood threatened to stretch on forever. Adolescence was purgatory: a half-way place, a pit-stop on the way to adulthood. Find in the diary of any teenage girl: “Are we there yet?” Just a few more stops! Girlhood is desperately wanting to pick up the pace with all of your growing up, and feeling instead the red–hot eternity of every humiliation (side-part, your first hopeless crush, failed attempts at winged eyeliner). And then, seemingly without warning, you’re there: an adult, on the other side. An entirely predictable, and yet totally unexpected development. How did you wind up here? You look back with sudden horror—where did she go? Wasn’t she just braiding hair at her seventh-grade birthday party? Now, she’s a decade out from a mortgage, maybe a marriage. Turning twenty a few weeks ago struck me as some small catastrophe. Not for the usual reason (pressing eschatological anxiety). Everyone’s afraid of death. With girlhood now fully in the rear-view, it occurred to me: part of me had already died. You’ve got to be careful with nostalgia. It isn’t memory, and in fact, it gets memory wrong. It couldn’t exist without the hazy–headed amnesia which seems to afflict most adults—the mechanism by which the past’s “bad parts” are excised from recollection. Nostalgia really is dis–orientation: the posture of misremembering. Knowing this, the new urge to reminisce about adolescence seemed suspect, maybe even unfair to a younger version of myself. Girlhood wasn’t a “better time.” All of the great tragedies of the period might seem trivial, now—well, that’s only because you’re through it. But the rotten parts, and all of the heartache, were real. And when you were there, it wasn’t at all clear if any of it was going to end. Isn’t it strange: you can be nostalgic for hell. Part of me really was—and still is. What explained the feeling of sudden loss—of mourning for the little girl who went away, and was glad to? So much of girlishness is oriented toward the promise of womanhood. Girls listen to Taylor Swift songs before their first love ever comes for them, and feel them way-down. Girls understand fairytales as representations of nearby realities—love isn’t fictional, and it really will happen to her. Playing dolls is practice. You watch your mother getting ready for the day, and then play dress-up in your room in sincere imitation of her. You wait for it to be your turn. Maybe, if the nostalgia was saying anything, it was this: don’t forget how badly she wanted to be you. If you do, you forget to notice just how wonderful it is to have arrived. In some ways, little girls have a better sense of the power of womanhood than women do. From her covetous vantage point, she could see it all: that being a woman is a magical thing. How nice for you, to be where she’d hoped to end up. You always get told: it’s not about the destination, it’s the journey. And it’s true, the journey matters. But it’s about the destination, too. You set out for a reason, and you used to have a sense of what your reason was. And if the journey was long, and tough, and if you were in a great hurry to get to where you were going, you might as well know you’re here, when you are. Girlhood is over. But here’s something you can still do: celebrate it, mourn its passing, and resolve to hold onto a bit of it for the rest of your life.

Early in the morning on May 6, students at Pomona College began to rearrange the commencement fences on Marston Quad, transforming the graduation stage into a barricaded encampment for ‘Palestinian Liberation.’ The students announced plans to stay until the administration agrees to divest from arms manufacturers accused of complicity in what they call 'Israeli war crimes and settler-colonialism.' The group Pomona Divest Apartheid put it bluntly on Instagram: “NO COMMENCEMENT UNTIL DIVESTMENT.” This protest follows the recent disbanding of a similar encampment at Pitzer College, where President Strom C. Thacker promised on May 3 to reveal any investments in military and weapons manufacturing by June 30. The action at Pomona also comes after a campus-wide referendum in February, showing over 80 percent support from respondents for divesting from companies tied to what they perceive as the apartheid system in Israel. On May 2, 64 percent of Pomona’s faculty supported a similar divestment resolution. President Gabriel Starr of Pomona assured the faculty that the police would not interfere with the protestors and announced plans to address divestment issues in a faculty meeting scheduled for today. Meanwhile, Avis Hinkson, Vice President for Student Affairs, advised students via email to avoid the encampment area while the administration was handling the situation. Within the encampment, the mood was one of calm determination — no shouting or chanting. Wearing black masks and keffiyehs, participants quietly brought in supplies and set up tables with vegan and halal food. As press members, we were asked to wear N95 masks for “COVID” precautions before being allowed inside, where a press liaison detailed the strategic goals for an "escalatory" campaign until the administration agreed to divest. The demonstrators, she explained, were a mix of students and community members, backed by legal counsel. When asked about potential compromises, the liaison rejected negotiating any further with what she called "settler-colonial institutions on Turtle Island." This is a developing story…

