The tragic shooting in Pittsburgh yesterday has left a dark cloud over me. While every mass shooting is truly awful, the anti-Semitic intent hit home particularly hard for me. This was an attack on my community and my people, the deadliest attack against Jews in United States history. While I am not particularly religious in my Judaism, I said the Mourner’s Kaddish, the prayer for those recently lost, to myself as I read the names of the victims this morning. I am fearful that the kind of violent anti-Semitism we had previously only seen in history and on the other side of the world has now reared its ugly head in the U.S. I have read about rabbis calling in extra police protection for their Sunday Schools today and having to worry about active shooter drills and escape routes from their synagogues. This is not what should be happening in any place of worship in this country. If the Jewish people are to survive dark days like yesterday, we need non-Jewish allies who are just as willing and active in speaking out against anti-Semitism as they are against any other form of hate that we see in this country. Many in Claremont like to think of themselves as activists or strong supporters of social justice causes. However, my experience as a Jew on campus does not instill confidence in me that those who stand up for social justice will stand up for me today. I instead remember all of the times that I have heard, explicitly or implicitly, that anti-Semitism is not a real problem in the contemporary United States, and that not much needs to be done to address it. Especially looking at the last 24 hours, this cannot be further from the truth. In moments like these, it is crucial to show support for the community that are the victims of violence. People can no longer deny the danger of anti-Semitism in America. The Jewish community needs non-Jewish allies who will stand up and speak out against attacks on our community. And the Jewish community needs to stand up and speak out against attacks against others. This terrible time also provides an opportunity for our Claremont community to look inward to examine the issues the Jewish community faces on our campus. While the Claremont Consortium is very much a bubble, and may not have as severe of an internal threat of far-right anti-Semites, anti-Semitism on the left is alive and well, and must be addressed all the same. Here is an initial overview of some of the origins of anti-Semitism, and why many on the left are often blind to their own bias. While reading one article alone will not be enough, I hope it can start to open the eyes of our campus to the anti-Semitism that happens here. We as a Claremont community need to be aware and willing to speak up against all forms of bigotry and hate, while also recognizing that we can’t expect other people to show up to support us if we are not supporting others. I want to end with a poem, written by German pastor Martin Niemöller about his experience in pre-World War II Nazi Germany: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” I encourage you to think to yourself: how did you react to the news from Pittsburgh yesterday? What have you done to support the Jewish community in this difficult time? Complacency is not an option. Yesterday, they came for the Jews. What are you going to do about it?

In a room of one hundred, there were seven male students and a dozen older men from the Claremont faculty and community. The Ath event was entitled “We Move as a Group: Uniting the Genders in the Fight Against Rape Culture”. The description seemed to me welcoming and unintimidating, reflecting renowned author Alice Sebold’s intention to “provide hope by working to dismantle the antiquated and destructive divisions that still exist among us and to inspire a more open dialogue.” So why the lack of participation? Before delving into the disappointment I felt while sitting in a room of almost entirely women listening to Sebold’s beautifully crafted speech on trauma and the changing reality of our culture, I want to first acknowledge and thank everyone who is an ally, advocate, and friend to victims of sexual trauma. To the seven male students in the room, thank you. To the guys I know I can confide in and who I know will listen, thank you. In doing so, I truly do not mean to come off as patronizing. I think I speak for many of the women at the Ath that night who appreciated the compassion in the room from the men who were there. Your empathy did not go unnoticed. I have come to see sexual harassment and sexual assault as the single worst problem afflicting college campuses today. Our campus is certainly no exception. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, statistically one in five women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted during college. These numbers are startlingly high, and in my experience, accurate... perhaps even an underestimate. This problem exists among people of all sexual orientations and gender identities and it exists both within and outside of committed relationships. Even if we don’t think we are directly contributing to the problem, opting out of conversations crucial to progress may be detrimental to promoting an inclusive and safe campus culture. We can always learn more about being a better ally and a more vigilant and active bystander. Engaging in conversation and listening is enough to learn something new and vital. We can only change our misguided conceptions about consent by participating in potentially uncomfortable and complex conversations. There is no learning without listening. The Athenaeum is meant to be a space for students to engage in conversations that may fall outside of our comfort zones. At CMC, we purport to be students who care about cultivating a stronger sense of self and personal agency. At the same time, it saddens me when I see our students shy away from some of these difficult conversations. Security Pacific dining room was packed to its capacity at moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s March 22 Ath talk about the growing ideological divide in our country caused by people’s unwillingness to hear opinions that challenge their own. The room pulsed in agreement with Haidt’s argument that college is precisely the place for encouraging this type of personal growth, exploring and challenging the opinions of others, and engaging in more difficult dialogues. Sitting at Haidt’s talk, I could feel students' resolve to be more open to counter-arguments and opposing ideologies. So why did these same students not feel the same resolve to hear Sebold’s testimony and join us in exploring how to unite us all against perpetuating rape culture and sexual trauma? Is it a difficult conversation to start? Yes. Is it perhaps the most important one to spark on a college campus? Also yes. Unfortunately, this was not the first time I was at an event where I felt disappointed with student turnout for important discussions on sexuality and sexual trauma. The CMC Advocates organized CMC’s first ever “Sex Week” in October, including events such as Ath talks on safe sex practices, CARE center conversations on “Queering Safer Sex,” workshops on BDSM, discussions on sex after trauma, and a comedy show. The events were meant to attract widespread participation by evoking curiosity and highlighting topics that aren’t often openly discussed. While the turnout for CMC’s inaugural Sex Week was exciting and promising, there was still a disproportionate lack of male participation. Still, I have high hopes for