Editorial: On the Role of Health Services on Campus

By the Editorial Board Skidmore provides a number of essential services for its students. The school feeds us, keeps us safe, and provides health services. Anyone who has been seriously ill knows that your health takes priority. Being sick, especially when you are away from your family at school, takes a significant toll on your ability to keep up with class work and participation in college life. It is in the best interest of the College to provide affordable and effective services to keep its students healthy. The Editorial Board believes that Skidmore’s Health Services’ is not as productive and beneficial to its students as it could or should be.

Health Services employs a number of policies that do not serve its students as well it could. The office is closed on Saturdays and open 9 am to 5 pm, with one hour for lunch, during the week. We understand that the office is limited in its staffing and funding, but these hours make it difficult for a busy student to stop by for a check-in. Students can-- and should-- make appointments to ensure availability, but students frequently hope to just drop in for a quick consultation. Closing the office entirely on Saturday, the first day in the week when most students are truly free, poses a significant inconvenience that could preclude students from seeking timely health care. And that's for the students who know where Health Services is located, many do not. The addition of awkward hours for students who have class from 9-5 and poor visibility results in a poor reputation.

The office should launch an advertising and awareness campaign on campus. If students-- especially first years-- were made aware of the services available in the first floor of Jonsson Tower, they would be more likely to seek out the office in case of health issues. Furthermore, with Health Services not currently promoting itself, the only impression is the one from students. The office should speak up to improve its reputation on campus.

The office could also engage in outreach to students, reaching out on a personal level (as well as practical) to allow students to connect a face to the office. Liaising with the Peer Health Educators, through Health Services, would allow Health Services to reach the student body through their peers. Certain offices (Peer Advocates, for example) work with the First Year Experience to present their services to first year seminars. Health Services could organize a similar seminar to make first year students aware of the variety of services available.

Making several changes in how Health Services represents itself on campus would make a difference in how students perceive the service.

Blue Side: Finding Common Ground: The Importance of a Two-State Solution

By Noah Tananbaum, Contributing Writer Weeks ago, two Palestinians entered an Orthodox synagogue in Jerusalem and attacked four men, three of whom were rabbis, leaving them dead within moments. The synagogue soon became a bloodbath as the police arrived and a shootout ensued. President Obama condemned the actions, saying, “We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace.” News reports rarely, if ever, emphasize that Israelis and Palestinians have far more similarities than differences; the media and the political elite in America and throughout the Middle East constantly stress conflict and highlight the notion that there are fundamental differences between the two groups. For vast numbers of both of these groups, this is simply not true. If being a Zionist means that one supports the existence of a Jewish state and homeland, then I am a Zionist. But that does not mean that I in any way condone the actions of the Israeli government when they continually build settlements in areas where they have no jurisdiction. Nor do I excuse the actions of those extremists who seek to dismantle a beacon of democracy and hope for so many Jews.

Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, explains that this conflict rests on two fundamental pillars: occupation and intimidation. Generally, liberals overemphasize occupation and underemphasize intimidation while conservatives overemphasize intimidation and underemphasize occupation. If we are to have a nuanced understanding of the conflict, then both of these facets must be taken into account in equal measure. Conservatives are quick to point out that Israel should have a right to defend itself. They often pose the hypothetical, “If Canada attacked us, shouldn’t we have the right to retaliate?” The right to defend oneself is certainly valid, but it is important to understand the implications of retaliation by force and to be aware that those attacking Israel do not represent the vast majority of the Palestinian population. Most of these people are nonviolent. For hundreds (if not thousands) of years, these Palestinian families lived in the land of Israel (then Palestine) quite peacefully. Then, in 1948, many of these families were displaced in the Israeli War of Independence and dispersed throughout the Middle East. The Palestinians deserve to be restored to their rightful home.

Conversely, liberals consistently deride actions that Israel takes, regarding the threats made to its national security and the safety of its people. Israel should be held to a high standard; it is, after all, the only truly democratic country in the region. However, it is naive to expect Israel to refrain from defending itself when at risk. In Israel’s defense, it has implemented the Iron Dome defense system that shoots rockets out of the sky, harming no one in the process. This past summer, Israel called the homes of the Gazans in advance of the rocket attacks, warning them to evacuate as quickly as possible. While it is small comfort to the Gazans who lose their homes, there are still very few, if any, countries that would even bother to give a warning. Walter Reich explains that the criticism Israel receives often leaves it feeling trapped in a conundrum. On the one hand, if they do not take action against the extremists who seek to undermine Israel and everything it stands for, they face certain physical destruction. On the other hand, if they continue to retaliate and be ridiculed, they face moral destruction. Reich argues that this is a lose-lose situation.

