Search Results

Does simply listening to someone speak necessarily mean you support them? This is a question some CMC students, including myself, confronted on Wednesday, February 5th, when the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Brennan, came to campus. He met with small groups of students in two intimate sessions run by the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies (one of which I attended), and then spoke at an off-campus “Ath on the Road” event partnered with Res Publica, a CMC alumni society. As I lined up to board the bus that would take me to Brennan’s off-campus talk, I was handed a piece of paper. I thanked the student who gave me the paper, thinking that she was affiliated with the event and was handing me an informative flyer. However, as I looked down at the leaflet in my hands and read the words “war criminal” in large red letters, I quickly realized that was not the case. I soon came to understand that she was one of two students from Pomona College who were protesting and attempting to encourage those who had signed up to boycott the event. As we got on the bus, the two students cited statistics about Brennan’s history in the CIA, such as the 563 drone strikes Brennan approved during the Obama Administration, purportedly killing over 2000 civilians. The students said it would “mean so much to the families of the people Brennan killed” if we didn’t attend the event. One of the students even complimented my friend’s outfit, noting that Brennan “[did not deserve to have her dress up for him and support him.]” The two students claimed that we couldn’t possibly gain any value from what Brennan had to say. To my knowledge, the valiant attempts of the Pomona students were unsuccessful, and every student in line for the bus boarded. However, I was well aware of the fact that many of my peers who were attending the talk did not support Brennan or his controversial history as a CIA director. I myself am critical of some of his decisions, and in a session at the Keck Center earlier that day, I asked him about his history of supporting extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries for torture. He responded that he wished he had been more outspoken against “enhanced interrogation tactics,” but that these were ultimately decisions of the Obama Administration and Congress at the time. I thought this was a bit of a cop-out, but I am glad I got the opportunity to ask the question in the first place. Regardless of the fact that Brennan took little responsibility in his response, I learned something about the CIA and the Obama Administration from it. Besides, it’s not every day you get to grill a former senior intelligence officer about torture tactics. Similarly, the final question that was asked at the Ath event that evening, in front of a room of hundreds of students, alumni, and faculty, was highly critical. A student asked Brennan about the Panetta Review, an internal review of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, used during the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. When asked about his supposed attempts to cover up this report, Brennan began to lose the composure he had maintained throughout the entirety of his speech, and the two preceding questions. He attempted to characterize the situation as a misunderstanding, claiming that this internal review should never have been accessed by the Senate. He used the law, hierarchy, chain of command, and Senate oversight as excuses to justify the barbaric torture techniques that the review detailed and gently mocked his portrayal in the 2019 film “The Report,” which explores this situation. This question clearly condemned Brennan’s actions, and his hurried, defensive response reflected that. As I walked out of the event hall that night, I thought back to the claims by the two Pomona students that I wouldn’t get any value out of hearing Brennan speak. It is true that I thought some of the anecdotes John Brennan told during his speech—such as one about how he wore a rainbow lanyard to work in an attempt to show his support of LGBTQ+ rights—were a bit trivial, and certainly did not distract from the brutal and controversial acts he committed while at the CIA. But I certainly learned a lot about how the CIA operated during the Bush and Obama Administrations from his speech. The Ath is an opportunity to listen, learn, and challenge, where appropriate. Yes, the speaker always has more voice than those who ask questions at the end, but it is nonetheless an exchange. Listening and participating in a civil exchange of ideas in no way indicates support or agreement, while not listening, on the other hand, precludes debate and eliminates the opportunity to challenge. So, is John Brennan a war criminal? There are compelling arguments on both sides. But I believe I will always get more value out of hearing both sides, than from blocking out opinions which differ from my own. So I will continue to go to Ath talks hosting speakers I disagree with. I will continue to ask thoughtful questions at the end of their talks, and I will continue to challenge them if I think they deserve to be challenged. I hope other CMC and 5C students will do the same.

My first year was also the first year of the CMC Advocates. Consequently, they had no power or funding. Bystander intervention, however, was alive and well. We heard that term repeatedly through orientation, from RAs, from FYGs. Personally, I didn’t really get it. It seemed pretty important, but I don’t think I had a clear understanding of all the ways in which a night could go wrong. Pretty early in our fall semester, one of my female friends started making comments about how a well respected senior man seemed to be interested in her. We weren’t really bothered by this. He moved on pretty soon, and seemed to become somewhat obsessed with another first year girl that we barely knew. Between then and now, I have heard from countless senior women that this man harassed them and followed them around when they were first years. They didn’t say anything in their first year. He was popular, he was involved, administration loved him. In retrospect, his actions were downright predatory. My first Halloween, I had, as usual, lost my friends very early in the night. I was hanging out at dark side Boz, and I knew they were around somewhere but wasn’t particularly worried about finding them. I ended up besides a junior at the time, and we started talking. He seemed really fascinated by the fact that I had not dressed up (I hadn’t discovered the black cat cop out yet). We kept talking for a while, and it became pretty clear that the night would probably end in a hook up. While he was briefly talking to his friend, I checked my phone. My RA had texted me: “Hey friend… I don’t know what your plans are for the night and don’t want to make any assumptions, but if it involves going home with him, I’d really recommend against it.” Assuming she could see me, I looked around and saw her standing with the other on call RA and one of the deans. Full of blind faith in my RA, I made an excuse about going to the bathroom and walked up to her to ask her why she had texted me. She ended up explaining that a lot of women had stories about sexual assault and rape and she wanted me to be safe. At the time, I don’t think I understood why I was so upset by the incident. I ended up going to my FYG’s room in Green and crying on her couch, while she tried to make me feel better about the hookup culture at CMC. In retrospect, I was just scared. If my RA hadn’t seen me, if she wasn’t plugged in socially enough to have heard those stories, I would have gone home with him. My sophomore year, there was a lot of talk about a list of sexual assailants circling. With a year under my belt, I’d heard way more stories of assault and harassment, and I had an informal list in my head, too. When I saw first year girls getting too close to certain men at parties, I would, like so many other women, intervene. But now the Advocates were an established organization, in their bright teal shirts, always watching. There was one line of defense. My junior year, Brett Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court judge. I was more upset by his appointment than I was by Trump’s election. All I could think about were all the current Government majors, who I knew to be predators and assailants, working towards similar positions. Listening to Kavanaugh’s trial and the surrounding commentary, I kept thinking of the men we were letting graduate who would, one day, be in positions of power like him. Every time someone questioned why Dr. Ford hadn’t said anything earlier, I was thinking about all the women I knew who also would not have said anything. I kept thinking about how women would come forward only when men got elected or appointed to ASCMC, became FYGs, RAs, student managers. I thought about all the incredibly brave survivors who also would come forward if their CMC rapists became Supreme Court judges. As a senior, I can’t even count how many men I know to be predators. I can’t do anything about it. The only thing I can do is never interact with them, and warn the underclassmen who don’t know. Short of reporting, that seems to be the only thing any of us can do. It's the spring semester, and with that comes new RAs, new FYGs, a new ASCMC board, and countless other leaders. And with those elections and selections, as usual, will come some men who have harassed, preyed on and assaulted women on this campus. Some of these acts are well known, some are not. Some happen publicly, some do not. What I think about is myself as a first year, who accepted that men in positions of leadership are trustworthy, who had blind faith in my RA. There will be more first years who believe that the people in positions of leadership on this campus deserve their trust. My RA looked out for me when I was drunk and unaware, but not everyone in their position necessarily would have. Bystander intervention truly seems to be the only line of defense people on this campus have, as predators are constantly elevated into positions of power. So, I guess, what my point is… is look out for your friends, because our institutions simply do not.