the future of CMC Advocates’ Sex Week and their mission to create a more open and inclusive dialogue on campus. When I speak to my closest guy friends from CMC and from colleges all over the country and ask them where they think this lack of male buy-in originates, a common thread in their answers is the notion that these conversations are geared toward empowering and uniting those who are most affected by the issue. So, because men are statistically less likely to be victims of sexual violence, they shy away from attending these talks with the fear that their presence is not welcome. If you feel this way, I’d like to be the one to let you know that not only are you welcome in these conversations, but you are NEEDED. I believe I speak for many women my age when saying: we welcome you, we want you, and we need you to be a part of this effort. I encourage CMCers (and all college students and all people) not to settle for simply being a friend and an ally to survivors. While that is extremely important, it is also necessary to actively engage with the broader dialogue about our campus climate. The Ath and the CMC Advocates’ “Sex Week” presented opportunities to listen to others, engage in dialogue, and reflect on personal beliefs and practices, all with the goal of being part of the solution. It’s our responsibility to actively engage in these opportunities. If you previously haven’t felt welcome to fully participate, I hope I can reassure you that you arewelcome in these spaces. By simply being there and making it a priority in your life to actively engage in the solution, you will help make our community safer and bring us closer together. I know that the Claremont community is made up of compassionate, motivated people who take personal and aggregate social responsibility. I know that our students really care about each other, the problems we all face, and the actions we can take toward solutions. My hope is that our community will have these conversations, including and encouraging voices from all identities, and broadening the scope of “trauma” so that we can better understand each other, our struggles and our shared responsibility to do better. Together, I know we can do better CMC.

If college students are asked about debt, most will think of their own impending payments of student loans. The average amount of student debt nationwide has skyrocketed over the past 20 years and now exceeds $26,000 per undergraduate student. Student debt is an increasing threat to the financial security of an entire generation and clearly must be addressed in the coming years. However, debt on a different scale has been growing in Washington, D.C. for years. Recent changes to the federal government’s revenues are projected to worsen the problem, and the urge for action on the national debt is more pressing than ever before. Rising national debt has serious implications for the next generation of workers, especially college students. On Friday, Dec. 22, 2017, Congress passed its first piece of tax reform legislation in more than 30 years. The sweeping bill cut taxes across the board in the hopes of spurring economic growth and creating jobs. A few weeks later, the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling and fund the government. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the tax reform will push the federal deficit to almost one trillion dollars and increase the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars over the next decade to more than 20 trillion dollars. In 2016, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was 18.57 trillion dollars. By 2050, the GDP is forecasted to be approximately 37 trillion dollars. At the current rate, the national debt will increase by more than half of the U.S. GDP by 2047. Service on that debt, the monthly or yearly interest payments the federal government makes to creditors, will become the third largest government “program” behind social security and Medicare. Interest in the national debt will crowd out other productive investments, such as education, research and development, and infrastructure spending. Social programs that many Americans rely on, especially social security, are not sustainable at current levels of debt and spending. To remedy the problems left to us by the previous generation, millennials must become aware of how the national debt has grown and its future projections, debt’s effect on the economy, and proposals to address it. Current college students are particularly affected by the national debt due to the burdens of an already high average student debt. Service on student loans lowers rates of saving and homeownership among young people, limiting both investment and retirement savings. Millennials are shaping up to be an educated but poor generation, saddled with the obligations of previous generations. This trend will only increase as student debt rises and wages continue to stagnate, yielding a reduction of the average assets of young people. Without social security and other social programs, millennials and future generations may face challenges such as buying homes, building assets, starting a family, and retiring. The current trend of increasing debt is clearly unsustainable for the next generation and it is imperative for the future of our nation to minimize this burden. Understanding both the causes of and the proposed solutions to the national debt is a matter of balancing federal revenues and costs. To balance the annual deficit, the federal government must raise taxes or decrease spending. The challenges lie in deciding which programs’ funding to cut, which taxes to raise, what the timeframe for a balanced budget should be, and how to sell higher taxes or less generous government programs to the American public. Balancing social programs, economic growth, and a balanced budget is a politically untenable challenge in the current polarized climate. While Democrats and Republicans often do not align in their views on policy issues, both sides acknowledge that the growing national debt is a problem that must be addressed. Policy experts from across the ideological spectrum have provided potential remedies that can be difficult to reconcile across party lines and loyalties. It is clear that current trends are unsustainable and the next generation of workers are uniquely unprepared to shoulder the excesses and mistakes of the current and past generations. Both sides of the ideological spectrum have presented plans for balancing the Federal budget and tackling the debt. However, without Congressional action, even the most sensible plans cannot produce concrete change in the national debt. Millennials must ensure that the current and future members of Congress are cognizant of the importance of curtailing the growth of the national debt. As part of the most educated, informed, and politically active generations to exist, students at the Claremont Colleges are in a unique position to advocate for action that can prevent the grim predictions of the CBO. As a network of schools with the capacity to produce political and social leaders, the Claremont Consortium must keep the national debt in mind, even as we are entering the workforce and dealing with the consequences of the decisions of previous generations. Raising awareness of the national debt is the first step towards a more sustainable future: a future where debt is not a looming concern and the productivity created by the millennial generation can be used to achieve better standards of living for everyone.