Some people conflate Zionism with anti-Palestinian sentiments. While I cannot speak for all Zionists, I can say with complete confidence that the Zionists I know reject that claim. History tells us that the Jews were banished from the land that is present-day Israel in 70 AD by the Romans and until 1948, the Jewish people were in the Diaspora-the land outside Israel, the land of banishment. The Holocaust was the catalyst for reminding the world of the long and violent history of making Jews into scapegoats for often convenient and spurious reasons. Again, this does not justify the displacement of the Palestinian people in 1948 or again in 1967 during the Six Day War. I do not believe that Israel should be laying claim to the territories of West Bank and Gaza; this is what happens when Israel is ruled by a war hawk who has little regard for others. This is why a two-state solution is crucial. This plan would incorporate an independent Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel. It would include returning to the borders before the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel would forfeit the territories of the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights, among others. Perhaps most importantly, Jerusalem would be divided up between the two peoples and there would be joint access to the holy sites. If we are to be fair and equitable to these two groups of people, the two-state solution is the only logical resolution to this quarrel.

The idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a primordial clash of civilizations that has been raging for time immemorial is simply not true. The conflict’s roots stem from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century from such events as the Dreyfus Affair in France, the pogroms of Eastern Europe, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and Europe’s subsequent colonization of the Middle East. Until then, this issue was a dormant one. In order to solve this crisis, it is imperative to bring together moderate people from both sides of this issue. There are many more of them than we are led to believe and they, just like us, want a swift and comprehensive solution. There will always be extreme people who contribute to the terrible events we hear about in the news but there are also incredibly good, decent people doing important work every day. These are the people we need to illuminate and support, regardless of how the media views the situation. Only when the moderate voices drown out those of the extremists will there be any kind of substantial change that will form a path to peace.

A Response to “On Skidmore’s Sustainability Ventures”

By Zia O’Neill Skidmore’s sustainability initiatives are not perfect and there is room for improvement. However, Skidmore is working hard to become more sustainable. I was initially excited to read what the Skidmore News Editorial Board had to say about future steps in the editorial “On Skidmore’s Sustainability Ventures.” However, I was disappointed in the editorial’s representation, depth of coverage, and accuracy of information regarding Skidmore’s sustainability ventures.

Sustainability was considered in the design and construction of the new apartments, particularly the utilization of geothermal heating and cooling. Among many efforts, the Northwoods Apartments were built using recycled materials for roofs, doors, and steel frames, windows were designed to maximize daylight, and sustainably harvest wood was used for trims. Spray foam insulation, which far exceeds NYS efficiency standards, was also used in the Sussman apartments.

The editors also stated that they would prefer if Skidmore didn’t “spend millions of dollars on flashier improvements” like solar panels. However, the project, which generates 12% of the college’s electricity needs, was funded by a 2.35 million dollar grant from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), with additional partnerships with Dynamic Energy and Washington Gas Energy Systems. Michael Hall, the special assistant to the Vice President of Finance and Administration, explained that Skidmore only paid legal fees associated with land permits and to Greenfield. The solar array will pay off these costs by 2017.

Skidmore did in part finance the $2 million geothermal project, but the college was aided by an $800,000 grant from the New York State HECAP. Even though it was a large investment, the college estimates they will save $110,000 each year from not having to purchase natural gas (Neugebaurer et al. 2012).

Skidmore Unplugged is currently based in residential halls because they are the only buildings that have individual energy meters. Levi Rogers, sustainability coordinator, explains that the office would like to install more meters, however the office decided to use remaining grant funding to reestablish the garden and renovate the bike share program, which were more inclusive campus initiatives. Unplugged aims to reach the greater Skidmore community through tabling, films, events, dialogues, trivia, and more but the Sustainable Skidmore Office is working to make Unplugged a more inclusive program, and fake energy bills have potential to be a good educational tool.

