Search Results

CMC students reacted with shock and disbelief to the results of the 2024 election. We should have seen it coming.  (Credit:Bruce Damonte) The day after the 2024 election, the 5Cs were in shock. Conversations were hushed; faces were heavy with disbelief. The sense of surprise was palpable. But here’s the hard truth: we shouldn’t have been so caught off guard. This disconnect wasn’t unique to the 5Cs, but it was certainly felt here, even at CMC, which boasts relatively high political diversity. At CMC, 19% of students identify  as Republican, while roughly 60% lean Democrat. Yet, only 16% perceive right-leaning culture on campus, and nearly 20% more believe CMC leans left of center. Rhetoric reflects these beliefs too. Students often use “we” to refer to the Democratic Party, assuming political alignment even with those whose views remain unknown. They claim that “we” lost the election, and that it is unbelievable how others cannot see what “we” see in President Elect Trump. But for the 20% of CMC students who support Trump, there is no “we.” Most stay silent, fearing backlash from peers who espouse tolerance yet struggle to extend it. Even our faculty, many of whom we turn to for insights into today’s politics, are disproportionately left-leaning. In 2018, CMC’s Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio  was a comparatively modest 3.7:1, but the other Claremont campuses tell a different story. In 2018, Pomona stood at 39.7:1, Pitzer at 21.3:1, Scripps at 10:1, and Harvey Mudd at 6.1:1. In a broader context, liberal arts schools across the country average a 12.7:1 Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio, and 78% do not employ even one Republican professor. This pervasive ideological uniformity has a profound impact on how students perceive political reality. When that’s the environment in which we learn and debate, it’s no wonder so many found a somewhat predictable outcome unfathomable. We are overeducated but underinformed.  The U.S. electorate has consistently opted for change  in the White House and Congress, flipping control in eleven of the past thirteen presidential and midterm elections. Political volatility is almost baked into the system. And the desire for change is not limited to America, but has been widespread around the world since the pandemic. We know this and yet we missed it. Why? We never truly explore the broad spectrum of American political views. This isolation leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s happening beyond the ivory tower. Many of us were baffled by voters who chose differently because we’ve rarely listened to  those voters’ voices with sincerity or depth. The socioeconomic context of our campuses plays a role, too. The average household income of students at CMC is over $200,000 a year. Most of us have never experienced or deeply understood non-elite social circles. We lack genuine exposure to working-class perspectives, and this ignorance has consequences. It’s not just that liberal arts campuses are politically homogeneous; they’re also culturally insular. Many students come from similar backgrounds, reinforcing a shared worldview. The majority of CMC students are from places like California, New York, the DMV, and other bastions of blue. This insularity leaves us ill-prepared to grasp why, for instance, many working-class voters feel alienated from the Democratic Party.  Many talk about empathy and understanding but rarely practice it outside of their political sphere. Worse, much of the rhetoric on campus involves a belief that those who voted red are stupid, or worse, evil. This could not be more counterproductive. The shock after the 2024 election wasn’t just about the political outcome; it was about deep disconnect. Democrats on and off campus were blindsided not because they didn’t care, but because they haven’t listened. Our campuses need a reckoning—a willingness to engage with differing perspectives on campus and a commitment to exploring differing perspectives off-campus. Otherwise, we will continue to misread political landscapes and be blindsided by outcomes others saw coming. Our standards as a school, and as those who purport to be politically informed, demand more of us than shock and disbelief.

Vice President of Student Affairs DT Graves and Dean of Students Jimmy Doan spoke about Pomona's disciplinary actions on Monday night. (Credit: Henry Cabala) The Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) Senate held a forum this Monday entitled “Pomona’s Disciplinary Actions and CMC.” This session follows the suspension   and campus ban   of dozens of 5C students who participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration  on Monday, Oct. 7 inside of Carnegie Hall on Pomona College’s campus.  The forum began at 8:15 p.m. in CMC’s Freeburg Forum with an audience of approximately 30 students, senators, and members of the ASCMC Executive Board. CMC Vice President for Student Affairs Diana “DT” Graves CM ’98 and Dean of Students Jimmy Doan began by briefing the audience on their knowledge of Pomona’s disciplinary actions and the status of student bans at CMC.  Graves stated that Pomona issued bans to approximately 50 students across the 5C campuses, including interim suspensions for 12 Pomona students, giving all of them an opportunity to appeal. While many students appealed their bans, she said, not many of those appeals were honored.  “[CMC] had two students that were identified,” Graves said. “One appealed and was upheld, and the other thus far is still subject to the situation at Pomona.”  Graves touched on Pomona’s Carnegie Hall Incidents FAQs , which revealed that the college had collected Wi-Fi data from inside the building to identify student protestors. Based on this data, Pomona College sent ban letters to any student they believed to be in the building during the demonstration.  “If people logged in using their credentials to the Wi-Fi network in Carnegie Hall, or in the proximity of Carnegie Hall, [Pomona’s system] picked them up as pings,” Graves said. “So that’s how they were getting this information: they had interval pings based on people’s Wi-Fi login information.”  Graves said she and the rest of the Dean of Students Office have been working very closely with the banned CMC student to help them navigate next steps. “We feel like there have been some pretty significant oversteps in terms of the policy Pomona is leaning on in order to take these disciplinary actions,” Graves said.  The policy Graves referred to is the Claremont Colleges Policy on Demonstrations , which she pointed out was designed to protect the physical geography of each campus. Under this policy, suspension is listed as a possible punitive measure, and students may be banned from specific campuses until the conduct process plays out on their home campuses. In rare cases, if students disrupt academic life, they may be turned away from classes on specific campuses.  “The default in the policy is that students should be able to continue to take their classes unless there is an ongoing threat,” Graves said. “What Pomona has determined is that the situation at Carnegie Hall poses enough of a threat that they have banned students, including from classes.”  At 8:23 p.m., Graves and Doan opened the floor to Q-and-A. CMC First Year Class President Selah Han CM ’28 inquired as to whether Pomona’s tracking of students’ Wi-Fi data could be a slippery slope with regards to privacy.  Graves responded that Pomona was already on notice of an event to be held in Carnegie Hall that day which called for disruption and masked identities, setting the stage that “something would go down” and thus necessitating monitoring. She also cautioned students from assuming protections of anonymity when in academic buildings.  “I don’t feel that I have a reasonable expectation for privacy when I am entering a building that has an academic purpose, and I am clearly there for not that purpose,” Graves said. Additionally, she noted that all Claremont Colleges “have made it extremely clear that when asked for identification you need to provide it.”  Dormitory Affairs Chair Aleeza Saeed CM ’26 asked whether the other 4Cs are questioning Pomona for the process by which they are handling the bannings and conduct policy.  Graves expressed discomfort that Pomona took additional punitive actions against non-Pomona 5C students before a conduct process could occur on their home campuses. For instance, Pomona forcibly removed suspected students from Pomona courses, even if their professors permitted them to attend remotely or moved their classes off Pomona’s campus to accommodate their campus bans. “That conduct process is not, in my opinion, Pomona’s jurisdiction to do to CMC students, or any other campus’ students,” Graves said. “We have a process. If they want a ban to protect their geography, fine. But when it starts to get into academic continuity, I’m really uncomfortable with that.”  Doan reaffirmed Graves’ point, emphasizing that each campus should be able to pursue their individual conduct processes in full for their students. “We are not questioning the charges,” Doan said. “We are questioning the process and the outcomes as a result of that process.”  Graves concluded the meeting with an update on the student committee   created to revise the 7C Demonstration Policy and CMC’s Freedom of Expression Policy, explaining they had their first meeting in November, and will probably have their first updates after winter break.