At this week’s Senate meeting, ASCMC senators considered a transparency constitutional amendment and discussed a proposal to build a hammock lounge in Mid Quad. Regarding the ASCMC Constitution, President Pro Tempore Thomas Shalke '18 spoke about the updates he has made to it (the full change-log can be found below). He focused on the most significant update: the provision that “at the discretion of the president pro tempore, electronic communications pertaining to votes shall be presumed public and may be included in the next set of minutes.” For example, a couple weeks ago, the ASCMC Executive Board held a vote within an email chain regarding the status of student club 5C InterVarsity. Under the new amendment, the conversation surrounding the vote in this email chain would have been disclosed in the subsequent minutes. Shalke announced that there would be a vote on the updated constitution in the ASCMC Executive Board meeting next Sunday, and a vote in Senate next Monday. Constitutional Changes Log: Added non-discrimination clause Added 50%+1 majority for votes and explained abstentions All electronic communications pertaining to voting are presumed public and will be published if either the Pro Tempore or Board feel it is appropriate Give the CO Chair a vote on Board Fixed some numbering issues Tightened language in order to maintain 10,000-word length The majority of the meeting included a discussion of a hammock lounge in mid quad. For the past few months, Executive Vice President Patrick Elliott '19 and Campus Improvements Committee Chair Biniyam Asnake '20 have been working on getting the lounge approved with the help of Ken Eppinger at Story House. Elliot and Asnake will be requesting roughly $1,500 from Senate and about $3500 from the Executive Board. The hammock lounge in question is a free-standing structure, which Asnake likened to playground equipment. If implemented, CMC students will be able to either clip their own hammock onto the structure or rent one for a few days. CMC trustees have approved ASCMC to purchase a hammock lounge, namely David G. Mgrublian who spoke with Eppinger about the idea. Still, there are several concerns among ASCMC members. Senators expressed hesitation about using such a large part of the budget since Asnake asserted that the general fund is at a “historic low.” Schalke explained that there is less money in the general fund due to the excess money in the ASCMC budget taking a larger a hit than usual because of “unforeseen circumstances.” Elliott noted that he is investigating whether or not the infrastructure budget could be tapped into, and when asked, he noted that Dean of Students is not interested in pitching in. Furthermore, there are concerns about liability, since ASCMC would be funding the hammock lounge; therefore, all thefts and damages would come out of ASCMC’s pocket. Asnake stated that students would be required to sign a waiver through DoS to rent their first hammock in order to limit liability issues. Some Senate members questioned why hammocks had to be rented instead of remaining in the structure permanently. Elliott responded that Kammok, the hammock company, estimated that the hammocks would only last six months if constantly kept outdoors. Other members of Senate inquired about possible noise complaints from Mid Quad residents, and whether students would be likely to use the hammocks since they would be in very close proximity to each other, resulting in a lack of privacy. Asnake likened the hammock lounge to a regular lounge and noted that due to the low number of students on campus, noise levels were not likely to be too much of a concern. Elliott acknowledged these concerns and said he would pursue them if the plan moves forward. The structure would also be compatible with other hammocks, so some suggested alternatives to buying the $85 Kammok brand ones. Administrative Affairs and Appropriations Committee Chair Connor Bloom '19 suggested that students could bring their own hammocks, or that the dorm presidents could pitch in to provide them. Elliott responded that ASCMC is trying to provide an item that the whole student body can use, not just students who can afford their own hammocks. Student Engagement and Consortium Affairs Chair Elliot Behling '19 suggested a cheaper brand called Eaglenest Outfitters that sells hammocks for $50 to $70 and often has sales where they are sold for even cheaper. The Environmental Affairs Committee is working with the mailroom to reduce paper usage. The committee also hopes to improve awareness about checking out greenware for free.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns ramp up, much media attention has focused on marquee issues like President Joe Biden’s age and former President Donald Trump’s continuing legal battles. As a result, less attention has been paid to a crucial concern for many economists and financial analysts: trade policy. For decades, the United States enjoyed widespread, bipartisan support for free trade policies. Since the 1992 ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), presidents from both parties have signed dozens of agreements to facilitate global trade. Free trade policies are supported by economic theories that CMC students encounter as early as their freshman fall in Econ050. While international trade can produce relative winners and losers, it makes all nations better off in aggregate. Reducing barriers to import and export minimizes deadweight loss from tariffs and prohibitions. In just the last decade, however, the free trade consensus has faced new scrutiny. Critics argue that free trade deals have actually been damaging America. They claim that, while some large companies may profit from open trade, everyday Americans are hurt because of the opportunities and jobs lost to foreign nations. American politicians have started to respond to this frustration over the effects of globalization with increasingly protectionist trade policies. Donald Trump put this issue at the core of his 2016 campaign, promising to impose tariffs and pull out of free-trade agreements. Trump vowed to renegotiate deals to ensure that international trade policy was putting “America first.” Although it contradicted the long-standing conservative economic strategy of lowering barriers to trade, this sentiment was extraordinarily successful, particularly in Rust Belt states such as Ohio and Michigan. Now President Biden has followed suit. His administration has imposed higher standards on trade partners’ environmental practices and working conditions. The Biden administration has argued that, since foreign competitors don’t enforce stringent child and wage labor laws or environmental standards, these nations unfairly gain an advantage over American companies. This shift in the direction of American trade policy has raised alarm bells for foreign governments and businesses that have long benefitted from American trade deals. Large domestic corporations such as General Motors also heavily rely on these agreements. Trump’s recent announcements about tariffs have been especially concerning to international business leaders. Trump has promised to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods. He has also floated plans to raise Chinese tariffs to 60% or higher. Economists and financial analysts are wary of these protectionist trade policies. One global strategist at Rabobank, Michael Every, warned that such policies would “shake up every asset class–equities, FX, bonds, you name it.” If a 10% tariff on imported goods is enacted, the tax would “distort global trade, discourage economic activity, and have broad negative consequences for the U.S. economy.” By disrupting the global markets that the U.S. also relies on, further protectionist policies may hurt American businesses in the process. While “America first” policies have been popular with American voters, they may come at the cost of damaging international relationships. Biden has expressed interest in engaging in trade with developing economies such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia. However, the Council on Foreign Relations recently released an article arguing that Biden’s turn against free trade will make it “hard to win friends.” In the article, Edward Alden argues that enforcing labor and environmental standards will halt trade with the same nations he is hoping to form relationships with. Until the election, it will be important to monitor how corporations, international headers, and American voters respond to changing trade policy. The result will have major implications all over the globe.