Other ongoing sustainability initiatives include purchasing recyclable tiled carpet, green seal certified cleaning products, paper goods with recycled content, water bottle refilling stations, zero-sort recycling, paperless offices, the library’s paper-cut system, utilizing low VOC paints and adhesives, independent boilers, lighting retrofits, Give + Go, trayless dining, low-flow water fixtures, and much more.

Skidmore is always looking for ways to make additional improvements. However, it is also important to recognize and acknowledge steps that have already been taken. Levi and Emily in the Skidmore Sustainability Office (Harder 110) are always open to schedule a meeting with members of the Skidmore community about ideas. Additionally, the Environmental Action Club meets Mondays at 9pm in Ladd 207.

Read the original opinion piece, "On Skidmore's Sustainability Ventures," here.

Find More Information At:

http://www.skidmore.edu/sustainability/index.php

http://www.skidmore.edu/news/2014/1007-skidmore-celebrates-solar-array.php

http://skidmore.informz.net/InformzDataService/OnlineVersion/Ind/bWFpbGluZ0luc3RhbmNlSWQ9NDM0NzE2NyZzdWJzY3JpYmVySWQ9MTAwMTE0MTg4Mg

Or Email

Levi at lrogers@skidmore.edu

Emily at edavids1@skidmore.edu

Sources

"Current Initiatives - Buildings." Sustainable Skidmore. Skidmore College, n.d. Web. 17. Nov.

Neugebauer, Riley, Paul Lundberg, Michael Hall, and Daniel Rodecker. "Skidmore College's Innovative District Geothermal System." AASHE. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6 July 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

The Case Against Playing Hooky

By the Editorial Board Class attendance varies greatly across college campuses. Students at huge universities may attend the first day of class and then only return for exams, while students at small colleges face stricter attendance policies and participation grades. The Editorial Board believes that, at a school like Skidmore, classroom attendance should be mandatory, contrary to the insistence by many of our peers that the opposite should be true. Our opinion is predicated on the belief that students respect their peers and professors and the understanding that a pillar of a liberal arts education is discussion-based learning.

Skidmore’s average class size is 17, and the majority of those classes are small, discussion-based seminars. In most classes, a percentage of the final grade is based on participation- this number can vary from five percent to 50 percent. In such small classes, a group dynamic emerges as students become more comfortable with each other. Missing a significant number of classes can directly affect the learning experience of other students by altering this classroom dynamic. Out of respect to the classroom environment and our peers, students should be required to attend all classes.

A liberal arts education is, in part, differentiated from the traditional university education by its focus on discussion-based learning. Companies hiring from liberal arts schools understand that distinction and anticipate hiring students who have spent considerable time honing their discussion skills and critical thinking in a classroom. If the school has done its job well, a liberal arts graduate should be able to make a strong verbal argument and hold their own in a discussion. Mandating classroom attendance would ensure that Skidmore graduates have developed these skills through many hours in the classroom.

Detractors of mandatory attendance policies often argue that, because they're paying nearly $50,000 for tuition alone, it should be at their discretion whether they attend class or not -- let the professors evaluate their completion of the course through essays, exams and projects. However, what that money is paying for is a diploma that signals to prospective employers a standard of education. As has been argued, much of the learning, whether through lecture or discussion, occurs exclusively in the classroom. The truant may be able to ace the material without entering the classroom, but that does not mean they absorbed all the material they could have or, perhaps more importantly, developed all the skills they could have (e.g. critical analysis). To waive mandatory attendance would dilute the significance of the liberal arts degree.

Yet, the Editorial Board understands that some absences are unavoidable or deemed necessary by students, for example in the case of an overwhelming workload in a given week.. Many professors acknowledge that tough situations arise, but we have seen one too many syllabi without this exception. We ask that professors allow for at least two unexcused absences per semester, and thank those who already do so. To clarify, this would not replace the permitted excused absences, the stipulations of which are, or should be, clarified at the beginning of the semester. Rather, these unexcused absences are no-questions-asked and have no punitive consequences other than missed material.

The Editorial Board believes there are times that justify absence, but we generally uphold the policy of many professors to make attendance mandatory and factor of final grades. It is fair that professors expect it of students, and, for those who still fail to see the logic, mandatory attendance should have been expected upon matriculation into a liberal arts college.