Donald Trump’s re-election manifesto proposes major changes to educational policies in the U.S. Donald Trump records a video outlining his education policy proposals. (credit: Agenda47) Donald Trump pledges in his re-election manifesto Agenda47  to fire  “radical Left [collegiate] accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics” and remove “all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats.” Trump described his motives as seeking to defend “the American tradition and Western civilization.”   John Pitney, the Roy P. Crocker Professor of Politics at Claremont McKenna College, described these policies as a punishment for college-educated Americans who typically vote for the Democratic Party. About 36% of registered voters  have a four-year college degree or more education, and “ Democrats increasingly dominate in party identification among white college graduates,” according to the Pew Research Center. Pitney argued that the policies were Trump’s way of “trying to go after colleges and universities.” Trump also describes building a free online college called the American Academy , which would provide students with Bachelor's degrees funded by taxing and suing large private university endowments. Trump claims the American Academy was inspired by “once-respected universities expressing support for the savages and jihadists who attacked Israel.” The academy would “be strictly non-political, and there will be no wokeness or jihadism allowed,” according to Trump. In the 2024 GOP platform, Trump also pledged to “ deport pro-Hamas radicals ” to make college campuses “safe and patriotic.” How Trump could deport U.S. citizens whom he views as “pro-Hamas radicals” remains unclear. Trump also voiced opposition to “unlawful [racial] discrimination under the guise of equity” in education institutions. For colleges that continue these forms of discrimination, Trump threatened to fine their entire endowment and direct the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights charges against them. In the GOP platform, Trump announced intentions to dismantle the Department of Education and “let the States run our educational system.” The Department of Education oversees federal standards and funding for the nation’s public schools. The department began under President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and his successor, Ronald Reagan, began a movement to dismantle the department. Trump also pledged in Agenda47 to cut f ederal funding for any K-12 public school promoting Critical Race Theory or gender ideology. In addition, he describes creating a “ new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values .”  Pitney is specifically concerned about proposals regarding The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which grants money to state public schools provided they meet certain conditions for their students with disabilities. These proposals would remove the conditions from this grant, turning it into a no-strings block grant, meaning states do not need to follow guidelines to receive money. Pitney explained that the removal of these guidelines could jeopardize educational protections for students with disabilities. “All of the protections of that federal law that special education parents have relied on for decades… disappear because it's not a civil rights law,” said Pitney. Trump’s Agenda47 and GOP platform outline his strategy for reshaping American K-12 and higher education. On this Election Day, the country stands at a crossroads for education—the direction it chooses remains to be seen.

Young men and women are drifting apart politically—CMC students are no different. Across the globe, the data reveal a growing   political   divide  between young men and young women. In the U.S., young men are more likely  to identify with the political right, and young women are more likely  to identify with the political left. Moreover, the political gap is often wider  among college-educated men and women. This year, the Salvatori Center conducted its quadrennial student political attitudes survey . The results show that CMC students exhibit growing political divides along gendered lines. Of the survey respondents, 99 identified as men, 75 identified as women, and 4 identified as nonbinary. For the analysis below, third-party and “undecided” responses were excluded. Among men, 54% identified as Democrat, 20% identified as Independent, and 26% identified as Republican. Among women, 73% identified as Democrat, 14% identified as Independent, and 13% identified as Republican. In other words, the data show a 19-point “gender gap” in Democratic identification and a 13-point gender gap in Republican identification. Among men, 71% preferred Harris, and 29% preferred Trump. Among women, 86% preferred Harris, and 14% preferred Trump. The gender gap in presidential candidate preference was 15 points. Men and women also diverged across a number of specific political issues. Many of the issue-specific gender gaps were larger than the gender gaps in political identification. All differences in proportions described below were significant at a 95% confidence level. Men and women were split over standardized test scores. The majority of men (58%) were in favor of reinstating test scores as an admissions requirement, and the majority of women (63%) were opposed, making for a gender gap of 16 points. Men and women were also split over race-based affirmative action—the majority of men (67%) were opposed, and the majority of women (63%) were in favor. This 30-point gender gap was the third-largest across all issues. The next question asks, “How should the government balance conflict between religious liberty and anti-discrimination legislation that protects traits such as gender and sexual orientation in public accommodations?” Men were 8 points more likely than women to favor prioritizing religious liberty (14% versus 6%), and women were 19 points more likely than men to favor prioritizing anti-discrimination legislation (48% versus 29%). When asked about attitudes towards police, men were 17 points more likely than women to favor increasing police funding (42% versus 25%) and women were 24 points more likely than men to favor decreasing police funding or abolishing the police (48% versus 24%).  Women were also 15 points more likely than men to favor additional restrictions on purchasing guns (94% versus 79%). Men and women were split sharply on the question of whether the U.S. should raise the corporate tax rate. The majority of men (54%) favored lowering or maintaining the corporate tax rate, and the majority of women (83%) favored raising the corporate tax rate. This 37-point gender gap was the second-largest across all issues. Surprisingly, men and women showed the largest divergence in their opinions on the electoral college. The majority of men (61%) opposed replacing the electoral college with a direct popular vote, and the majority of women (79%) favored replacing the electoral college with a direct popular vote. This 40-point gender gap was the largest across all issues. When asked, “How optimistic are you about the future of American democracy?”, men were 16 points more likely than women to be optimistic (39% versus 23%), and women were 12 points more likely than men to be pessimistic (50% versus 38%). The final question of the survey asked respondents to select from a list of options the three issues that mattered most to them. The top five issues for men were the economy, the environment, foreign policy, preserving liberal democracy, and healthcare. The top five issues for women were abortion, the environment, healthcare, preserving liberal democracy, and racial equity. Men’s top issue (the economy) did not make the top five issues for women, and women’s top issue (abortion) did not make the top five issues for men. There were not statistically significant differences between men’s and women’s responses to questions regarding student encampments, abortion, marijuana, border security, amnesty for undocumented immigrants, the environment, global trade, federal spending, Ukraine, and Israel-Palestine.