GENARO MOLINA, LOS ANGELES TIMES, GETTY IMAGES Colleges and universities, including Claremont McKenna, tout the virtues of open inquiry and free speech. On CMC’s website , one finds no shortage of language on how debate and discussion are the only way in which “ we develop the ability to confront and solve complex problems and exercise forms of collaborative leadership .” Likewise, Pomona College reminds  us that it is “deeply committed” to free speech, “including the right to protest.” But these commitments to free expression are very narrowly construed. Students have the right to free expression and political activism up until the point when said activism makes material demands upon the university. The university doesn’t really  see itself as having a commitment to engage meaningfully with the political expression of its students. In fact, the university sees itself as holding the right to repress political activism the moment said activism shows signs of actually acquiring political power. Moreover, the way free speech is construed and enforced by universities actually ends up repressing dissent and activism. Students may petition and protest all they wish, but nothing actually compels the school to hold themselves accountable to student activists. For example, the wishes of 70% of CMC students  for a racial-ethnic studies curriculum requirement, and the demand from over 80% of Pomona students  for divestment from Israel and weapons manufacturers have fallen on deaf ears. It is a simple fact that power is held by the institution’s donors, exercised by its administrators, and wielded against its students when they engage in meaningful dissent that is perceived as a threat to the interests of the university.  All of this is totally rational within the logic of the university which views students as simply customers with no authority in the administration of the school. The relationship between those who exercise power and student activists is key. How “free speech” as defined by the university becomes weaponized to justify action against demonstrators. Activism is only allowed within the bounds of institutional free speech policy. But when students seek to mobilize and gain political power— in this case, to end their universities’ investment in Israel’s genocidal  war on the Palestinian people — within the bounds of these policies, their concerns are dismissed off-hand.  But what happens when students feel a moral imperative to build political power? What happens when, for example, students see the investment decisions of the colleges around which their lives revolve as being so morally bankrupt that they are compelled to organize in response? In that case, it’s no surprise that student activism invariably escalates from rallies and referenda to sit-ins and occupations (all peaceful, but that is beside the point). And when that happens, which it inevitably will when students are forced to operate within an institution that refuses to view them as having political agency, free speech and civil discourse are wielded as a cudgel against students for whom such civility politics do not provide a meaningful avenue of redress.  What is happening on campuses across the country is a collective realization that students’ moral conscience, and the agency to act on that moral conscience , is not a gift bestowed upon them by university administrators, but rather something that is theirs to seize. But the very institutions against whom that power is exercised are the ones that a) possess a monopoly on violence and b) set the terms for what political expression can look like. Often, these restrictions are so extreme that any protest vaguely defined as “ disruptive ” can be met with suspensions, expulsions, and arrests according to the whim of an administrator.  When students act on the assumption of their agency, they necessarily threaten the control of the donors and administrators. That is what “disruption” ultimately is in the context of protest— threatening the autocratic control of donors and administrators and daring to assert that students have a say in the governance of the institutions that define every aspect of their lives.  It becomes crystal clear here that “free speech” in the context of a university has no substantive meaning. On the one hand, the university sees itself as under no obligation to listen to students who stay within the narrowly defined parameters of protected, powerless speech. And on the other hand, when students exceed those guardrails by demanding that administrators take their concerns seriously, “free speech” protections in demonstration policies are used as justifications for suppression that is increasingly assuming the form of militarized police crackdowns.  Now the obvious objection to this is that students just need to quit sticking their heads where they don’t belong — you don’t have any say in the operation of the institution, so stop pretending like you do!  All I have to say in response is that structures of power should never be mistaken as permanent. The modern university did not come into existence out of divine ordinance — it arose out of specific historical circumstances, and so shall it fall. We ought to stop thinking about authority as necessary and just simply because it exists. And when an authority that supposedly sanctifies the value of higher education sees no issue in doing business with a nation that is engaged in wholesale scholasticide , then maybe we ought not take its authority so seriously.  The response of administrators to student protests, and the moral depravity of the investment practices of universities more broadly, should point us to a new question. American universities are now closing out a semester stained by the unleashing of ruthless administrative brutality against students upholding the radical idea that higher education ought not be an investment vehicle for genocide. And if administrators and donors are so repulsed by this idea that they deem unceasing escalation and police violence to be an acceptable response to such demands, then perhaps they should give a better reason for why that is so than simply expecting us to play along with their self-serving charade of “free speech.”