Technology Disruptions in the Classroom: What Gives?

by Janine Kritschgau '18 Technology use in the classroom is getting out of control. I enjoy my social media just like most Generation Xers, but I have not reached the point of being addicted to texting, Facebook, and online shopping the way others seem to be. Unfortunately, the situation is getting dire. Just walk into any classroom and take a close look at its students. You will see them checking for status updates on their phones under tables or hidden behind books and computer screens. You’ll find students using iMessage to text their friends from laptops, and search for the hottest deals on a new sweater.

Educational institutions are struggling to balance the benefits and pitfalls of allowing students to use technology in class. Laptops can be useful for recording lectures, taking notes, and doing research, but can also simultaneously impede the classroom experience. Professors are taking sides; some are prohibiting the use of any sort of device during class, while others trust that students are using technology for educational purposes.

I am sorry to have to burst the bubble, but I rarely see the latter taking place. Even students who use computers to take notes often get distracted at least once, wandering onto social media.

Some students are agitated by professors cracking down on technology. Claiming that since it is their education, these students believe they have the right to shape their own classroom experience. But what they do not understand is that their behavior not only negatively affects their own academic experience, but also hampers the environment for everyone else. The truth is that glancing around the room to find students checking their Facebook, Yik-Yaking, or texting is distracting to other students and to the professor.

Professors aren’t blind. When they catch a student getting distracted, some pause the lesson and reprimand the student, often giving a short talk about how they feel disrespected and annoyed. Some go so far as to collect all cell phones in the class. No matter how dramatic the reaction, one thing is obvious; it’s a total waste of time, and therefore money.

The average student, taking four courses that meet on average twice a week, will attend 224 classes within the academic year. With tuition rates hovering at about $60,000, each class costs about $270. By this logic, every minute a professor has to spend scolding students and lecturing about respectful decorum in the classroom is worth just under $5. Considering some classes are as short as 55 minutes, wasting even a moment disrupting the classroom experience is shameful. Students in my classes, beware: the next time you cause a major disruption, you owe me a Starbucks.

Editorial: On Skidmore’s Sustainability Ventures

by The Editorial Board Skidmore College is making some great steps towards improving its sustainability. The school is on its way to achieving geothermal heating and cooling for 50% of buildings on campus. Palamountain Lot hosts an electric car-charging station. As of this past October, 12% of Skidmore’s energy is solar powered. The school is phasing in water-refill stations all throughout campus, and LED lights are being installed as well.

The future is looking very optimistic for Skidmore’s campus. However, the Editorial Board would like to see Skidmore tackle some more fundamental, albeit less exciting sustainability issues.

For example, Skidmore College has no LEED-certified buildings on its campus, which is highly uncommon for a school with the amount of funding that Skidmore has, paired with its focus on sustainability and environmental concerns. LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a certification granted by the Green Building Certification Institute. The different levels of certification rate how efficiently and sustainably a building is designed, constructed, maintained and operated. A LEED certified-building would certainly boost Skidmore’s appeal for prospective students interested in attending a sustainable campus. It would also be a drastic improvement for the overall quality of Skidmore’s buildings.

Skidmore’s most recent building ventures, the new student apartments, have been somewhat unimpressive in regards to sustainability. The Northwoods Apartments were completed in 2006, with one further addition in 2011, and Hillside Apartments were completed in 2012. These projects are so recent, yet the quality of the buildings leaves much to be desired. Walls in the apartments (not to mention in dorms as well) are poorly insulated and the windows so porous that residents can often feel drafts from the outdoors. This also means that heated air is leaking out, which is a waste of energy. The windows are relatively small and feasible fixes that could ultimately save both energy and money, not to mention make the apartments more comfortable to live in.

The Board would like to see Skidmore elect to spend its money on basic, necessary improvements, like stronger windows, rather than spend millions of dollars on flashier improvements. Geothermal engineering and solar panels are both highly beneficial, but the less flashy improvements are equally meaningful.

The Board also has a suggestion for improving the Skidmore Unplugged energy-conservation venture. As of now, Skidmore Unplugged is a project solely for students living in dorm buildings, measuring the amount of energy spent in each residential hall over a course of 21 days. Whichever dorm decreases its energy the most receives a water-refilling station in their building. We believe this project should be a more campus-wide endeavor. It would be useful to let students living in on-campus apartments also gain an understanding of how much energy they are expending. Either at the end of each month or at least at the same time as Skidmore Unplugged, residents should receive fake energy bills, letting them understand how much energy their building has been consuming. This way, residents can at least have some idea of how much energy they are either wasting or saving, and Skidmore Unplugged will not be excluding a large percentage of the student body.