For Constitution Day, historian and law professor Jonathan Gienapp delivered a critique of originalism at the Athenaeum. Below is his interview with Forum editor Josh Morganstein. Jonathan Gienapp speaks to Stanford students in 2021 (credit: Stanford University via X) Recently, CMC and the Athenaeum hosted Jonathan Gienapp, a Professor History and Law at Stanford University, to discuss constitutional law and originalism. Gienapp is a leading expert on the constitutional history of the Founding-era, and recently finished a new book: Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique . In it, Gienapp marshals an array of historical evidence to critique originalism, a method of constitutional interpretation that seeks to read the Constitution in light of its original public meaning. Gienapp’s talk at the Athenaeum was sponsored by the Salvatori Center, and we were lucky enough to sit down with the Professor earlier that day. Below is an edited transcript of the conversation between Professor Gienapp and Josh Morganstein, one of our editors:  Josh Morganstein: Thanks for coming in and agreeing to chat with me. I’d like to start off by asking you how you got to where you are; I’m curious about how your interests in legal and constitutional history formed.  Jonathan Gienapp: From a pretty young age, I had a deep fascination with the intellectual and political history of the American Revolutionary era: how the United States came to be—particularly the debates that surrounded the American Revolution—and the next phase, after you've declared independence and had a revolution, how it set up a new system of government, almost top to bottom. I remember reading Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution , and then Gordon Wood’s T he Creation of the American Republic . And what was so exhilarating and eye opening about reading those books was they showed how the conceptual world that the founding generation resided in, despite the fact it seemed so familiar to Americans, was actually quite distinct, and that you needed to really climb inside their minds to understand what they were doing. It took something that I thought I knew, and made it seem so much more interesting by showing how much richer and more complicated it was. From then on, I couldn’t get enough, and really never left it.  JM: What are some of the ways that the Founding-era conceptual landscape was distinct from how we think about politics today?  JG: I mean, part of what makes Bailyn’s book so great is that there is this fundamental puzzle to the revolution: it is waged against a British government that doesn’t seem to be doing that much—at least not initially. Taxes on paper goods are not particularly onerous (actually, much smaller than the taxes the people in Britain were already paying). So the usual conclusion had either been that the Americans had really overreacted, or there’s some ulterior motive (control of people, power, or slavery). And Baylin did a marvelous job of showing how, based on living on the periphery of the British Empire and absorbing all this literature that was written in Britain that sounded concern about the state of British society and politics—that the complacency and corruption had set in—American revolutionaries were conditioned to be hypersensitive to British intrusion into their affairs after the Seven Years War (not because the things that the British were doing were particularly onerous, but because they were symptomatic of a deeper set of problems that lay lurking on the horizon). It was an entirely different way of thinking about politics and liberty: then, the revolution becomes a preemptive strike before it’s too late, and it’s precisely because the policies seem to be innocuous that they’re so threatening; that view is fascinating to me. JM: U.S. constitutional history is fraught with certain bumps, but for the most part, many view the Constitution as a successful document that has both lasted and adapted over time. Do you agree with the premise that it has been successful, and if so, what are the factors that contributed to its success? JG: We would want to sort out whether we think the Constitution truly survives the Civil War. Some say: ‘same system of government, same document, same tradition.’ Others, like Thurgood Marshall, say it was destroyed because it’s replaced with this new birth of freedom. So I certainly accept your premise in a general sense; other countries have gone through so many different constitutions, but they haven’t had the same sort of stability and success. Part of this is what Alexis de Tocqueville said about democracy: that it was less a set of institutions and practices than habits of the heart—that you can’t have a democracy without a democratic people, and that the the right to vote or rule of law are actually downstream from a more essential set of democratic requirements. You can say the same thing with the Constitution. Did the Constitution survive because it managed to set up an intricate, well-designed structure, both by dividing powers in a way that always created the right channeling effects and values so that any stress placed on the system could be absorbed? Or is it because there’s something about Americans more generally—in the supporting culture that was nourished—that allows for that system to work. I think it’s probably a combination of habits and institutional design. Once you put the two together, they engage in a feedback; but yeah, it’s a puzzle, and I don’t think there’s a straightforward answer.  JM: Turning to why you’re here tonight—constitutional interpretation—you recently wrote a book arguing against originalism. One of the things that I appreciate about your prior work, such as your 2017 blog in Process , is that you distinguish between ‘Originalism 1.0,’ which you say focused on original intent and evolved as a response to the perceived excesses of the Warren Court, and ‘Originalism 2.0,’ which was a shift to focus more on original public meaning. Why did the shift occur, and what kind of originalism are you cautioning against?  JG: Yeah, so ‘Originalism 1.0,’ as I describe it, talked about recovering the framers’ original intent, but it was speaking in pretty general terms. It was saying that we shouldn’t be living constitutionalists. We should instead try to figure out what was fixed at the time of the making. But in talking about intent, two big issues emerged among many, the first being the problem of multiple intents. What do you do with the fact that there’s no original intent? There are original intents. There were 55 framers at the Constitutional Convention, around 1700 ratifiers in the state ratifying conventions, and way more people in the political community; they didn’t all agree on what was intended by the constitution. So what do you do? You have to pick and choose, and that seems to be problematic. The second issue is the problem of moral taint: that the original intent was of people who did not share our moral values. Many of them supported or practiced slavery. They clearly disenfranchised all women. So why would we be beholden to an intent that has failed so dramatically by our standard of normative democracy?  Originalism, 2.0—public meaning originalism—emerged and did a really good job of neutralizing these problems by saying that the value of looking at just the words of the Constitution is to find the public meaning, regardless of intent. Where there had been plural meanings, you could now find a unitary meaning. And then you were also less beholden to their bad morality; even if slaveholders wrote the First Amendment or set up Article Two, it doesn’t mean that slavery is codified there. For some 30 years plus now, public meaning originalism has been the dominant form of originalism. But in moving to public meaning originalism, originalists have been really eager to bracket, ignore, and minimize certain kinds of historical context, claiming that it is evidence of original intent, expected application, or political theory, but none of that is the original public meaning of the Constitution. The public meaning of the Constitution, rightfully understood, is entangled with a much wider network of historical contexts, beliefs, and evidence than they allow. And I’m trying to bring that back into focus. There was a desire to kind of remove history from originalism, in a way, and I’m trying to bring it back. JM: It seems like there are multiple uses of history, and some are more accurate or in depth than others. Sometimes, these uses of history appear to conflict. In D.C. v. Heller , for example, you have perhaps what the framers intended around using a firearm conflict with a tradition of possessing a gun for self defense. When ‘history’ conflicts, what would you say the Court should be prioritizing to most faithfully read the Constitution? JG: Yeah, that’s a great way of putting it. At a minimum, you need to start with an appropriate understanding of what a provision implies, what fundamental assumptions it rests on, and what people in the past thought about those things. So if it’s—let’s say—an eminent domain case, there are underlying assumptions people have about property rights and the relationship between rights and government intrusion. I think it’s really difficult to just pull out a dictionary and start looking at words without ever thinking more broadly. I mean, property is property. But clearly you can conceptualize the nature of property and what it means to have a right to it in very different ways. And that is not going to be answered by a dictionary. We’re not talking about a world of easy questions. We’re talking about the hardest questions. Genre matters. The President, Article Two says, is vested with the executive power of the United States. What does that mean? It’s not surprising that such a question requires a much deeper form of analysis to try to sort out. If you want to understand the public meaning of executive power, you can try to look at usage at the time. Not surprisingly, most of the usage was in the context of reading the Constitution and supporting legal documents. So, you end up looking at much of the same evidence that original intent originalists look at. So, I think public meaning originalism didn’t tend to provide the escape from deeper historical analysis. JM: Yet you have originalists—for example,   Justice Scalia in “Originalism: The Lesser Evil”—admit that originalism is a task better suited for historians than lawyers, but that at the end of the day, the ability of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review is based on reading the Constitution like a legal document, which necessitates us to read it with a fixed meaning. So, while the work of historians may be important, when you’re deciding a court case, you need a final legal answer. How would you respond to that type of challenge from originalists? Also, along those lines, is it possible to both believe that the Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional disputes and that we must go beyond originalism as a matter of interpretation?  