I never wanted to study abroad. In fact, when my study abroad advisor casually suggested studying internationally, I dismissed the idea entirely. After completing my first year at CMC with the intent of pursuing a dual degree and a sequence, I concluded that there was not enough time for me to study abroad and graduate on time. I was extremely nervous because studying abroad would mark my first experience outside of the United States. Many thoughts filled my head. I wondered about the challenges of existing as a black man in a homogenous, predominantly white, European country. I stressed about the possible language barrier between myself, fellow students, and other foreigners. I even worried about the possibility of not making friends. Nevertheless, by the end of the first semester of my sophomore year, I was prepared to embark on my first international experience in Thessaloniki, Greece where I would eventually study media relations at the American College of Thessaloniki. While abroad in Greece, I caught the travel bug and was left with no other choice but to extend my abroad experience until the of 2019, leading me to intern in Manila, Philippines as a marketing intern and complete yet another abroad program in Prague, Czech Republic. In the end, I only spent a total of three weeks in the United States during 2019 having traveled to two continents, lived in three cities, and visited over twenty countries. Living abroad for an entire year has been the most rewarding choice of my life, especially as a gay, African American man. Meeting other black students and travelers from America, Africa, and Europe as well as other LGBTQ+ members from various corners of the world has helped me develop a stronger relationship with and understanding of my blackness and queer identity. Going abroad allowed me to step outside of my home, analyze it, and compare my life abroad to how I lived and felt in the United States. As a black man, I often felt more welcomed in European cities than I did in America due to the prevalent racism and occasional homophobia. Of course, racism still exists within Europe, but it is more rooted in nationality or ethnicity rather than skin color. For example, Parisians might treat you differently if you cannot speak their language, not solely because you have a different skin complexion. This is not the case in America where racism continuously results in the disenfranchisement of minority groups. For me, this type of prejudice was oddly refreshing because, for once, it felt like people were judging me based on something other than the color of my skin. Over time, I fell in love with Europe, experiencing a connection that even my home never afforded me. This is why I stayed for an extended period of time because I was not ready to wake up from my European dream. To this day, I still miss Europe and the life I created for myself during my year abroad, and I am patiently awaiting the day when I can return and reunite with my chosen family. Of course, my journey was not free from obstacles. During my trip to Santorini, my friend and I were stranded on the island due to airlines canceling flights because of inclement weather, forcing us to stay on the island for one day longer than expected, spend additional money for a ferry ride from Santorini to Athens, and rebook our connecting flights from Athens to Thessaloniki. Meanwhile, none of this money was refunded… Another mishap occurred in Barcelona when I met a friend for her birthday. While taking photos at the Arc de Triomphe, my camera bag was stolen, and it contained camera gear, credit cards, money, clothes, and my passport. To make matters worse, this incident coincided with strikes and protests. Not only did I not have my passport, but the airport employees were refusing to check me into my flight and answer my questions about the situation. I eventually returned home safely, but it was no easy task. Yet, in spite of these trials, I would do it all again, not changing a single moment. While abroad, you are faced with tough, unexpected challenges, and it is how you respond in these moments that determine how you grow as a person. Resiliency is key and learned overtime. Sometimes, you just have to say, “it’s above me,” and keep pushing because the trying times will pass. One year later, I feel evolved. I know it’s cliche to say that abroad changes you, but it does, or at least it should if you are willing to experience discomfort and relish the small moments. You should earn a new degree of confidence from living internationally in an unfamiliar environment. You should get to know yourself on a deeper level: your likes, your dislikes, your passions, your goals, and everything in between. You should gain an appreciation for culture and the differences that unite us. To the students who feel uncertain about committing to an abroad program, I say stop thinking about how spending a semester away from your friends might put a strain on the relationship. We are only undergraduates for four years, and it is our responsibility to take full advantage of the opportunities and resources available to us. If you stay in one spot forever, you might miss experiences that could shape your future path for the better.