Overall, Skidmore College definitely has sustainability in mind in its future-planning. We only suggest that the College look at some more immediate concerns, ones with the potential for simple but highly beneficial changes.

Blue Side: America’s Problem with Guns

By Noah Tananbaum, Staff Writer Earlier this year, a troubled citizen killed six people and injured 13, before committing suicide. This event has since become known as the Isla Vista killings. While mass shootings are statistically rare, this type of story has sadly become all too familiar to the American people. The topics of gun rights and gun control have always exerted enormous influence over the American people and have been the instigator of many a debate.

Perhaps it is due to the nature of how our country was formed, but America, unlike every other Westernized country, has had an unprecedented level of gun-related violence. Each year, more than 30,000 people are killed due to gun violence in this country which, broken down, translates to roughly 30 people killed each day because of the prevalence of guns. Although there is no national gun registry, there are an estimated 283 million guns owned by regular U.S. citizens. Total U.S. population is approximately 316 million. These figures reflect an undeniable truth: guns are a deeply rooted aspect of our culture.

America was founded in a blaze of revolution. The men who fought in the Continental Army were ordinary citizens, not trained members of an organized military. Americans have since inherited the notion of having an armed citizenry in order to protect against a potential dictatorial government synonymous to the regime of King George III. While this scenario will unlikely ever manifest into reality, it is important to respect the Constitution and all Americans’ rights to defend themselves. However, it is crucial that the clauses of the Constitution be applied to the changing circumstances of our constantly modernizing world.

When the framers wrote that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” could they have possibly envisioned the types of deadly weaponry that would evolve from advancement and new technology? Would they endorse the civilian use of such items? When conservatives are posed this hypothetical they generally utilize the oft quoted line that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” While technically true, Americans put guns in a special category, one that is apparently immune to reform, unlike other categories of objects that can kill us. The primary purpose of automobiles is transportation and yet, given what we know concerning the potential dangers of cars, the government has restrictions regarding driving laws in order to make the road safer for all. These laws are not controversial. Yet, when these types of preventive measures are implemented with regard to firearms, there is uproar.

No rational person wants to remove all guns from society. The right to defend oneself is an important one, and law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise it. The process of purchasing a firearm however, should not be as straightforward as getting a Milky Way at CVS. The vast majority of gun shows are able to sell guns without having to perform background checks. Since the guns are part of interstate commerce, the argument is that the federal government cannot regulate these transactions. Consequently, in 33 states private gun owners can sell their products at these shows and buyers are not subjected to background checks. In fact, 30 to 40 % of guns are purchased without a background check. In 2013, the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey Bill, was defeated on the floor of the Senate. It would have required universal background checks.

While Republicans’ beliefs on this subject are no doubt sincere, they are clearly informed by the influence and financial support that stems from the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA keeps a list of candidates who would be more sympathetic to their interests. If a candidate does not support their extreme pro-gun position, then the NRA will pour money into their opponents’ campaigns in the next election cycle in order to unseat them. No special interest group should have that level of power in the political process. This type of behavior completely undermines the concept of democratically elected leaders. Our elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people. When 80-90 % of the country supports universal background checks and the U.S. Congress strikes down a bill that proposes them, our government is not working the way it should.

Adjusting for population size, America’s rate of gun homicides is 6.6 times greater than the gun deaths in Portugal, one of the most violent countries in Western Europe. No other modern, westernized country comes anywhere close to our rate. Believing in the integrity of the Second Amendment and supporting common sense gun reform do not have to be mutually exclusive. Many conservatives argue that criminals will get their hands on guns regardless of the restrictions and therefore there is little point in enacting tighter restrictions. This argument is utterly lacking in logic. Drivers can get drunk and then get behind the wheel and yet this does not mean that we should not have laws against driving while drunk. If gun reform approaches do not work then different strategies should be pursued, but doing nothing is the wrong response. America cannot afford to sit idly by while year after year, 30,000 Americans lose their lives to gun violence.