JG: Well, I would want those originalists to explain very clearly why some kinds of context would matter for figuring out original meaning, but not original legal meaning. I think there’s a way in which the rhetoric takes place a few 100 feet in the sky, and I’m not convinced that when you get down to it, the kinds of things that historians are trying to emphasize would not be relevant to true original meaning. I don’t see originalists choosing law over history; I see them choosing modern law over past law. They are choosing to read the Constitution as though it’s a modern legal history—the kind that they’re familiar with being modern lawyers, socialized in modern jurisprudential assumptions, and having gone to modern law school. But none of that describes James Wilson, John Jay, John Marshall, and Joseph Story, who were socialized in a very different legal world, understood law to be something very different, and therefore did law differently.  A lot of people think that the Constitution is a legal document, but it’s not obvious why reading the Constitution like a legal document means being an originalist. Other lawyers who are less hospitable to originalism first consider existing precedents, because that’s what lawyers do. So, while I do think judicial review is linked to originalism, in that there’s a lot of logic linking judicial review to a written constitution with a fixed meaning, they’re not logically linked in the way originalists would claim. Part of the problem is people who were resistant to originalism were not emphasizing judicial restraint. Originalism grew up in the face of living constitutionalism on steroids, in a system of judicial supremacy. It’s fair to ask about that and to think that the Warren Court, which did not exercise judicial minimalism of any kind, was problematic. So maybe the solution is then to eliminate both, or to try to fuse the two somehow—to say, we’re not going to do either originalism or living constitutionalism; rather, because we’re going to do less judge-made interpretation, we’re going to bring back something like departmentalism.  JM: With the way that originalism is currently playing out on the Court, many people view originalism as a conservative ideology, and believe that decisions like Dobbs  are activist in a way that originalists themselves should critique. For originalists, how should they balance precedent and tradition that’s existed over time with original meaning? Do you think originalists currently on the Court are doing a good job of that? JG: It’s a big, good question that the answer to which is not quite clear. People have always complained that originalism is just living constitutionalism dressed up as something more noble, and they would point to the kind of pick-and-choose style of some originalist jurists to prove it. Whether that means the broader proposition is true, however, is an open matter. Whether we’re seeing it now is also an open matter. Justice Kavanaugh, for instance, said that stare decisis  is really important, and you have to go through an extended analysis to explain why you’re reversing precedent. He would certainly argue that the Court met that burden in Dobbs . Others would say, ‘no, not at all.’ But what you would want to see from an originalist is analysis of the original means—a demonstration of how a right was not protected under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment. Instead, what the Court did was to look at how abortion was criminalized throughout the 19th century. And that, to me, was a bit strange. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is by far the best here. She was really thinking through how these different ideas fit together, and is taking them very seriously. You see this in her concurrences in Bruen  and Rahimi , saying tradition can only matter if it’s serving the broader purposes of originalism—that it’s either reasonable evidence of original meaning, or something like that. It can’t just be that there’s some tradition. I think she’s right to hammer that, and I think hopefully the other justices who agree with her on originalism will follow.  JM: To wrap up, if you could give one takeaway from your book what would it be? What should readers be on the lookout for and come out with? JG: When we’re talking about the Constitution itself—not its meaning, but the Constitution itself as an object, and constitutionalism more generally—we need to appreciate that it was different back at the Founding. It was different, and that difference makes a difference. If you want to be an originalist, it’s not the kind of thing you can hand wave or explain away. If you want to be committed to this project of recovering an original meaning, you have to take very seriously the different way that people at the Founding thought about constitutions and how that breathed life into the one they made. What the Constitution originally meant was embedded in a way of thinking about constitutionalism that was essential to it. JM: I think it’s a good message, and I look forward to reading the book. Thank you so much for your time, we really appreciate it.

In September, ASCMC launched an initiative providing free menstrual products across CMC. Aunt Flow’s products are provided in women’s and gender-inclusive bathrooms across CMC. Last month, after more than a year of advocacy, the Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) began providing free menstrual pads and tampons for students ‘caught short’ in women’s and gender-inclusive bathrooms in residential lounges, the Hub, the Ath, Kravis, Bauer, Adams, Collins, and Roberts.    This academic year, ASCMC acquired $3,000 for this initiative from alumni, parents, and leftover dormitory budgets from the previous school year. The menstrual products are from the brand Aunt  Flow , which partners with schools and businesses for similar initiatives. Kirby Kimball, a senior at CMC who spearheaded the initiative, chose Aunt Flow because of its 100% organic cotton products, inclusive language, discreetness, and charitable efforts towards alleviating period poverty.   Kimball was inspired to start the initiative on her orientation trip, when a student told her how they had to leave the Athenaeum early due to an unexpected period. “ I found this story pretty upsetting and confusing, considering the myriad of resources CMC offers to its students...” Kimball wrote in an email to The Forum .   “I did hear [opposition] mostly from people who don’t have periods,” said ASCMC student-body president Ava Kopp. “I said ‘period’ a lot of times in Board of Trustees meetings, and I think some of the older male trustees were a little bit uncomfortable. But it was a positive conversation because we were being honest about de-stigmatizing general discussions on menstrual health.” Questions from trustees included:  “Why does this need to be a campus-wide initiative?”, “Do you people really have trouble getting access to tampons?”, “Don’t you know when your period is going to start?”   ASCMC clarified that the initiative is not intended to replace students’ personal supplies of tampons and pads. “Please be mindful not to take more than necessary,” Kopp wrote in an email on September 25th when announcing the initiative to CMC students.     Each basket of menstrual products includes a QR code through which students can report low supply. Kopp is working with the college’s facilities team to ensure supplies are replenished weekly.    The initiative aimed to stock 60 bathrooms but due to budgetary constraints, stocks only 32. Next year, ASCMC plans to propose folding costs into the operating budget of the school (rather than through ASCMC), to expand locations with supplies and increase options in tampon absorbency.    In a national   survey   from Intimina, a reusable menstrual product company, 19% of female college students reported that they have “felt forced to decide between purchasing menstrual products and meeting other personal costs (paying bills, buying food, or any other mandatory expense).” Similarly, 48%   of respondents struggled to access menstrual products for financial or other reasons. In an interview with The Forum , Kopp explained that low-income students at CMC face similar financial constraints.   When announcing the initiative, Kopp wrote to the student body that “providing period products near lounges and classes is about more than just convenience; it’s about fairness and health equity.”