Claremont McKenna College is committed to freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity and effective dialogue. The value of an education, especially a liberal arts education, comes in large part from being intellectually pushed. In the pursuit of higher learning, this often means that one will have to be made to feel uncomfortable. The Athenaeum talks and classes I’ve enjoyed most have forced me to grapple with ideas I hadn’t before and made me learn to think in new ways. I can’t speak for all the classes offered at CMC, but I’ve been to a lot of Athenaeum talks, and work as an Ath Fellow. I’ve been there every night this year, and before that, attended two a week (usually more) since my first year. I’ve definitely been pushed to consider new ideas. But sometimes it feels like attempts made by CMC and its students to ensure viewpoint diversity are focused on a subgroup within the majority population rather than acknowledging minority perspectives. Students of color at CMC are regularly challenged to think outside their comfort zone. By virtue of being at an institution where a majority of peers and professors are white, students of color are pushed to learn new ways of engaging and interacting. Yet, can we also say we push our white students as much? Do we push them to consider the ways in which they’re complicit in systems of racism? Do we push our students to consider the racial makeup of their friend groups or their contributions to gentrification? I sometimes struggle with how shallow the free speech and viewpoint diversity conversation seems to become. This is not a condemnation of initiatives to support free speech and viewpoint diversity. Rather, I’m worried about the aspect of the conversation we forget to have. Recently, Kiese Laymon spoke at the Athenaeum. He is the author of Heavy: An American Memoir and his talk was called What's Good: Reckoning with the Horror of One of Our Most Overused Words. Laymon did a brief reading from his book, and then opened up the room for discussion on how they feel about the word “good.” A few minutes in, he posed a question to the audience. He asked if white people ever talk to other white people about what it means to be a “good white person.” Kiese Laymon’s talk was about the word “good,” and we got lucky that he decided to pose that question. I’m at the Athenaeum a lot, and it’s pretty easy to sense the mood in the room when the speaker says something unexpected. The room was tense. The white people in the room were tense because they felt targeted. The students of color in the room were tense because the white students were tense. I was tense because I was holding a mic. But it wasn’t a disaster. The discussion was interesting, with white students realizing that they don’t talk about that question, and more generally about race, at all, and they then theorized why that might be. The dominant theme was that there was no reason for them to discuss, because they felt that they were not actively part of the problem. All of the comments and responses to his question were thoughtful and valuable, and I want to point to one in particular. At one point, a woman of color (Trinity Gabato ’22) stood up and said that the reason white people don’t have to think about what it means to be a good white person is part of white privilege, and people of color have never had that luxury. That’s true, and as an educational institution, aren’t we failing when white students feel like they’ve never had to personally consider race and their place in racial hierarchies? Can we even be an educational institution that critically examines society and the self without talking about one of the most important social categories that exist? I’ve been to a lot of Ath talks, and I’ve never experienced someone talk about race in such an honest way. Students after the talk all felt that they had a lot to process and struggled to work through the implications of the discussion that had just occurred. Isn’t that what we’re looking for when we talk about “freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity and effective dialogue”? And that’s just Kiese Laymon. His views on race are understandable for a black man in America. If we consider Laymon’s views as radical, it’s clear that we’ve missed out on something. When we talk about viewpoint diversity, we consider conservatism as the viewpoint we’re missing out on. I’m not making an argument about the merits of conservatism, but I am saying that we do not have diversity. We don’t push all our students equally. The initial silence at Kiese Laymon’s talk evolved into a thoughtful discussion that the people in the room had never had. What does it say that white students at CMC, some of whom are seniors, have never been pushed to consider race in a personal way before? We have the same issue academically. We have a shocking lack of classes at CMC that explicitly discuss race and gender. In my classes, I’m always thinking about what it means to be a “good” brown person, a “good” Pakistani, a “good” Muslim. That’s what you do when you’re the only voice in the room that represents your identity. You try to capture all the nuance that exists and make sure that you’re representing a fair image. It shouldn’t be radical to feel like there could be classes in which the Professor does that work for me. It shouldn’t be radical to have classes in which students are able to learn about experiences outside their own. If we do, students of color aren’t forced to teach their peers about their experiences. Just as we have OA funding to establish classes that grapple with political identity in a meaningful way, why don’t we funding going towards establishing classes that grapple with race and gender in a meaningful way? We have speakers at the Athenaeum who often discuss race in an abstract and academic way, and we have people who discuss racial issues in the US. Speakers talk about policy, immigration, criminal justice, gender. Students have opportunities to understand what’s going on a national scale. They rarely have opportunities to grapple with how those dynamics are recreated at CMC and what role we as individuals play in them. There’s a lot of special programming (shout out to the CARE Center), but it’s all opt in. That education only reaches people who already care, rather than being integrated into our routine education. When we do have classes and Athenaeum talks that grapple with these issues in a meaningful way, the people who attend are often not the people who would be the most challenged by the content. Part of the burden is on students to seek out discomfort. Men should go to talks about domestic abuse and rape culture. White students should go to talks about race. Humanities majors should go to STEM talks and vice versa. However, much of the burden falls on our educational institution to provide more opportunities for us to engage with a range of ideas. We don’t talk about how capitalism might just be unethical. Or about how much of race theory posits that we are all complicit in white supremacy. What about how gender might just be a completely constructed category? What it would actually take for men to be feminists? We really don’t talk about how consulting and investment banking firms are destroying the planet. We talk about diversifying oppressive structures instead of dismantling them. I want to acknowledge the limitations of my argument. I’m not delving into the intersection of classism and racism, how many of our white students grew up in affluent white neighborhoods, and many of our students of color did not. I’m not talking about gender, and how men aren’t pushed enough to consider what it takes to be a “good” man. I’m also only talking about viewpoint diversity in a political sense, not how we often focus heavily on social sciences at the expense of the hard sciences and the humanities. CMC students are limited in the classes we can take, and we’re limited in the conversations that we can have. How many of the philosophers taught in the Philosophy GEs are white and male? How many of the authors we teach in Literature classes tick the same identity boxes? How much is western? I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t teach material if it is written by white men, I’m arguing that we need to diversify our material. I’m arguing that we should critically engage with the idea that Shakespeare is one of “the greats” because white men decided he was one of “the greats”. Do I love reading Macbeth? Yes. Do I want to consider the power dynamics at work in Shakespeare’s fame? Also, yes. There’s demand from students. Classes that talk about race and gender are often the ones that fill up the fastest. To be clear, CMC is behind. CMC is behind in the range of ideas we are allowing our students to consider. We are behind in how much our students are pushed to consider experiences outside their own. We define an education as an experience that makes us open minded, makes us consider new ideas and experiences outside our own. And doesn’t that mean that CMC is behind educationally? Editor’s Note: This is an opinion article and the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum or the Editorial Board. Author’s Note: My views reflected in this article are mine alone and do not reflect those of the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum, nor am I writing this within my capacity as an Athenaeum Fellow.