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, the most right-wing and religiously conservative in Israel’s history, has proposed a judicial overhaul that would place unchecked power in the hands of the executive, remove protections afforded to individuals and minorities, and deepen the divisions in an already fractured society. In broad terms, the rupture in Israeli society has divided people into two camps: those who want a more secular and pluralist state and those with a more religious and Jewish nationalist vision. I sympathize with my peers in Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), who are fighting against this anti-Palestinian vision for Israel. However, I strongly disagree with their advocacy of an illiberal suspension of Pitzer College’s study abroad program at the University of Haifa. SJP’s pressure to end Pitzer’s participation in this program 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 attacks on Hamas, and its settlements in the West Bank have inspired retaliatory action by American students and academics. Boycott advocates liken modern-day Israel to South African 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? The obvious answer is Israeli institutions of higher education, the ostensible targets of the boycott. But 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 the 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. As Oona Eisenstadt, Professor of Jewish and Religious Studies at Pomona, put it during a Salvatori Center lunch discussion last year – “Can you think of a better opportunity for 5C students interested in Israel/Palestine relations than a semester at Haifa University?” She’s right. The program is an opportunity in which students can travel to the West Bank 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 in Israel. It’s a symbolic posture that would accomplish nothing other than increasing our own ignorance of what’s really happening there.

BY THEODORE SIASAT IMAGE COURTESY OF DAVID McNEW -- GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA Getting around Los Angeles without a car is incredibly frustrating. We've heard the stories: nightmarish congestion on the 405, blood-curdling traffic at LAX, and $50 Ubers to go out for dinner. It doesn't have to be like this. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle show that, with expanded multi-use land zoning and enhanced walkability, we don't have to rely on cars. Zoning is the practice of designating pieces of land for certain types of developments. Historically, it has been used to exclude people from housing based on race and income. LA has zoned 80 percent of residential land for single-family homes, meaning that affordable options like duplexes and apartments are banned in those zones. A study by UC Berkeley's Othering and Belonging Institute shows that the dominance of single-family zoning marginalizes low-income people and people of color to regions with less resources. LA's zoning has negative effects on its economy, climate, and overall attractiveness as a place to live. Single-family zoning makes cities more reliant on cars and less walkable because multi-modal transportation is less easily accessible as potential riders and destinations are more spread out. Our laws have made LA spread out and car-centric. LA can be better. Mixed-use zoning and multi-family zoning incentivize people to drive less and walk more. At the height of COVID-19 lockdowns, Angelenos enjoyed a rare sight: smogless, clear skies, which experts say were brought by reduced vehicle traffic. Higher walkability in cities is also correlated with higher retail spending, increased numbers of job opportunities, and reduced motor-related fatalities. You don't need an urban planning degree to understand why this is true — the more accessible businesses are, the more people will access them. Opponents of “upzoning,” as the practice is often referred to, assert that opening residential zones to denser developments will decrease property values and destroy quiet neighborhoods. As multi-family units are built, single-family homes might become less attractive, reducing their value. This could have an immense impact on people who have lived in single-family zoned areas for generations. The neighborhoods they have lived in for generations would change dramatically as their property values decrease and less people live in suburban homes. Quiet suburbs would be replaced by high-rise apartments with noisy businesses all over. Removing single-family zoning could also spur on gentrification. As residential spaces open up to dense developments, real estate developers would rush to build inexpensive apartments that have higher rent; a study shows that the median rent for new apartments is 78 percent higher than the median rent nationwide. This explains the “gentrification apartment” phenomenon, which refers to a particular type of boxy apartment building that is often associated with high rents in low-income neighborhoods. If upzoning just leads to these types of apartments, then getting rid of single-family zoning doesn't make housing more affordable— it just increases prices and kicks people out of their home neighborhoods. Opponents also argue that upzoning does not account for parking space in dense developments and will reduce the amount of green space in cities. As cities are “densified,” so to speak, room for parking and for green spaces will be replaced by high rises and mixed-use buildings. This could potentially lead to places looking like concrete jungles, like New York City, where single-family zoning is scarce. Parking would be extremely frustrating for people who need to drive, and children and families would not have access to green spaces like there currently are in suburban neighborhoods with single-family zoning. Many of these fears of multi-use zoning can be alleviated with the right policies. Reduced parking spaces would not be as large of a concern as it is in suburban developments currently, because not as many people would need to drive. Additionally, regulating how and where multi-family and multi-use zoning is placed is important to address affordability, maintain a dynamic city, and regulate noise. Seattle requires developers to offer lower rates in new developments, and San Francisco is known for its abundant green spaces in the city. LA can be much easier to live in. Rezoning is one of the first steps in this process.