Survey results show that 59% of CMC students identify as Democrats, and 19% identify as Republicans. In the fall semester of each election year, the Henry Salvatori Center for Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World conducts a survey to ascertain the political attitudes of students at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). The survey was originally conducted in the fall of 2016 by Melanie Wolfe and Joe Noss. While the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the Salvatori Center from conducting the survey in 2020, a replacement survey was conducted in the spring of 2022 by Hannah Reilly and Kimi Adler.  2024 marks the third time the survey has been conducted and the first time the Salvatori Center has published the results in collaboration with The Forum . On November 5th, Salvatori Center research assistants will present the results of the survey to the CMC student body for the Kravis Lab for Civic Engagement ’s election night programming. This year’s survey was organized, conducted, and published by Henry Long . Respondent Demographics The survey was sent to a sample of 300 CMC students. 178 students responded, making for a response rate of 59.3% and a margin of error of ±7% at a 95% confidence level. 25.3% of respondents were freshmen, 18.5% were sophomores, 23.0% were juniors, and 33.1% were seniors. In response to the question, “Where do you call home?”, 43.3% replied California, 14.6% replied the American Northeast, 12.4% replied the American Northwest, 9.6% replied the American Midwest, 8.4% replied the American Southwest, 5.6% replied the American Southeast, 3.4% replied outside of the U.S., and 2.8% replied otherwise. In regards to gender, 55.6% identified as men, 42.1% identified as women, and 2.2% identified as nonbinary. Comparing these proportions to CMC’s fact sheet  indicates that men are overrepresented in the survey. This difference may skew the results to the political right, especially given the growing   political   divide  between young men and young women. In terms of race, 58.2% identified as white non-Hispanic, 14.7% identified as asian, 11.3% identified as two or more races, 10.2% identified as white Hispanic, 2.8% identified as black, and 2.8% identified as some other race. Comparing these proportions to CMC’s fact sheet  indicates that white students are overrepresented in the survey. Given data  on racial political affiliation, the overrepresentation of white students may skew the results towards the political right. Of respondents, 39.3% majored in the social sciences, 26.4% majored in STEM, 18.5% majored in the Humanities, and 15.7% had some other major. Political Affiliation When asked about political party preferences, 58.5% identified as Democrats, 18.8% identified as Republicans, 16.5% identified as Independent, and 6.3% identified as some other party (i.e., Libertarian, Green, etc.). This makes for a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of about 3:1. When compared to historical data, 2024 marks a decline in Democratic party affiliation from its 2022 high of 68%. 2024 also marks a rebound in Republican identification from its 2022 low of 6%, making for the first time in survey history that Republicans have outnumbered Independents. When asked about their own political outlook, 6.2% identified as Far left, 27.1% identified as Left, 26.6% identified as Center left, 13% identified as Center, 17.5% identified as Center right, 6.2% identified as Right, and 3.4% identified with some other political outlook. No respondents identified as Far right. This makes for a left-to-right ratio of about 2.5:1. Starting in 2024, the survey categorized political outlook using a left-right scale rather than a liberal-conservative scale. Over the past 8 years, left-of-center/liberal identification has remained relatively steady at just over 60%. 2024 marks a rebound in right-of-center/conservative identification from its 2022 low of 6%, which is the first time in survey history that right-of-center/conservatives have outnumbered centrists. When asked “How would you describe the political outlook of your campus?”, 2.3% replied Far left, 19.2% replied Left, 39% replied Center left, 20.3% replied  Center, 9.6% replied Center right, 5.7% replied Right, 0.6% replied Far right, and 2.8% replied with some other political outlook. Views on campus political outlook have become more polarized since 2016 and 2022. Fewer students believe the campus political outlook is centrist, and more students believe the campus political outlook is either left-of-center/liberal or right-of-center/conservative. Even though the number of left-of-center/liberal students has declined since 2022, more students view the campus political outlook as left-of-center/liberal. When asked their Presidential candidate preferences in 2024, 70.9% replied Kamala Harris (Democrat), 20% replied Donald Trump (Republican), 2.3% replied Cornel West (Independent), 1.1% replied Chase Oliver (Libertarian), and 5.7% replied some other candidate. Educational Issues When asked, “Should CMC reinstate standardized testing requirements in its admissions process?”, students were evenly split on the issue—38% replied yes, and 38% replied no. 23.9% were undecided on this question. The next question was added in 2024 after pro-Palestine encampments , occupations , and protests overtook college campuses across the U.S., with students and faculty passing referenda opposing administrative disciplinary action. When asked, “Should college administrators prevent students from constructing encampments as a form of protest?”, 47.5% replied yes, and 38.9% replied no. 13.6% were undecided on this question. Of those who replied yes, 32.4% said that college administrators should discipline students who construct encampments. When asked, “Do you support race-based affirmative action programs?”, 35.8% replied yes, and 43.8% replied no. 20.4% were undecided on this question. Of those who replied no, 56.4% indicated support for other affirmative action programs like class-based affirmative action. Social Issues When asked, “What is your stance on abortion?”, 79.8% replied pro-choice, and 19.6% replied pro-life. 0.6% were undecided on this question. Of those who said pro-choice, 9.3% said they were only pro-choice up until the first trimester. Of those who said pro-life, 65.8% said that we should allow abortion in special cases, such as rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk. 2024 is a high-water mark for pro-life identification, up from its 2022 low of 8%. The next question asks “How should the government balance conflict between religious liberty and anti-discrimination legislation that protects traits such as gender and sexual orientation in public accommodations?” This question was added in 2022 to gauge student opinions on important  Supreme Court cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission . 31.4% replied to prioritize anti-discrimination laws, 8.8% replied to prioritize religious liberty, and 44.7% replied to attempt to balance the two. 15.1% were undecided on the question. The next question asks “What are your attitudes towards the American police?” This question was added in 2022 in the wake of nationwide protests against police brutality after the death of George Floyd. 27.8% replied that we should put more money into police forces, 24.1% replied that police forces should not be changed, 24.7% replied that we should put less money into police forces, and 3.1% replied that we should abolish police forces. 20.4% were undecided on the question. When asked, “Should there be more restrictions on purchasing guns?”, 82.1% replied yes, and 14.2% replied no. Of those who replied yes, 24.8% replied that there should only be more restrictions on assault weapons, and 6% replied that guns should be banned from civilian use. 3.7% were undecided on the question. Rates of respondents who want to restrict gun purchases are roughly similar between 2016 and 2024, with 2022 as the high water mark of 91%. When asked, “Do you support marijuana legalization?”, 69.4% replied yes, 7.5% replied yes and that most other drugs should be legalized, 6.9% replied no, and 8.1% replied that marijuana should only be legalized for medical purposes. 8.1% were undecided on the question. Rates of respondents who favor marijuana legalization are roughly similar between 2016 and 2024, with 2022 as the high water mark of 90%. When asked, “Should the U.S. increase border security?”, 67.1% replied yes, and 16.7% replied no. Of those who replied yes, 87% favored increases in legal immigration. Of those who replied no, 96.4% favored increases in legal immigration. 16.1% were undecided on the question. When asked, “Should the government grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants currently living in the US?” 13% replied yes, 45.3% replied yes and that the government should implement a path to citizenship, 17.4% replied no, and 3.7% replied no and that the government should deport all undocumented immigrants. 20.5% were undecided on the issue. 2024 marks the lowest support for undocumented immigrant amnesty in survey history, down from its 2022 high of 86%. Economic Issues When asked, “Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change?”, 25.5% replied yes, 62.1% replied yes and favored alternative energy incentives, 6.8% replied no, and 1.2% replied no and that global warming is a natural occurrence. 