Greek life does not formally exist at Claremont McKenna, but is a large aspect of college life for students across the world. Living in a fraternity or sorority can offer students meaningful and close friendships. Going Greek can also yield many academic opportunities and professional connections. Since sisters and brothers participate in planned events with other members, stress about finding friends and choosing among the overwhelming varieties of events to attend can be eased with a Greek community. However, these advantages do not compensate for their negative impact on college campuses. Fraternities and sororities create financial barriers to entry, foster toxic environments, and can initiate dangerous behavior. The prevalence of sexual assaults in Greek life is nothing new. Students in fraternities are more likely to commit rape than non-fraternity members, according to two studies conducted in the NASPA Journal. In one of those studies, sorority members are 74 percent more likely to be raped than non-sorority members. Sexual violence involving members in Greek life is partly due to the culture in fraternities. Victims often do not report abuse for fear of retaliation by the perpetrator or their fraternity, who may try to protect their brother in honor of their “brotherhood.” Specifically, almost 80 percent of victims do not report rapes or sexual assault, and only two or 10 percent of cases are false accusations. Without much accountability to the college, fraternities conduct many of their activities behind closed doors. To keep fraternities accountable, the Interfraternity Council (IFC) work with their member fraternities to regulate leadership and promote collaboration. Nonetheless, it is difficult for the IFC to regulate all activities held by fraternities. “CMC wants people to be more open with what they’re doing and being able to see what’s going on campus. There’s a lot of secrecy involved [in Greek life], as the IFC at USC may think they are in control, but they really aren’t. A lot of the IFCs are jokes, and they don’t know what they’re talking about,” commented CMCer Abai Houser, a transfer from student The University of Southern California. Many fraternities do not face disciplinary action, which exacerbates the issue of sexual assault on college campus by allowing inappropriate behavior to continue without penalty. Americans niversities expel less than 30 percent of students found responsible for sexual assault, according to the Huffington Post. For instance, three incidents of sexual assault involving date rape drugs occurred at Sigma Pi, a fraternity at UCSB. Although the fraternity expelled one of its members, and Sigma Pi’s executive office suspended its chapter at UCSB, the university has not placed any sanctions on the fraternity. “There have been multiple date rape druggings and sexual assaults that have occurred within a matter of weeks, and the frat is still here, which is really frustrating. The individuals and fraternities committing crimes aren’t actually being held accountable. Instead, [the administration] has sent us emails and more modules that are basically telling us how to not get raped,” UCSB student Kate Ripley said. Rather than addressing the perpetrators, many school administrations target potential victims through these additional programs. Although education is important in reducing rates of sexual violence on college campuses, a major part of the problem lies in fraternities, but administrations overlook their problematic behavior instead. When Renee Perper ‘21 attempted to decrease rates of sexual violence on Colgate University’s campus, she experienced several roadblocks. She hoped to have trained students at parties in fraternities and sororities to help ensure the safety of all students, but not all fraternities agreed to her proposal. Since the others were underground, Perper was unable to implement her program. Without Greek life at CMC, events are free and open to all students, now with free ticketing. People from different social circles participate in these events, whereas many aspects of Greek life are exclusive and elitist. “CMC does have an active student body and an active organization that runs events and makes sure everything is under control, as they pay for security. There’s no membership or a process to get in [to parties]. People can come to any event. The experience here is awesome because it’s well-coordinated, open, and fun,” Houser said. In 2009, Princeton’s undergraduate student government conducted research to learn about the demographics of its Greek life. Although 47 percent of their student body identifies as white, 77 percent of sorority members and 73 percent of fraternity members were white. Additionally, 95 percent of Greek life members were from the 25 percent, and over 25 percent were from the top one percent income bracket. However, about 55 percent of their student body received financial aid, and 16 percent of students came from low-income families. Low-income students who cannot afford the dues required for Greek life involvement are left out. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the average fraternity board and dues in $2,970 per semester, while Kansas University fraternity members pay an average of $5,300. Low-income students are already underrepresented at elite universities, and expensive Greek life dues pose just another financial barrier. Even within sororities and fraternities, competition and ranking existed. At Colgate, one fraternities refused to invite a sorority house because they found the female students unattractive and disliked their strong focus on academics. Consequently, “the top members started a group chat, and they would have mixers organized with just them and the other fraternity. It made a lot of my friends who were not apart of the top group feel really left out,” Perper said. “Because Greek life already segments people into this hierarchical structure, it makes it so competitive even within groups themselves.” The connections that Greek life offers are reserved for mostly white, wealthy brothers and sisters. Students from different backgrounds who may want to join Greek life may not feel welcomed or supported, as their identities are underrepresented in those organizations. “For some of them, if you’re an athlete or celebrity, then you automatically get in. If your family is famous or you have siblings in there, then you definitely get into a certain level of fraternity or sorority,” Houser said. Specifically, Perper recalls moments when students lied about their backgrounds to secure spots in the highly ranked fraternities and sororities, which stigmatizes low-income students’ participation in Greek life. “[Fraternities and sororities] took very predictable lines of white women or white men who were wealthy. One girl wanted to get into [a certain sorority], and she was from Connecticut but not Greenwich. So, she lied about where she was from, so she could be a part of the rich, elite circle of girls,” Perper said. A student’s status in Greek life also determined their positions on campus and created exclusive circles. “Leaderships of clubs tended to be determined by connections made in Greek organizations. I definitely grew further apart from people that were my closest friends freshman year because rush was sophomore year, so the first semester [of sophomore year], they were really orienting themselves with this new organization,” Perper said. Even after the rush period ended, membership in fraternities and sororities built barriers between friends due to the time commitment of Greek members. “There was always that wall between you and someone who was outside of your organization, and between whether you were affiliated or not and also what affiliations you had,” Perper said. Nonetheless, many administrations have difficulty penalizing fraternities and sororities because many have an established presence on campus. “A lot of alumni were a part of [Greek life], and alumni are the biggest donors to the school. Parents of the members in fraternities were on the Board of Trustees, so there was no chance, even if they did the most heinous thing, nothing was going to change,” Perper said. Universities with Greek life: reconsider the role fraternities and sororities play on campus. Although Greek life offers many benefits to its members, its presence also hurts all students. Greek life can create an unnecessary social hierarchy on campus and increase rates of sexual violence. Because Claremont McKenna does not have Greek life, our campus life is more inclusive, welcoming, and diverse.