In Response to “The Red Side: Free Case Walkway of Condoms”

As of January 2014, states across our nation have enacted more abortion restrictions in the past three years than in the entire previous decade. Over 200 targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws have served to greatly reduce the number of reproductive health care facilities serving women. Attacks against reproductive freedom are now constant, and the work of activist organizations has seldom been so critical. The mission of Skidmore Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood is to mobilize student advocates of reproductive rights, educate about sexual health, and provide students with the tools to lead healthy sexual lives. We recognize the imperative need to offer students an opportunity to engage with these issues—even in a short conversation over free condoms on Case Walkway. Although we often partner with, and certainly support, other groups on campus, we are, first and foremost, a reproductive rights group. In his October 3 article “The Red Side: Free Case Walkway of Condoms,” Jacob Reiskin seems to have confused us with another campus group, mistakenly implying that we have previously advertised with images of sex toys. We have not.   We have no intention of making students or faculty uncomfortable with the distribution of free condoms, and we apologize if we have done so. We are certainly open to constructive criticism to help us create a safer, more welcoming space for students to engage.

At each of our monthly Free Condom Fridays we distribute roughly 500 condoms to students. We also supply dental dams and other safe sex barriers. Since we began Free Condom Fridays with the founding of Vox four years ago, students have shown great enthusiasm for this event. Through Free Condom Fridays we have connected with students that—according to their own testimony—would not have otherwise further participated in reproductive rights activism. We do our very best to have some sort of dialogue with each and every student who comes to our table. Free Condom Fridays are an educational tool as well as an opportunity for us to provide students with contraceptives entirely free of cost, recognizing that education would be meaningless without access.

It is critical that our club maintain a visible presence on campus if we are to be useful to the student body. With over a hundred clubs on campus, it would be easy for the resources we provide to go unseen and unbeknownst to many students. Regular events in common areas, such as Case Walkway or the Dining Hall Atrium, are how we connect with the student body.

Finally, we are disturbed by the insinuations of Jacob Reiskin’s title “The Red Side: Free Case Walkway of Condoms.” To imply that the work of Planned Parenthood, or even more broadly, the dissemination of free condoms, is a partisan issue contradictory to Republican or conservative values, is both misinformed and misguided. Skidmore Vox has noted support from both the Skidmore Democrats and the Skidmore Republicans. Furthermore, Vox is a deliberately nonpartisan organization. It is unfair, in our opinion, to offhandedly label the “red side” as anti-Planned Parenthood—even anti-free condoms.

We hope that students will continue to be supportive of and engaged with our club, and we certainly invite any suggestions for change and growth. We meet every Monday at 7:00 pm in Ladd 207. All are welcome.

Signed,

Skidmore Vox Executive Board

The Blue Side: You Better Recognize (Palestine)

By Jeremy Ritter-Wiseman, Contributing Writer It is time for the United States to recognize a Palestinian state. The deadly summer conflict in Gaza, which killed nearly 2200 Palestinians and over 70 Israelis, highlights the urgent need to resume negotiations in hopes of achieving a comprehensive solution. To achieve this however, both sides need to be equally recognized and legitimized. How can the U.S. hope to negotiate a “two-state solution,” when it only recognizes the sovereignty of one of the proposed states?

In international law, state sovereignty is largely determined by four prerequisites agreed to by signatories at the Montevideo Convention in 1933. Signed by the U.S., the Convention stipulates that to achieve statehood, a proposed country must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other countries. Palestine certainly fulfills the first two requirements. Even the CIA World Factbook has exact numbers for the populations of Gaza and the West Bank, and most of the world recognizes established Palestinian borders, hence the outcry following each set of new Israel settlements built within those borders. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority unquestionably exhibits a legitimate parliamentary government that holds elections and has demonstrated the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign nations, having established embassies and missions worldwide. If Montevideo is the precedent, there should be no reason Palestinian sovereignty should not be legitimated.