4.3% were undecided on the issue. Since 2016, opposition to increased environmental regulation has remained below 15%. When asked, “Would you say that increased global trade has been a net benefit for the U.S.?”, 60.6% replied yes, 3.1% replied no, and 7.5% replied that increased global trade has been net neutral. 28.8% were undecided on the issue, the second-greatest share of undecided respondents on any question. When asked, “Should the U.S. raise or lower the tax rate for corporations?”, 46.8% replied raise, 12% replied lower, and 17.7% replied to maintain the current level of taxation. 23.4% were undecided on the issue. When asked, “Should the federal government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt?”, 28.9% replied yes, and 40.3% replied no. 30.8% were undecided on the issue, the greatest share of undecided respondents on any question. Foreign Policy Issues When asked, “Should the United States provide funding and military supplies to Ukraine?”, 76.5% replied yes, and 11.4% replied no. Of those who replied yes, 20.7% said the U.S. should provide more funding and weapons, 45.5% said the U.S. should keep current levels of funding and weapons, and 33.9% said the U.S. should provide less funding and weapons. 12% were undecided on the issue. When asked, “From what you know about the situation in the Middle East, do you support the Israelis or the Palestinians?”, 29.6% replied Palestinians, 22% replied Israelis, 18.9% replied both equally, and 16.4% replied neither. 13.2% were undecided on the issue. Democracy When asked, “Should the electoral college system be removed and be replaced with a direct popular vote for the presidency?”, 40.3% replied yes, and 32.7% replied no. 27% were undecided on the issue, the third-greatest share of undecided respondents on any question. While a majority of students favored retaining the electoral college in 2016, support for the electoral college has fallen precipitously since, with a majority of students now favoring its removal. That said, 2024 also marks a rebound in electoral college support from its 2022 nadir of 32%. When asked, “How optimistic are you about the future of American democracy?”, 7.5% replied that they were very pessimistic, 34.6% replied somewhat pessimistic, 25.2% replied neutral, 29.6% replied somewhat optimistic, and 2.5% replied very optimistic. 0.6% were undecided on the issue. The final question of the survey asked respondents to select from a list of options the 3 issues that mattered most to them. The most important issues for respondents were the economy, the environment, abortion, preserving liberal democracy, and healthcare. After a brief dive to fourth place in 2022, the economy regained its 2016 position as respondents’ most important issue. Foreign policy, gun control, immigration, racial equity have disappeared from the top five issues relative to 2016 and 2022. Abortion rose from a non-top-five issue in 2016 to the fifth most important issue in 2022 and the third most important issue in 2024. While the 2022 survey was taken before the bombshell Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization  Supreme Court leak, abortion’s increased importance for respondents may be partially due to its increased political salience. Preserving liberal democracy appears as a new item in the top five in 2024, perhaps related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Acknowledgements Thank you to Professor George Thomas for his continued support throughout the course of the survey. Thanks also to the guidance of Annie Deckey, Hannah Reilly, Jessie Miller, and Kimiko Adler when this survey was conducted my freshman year.

Meet the five staff members of The Forum . Name: Henry Long Role: Editor-in-Chief Hometown:  Eden Prairie, Minnesota Major:  Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) Class:  2025 From Henry:  I am excited to edit and direct The Forum this year! Last year, I wrote about the liberal arts, student protest, and free speech. This year, I look forward to publishing our political attitudes survey and our profiles in American political thought. I also hope to publish pieces from students across a wide range of viewpoints.  Name: Henry Fina Role: Editor Hometown:  Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania Major:  Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) Class:  2025 From Henry:  Hi! I am from Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, where I enjoy roaming around Appalachian forests with my dog. When I’m on-campus working you can find me editing The Forum and reading for my seminars. I spend my free time skiing, diving into American classics, discovering new music, coaching lacrosse, and (poorly) tending to my plants.  Name: Josh Morganstein Role: Editor Hometown:  Orinda, California Major:  International Relations + Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) Class:  2025 From Josh:  Editing The Forum this year is an honor, and will certainly become a highlight of senior year. I’m looking forward to writing about campus news, constitutional law, and international issues, amongst other topics! Besides being a news-junkie, I love to read classics, grab coffee with friends, and play chess and soccer. Name: Julia Mehlman Role: Staff Writer Hometown:  Bethesda, Maryland Major:  Philosophy & Public Affairs (PPA) Class:  2025 From Julia:  I am excited to be at The Forum again this year! Beyond The Forum , I like to hang out with friends, go sailing, play tennis, do the crossword, and cook. On campus, I work at KLI, am a member of CMCSA, and do a cappella, but you can usually find me in Poppa. This year, I hope to write about changing campus culture, the election and its consequences, and politics more generally. Name: Sara Arjomand Role: Staff Writer Hometown:  Los Angeles, California Major:  Philosophy Class:  2026 From Sara:  I like writing about people, going for walks, reading, and watching Tottenham (lose). Although writing for The Forum is a job, it doesn’t feel like one—it’s a chance to do what I’d want to do anyway, and to do it with friends.

Last admissions cycle, Claremont McKenna College gave preferential status to 15 legacy applicants. Governor Gavin Newsom signing a bill into law (credit: Armenian American Museum) On Monday, September 30, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB1780 , which prohibits private colleges and universities from offering admissions preferences to applicants who have a relationship to alumni of the schools. The new law, which was supported by a host of civil rights groups and the Associated Students of Stanford University, will take effect September 1 of next year. This means that the ban is expected to be reflected in the class of 2030 at the earliest.  In signing the bill, Gov. Newsom stated that he was “opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”  An earlier version of the law required violating colleges to pay fines equal to state support in Cal Grants. However, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), an organization that represents all of the Claremont Colleges and over 85 institutions in total, fought successfully to have the provision removed. Those who refuse to comply will have their names published on a California Department of Justice website.  The public University of California system eliminated legacy admissions in 1998. Such preferences are rare at public institutions but are still very much the norm at selective private ones—California is only the second state after Maryland to ban the practice at private colleges.  In doing so, the state government joins a nationwide backlash against legacy policies following the Supreme Court’s ruling  against considering race  as a factor in admissions. In contrast to race-based preferences, legacy policies mainly benefit  white and wealthy students.  According to the 2024 AICCU report  on admissions practices, Claremont McKenna College (CMC) gave 15 applicants, or 2.3 percent of its fall 2023 admitted class, “preferential treatment” for legacy applicants. It is one of only six AICCU undergraduate-serving institutions, along with the University of Southern California (USC), Stanford University, and Harvey Mudd College, that admitted to the practice in the report, although the 2023-2024 Common Data Set  for Scripps College indicates that it too considered alumni relations as a factor in admissions for the class of 2027.  Colleges have argued that legacy preferences increase student campus engagement and help sustain alumni donations, though there is mixed evidence regarding the latter. Despite having steadily reduced the number of legacy students it has admitted in recent years, CMC had its most successful fundraising campaign just last fall, raising $1.1 billion  and being the first liberal arts college to surpass $1 billion in a single campaign. While USC stated that it will comply with the ban, Stanford did not comment on its compliance plans. In a statement to the Stanford Daily , it noted that it will “continue to review its admissions policies.” CMC spokesperson Gilien Silsby declined The Forum ’s request for comment.