Ding. Just hours into the first day of campaigning, us first-years receive notifications on our phones. We have follow requests from those campaigning for ASCMC student government positions: Austin Topham, Desmond Mantle, Sarah Simionas, Colin Sam, Julia Schulman, and Maureen Tchatchoua. After some mild stalking on our parts, we hit accept. Accepted. From social media platforms, we begin learning more about these candidates: what stance are they campaigning from, what they are planning for the coming year, and most importantly, what they will do for us. When the time comes to vote, however, does all this even matter? Friends vote for friends. Classmates vote for classmates. WOAmies vote for WOAmies. Teammates vote for teammates. In the end, the person with the biggest social circle typically wins. It’s not a rule of law, but typically, if one individual is involved in a multitude of organizations and clubs more so than other individuals, he or she will most likely receive the most support. This type of blind support is problematic for our student body because it can at times overlook the person most qualified. Does your candidate have the skill set to handle the position they are running for? Do they believe in the same issues as you? On the other hand, is being involved in different organizations and being voted for that reason a bad thing? It indicates that a person is more involved on campus, and more aware of what the school and the students need. In the end, research is needed to make an educated decision, and I trust the students of CMC to have made those educated decisions. People who didn’t know enough about the candidates didn’t vote. People who did vote didn’t vote for their friends because they were promised pizza parties and movie nights. When the “popularity” statement is made, it can be interpreted that the wrong candidate has won. That is not the case here. We simply cannot tell until due time has passed. What we do know right now is that Colin Sam, our first-year president, has experience, is open to ideas and is realistic about what we can actually accomplish. To ensure a successful first year, however, the process is not over once votes are submitted. Ultimately, it is not just the the class president’s responsibility, but also our responsibility to provide feedback, pitch ideas, and participate. The goal here is to create an inclusive, unified community for the class of 2023. Thus, reach out to Colin at csam23@cmc.edu or to any member of ASCMC to create an inclusive community and have a successful first year at CMC.

Recently I was one of the many ill-fated students to have lost their AirPods on the Claremont consortium campus. It was somewhere upon my walk from the CMC hub to Pitzer’s Scott hall, when I realized my AirPod case had, quite literally, disappeared. Scrambling for next steps, I was kindly directed to post both on my class facebook group and - the real kicker - the 7C buying and selling group. Frankly, I’ve always been daunted by such a page. Posts are made at seemingly light speed and prices range from “FREE” to “$10,000,000”. The real issue, though, is not with the 7C page’s variety of price points, nor with its speedily disorganized post system, but rather with the fact that it has become a kind of ‘lost and found’ for our digital age. We have come to equate 7C “buying and selling” with “lost and found” and I have never understood how these concepts can adequately map on. Put plainly, the 7C buying and selling group has become an empty hoax - a choppy sea filled with lost single AirPods, charging cases, and apple pens that are randomly mixed amongst ‘for sale’ used text-books and vintage clothing. It is an unnavigable ocean that no boat can guide itself through, no matter the desperation or will power behind its sailor. Nevertheless, with sheer disbelief and sadness fueling me, I crafted my lamenting post, priced my AirPods at - yes, you guessed it - $10,000,000 and waited. But, nothing happened. Instead, I met the cruel destiny that becomes of all 7C Buying and Selling (Lost and Found) posts: dismissal. Indeed, upon scrolling through posts made before and after mine, I noticed that they were rarely answered and few ever received that satisfying ‘found’ ending. In fact, it was only upon finding my AirPods (on my 3rd walk retracing my steps) that I was forced to mark my pods not found, but SOLD...another empty lie perpetuating the void that is the 7C For Sale/Free Facebook group. In an even crueler twist of fate, posts aren’t simply met with silence, but rather garner the ‘sad emoji’ reaction or the occasional ‘sarcastic joke’ comment from so-called ‘friends’ that belittle any lost item. Students are left with no alternate route of action, the 7C group has failed them - yet again - and their lost items will remain floating amongst that unnavigable ocean filled with disarray. When speaking with a friend he objected: “It’s more of a marketplace for the transfer of goods” (yes, this was a CMC Econ. major ) and then he added, “It’s just an object-oriented exchange, don't be extra.” But I couldn’t help but wonder: Is asking for an organized, responsive, and specified Lost and Found “extra”? Is it too much to fight for a designated Facebook page that is made solely for ‘Lost and Found’ items amongst the Claremont community? Comedy aside, it seems obvious that this community is in desperate need of a digital forum - facebook or otherwise- that includes all lost and found items on the consortium grounds. Importantly, if one already exists, please point me in its direction and I’d be more than happy to explore and push for its popularization. But, it is precisely the point that such a page - if it exists at all - is unpopular and, more likely, that it remains unused amongst the sea of students looking to find their lost items, that a new and improved digital lost and found for the 7C community must be created. Thus, let us not succumb to the abyss that defines the 7C For Sale/Free facebook group, and instead pave ourselves a new path filled with organization, answered posts, and more importantly FOUND ITEMS.