CMC students’ well-intentioned efforts to combat prejudice have veered into the realm of counterproductive activism, which inadvertently harms the very communities they aim to uplift. It's time to take a step back and ask ourselves: Have the fiery debates, finger-pointing, and self-congratulatory events truly ameliorated the social divide at CMC, or have they merely created the illusion of progress? Campus climate surveys reveal an unsettling truth: while the majority of students report positive interactions with their peers, there is a pronounced gap between this widespread satisfaction and the experiences of Black, Latino, and LGBTQ+ students. These disparities demand attention. However, the current state of campus activism might be hindering, rather than helping, progress on this front. Activism should not be about participation prizes or padding one's resume but about making a tangible difference in the lives of marginalized communities. Unfortunately, the focus on optics and self-promotion detracts from the actual work that needs to be done. The college community must remember that all students attend classes, eat in dining halls, and have real emotions. Verbal attacks only foster division and create hostility, hindering genuine progress. Accusations of insufficient DEI efforts, followed by demands to set ego aside, lead to unproductive and hypocritical situations. The college should promote open and honest dialogue. Rather than addressing the systemic issues at hand, some individuals resort to personal jabs and character attacks, undermining their own credibility and distracting from the real concerns. Such juvenile tactics only serve to further polarize the campus community and foster an environment of hostility and mistrust. Isn't the goal to build an inclusive and just campus for all? If so, I am not sure how attacks or even rewards in the name of false progress are helping. Consider the recent case of a student who received additional compensation for work she had already been paid to complete as an elected ASCMC officer. No other officers were given additional pay, as it should be—extra pay for fulfilling one's duties is unjustifiable. That money could have supported an affinity group, but instead, it ended up in a student's pocket. Remember, these stipends are funded by your student fees. CARE events, designed to raise awareness and promote social justice, often attract the same attendees time and time again. While it's commendable that a core group of individuals is dedicated to these causes, the question arises: Are we genuinely reaching the people who need to hear these messages the most? Or are we just reinforcing our beliefs in an echo chamber? ​​Not everyone feels comfortable attending niche events, and this isn't a failure of the wider community. Whether you like it or not, Brad and Chad are not coming to those events, and no effort is made to meet them where they're at. Instead of approaching disagreements with pitchforks and torches at the ready, the campus community must foster an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation. By engaging in respectful conversations, the college can address the concerns of marginalized communities more effectively and create genuine change on campus. This op-ed isn't meant to silence student activists or brand them as "uncivilized." Instead, it seeks to boldly expose the unspoken hypocrisy, unmasking actions that masquerade as virtuous but are, in reality, mere signaling. Some will attack this article because being antagonistic often seems easier than admitting one's own shortcomings. We have reached a point where it is deemed acceptable to call someone a "prick" in a public meeting or to demand a public apology from an ASCMC officer of color for expressing legitimate concerns about safety at a Halloween event. The fact that these ideas are likely to be met with hostility only serves to prove the point that there is a need for a more constructive, respectful approach to activism on our campus. The college community must work together to ensure that its activism creates a legacy of genuine progress, rather than becoming an empty performance that ultimately harms the communities it aims to support. So, let's take a deep breath, put down the megaphone, and start talking to each other like humans.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the GOP has been largely defined by a struggle between populism and ‘establishment’ conservatism. During Pat Buchanan’s 1992 primary challenge, he skewered the incumbent George H.W. Bush as a “globalist” who was helping “bureaucrats in Brussels” to pursue a “European super-state” and undermine national identity. Bush – and the ‘establishment’– ended up prevailing narrowly in those primaries. But Buchanan did not go away, and neither did his ideas for many Republican voters. Donald Trump’s 2016 election represented a triumph of Buchanan’s ideas and the GOP's populist wing. After two impeachments, a failed coup, abysmal midterm results, a looming DOJ probe, and criminal charges for the former President, the Republican future remains in doubt. Is the GOP moving back towards the kind of establishment conservatism that dominated in the post Reagan years? Or will there be a new path that fuses elements of the Trump-era populism with more familiar tenets of conservative philosophy? Or is the future just more Donald Trump? At the beginning of the year, Ron DeSantis looked as if he might provide an answer. The Florida Governor gained national notoriety for his stance on issues that unified the party’s populist base with its older-guard establishment, all without eliciting meaningful resistance from Florida Democrats. This confluence of base and establishment appeal in a key battleground state made DeSantis a natural figure to lead a post-Trump Republican coalition. After his nearly 20-point reelection margin in 2022, and a poor performance for Trump-endorsed candidates across the country, the Governor seemed poised to assemble all of the various conservative factions skeptical of Trump under his banner. Until he didn’t. What went wrong? The issue that put DeSantis on the national political map was COVID. He established a national reputation by challenging restrictions, garnering praise from conservatives and becoming a regular guest on Fox News. He championed in-person learning and maintained open schools, while also prohibiting mask mandates for Florida's approximately 3 million public K-12 students. He also engaged in high-profile disputes with the Biden administration regarding vaccine requirements for workers. DeSantis' approach encountered significant controversy in 2020, but the tides shifted in his favor throughout 2021 and 2022. A combination of evolving circumstances and shifting perspectives on COVID propelled