On April 26, over 200 students and alumni marched into Pomona’s Alumni Dinner to call on the school to divest from weapons manufacturers supplying Israel. The protest took place in Marston Quad, outside Big Bridges Auditorium. Three alumni gave speeches on stage, addressing Pomona administrators and the dinner attendees. They all commented on Pomona’s student body activism and the arrest of 20 Pomona students at the Alexander Hall sit-in earlier this month: “The sense of urgency shown by these students is precisely what the moment calls for,” said  David Berkinsky PO’19. Amid the speeches, the dinner continued, with some guests stopping to watch while others continued conversations. “Join us tonight, this weekend, and beyond as we act in solidarity with the 20 arrested students and… the vast majority of the Pomona study body, to tell Pomona to do the right thing,” said aid Katie Duberg PO’10, before urging other alums to join the walk-out. The protests moved outside Little Bridges but continued on past the end of the dinner. The following day, around 3 p.m., before Pomona’s Alumni parade, protesters gathered again—though this time in a much smaller crowd. Protestors attempted to blockade Sixth Street to keep alumni from participating in the parade. The two groups met at the intersection of Sixth Street and College Avenue, where protestors drove the paraders away after some time. Similar protests occurred on the 27th at Pitzer and Harvey Mudd College. At Pitzer, protestors planted themselves at Pitzer’s “Taste of Pitzer” music and food event – where they called on Pitzer to divest. Alumni stood by as students chanted on stage. At Harvey Mudd, student and alumni protestors from Mudders Against Murder interrupted President Harriet Nembhard’s speech to alums.

Between February 19 and February 21, Associated Students of Pomona College (ASPC) conducted a referendum on divestment from companies linked to Israel, disclosure of college endowment details, and an academic boycott of Israeli universities. The initiative, led by Divest Claremont Colleges, received endorsements from 34 student organizations on campus. The TSL reported that 1,035 students (around 60% of the Pomona student body) cast their votes in the survey. The students voted overwhelmingly in favor of divestment and disclosure, yielding the following results: 91% supported disclosure of investments in weapons manufacturers, while 9% were against. 85% voted for divestment from all weapons manufacturers, with 15% opposed. 78% voted for an academic boycott of institutions related to the ‘apartheid system within Israel,’ with 22% dissenting. 86% favored disclosure of investments in companies supporting ‘the apartheid system within Israel,’ with 14% opposed. 82% voted for divestment from companies ‘aiding the apartheid system within Israel,’ with 18% against. Pomona students were not deterred by President Gabrielle Starr's pleas against the referendum. In the days leading up to the vote, Starr sent a college-wide email sharing her concerns about the referendum’s impact on Jewish students at the school: “For many years now, the only nation on which ASPC has focused its activity is the world’s only Jewish state,” Starr wrote. “This singling out of Israel raises grave concerns about the referendum’s impact on members of our community. For this reason, and even though I know our students do not intend this, the referendum raises the specter of antisemitism.” When some Pomona students in the dissenting minority wrote a TSL opinion criticizing the language in the referendum and the campaign methods used by its proponents, Instagram commenters promptly denounced them as “white men” and “Zionists.” Ultimately, the results of this referendum, like the recent Pitzer academic boycott vote, do not bind the college administration.