The demonstration occurred on the anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians. Protesters arrive at the intersection of 6th St. and N. College Ave. On Monday, October 7, the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s 2023 attacks on Israeli civilians, hundreds of pro-Palestine protesters blocked the intersection of 6th St. and N. College Ave. Later, a subset of the protesters occupied and vandalized Pomona College’s Carnegie Building. The protest began at 10:07 a.m., when groups of protesters from each of the Claremont Colleges, donning masks, hats, sunglasses, and keffiyehs, congregated at meeting points across the five campuses. One group met at the plaza just north of Smith Tower and began their march around 10:10 a.m. As the protesters marched past several academic buildings including Edmunds Hall and the Estella Laboratory, they chanted, “Claremont students walk outside, 5Cs fund genocide!” The route taken by one group of protesters from (1) the plaza just north of Smith Tower to (2) the intersection of 6th St. and N College Ave. and ending at (3) the Carnegie Building At 10:18 a.m., protesters began to congregate at the southwest corner of the intersection of 6th St. and N. College Ave. Groups of protesters coming from the other colleges arrived shortly thereafter. At 10:26 a.m., protesters moved into the intersection, blocking the way for several vehicles. A small group of protesters helped a car move around the intersection via the sidewalk. Hundreds of protesters block the intersection of 6th St. and N. College Ave. As protesters from the several colleges arrived, the crowd swelled to several hundreds. Shortly after 10:30 a.m., a news helicopter and a crew from ABC7 were on the scene. News media for Claremont Undercurrents , wearing masks, keffiyehs, and orange “News Media” vests, were also present. Several masked non-students, wearing neon green “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer” baseball caps, watched the protesters. Protesters circulated a pamphlet with guidelines for how to remain anonymous. Throughout the day, protesters delivered a constant barrage of call-and-response chants. Chants included “Free free Palestine, Free free free Palestine!”, “1, 2, 3, 4, occupation no more! 5, 6, 7, 8, Israel is a terror state!”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free! From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever!”, “Down, down with occupation! Up, up with liberation!”, “Disclose! Divest! We will not stop, we will not rest!”, “No peace on stolen land! Divestment is our demand!”, “In our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinians!”, “What do we want? Divestment! When do we want it? Now!”, “From Turtle Island to Palestine, occupation is a crime!”, “Hey hey! Ho ho! The occupation has got to go!”, “Israel bombs Pomona pays! How many kids have you killed today?”, and “If we don’t get it, shut it down!” At 10:51 a.m. protesters produced a circle around the intersection, and one protester began delivering remarks via a megaphone. The speaker commended martyred Palestinians, condemning the “genocide” in Gaza, and lambasted the destruction of Gazan universities. The speaker also addressed school administrators, claiming Pomona College is “complicit” in Israel’s actions, denouncing Pomona’s arrest  of students for unlawful assembly, and decrying Scripps College’s closure  of the Motley coffeehouse. Many protesters responded with cries of “Shame!” The speaker also demanded that the Claremont Colleges divest from all companies with ties to Israel. A speaker delivers remarks as a news camera captures the moment The speaker ended at 11:04 a.m., asking protesters to begin moving south. At 11:12 a.m., protesters arrived at the Carnegie Building, an academic building housing several classes and professorial offices. At 11:13 a.m., the protesters breached the eastern entrance and began to stream past Pomona College administrators and campus safety officers and through the doorway. Protesters push past a campus safety officer into the Carnegie Building Inside, protesters announced via megaphones that the protest was “not an occupation” and that anyone was “welcome to leave at any time” but that protesters were planning on staying “until 4.” At 11:27 a.m., protesters inside began to sit down and take out their laptops. Students inside of the building for classes like Statistics and Macroeconomics began to depart via the east and west exits. Some high-school students, present for the Perspectives on Pomona preview program, also departed the building. Several students departed the building via the windows to avoid the protesters. Protesters line the hallways of the Carnegie Building Shortly after 11:30 a.m., protesters announced that nobody else would be allowed into the building. Non-protesters who attempted to enter the building were forcefully blocked. Entrances were sealed with zip ties and vice grips. When asked whether anybody could enter, one protester responded by shaking his head. He also shook his head when asked whether students would be let in for afternoon classes. “Classes are canceled,” he remarked. Protesters also blocked the entrance for Pomona economics Professor Eleanor Brown, who was trying to access her office. Protesters claimed this measure was “for the safety of everyone inside.” Upon departure, Professor Brown remarked, “we teach about settler colonialism, but apparently we’re not allowed to do our job.” Protesters block the east entrance to the Carnegie Building One Pomona College administrator approached protesters at the west entrance. She claimed that people on the second floor could not get out of the building, and pleaded with protesters to let that person out. “If you could, I would be really grateful,” she remarked. Throughout the afternoon, protesters spray painted “INTIFADA” on the walls of the basement, destroyed AV equipment, and left signage splayed across the floor. As the hours progressed, protesters departed the building, with about a dozen remaining at 3:30 p.m. At about 3:38 p.m., campus safety officials entered the building, asking students to show identification, and the remaining protesters dispersed. Protestors spray painted “INTIFADA” on the walls of the Carnegie Building Pomona Economics Professor Bowman Cutter explained that he had left his phone in his office, but protesters had prevented him from retrieving it. He said that he remained in the stairwell for several hours alongside a campus safety officer until he was allowed to retrieve his property. At 5:21 p.m., Pomona College administrators sent an email to all students regarding the protests. They wrote that the “violation of our community is disgraceful, especially on this day of mourning.” Administrators also explained that protesters would face consequences: We have initial identification of several people involved, including a number of individuals from other campuses. As we identify others, disciplinary letters will be sent on a rolling basis. The individuals responsible face sanctions that may include restitution, suspension, expulsion, as well as being banned from campus. We will not, however, be commenting on individual cases. Administrators said that “due to extensive damage, Carnegie Hall will remain closed until further notice.”