Standing in the way of wholesale recognition of the State of Palestine is most of the Western world. Recently though, there have been movements towards Western recognition of Palestine. Last month Sweden became the third country in Western Europe (next to Malta and Cyprus) to recognize Palestine after the Prime Minister was moved to action by the conflict in Gaza over the summer. The formal recognition followed remarks made by newly elected PM, Stefan Lofven in his inaugural address, in which he noted that any two-state solution “requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful coexistence.” Added, a symbolic vote was recently cast in the British House of Commons on whether to recognize a Palestinian state. Following debate, 274 MPs voted for recognition while a mere 12 voted against. Although the vote was purely symbolic and therefore non-binding, it represents growing support for Palestinian statehood among Westerners and increasing resentment towards Israel’s brutal tactics in Gaza and ongoing occupation of the West Bank; Chairman of the U.K.’s select committee on foreign affairs Sir Richard Ottaway lamented that the last straw for him was Israel’s recent September annexation of 950 acres in the Etzion Bloc of the West Bank.

Despite these recent advancements, the U.S. unwaveringly remains Israel’s most crucial ally. Although relations became somewhat strained during the summer conflict, the U.S.’s promised $3.1 billion dollars in annual military aid to Israel is consistently renewed. This near unconditional support proves problematic when trying to mediate negotiations.

The U.S. provides foreign aid in form of economic assistance for the Palestinian government too, although it is highly conditional. The conditions on Palestinian aid reflect the U.S.’s obstinate position towards Palestinian statehood and its consequential inability to be an impartial mediator. For instance, the Senate draft version of appropriations for State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs for fiscal year 2015 stipulates that no “Economic Support Funds” be released to the Palestinian government, if the Palestinians “obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations,” or initiate a International Criminal Court-sanctioned or any other authorized investigation “that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.” How can the U.S. expect respect as a mediator when it has foreign aid laws that wholly discourage Palestinians from pursuing justice or gaining international legitimacy? The UN has already moved to recognize Palestine’s sovereignty by upgrading its UN status from “non-member” to “observer,” and there have been legitimate claims that Israel is guilty of war crimes and should be subjected to international investigation and prosecution. To deny aid based on the perusal of these national rights is unethical and undoubtedly affects the ability of the U.S. to be an unbiased arbiter in any negotiations.

Moreover, whether it is due to a sincere passion to unconditionally support the state of Israel, or whether it is at least partially due to the undeniably influential Israel lobby in D.C., Congress continues to unyieldingly support Israel and is thus utterly opposed to Palestinian statehood. Therefore it would be naïve to expect the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state anytime in the near future. Nevertheless, progress can be made in reforming biased laws like those in the appropriations bills, especially if the U.S. retains any hope in being the primary mediator in negotiations.

The U.S. needs to play a more prominent role in holding Israel accountable. Shelling of UN schools, continued settlements that violate international law, and collective punishment that goes against the Geneva Conventions, must all be condemned by the U.S. Further, aid to Israel must be used as leverage, instead of providing an annual allowance with no strings attached and that is void of any accountability or oversight. Lastly, the U.S. must begin to respect the notion of a Palestinian state that has more than legitimate claims to sovereignty, and thus the right to pursue justice in the International Criminal Court. Negotiations thus far have been depressingly fruitless. If the U.S. is to mediate a resolution, it must become impartial and recognize the mutual sovereignty of both countries. Otherwise, a peaceful two-state solution will be improbable, and conflicts like this summer’s will only continue.

Sexism in the Classroom: This Time Towards Men

By Danny Graugnard, Staff Writer Classes late at night can put anyone on edge. People are tired, less formal, and perhaps a bit spacey. It's why I enjoy my classes on Monday nights. Not the tired part, but the laid back feeling that makes a great learning environment in my book. Not everyone showed up this past Monday though, two female students were absent, leaving an even three men and three women in

the class–an observation the professor pointed out. Of course, I knew exactly where this observation was going to lead.

No longer than 20 minutes were we deep in a class discussion, where truthfully the female students were leading. The professor then commented, "Notice that the men are so quiet tonight!" We laughed at this comment- of course, I've been laughing at those kind of subtle, unintentionally disparaging comments for four years.

I can't begin to explain how awkward it feels to, well, feel discriminated against for being a male in class. After all, it doesn't really make sense for prejudice against men to exist at school where the female-to-male ratio is skewed towards female, and feminism is always a hot topic in the minds of the student body, right? But regardless of the precursors and my own insecurities, it happens.

Last year on my way to another class, I just so happened to be running late. So did the other guy in the class. When we both arrived, the professor commented how it was "funny how the men in the classroom are both late to class." Innocent enough for sure, though after hearing that comment many times before at the time, I was beginning to really wonder whether or not being a man has anything to do with being late. I think I woke up late from a nap that evening. Don't know the other guy's story.