On Thursday, April 11, the Pitzer College Council (made up of Students and Faculty) approved Resolution 60-R-5, which seeks to terminate the college’s study abroad program with the University of Haifa, and prevents the college from opening any new programs with other Israeli universities. This decision follows action from the Pitzer Student Senate, which voted 34:1 in favor of the boycott resolution on February 11. Although Thursday’s resolution was approved by a 48-19 vote, Pitzer President Strom C. Thacker indicated he would veto it during the preceding discussion. Thacker elaborated on his position in a statement addressed to the Pitzer community shortly after the vote. "I have approached these issues with an open mind, actively listened, participated in thoughtful discussions, and maintained respect throughout," he writes in the statement, "As president, I have based my decision on what I believe to be in the best interests of the College as a whole. I understand that many may not agree with this decision. I am eager to continue our dialogue in a constructive and respectful manner within our community." President Thacker's decision to veto is significant as Pitzer students and faculty have consistently demanded that the study abroad program be boycotted, citing the University of Haifa's alleged involvement in practices contrary to Pitzer's ethical standards. This advocacy first emerged in 2019, when a similar resolution to suspend the program passed 67:28 but was vetoed by then-President Melvin Oliver. The controversy continues even after the program with the University of Haifa is no longer a pre-approved option. This change occurred after the Faculty Executive Committee decided on April 1 to remove 11 programs, including Haifa, from the college's pre-approved list, following Pitzer’s Study Abroad and International Programs (SAIP) Committee recommendations that questioned the alignment of the Haifa partnership with Pitzer's values. On April 2, Dean of Faculty Allen Omoto clarified the reasoning behind discontinuing pre-approved status for the 11 study abroad programs. In a statement, he emphasized that this decision was based on concrete criteria rather than symbolic gestures. Omoto explained, “The programs are no longer pre-approved for Pitzer students because they fail to meet our criteria, specifically due to reasons such as lack of enrollments over the past five years, exchange imbalances, or overlapping curriculums.” He further clarified, “These programs are not closed, nor do these actions represent an academic boycott. They can still be reopened if conditions change.” Activists alternated between holding the April 2 decision as a victory and accusing Thacker and the administration of lying about the college’s reasoning and undermining student organizing.

With new media constraints and an unchecked legislature, Hong Kong’s once vibrant press landscape will soon resemble its anti-free press counterpart in China. When Beijing took control of Hong Kong in 1997, it promised citizens that civil liberties like freedom of the press would be preserved for the next 50 years. Much of this promise was kept until Xi came into power in 2013 when the CCP upped its control over the media and the price for those who disobeyed. In 2020, China imposed its national security law, which subjects pro-democracy voices to torture and undue legal processes. Dozens of journalists have been detained and indicted under the law since. On March 19, the Hong Kong Legislative Council unanimously passed legislation, further cracking down on opposition to the Beijing and Hong Kong governments. The legislation, known as Article 23, imposes life imprisonment for vague offenses such as treason and external interference. This policy endangers journalists and further strains the freedom of the press. Only a few weeks after Article 23 went into effect, a Reporters Without Borders representative investigating the state of press freedom in Hong Kong was detained at the airport and denied entry to the city. Security forces apparently want to suppress knowledge of Hong Kong’s restrictive media landscape. The Hong Kong legislature debated Article 23 for only 11 days before passing the resolution. This is no surprise since the majority of the legislative body was elected in a 2020 district election that China required to be between “patriots only.” Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing leader John Lee can now “bow” to Xi Jinping’s demands and citizens cannot interfere. The vague language of recent laws, the Hong Kong government’s pro-Beijing position, and Xi’s rising power leave journalists vulnerable to manipulation and arbitrary discretion. The Hong Kong government froze the assets of independent media outlets Apple Daily and Stand News in 2021, forcing them to close, and placed Stand’s senior editors on trial for sedition. Another “Great Leap Backwards of Journalism in China” has been a new credential system in which journalists must pass a WeChat exam that demonstrates their obedience to Xi and the goals of the People’s Republic of China. Article 23 and the 2020 national security law informally bind Hong Kong journalists to conform to the same propaganda. With Hong Kong’s media under state control and independent outlets disappearing, it will become more difficult for the international community to learn of these injustices and see the unfolding of Hong Kong’s fate. Today’s Hong Kong is a far cry from the city’s history of free citizens and outspoken journalists. Following the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy protests in China, Hong Kong correspondents played a crucial role in transferring information and concepts, primarily in Chinese, to a broader audience. Hong Kong was also a rare site for people to commemorate Tiananmen while China tried to stifle its remembrance. Maya Wang, the acting China director for Human Rights Watch, argues, “The Chinese government wants the world to forget about Hong Kong, to forget what the city once was, to forget Beijing’s broken promises. But Hong Kong’s people will never forget.”