The tagline for Zane Tolchinsky ‘20 and Samy Vilenski ‘20’s new podcast, The Laymen, strikes a chord for the knowledge-hungry and curious: “Two college kids who know no things, talking to people who know some things, so they can learn a few things.” Each episode’s featured guest is an expert in their respective field who shares origin stories, reflects on their life and career interests, and offers up advice. The series’ premise seduces just about anyone, whether they have a diverse array of interests or just want to learn about something specific. Tolchinsky and Vilenski began working on the project this past summer and are sponsored by the Gould Center for the Humanities. They are recording eight episodes in cities across the United States, such as Chicago, DC, New York, and San Francisco. Tolchinsky is studying PPE and Vilenski is studying Economics and Philosophy. In their second episode, “Cooking: Chef Bruce Sherman,” the hosts interview the titular Sherman, acclaimed chef and partner of the North Pond restaurant in Chicago, which received a Michelin star in 2019. The episode is largely an examination of transition, framed through discussing seasonality, major career changes, and the evolution of passion. The hosts connect Sherman’s style of sourcing seasonal food to phases that people go through in life, and skillfully expand on the concepts. They manage to keep the ruminations compelling yet light enough to easily absorb an audience. Sherman jokes, “I think the one difference [between aging and food] is that you’re not going to go back to being twenty again, whereas I may get asparagus back next year, and that’s not a bad thing.” The Laymen podcasts are not structured like traditional interviews: the casual format allows for a more natural conversation. The only drawback to this structure is that the pacing and direction are hard to anticipate. That, however, is part of the charm of a more organic, smaller-scaled production. The conversation with Sherman never gets too technical. While in some ways a focus on the world of culinary arts might appeal to audiences, I anticipate that within the larger diegesis of the series, the time dedicated towards broader conversation will build important connections between all the varied themes and fields explored. If you’re interested in one chef’s journey, pursuing authenticity and passion, and affirming advice, listen to this episode and wait for more to come from The Laymen. Their podcast is available on Spotify and Apple, and you can hear directly from them on Instagram at @the_laymen.

In working towards the goal of making our college more inclusive, I’m proud to share that the Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) will not be selling tickets for any school-wide event in the 2019-2020 academic school year. At the last meeting of the Spring 2019 semester, ASCMC passed a budget that will allow us to provide tickets to students at no personal cost for all school-wide events. At its core, the mission and purpose of ASCMC is to promote a more inclusive on-campus community, and ensuring that the cost of all events is included in the student fee is a necessary component to meeting that end. In our most recent budget, we anticipated taking in $0 of revenue from tickets to fund Monte Carlo or Wedding Party; in other words, we do not plan to charge for these events this school year. Previously, ASCMC has charged between $15 and $30 for tickets, making it more difficult for some students, especially low-income students, to attend these events. If we want the social scene at CMC to truly be inclusive, then a crucial step is to fully remove the financial barrier to entry. We were able to eliminate paid entry to school-wide events for a few reasons. With the new increase in student fees that was passed last term, we had more room in the budget to maintain similar funding levels for events without having to offset the costs of the events with revenue from charging for tickets. Chandler Koon, Vice President of Student Activities, has been working on innovative ways to reduce the cost of these events to make them more accessible. We will also be asking for financial contributions from the student governments of the other Claremont Colleges, which will allow us to similarly not charge 5C students. To help fill in the budgetary space created by our decision not to ticket events, our Chief Financial Officer, Max Dawson, set up an endowment for ASCMC that will generate profitable returns on our existing savings. This will not only promote the long-term financial stability of the organization, but also allows us more flexibility with our budget. This change was not easily achieved, nor was it done lightly, but was an important step to making our events, and our community, more inclusive. We still have further to go in making our events financially inclusive. Events for the Senior Class, such as 200 days, 100 days, and the Las Vegas class trip are unable to be fully offset within our current budget, though they are heavily subsidized from class funds that are allocated within the ASCMC budget. While we have a lot of work to do before we are able to operate fully revenue free, we will make sure to proactively inform students about alternative forms of payment for these events. Max and I believe it is financially sustainable to fully eliminate ticketing costs for years to come, and it is my hope that this will remain a permanent fixture of the ASCMC budget. Removing the financial barrier to attending events is critical not only to making our community more inclusive, but in promoting social justice at CMC. With this in mind, we will also be considering other ways to make our events safer and more inclusive for all students. For several years, students requested removing paid ticketing for events, and many current members of ASCMC’s Executive Board campaigned on greatly reducing or eliminating these ticket costs. It is the mission, and fundamental purpose, of ASCMC to fight for student interests, whether by changing policies within our own organization or advocating for larger institutional changes at the College. I hope students continue to feel empowered to bring ideas and concerns to members of ASCMC with the confidence that these concerns will be heard and addressed, as we want to continue fighting for a more inclusive CMC. Editor’s Note: This is an opinion article and the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum or the Editorial Board.

For all the first years who are nervous about their Claremont McKenna College journey, I want you to know that when I started at CMC, I really didn’t know what was happening. I didn’t know very much about the school before I was accepted. I applied regular decision, waited until I heard back from all the schools I applied to and then tried to make as informed of a decision as I could. I hadn’t toured. I didn’t know anyone who had gone to the 5Cs. So naturally, I was completely terrified on move in day. To make matters worse, the 12 hour time difference was devastating and I was too sick with a fever and cold to try to make friends. Instead of improving my mood as I had imagined, WOA had the opposite effect. I was very ill for most of each day and my sore throat made it hard to talk to my WOAmies . The only people I knew after orientation were my First Year Guides, who made a huge effort to keep me company. They got to know me well between bringing me food from Collins and consoling me when I would sulk on the floor of my room, crying, because I thought I had missed my window to make friends at CMC. Everything about my ‘first year fear’ is a little absurd when I look back on it. In retrospect, of course I hadn’t missed my window to make friends. In fact, even though being sick for the first three weeks of school definitely sucked, it wasn't that big of a deal in the long run. It's easy to recognize the absurdity of that fear now that I’m going into my senior year and things have definitely changed since then. However, first year students don’t enjoy the benefits of 20/20 hindsight. I tell this story because it reflects a lot of the fears first years feel when they arrive. Everything feels like life or death. Socialising seems incredibly high stakes; casual interactions feel like they’ll make or break your delicate budding friendships. But in another way, I was lucky. I’m telling this story because it ended up saving me from a lot of anxiety, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Being sick for so long—unable to make friends or go to class—put me in survival mode. I was behind on readings, I had missed the first two weeks of classes and I didn’t have any friends. This late start, added to my status as an international student, created a lot of issues. I had no idea how to write a paper and I was doing terribly early on. I felt socially isolated, even though I probably wasn’t. The fact that I was in survival mode meant that