In the age of the boundaries arms-race, here’s a call for disarmament.  (Credit: Psych Central) If you’ve known another person recently, you might’ve come into contact with their HR Department. Not all people have one. Increasingly, though, it’s common to find yourself called before another person’s one-man committee, and sternly told just what’s what. Usually, you’re reprimanded (by friend, partner, or relative) without explanation or apology. You’re made aware of the rules of proper engagement. You’re advised to stop what you’ve been doing, or begin doing something you’ve failed to do, effective immediately. A boundary  has just been set, and boundaries aren’t up for discussion. You’re dismissed.   Psychologists invented the “boundary,” a therapeutic term, to help people-pleasers advocate for themselves. But then, something happened. Just as the first soft-hearted person raised their quivering voice, the collective voice of TikTok interrupted: “Actually, we’ve all  got a few demands.” And so began the indiscriminate encouragement of boundaries-implementation. Everyone , apparently, needs their own set of associational regulations and prescriptions. It’s now conventional wisdom that boundary-setting is right, good, and useful. You’re unlikely to hear about mental wellbeing without hearing about boundaries, too—they’re thought to be an indispensable feature of healthy relationships. Take TimelyCare, Claremont McKenna’s third-party mental health provider. One self-care module, entitled “Boundaries Yoga,” begins with a warning: as difficult as boundary setting might be, it’s necessary to protect the mind and body. Don’t you want  to “strengthen your center and radiate truth?” Well, sure, maybe—maybe if the meaning of “strengthen your center and radiate truth” was clear, it’d be clear that it’s the sort of thing I’m likely to go in for. You know what? Let’s take a stab at it. While we’re all radiating truth, here’s one: there’s something fundamentally odd  about boundaries, about this new way of relating to one another. In the age of the boundaries arms-race, here’s a call for disarmament.  When you’re laying down your arms, it’s useful to start by explaining what you’re not  doing, because it’s natural for others to feel a bit spooked, like you’re plotting something sinister. Two disclaimers, then. You shouldn’t let people walk all over you, and you shouldn’t walk all over other people. As far as other people are concerned, walking is the sort of thing to be done side-by-side, hand-in-hand.  Boundaries, though, prevent that—instead, it’s: “Step back! Hands up where I can see them.” In assuming their defensive posture, the boundaries-peddlers miss what’s valuable about relationships. What are relationships about, after all, if not knowing and being known by other people? About banishing human loneliness? About “intertwining souls?” Erecting emotional walls will cheat you of connection and deprive your relationships of depth. It’s hard to be known by another person when you’re wearing a hazmat suit because you’re terrified that they’re toxic.  Relationships aren’t supposed  to be sterile environments. Relationships are inherently messy and high-risk. Don’t be too precious about your “emotional safety.” There’s none to be had, anyway—not really. Expect to be hurt, even by well-intentioned people who love you. Expect to come face to face with their insanities (you’ve got plenty of your own). You won’t escape unscathed, and that’s alright. Relationships aren’t about maximizing your personal utility function. You’ll have to compromise. You’ll have to sacrifice. That’s not evidence that you’ve gotten a “bad deal.” You haven’t gotten a “deal” at all —relationships aren’t business transactions.  Besides, not every hurt is evidence of a wrong. The language of boundaries obscures this fundamental principle by making our silly, petty, petulant requests appear  legitimate. When you employ therapy-speak to complain about your pet-peeves and peculiar sensitivities, you transform your desires into dictates, into laws which can’t be questioned. Of course, your requests look  “valid,” dressed-up as the tenets of some moral code, and bearing the (dubious) “stamp of approval” of the psych-world. But the word “boundary” can’t make your boundary actually  valid. A tool, meant to help us get more of what we rightly deserve, has become a cudgel, used to help us get more of what we happen to want.  Legitimate requests receive the inverse treatment. When you communicate something serious or common-sense through the laying down of “your” boundary, others believe that you’re expressing a personal preference, instead of an ethical no-brainer. What could’ve been a restatement of the Golden Rule—“Treat me as you’d like to be treated”—becomes “Here’s how I’d  like to be treated...I don’t know about you.” You could’ve appealed to the strongest possible justification: the universal standard for proper human interaction. You could’ve looked reasonable—you were  reasonable. Instead, you looked whiny and dramatic.  We don’t want to look whiny and dramatic. We definitely don’t want to be  whiny and dramatic. We want relationship tools which really are good (for the depth and quality of our connections), right (in their treatment of other people), and useful (for us, in communicating with them). Boundaries aren’t that tool. It’s time to fire your personal HR Department.

This November, Nebraskans will vote on two competing abortion ballot measures — the only voters facing a measure to restrict abortion. In 2023, demonstrators protested the 12-week abortion limits currently in place at the Nebraska Capitol In the proposed pro-life amendment called Protect Women and Children, “unborn children … (would be) protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters” with exceptions for medical emergencies, sexual assault, or incest. This amendment would codify current state practice of restricting abortion to the first twelve weeks in the Nebraska constitution.    The Nebraska Family Alliance (NFA) — the longest-standing “pro-family” organization in Nebraska which helped organize the Protect Women and Children’s ballot measure, described the amendment as a tool to “allow greater protections going forward”—hinting at even stricter, future limitations.     Conversely, the Protect the Right to Abortion proposed constitutional amendment establishes abortion as a “fundamental right” until fetal viability (around 23-24 weeks of gestation) with exceptions for medical emergencies.    However, the Nebraska Family Alliance criticized the pro-choice amendment: “The abortion industry is attempting to enshrine a right to abortion in the Nebraska Constitution with a ballot initiative that would legalize abortion until birth, subject preborn children to painful late-term dismemberment abortions, put girls at greater risk for human trafficking, and eliminate parental notification requirements.”   Despite speculation that the measures violated the state procedure of singular-subject ballot initiatives, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled unanimously to keep both abortion measures on the ballot on September 13. Two lawsuits unsuccessfully targeted the pro-choice amendment by arguing that it addressed abortion pre-fetal viability, post-fetal viability, and the state’s legal jurisdiction over abortions — three separate subjects.   “Barring any legal challenges, this November general election ballot will host two ballot measures that appear in direct conflict with each other, which could be the first time this has happened in Nebraska’s history,” Secretary of State Bob Evnen said in a press release. Evnen will host hearings in October regarding all the state ballot measures.   A passed ballot measure needs more “for” votes than “against” and must receive at least 35% of the total votes cast in that election. Theoretically, both measures could pass, but, on August 23, the secretary of state’s office announced the measure with the most “for” votes would be adopted.   “The potential for confusion is high, so strong voter education will be critical to our campaign. Regardless, we’re confident that when voters are given the choice, they will vote to restore their control over their bodies and health care,” said Katie Rodihan, Director of State Advocacy Communications at Planned Parenthood Federation of America on the Nebraska ballot measures, in correspondence with The Forum regarding the ballot measures.    Conversely, NFA writes on their webpage that “since the overturn of Roe v. Wade,  the abortion industry has won in all seven states where abortion has been on the ballot, and abortion advocacy groups are spending millions of dollars to confuse and mislead voters.”    Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota all have protective abortion rights ballot measures. Most ballot measures protect the right to abortion until fetal viability. In 2021, less than 1% of abortions occurred after 21 weeks of gestation, according to a report  from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.   "Make no mistake: Reproductive rights are on the ballot in every race, across every state in 2024," Rodihan said, speaking more broadly about the upcoming election. "For anti-abortion politicians, Roe was just the beginning. The end goal has always been full control of our bodies and our medical decisions."