DeSantis to emerge as a winner in public opinion on the issue. Net migration to Florida sharply increased from 2020 to 2021, one study found. But in terms of electoral politics, the problem is precisely that DeSantis won and nobody is focused on COVID policy anymore. The other issues DeSantis banked on as unifying for the right – woke culture, abortion, and immigration – haven’t served him in the same way. Now, the Governor’s coalition is fracturing. Where DeSantis has faltered is in finding ways to unite Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump but may agree on little else. DeSantis' inclination to play to Trump’s right has caused more problems for him in the Republican primary than it did when he only had "woke" Democrats as antagonists. While there is enough space to situate himself to attack the "woke" without alienating the right-wing base, trying to be further right than Trump on such issues exposes DeSantis to risks with both the general electorate and his more moderate supporters. Last year, DeSantis signed HB 7, known as the Stop W.O.K.E. Act and officially called the Individual Freedom Act – an educational gag order. Among other things, it prevents teachers from discussing advantages or disadvantages based on race. Discussion of systemic racism is considered “critical race theory” and not allowed. In the 2021-22 school year, PEN America documented 565 books banned in Florida schools. DeSantis’s legislative attacks on ‘woke culture’ have begun to cost him. A top Republican donor, Thomas Peterffy, said he had paused plans to fund Ron DeSantis’s expected presidential run because of the governor’s “stance on abortion and book banning.” Abortion presents a similar conundrum for him. DeSantis has taken considerable heat from his own party since signing a bill that would ban abortions after six weeks. It’s a microcosm of the bigger problem facing the GOP as the 2024 election looms: Republicans lawmakers are divided on a post-Roe, national approach to abortion, and DeSantis’s positioning on the issue is unpopular to a clear majority of voters who are seeking a middle ground on the issue. DeSantis does not seem cognizant of the delicate balancing act he faces and has committed errors as a result. His strategic illogic is best illustrated by his approach to Ukraine. The GOP has two diverging and dominant views on Ukraine. The first view, espoused by GOP party leaders and figures such as Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, maintains that Russia's assault on Ukraine poses a threat to the liberal world order, and frames support for Ukraine as in America's vital national interest. The second view, championed by the populist wing, argues that the US has no vital national interests in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson has expressed indifference about Putin's actions in Ukraine, while Trump has suggested that the conflict will persist so long as the US continues to provide aid. DeSantis' lenient stance on the invasion has cost him support from the neoconservative right, which cares deeply about containing Russia, and would likely be needed as part of any successful anti-Trump coalition. DeSantis need not be a neocon to win this support, but neither can he reject U.S. support for Ukraine in the way he did. A Republican primary contest between populism and a more traditional brand of conservatism makes for a tidy ideological narrative. But 2024 is not shaping up that way. The dominance of Trump's supporters, their unwavering loyalty to him, and his confrontational political style seem to be preempting any effective challenge from democracy-supporting GOP governors, who might consider entering the campaign. DeSantis still looks like the only plausible challenger. And so far, his challenge to Trump doesn’t look very challenging.

Jamal Bowman (D-NY) and supporters of TikTok hold signs during a rally to defend the app at the Capitol in March. Image Creator: J. Scott Applewhite | Credit: AP Throughout American history, free speech has been tested in times of global conflict. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson signed laws that criminalized core First Amendment speech. It took the Supreme Court decades to reverse course and advance a broad vision of free speech protections. It remains to be seen how those broad protections will be applied to a rapidly changing social media landscape. China is infamous for using communication networks and tech companies to get ahead of its overseas competitors. This makes the data privacy practices of TikTok—an app with 80 million active American users—and its ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) a national security concern for the United States. Avril Haines, President Biden's Director of National Intelligence, has warned about China using TikTok to “build frameworks for collecting foreign data” … and “target audiences for information campaigns.” FBI Director Chris Wray has highlighted the app’s capacity to advance Chinese “influence campaigns” and espionage efforts. Politicians from both parties want to restrict TikTok. Last year, lawmakers barred TikTok on government-owned devices. Montana recently became the first state to pass a market ban. Many lawmakers are pushing to halt TikTok’s operation in the United States altogether. Opposition to a TikTok ban comes mainly from the progressive Left and the libertarian Right. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow “squad” members such as Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) have hundreds of thousands of followers and remain active on the platform. Rand Paul (R-KY) worries that a ban will alienate young social media users from the Republican Party. But even if these positions reflect elements of political self-interest, they appear to be right on the legal merits. An outright ban on TikTok is likely incompatible with the First Amendment and there’s little reason to believe that the courts would uphold one, should Congress pass it. A TikTok ban would fly in the face of jurisprudence supporting the right of the citizens to receive ideas, even from governments hostile to the United States. In Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a statute that empowered the Postmaster General to control the flow of foreign “communist political propaganda” through the mail. The plaintiff was Corliss Lamont, a socialist philosophy professor at Columbia. Even in the midst of the Cold War, the court unanimously ruled that Lamont had a right to receive ideas from the Soviet Union. The Supreme Court hasn’t wavered in applying such protections to social media. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the justices ruled unanimously that a law prohibiting sex offenders from using social media violated the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that individuals’ right to participate in political debate trumped even the government interest in preventing pedophilia. Under the Constitution, a law cannot broadly ban access to digital “public forums” for speech. In the final year of his presidency, Donald Trump tried to restrict both TikTok and the Chinese messaging app WeChat using emergency economic powers. A federal court ruled against him on First Amendment grounds. There is little reason to think that the Montana law, SB 419, will fare any better. If the law takes effect as intended next year, Montanans will be prevented from participating in protected forms of expression on the platform. Moreover, individuals from other states who use TikTok as a medium for self-expression will be unable to connect with an audience in Montana. These consequences establish a direct suppression of speech, which warrants strict scrutiny from courts. To say that a ban on TikTok would implicate the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it violates it. But a ban would have to satisfy First Amendment scrutiny to survive a constitutional challenge. Montana’s uphill battle to justify its constraints on free speech rests on its ability to convincingly argue that the ban is narrowly tailored to protect users from Chinese government influence campaigns and data collection. Precedent protects an influence campaign as long as it does not amount to direct, foreign interference with an election. Data collection raises a more novel question. As Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman wrote in Bloomberg last week, “I can't think of another example in First Amendment history where the government tried to assert that reading or viewing some content would hurt you, not because the content itself is dangerous but because someone else might spy on you while you are consuming the content.” Montana’s forceful crackdown on TikTok coincides with the Biden administration’s ongoing negotiations with the company regarding its future in the United States. In April, White House officials directed TikTok to sever ties with its Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, or else face a nationwide shutdown. However, for Washington to defend such a drastic measure, concrete evidence demonstrating TikTok to be a genuine threat is crucial. While there is good reason to be concerned about TikTok and user privacy, mere “potential” threats would likely fall short in a courtroom. Ban supporters highlight a 2017 Chinese intelligence law requiring private companies to hand over customer data to the government if Beijing ever requests such information. However, TikTok says it wouldn’t comply. In any case, the government would face a high burden of justification for an outright ban. Should judges decide that a TikTok ban represents a prior restraint on the speech of its users, the Biden Administration would have to prove an “exceptional government interest” to justify a ban. If a court determines that a ban is based on viewpoints espoused by TikTok — a real possibility, given the stated purpose of preventing Beijing from using the app to conduct covert influence campaigns — the administration would need to prove a “compelling government interest.” And even if judges were to rule that a TikTok ban was neutral regarding content and viewpoint – possible – the government would have to prove that its remedy was narrowly tailored. What arguments might the government use to navigate around these obstacles? Some proponents of a ban say the Packingham precedent doesn’t apply because legislation would target a company, not individual users. For example, the FCC banned Chinese-owned communications companies like Huawei, China Telecom, and ZTE from entering U.S. networks. The D.C. Circuit upheld banning all those companies from American markets without mentioning the First Amendment. The difference is that those companies sold communication equipment, whereas 80 million Americans practice speech on TikTok. The Huawei ban prevented US companies from using Huawei equipment. It didn't apply to consumers who owned Huawei products and didn't prevent them from buying new ones, either. Montana’s SB 419 goes out of its way to punish not the app’s users but Apple and Google if they leave TikTok available to purchase in the state. Constitutionally, that doesn't make an actual difference, and it wouldn’t for a federal ban either. Imagine a law barring cable providers from working with CNN. Targeting the cable providers wouldn't make it any less of an infringement on CNN’s speech. Like it or not, the First Amendment gives TikTok and its users the same protection. It seems that TikTok influencers, who make a living off the app, may have some breathing room before they have to find real jobs.

Footage courtesy of C-SPAN In April, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a tense clash with New York Times reporter Michael Shear (CM '90). Shear suggested the Biden administration was being selectively silent in response to legal issues involving former President Donald Trump. Note: This debate occurred in response to former President Trump's indictment in Manhattan. However, neither the White House press office nor the President has commented on Trump's recent indictment on 37 federal charges, either. With a former President facing criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions, American politics are in entirely uncharted territory. As these cases progress, there will be more pressure for the Biden Administration to respond. Biden's advisors privately acknowledge that their reason for not responding is political. Any remarks the Administration makes will give Trump ammunition for his claims of political persecution. If Biden comments, you can bank on Trump using the clip in his campaign ads. Still, it is unclear how not commenting helps Biden. Support for Trump’s arrest breaks down on partisan lines. Even though Trump was charged by an independent prosecutor, much of the public assumes the President to be behind charges issued by the Department of Justice. Republican lawmakers and Presidential hopefuls continue to disparage the rule of law. The President, whose constitutional oath is to uphold those laws, seems intent on doing so in silence. But the silence isn’t painless for Biden. As Shear wrote last week, “It prevents the president from defending the government’s legal system against Mr. Trump’s relentless, yearslong attacks, which are now amplified and echoed by his Republican allies.” — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Click here to read a recent piece by Shear and his colleagues on how President Biden’s age is playing out in the 2024 Election. Click here to keep up with Shear’s day-by-day White House coverage for the New York Times.