when the applications for on-campus clubs and institutes started rolling out, one after another after another, I ignored them. I rarely opened those emails. Everyone around me seemed to be scrambling to finish the never-ending applications before deadlines and run between interviews, but I was too overwhelmed to even imagine adding another thing to my plate. The first extra-curricular I joined was in late November: Bryan Carlen’s first year class cabinet. That was my only real extracurricular involvement in my first year at CMC. Once I had settled in after winter break, I began to realise the frenzy that I had missed out on. Most of my friends had been hired by a research institute; all of them seemed to be involved at least one seemingly prestigious organisation on campus. It was not until my experience as a FYG sophomore year, though, that I truly noticed the ways in which the fall semester hiring process affects first years. After three years of being a FYG and witnessing the stress put on first years at this vulnerable time, I find this process to be one of the worst aspects of CMC culture. First years barely know their major before they’re hit with dozens of applications for highly competitive positions. Considering the stigma against quitting extracurriculars at CMC, first years are basically forced into making four year commitments in their first few weeks on campus. Not only that, but with fewer opportunities to get involved as a sophomore, the urgency first years feel is legitimate. It’s highly possible that first years won’t be hired as easily if they wait to apply until sophomore or junior year. However, most upperclassmen will argue that there’s a huge advantage in waiting and exploring your interests. Unsurprisingly, the hiring culture makes accomplished and intelligent students feel not only stupid, but ultimately worthless. First year culture is often defined by which campus organisation you get into, and all the ones you didn’t. The people who get in are much louder than the people that don’t, which reinforces the illusion that everyone is successful except for you. Imposter syndrome is already bad enough when you start college, any first years feeling this way don’t need to look far to be validated in the belief that they aren’t good enough to be at CMC. Not only that, but the hiring process is heavily elitist. By creating applications right at the start of the year that focus on resumes, cover letters, and interview skills, CMC unwittingly favors first years who were able to cultivate those skills during high school. This often means favoring students who went to elite private high schools or those who were able to do internships every summer. As we know, these experiences are not possible without socioeconomic privilege. The reason on-campus organisations exist should be to provide growing and learning opportunities to students. The current hiring process takes away from this mission. Getting into clubs and institutes takes precedence over the learning experience. Not only does this incentivise people who aren’t fully certain where there interests lie, but it also creates a culture of burnout. By the time you’re a senior, and at the peak time to pick up campus leadership positions, you’re tired. Everyone is exhausted. Right around the moment at which you have enough knowledge and wisdom to be a good leader, and make a real difference to campus culture, you simply do not have the drive. Most people begin to opt out of leadership positions in their Junior spring, arguing that they just “need a chill year.” And that’s a perfectly fair decision, considering they’ve likely been involved with multiple organisations on campus since their first month at CMC. The first year at CMC isn’t easy. I didn’t find it easy. My friends didn’t find it easy. The first years I’ve worked with as a FYG haven’t found it easy. I’ve seen countless first years crying over rejections: The Rose Institute, Model United Nations, Student Investment Fund, Source Nonprofit Consulting, Claremont Consulting Group. I’ve witnessed a first year drink heavily on a night out, later saying that it was an unhealthy way of dealing with getting rejected from an institute. I see sophomores and juniors stay involved in organisations that they don’t want to nor feel they ever should have gotten involved in, because they know people will judge them for quitting–perhaps they will even lose a social circle. I’ve seen first years given “exclusive offers” for an organisation, forced to quit a prior commitment to a similar on-campus organisation, because the two groups are in direct competition. I’ve listened to first years explain their reasonings for taking semesters off and for transferring, saying that they hate the competitive culture and the push to be involved in everything. I’ve read in The Forum, stories of two first years who both found themselves in coercive sexual relationships with on-campus organisation heads abusing their power imbalance. Obviously, this is not every first year’s experience. Many come out of their fall semester loving their involvements, but I think that there are enough horrible stories which show a culture issue at the core. There are several campus groups that do an incredible job with applications. The College Programming Board works on a January to December year, and so their applications are in early November, rather than early September. The Center for Writing and Public Discourse hires in the Spring and does not discriminate on the basis of class year. Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College have applications and elections in February and March. Claremont Consulting Group also does hiring again in the Spring semester, even though their fall applications go out very early. Luckily these late fall/spring applications exist, filling a void of opportunities for applicants who would otherwise have to wait until the next fall to get involved. However, these opportunities are not well advertised to first years and applications still exist disproportionately early in the Fall. If people are rejected from these positions in the Spring, after not being involved in the Fall, it creates the impression that they’re failures, and not a “good CMCer” for deciding to join later. Some organisations will argue that they try their best to stagger their hiring by several days so it doesn’t overlap with other application due dates. Not only does this completely ignore the rigorous (and several weeks long) interview process many applicants must go through, but it also simply isn’t the point. Hiring should not happen in one’s first semester at CMC. Hiring should happen months later and hiring second and third year students should be far more normal. This change, in part, involves normalising quitting organisations. These organisations should exist as learning and growth opportunities. If you’re not learning and growing, leave. College is the last time that you have the chance to do whatever you want and explore your passions. The real world pressures of stability and consistency need not apply. I’m not trying to say that clubs and institutes don’t have very real and very legitimate reasons for their application schedules, I’m trying to say that organisations need to fundamentally rethink how they function, and prioritise healthy campus culture. This article is aimed at the Dean of the Faculty's office, who should take bigger and more substantial steps to regulate hiring in the fall, so that it is staggered and delayed. This article is aimed at the faculty that run institutes, who should know that they could be hiring more committed students later, and could be taking steps to improve the mental health of their students. This article is aimed at upperclassmen, to remind them how being a first year felt, and to use their positions of leadership to affect change in the way that the hiring process is managed. This article is aimed at first years, to let all of you know that it’s not as serious as it feels right now. These organisations are not going to have a lasting impact on your career. They exist for you to learn, and you’ll find a ton of opportunities to learn everywhere. I know I sound like a burnt out senior, but college is short. Find things that bring you joy, don’t invest in things that make you unhappy or even that you feel indifferent about. All the upperclassmen you speak to will tell you how the rejections helped them find better opportunities for themselves. Find friends you care about and trust, go to class, stay up late to have incredible discussions and have fun. Explore what you’re passionate about and don’t be worried if that changes every couple of months. That’s what college is there for. And, as our student body president, Dina Rosin, said, we wish you an unexpected journey here. Editor’s Note: This is an opinion article and the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum or the Editorial Board.