Last month, CMC alumna Candace Valenzuela ‘06 returned to campus to speak at the Athenaeum and present Housing and Urban Development (HUD) career opportunities to CMC students. As a Regional Administrator, Valenzuela is responsible for implementing HUD initiatives in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and her home state of Texas. To deliver HUD services to her region effectively, Valenzuela must coordinate with officials from five states. Apart from New Mexico, her region is composed of red states whose representatives do not align with the Biden Administration or its policies. Valenzuela reflected on the role of partisanship in HUD-state coordination in her region. “As a political appointee, your job, even though to a certain extent is partisan, is to talk to everybody to make sure that localities get the services they need,” she said. Despite her best efforts, she encounters roadblocks with some members of Congress who she believes face “social pressure not to give victories to the Biden Administration.” According to Valenzuela, Republican members of Congress’ refusal to engage in conversation with HUD officials impedes HUD’s ability to deliver much-needed services to their constituents. State and local officials, unlike their counterparts in Congress, seem to understand that interparty cooperation benefits their constituents. Valenzuela shared positive experiences with state and local officials across her region, calling them her “favorite people” and praising mayors and city council members for their focus on constituent services. “When you are carrying a multimillion-dollar check, you are smarter, funnier, and more attractive,” she joked. Because she delivers material resources to their constituents, state and local leaders are happy to work with her despite partisan divides. Reflecting on her region, Valenzuela commented on one clear divide between blue and red states: source of income discrimination. In New Mexico, the only blue state under her jurisdiction, the state bars landlords from refusing to accept HUD vouchers as payment. In Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, landlords can deny applicants housing solely because they do not want to accept HUD vouchers. Valenzuela lamented this policy in her red states, acknowledging that more work needs to be done to dispel the negative stereotypes surrounding HUD funding. She argued that HUD vouchers should not be weighed differently from other sources of income by renters because government funding is relatively stable. Despite this partisan divide on source of income discrimination, Valenzuela warned against considering red states a monolith when it comes to housing. Two states in her region have particularly distinct housing landscapes. “Arkansas is the only state in the country in which you can get arrested for not paying your rent,” she explained. Furthermore, the state continues to fail to pass habitability laws – “last year, they tried to pass a law requiring apartments to have smoke detectors, and it failed,” she shared. Meanwhile, Louisiana’s extensive experience with natural disasters makes it more willing to work with HUD on disaster-resilient housing. These states’ housing landscapes demonstrate the diversity among what might seem to be politically similar red states. Valenzuela also discussed HUD’s extensive involvement in the Biden Administration’s climate change strategy. She emphasized HUD’s role in implementing the landmark Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA created the Green Resilient Retrofit Program, which provides $800 million in grants and $4 billion in loans for HUD-funded properties to reduce their carbon footprints and make them more climate resilient. This program is especially important to Valenzuela’s region as a 2021 Winter Storm demonstrated significant vulnerabilities in Texas’ infrastructure, including its housing landscape. Valenzuela recently visited Port Arthur, Texas, where she delivered a $52 million check to fund three apartment complexes to invest in storm resistant roofs, better insulated windows, and electric vehicle chargers. Valenzuela also underscored that the federal government must integrate environmental considerations into its housing policy in order to spend taxpayers’ money responsibly. “We need to know if we’re putting housing in areas where it’s likely to flood, or where natural disasters are likely to happen,” she explained. HUD’s environmental programs, while perhaps lesser known by the public, are critically important because it is estimated that up to 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings, making housing emissions a significant climate concern. Towards the end of our conversation, Valenzuela shared advice for CMC students. Valenzuela recalled her time at CMC with gratitude and fondness. “CMC is the place to find like minded folks,” she said, explaining that the friends she made at the Claremont Colleges were the ones rooting for her and sending her care packages during her 2020 congressional campaign. She urged CMCers to invest in Claremont relationships, knowing that Claremont students may rely on each other for support later in life. Valenzuela also urged CMC government students to pursue local service. She recalled how much CMC students focus on the federal government. She urged students, “look at what your city council is doing, what your country, borough, state, and local folks are doing, because you will see that there are easier and more tenable wins than tackling the federal government.” Finally, she urged CMC students to take part in programs that benefit our community here in Southern California. Critics of the census have long highlighted that it undercounts unhoused populations and therefore leads policymakers to allocate insufficient resources to address homelessness. At HUD, the Point-in-Time Count seeks to count people who lack housing but are not in shelters. Communities come together to walk through neighborhoods late at night and count the people they encounter. Valenzuela applauded Point-in-Time participants, saying “it can be a little emotionally trying when you are talking to someone who wants to share their experience with you, but the count makes such a huge difference in our knowledge and our ability to distribute resources.” The Point-in-Time Count occurs each January, and the County of San Bernardino seeks volunteers to assist the count each year.