Michael Waldman’s new book, The Supermajority, provides a compelling chronicle of how the American right captured the country’s highest court — culminating over three days in June 2022 when the six conservative justices issued a series of decisions that dramatically upended long-settled aspects of American law and society. During those three days, the court ended the national right to abortion, expanded gun rights, and restricted the federal government’s ability to regulate emissions that are worsening climate change. Waldman deconstructs the judicial philosophy of ‘originalism’ animating these decisions, and questions the supermajority’s fidelity to ‘textualism’ when it does not serve their desired outcomes. Before Waldman takes a closer look at those rulings, he paints a brief picture of the Court's history from the last two centuries. He begins with Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), two disastrous decisions, before moving to the “Black Monday” rulings that gutted major components of FDR’s New Deal, followed by the “switch in time that saved nine” which saw them upheld under the taxation power. He then takes readers all the way up to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and through to Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which established marriage rights for gay couples. Waldman, a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice. Perhaps surprisingly for a liberal critic of the court, he casts a critical eye on what he views as liberal excess in the actions that helped create the current right-wing judicial reaction. In his view, it is the backlash to the liberal judicial overreach of the 1960s that has produced a reaction in the form of the overwhelming organizational energy of the American right over the past 60 years – the huge infrastructure of think tanks, political action committees, and distinctly conservative news outlets. Waldman criticizes the Warren Court — which presided over landmark cases in the mid-20th Century that expanded rights in areas such as school desegregation, criminal defendant protections, and contraception — for losing its grounding in the law and public opinion, paving the way for the conservative resurgence that followed. Waldman writes that the decision in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a nationwide right to abortion, was poorly reasoned and needlessly galvanized opposition by grounding its ruling “penumbras” rather than other possible bases, such as the Ninth Amendment, which says that all the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. This sentiment is echoed by many pro-choice legal scholars, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who would have preferred to see abortion rights protected under equal protection for women. According to RBG, Roe vs. Wade “became a storm center because the court ventured too far in the change it ordered.” Rather than resolve the issue, the court’s broad ruling “halted a political process that was moving” to liberalize abortion already, she said, and instead launched “the mobilization of the right-to-life movement” that changed American politics. In a broader sense, Waldman charges the Left of that era with prioritizing individual rights over other social goods, resulting in a decline in notions of equality. He criticizes liberalism for relying so heavily on the Court to advance progressive policies. This, he writes, led to the weakening of the Left's political position and the strengthening of the Right’s. “The backlash to the 1960s lasted much longer than the 1960s did,” Waldman observes. “Most of us have spent most of our lives living in it.” Make no mistake, Waldman’s skepticism about the reasoning in Roe does not imply he doesn’t share the outrage over what can only be described as an act of judicial activism in overturning it. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it repudiated the very idea that America’s highest court exists to protect people’s fundamental liberties from legislative majorities that would infringe on them. By overturning Casey, it called into question the core idea that the justices follow precedent. Casey stood for the idea that the court would uphold its past decisions absent a major, transformative reason to do so. Under Casey, lower courts would leave precedents in place. That norm is now gone, and it’s open season on fundamental rights. Parts of the book read like recaps of already well-reported stories. These sections may feel familiar to readers who keep up with the news about the court — Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni texting White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to stand with the President in attempting to overturn the 2020 election result; the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson in which Republicans attacked her record on pedophilia cases (an allegation the conservative National Review called “meritless to the point of demagoguery”); the Dobbs decision leak; unreported gifts by Justices recently reported by ProPublica, and so on. Nonetheless, Waldman’s takedown of originalism as deployed by the conservative justices is powerful and persuasive. He isn’t blind to why it can be a useful exercise to consider the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written, and appreciates that in the hands of a witty and charming Justice like the late Antonin Scalia, originalism can be a compelling method of jurisprudential analysis. Originalism arose to limit and constrain judges interpreting the Constitution by making sure they would apply only the law as it was originally intended. Using originalism is meant to curb judicial overreach by making judges into neutral, objective decision-makers who only have to answer the question of what the words of the Constitution originally meant. The Supreme Court in Dobbs was not even pretending to follow a doctrine of originalism. It was using a different interpretive approach, historicism, coined by the German legal theorist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in 1814. The gist of historicism is to draw on historical legal materials to evolve the law in the “spirit of the nation” — Volksgeist in German. This historicism used in Dobbs does not constrain judges nor make them neutral or objective. It empowers them to interpret history to make laws in line with their own ideas about tradition. Turning the tables on the conservative justices, Waldman applies originalism himself to critique Scalia’s reading of the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to gun ownership. Waldman makes the familiar claim that “bear arms” actually meant to serve in the military at the time of the founding, and cites regulations on gun ownership that date back to the colonial era and continued into modern American history. Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Bruen blatantly ignores this history and instead cherry-picks from dictionaries that didn’t even exist when the country was founded to extend Scalia’s understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Waldman uses textualism to critique the decision in West Virginia vs. EPA. That case concerned the interpretation of the amended Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to regulate power plants by setting a standard of performance for their emissions. The statute read that EPA can regulate new and existing plants with different standards, but in each case, the standard should be “achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction.” The supermajority rejected the plain text of the statute in favor of a “major questions doctrine” – nowhere to be found in the words of the constitution — that says Congress cannot delegate broad power to the executive branch in policy areas that are subject to rigorous public debate and skepticism (AKA almost every issue that relates to politics). Needless to say, that is utter nonsense. Throughout the book, Waldman describes how earlier extreme decisions of the court provoked enormous national backlashes. The greatest backlash of all was the Civil War, which arrived just three years after the hateful decision in Dred Scott v. Stanford. Concluding that the court has once again become a serious threat to American democracy, Waldman sees the tides turning again. Democratic successes in last year’s midterms – many based on rage over the fall of Roe v Wade – point to a new backlash in the making. This time the target is the conservative revolution that the court’s supermajority now incoherently pursues.