For CMC to continue its mission of leadership and guidance in the face of climate change, it should shift the date of its carbon neutrality target from 2050 to 2030, a target that is common among similar institutions of higher education. In 2007, Claremont McKenna College (CMC) joined over 250 institutions of higher education in its decision to adopt a 2050 carbon neutrality target under the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). An entity achieves carbon neutrality when its activities produce no net climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions, which enables the entity to reduce emissions at offsite locations if it cannot eliminate all the emissions it produces. By committing to the ACUPCC, CMC recognized its “position among [its] institutional peers as well as the position its faculty, students, and staff have in[...] providing leadership and guidance to the local community when it comes to climate change.” Since 2007, a growing number of institutions of higher education, businesses, and governments have taken carbon neutrality pledges, with many pledging to become carbon neutral before 2050. Of institutions of higher education with carbon neutrality targets, 266 of the 533 have adopted targets earlier than 2034. Pomona College and a host of other elite institutions of higher education have 2030 carbon neutrality targets, and the University of California system has a 2025 carbon neutrality target. Phillips, Bank of America, and Carlsberg Group are among a number of multinational corporations that have committed to carbon neutrality targets before or by 2030. In September 2018, former California Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order B-55-18, which augments California’s suite of ambitious climate and energy policies by committing California to economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. In light of these and other commitments, which illustrate the feasibility of achieving carbon neutrality far earlier than 2050, CMC’s rationale for originally adopting the 2050 carbon neutrality target— leadership and guidance in the face of climate change— is no longer legitimate. To ensure this rationale maintains legitimacy, two members of the Environmental Affairs Committee (EAC), Andrew Bradjan ‘22 and I, Sam Becker ‘19, are working with CMC administrators, Facilities staff, and Master Plan architects to bump the target to 2030. Since creating EAC in fall 2015, the 12-member Committee and I have catalyzed institutional support for developing, funding, and implementing environmental initiatives, all of which has built momentum for establishing a more ambitious carbon neutrality target. When the Master Plan update was announced last semester, I saw an opportune moment for the 2030 push and recruited Andrew for the project. Andrew has consulted with administrators and staff from various CMC departments to create CMC’s first comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory in nearly a decade. The inventory is an essential tool in charting pathways to carbon neutrality by 2030. Andrew and I are in the process of analyzing the inventory and later this month we will present our analysis to the Board of Trustees, who will decide whether to adopt the 2030 target. The following actions would increase the feasibility of achieving a 2030 carbon neutrality target at CMC. First, installing campus-wide smart meters, which are integral to monitoring energy demand, consumption, and return on energy efficiency investments. Facilities staff have already been working diligently to install these meters and will likely complete installation in the 2019/2020 academic year. Second, hiring a full-time sustainability coordinator to oversee the creation and implementation of an environmentally-comprehensive and economically-efficient Carbon Neutrality Scoping Plan, collect and manage emission data, write grants, and work on other objectives relevant to achieving the target. The Environmental Affairs Committee is currently working with administrators to create this position. Third, investing in the development of a large-scale solar array, which would offset emissions and provide a return on investment immediately or after a few years depending on the financing mechanism. Such an investment would stand in contrast to the purchase of renewable energy certificates or other emissions-offsetting instruments, which offset emissions but do not provide any return on investment. Fourth, establishing a committee of students, staff, faculty, and Master Plan architects that meets at least once per semester to assess progress with respect to the Carbon Neutrality Scoping Plan. Fifth, developing and maintaining knowledge-sharing partnerships with sustainability personnel at the 5Cs, other institutions of higher education, businesses, and government institutions. CMC has the opportunity to join a growing group of institutions of higher education, businesses, and governments that are proving climate change mitigation is a realistic endeavor. By adopting the 2030 target, CMC can regain its commitment to leadership and guidance in the face of climate change, a commitment that has never been more important. Editor’s Note: This is an opinion article and the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum or the Editorial Board.

“Politics is about the free competition of ideas,” says the man wielding $20 million worth of Koch Brothers funding and the commencement speech microphone. Money talks, and it speaks loudly at Claremont McKenna College. It speaks at the Athenaeum, it speaks through a professor’s voice, it speaks over the loudspeaker at the $70 million Roberts Sports Pavilion. It purses its lips when students ask about mental health resources or a more diverse faculty. People surprised about the Arthur Brooks commencement decision must not hear the money speaking. Perhaps they wish they were involved in a different institution, one animated by something other than social, economic and racial power. Arthur Brooks’s nomination reeks like the breath of a toothless old man, so lost in his ramblings that your presence does not seem to matter. Arthur Brooks’s nomination smells like the cheap cologne the man applies too heavily to cover the smell of his deteriorating flesh. Arthur Brooks is that cologne to a conservative right, bent on selling neoliberalism as social justice. You might hear his feeble voice shouting for dialogue as people reject a racist pseudo-intellectual. With these attitudes, he will fit perfectly behind the CMC logo at graduation. That scent of cheap cologne betrays the vulnerability of the CMC administration–their fear of the students they have yet to subdue, the students challenging the college every day with their mere existence. In their organizing, they have uncovered the rottenness of the college’s priorities, demanding their needs and refusing to back down when the administration responds by inviting a white supremacist to its most prized speaking institution. These students hold no pretensions about the nature of the institution in which they deal. They have come to expect well-funded reactionary pundits, suspensions for challenging power, and millions of dollars towards programs of social engagement that refuse to stray from a free market ideology. When the administration coughs “free speech,” these students hear the money in its lungs. They know that if speech were free, students might have had a say in their own speaker. If free speech meant anything, these students might have gotten a response when they spoke time and again about supporting the needs of the very same students CMC touts in its diversity statistics. Free speech isn’t about the competition of ideas, it’s about the competition of power. In these moments, it might be easy to think that the reactionary position has won the day as it puts money, whiteness and neoliberalism atop the graduation podium. Those wiser can smell the fear and, with it, their moment of opportunity. They carry on struggles that are generations in the making. Taking control of these memories in this moment of danger, it remains to be seen whose voice will prove victorious. Editor’s Note: This is an opinion article and the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum or the Editorial Board.