The semester before that, I happened to turn in my paper late, and wouldn't you know it? So did the other two men in the class. Which resulted in the inevitable observation by the professor that it was "peculiar how all the men in the class forgot their papers..." And before that was Women in Literature–one of the English department's feminist classes disguised as a literature class. Only two men were in that course, including myself, so the professor kept an eye on us for "interesting insight." I remember meeting up with a classmate at one of my house parties. We got into a heated debate because I didn't like Wide Sargasso Sea. Then she saw me kissing this dude and exclaimed, "OMG you're gay?!" We became besties. At the end of the course, the professor asked how to get other men to take this course. Sorry, I don't know what to tell you.

And I can't help but remember my close friend who noticed favoritism towards women in his psychology classes, or another friend who couldn't help feeling that the female history professor hated him. Not to mention the enumerable rumors of the one or two female professors in the art department who reportedly challenge male students more than female students.

Claiming that professors and students at Skidmore College are blatantly sexist towards men is a bold statement, even for me. That's why I'm not attempting to do that here. And I honestly don't believe any of them are. I mean, all these studies about women performing better than men in school are very impressionable. But the kind of language and implications mentioned in my anecdotes and the other times I've heard subtle, backhanded insults about my sex in connection to my productivity as a student in my four years of attendance is troubling.

Student Vandalism on Campus

By the Editorial Board As students on campus, we talk with each other about the issues that are most concerning to our lives: our schoolwork, relationships, jobs and internships. But we rarely focus on the behind-the-scenes operations that Skidmore maintains to sustain our lives on campus. There is a significant number of staff who clean our dorm bathrooms, cook the food we eat, and keep the campus as beautiful as it is. We are able to focus on schoolwork and friends because of these employees who take care of all the other maintenance issues on campus. But this Editorial Board believes that the amount of student vandalism on campus makes the staff’s job much more difficult than it must be and reflects a lack of respect for the people who make our lives comfortable on campus.

It is not uncommon for a student living in the dorms to notice broken glass, holes punched in the wall, or trash and cans littered within the common room or hallways. In this semester, there has been graffiti in Jonsson Tower elevators and ceiling lamps ripped down on the second floor of Wait. This vandalism is not limited to this term-- there have consistently been vandalism incidents every semester. Typically, this destructive behavior happens on weekends, when students have been drinking. The debris or vandalized area is left for maintenance staff to clean up.

This theme of vandalism is a poor reflection of the integrity of the student body. Vandalism primarily happens in the dorms, not the apartments: you wouldn’t punch a hole in the wall in your Sussman apartment, because you have to live with that hole for the next nine months and pay for the damage when you move out. But a hole in the entryway of Howe will be fixed, by someone who you likely won’t see or interact with, and won’t cost you directly. We are able to commit these acts of vandalism in public spaces and walk away unscathed because someone else cleans up after us. We should know better.

Individual actions are diffused throughout a community and affect everyone. Unaccountable vandalism is selfish on a number of levels. If there is enough vandalism, the cost will be distributed for all residents of the dorm to pay off. This unanticipated financial cost is a burden, particularly for low-income students and students who work to pay their own way. It’s an insult to your peers to assume that tearing down a lamp when you’re drunk will not cause ripple effects throughout the community. Damaging buildings takes up the time, energy, and resources of College employees who have greater responsibilities. Painting over a graffiti-covered wall is an unanticipated work order, a requirement to fix something that didn’t originally need.

We need to reexamine the costs of student vandalism on our campus. It affects College employees and your fellow students. We are old enough to understand the consequences, we should be mature enough to not create the problem.

The Red Side: Midterm Elections and the Fate of the GOP

By Jacob Reiskin, Staff Writer

Next week is midterm elections in the United States. The lead up has been rather typical: midterm elections do not get much attention, and for good reason. Nate Silver, the historically accurate analyst, predicted today that Republicans have a 68.3% chance of winning the Senate. That’s no certainty, but it is fairly comfortable in the world of politics. If Republicans win the Senate, however, it will not make much difference. The real stakes are in 2016.

 The last four years have been characterized by a stagnant congress. The Republican Party has run a program of obstruction. They have jeopardized the future of the country by refusing to lead. Good conservatism requires effective leadership with restraint. In the next two years, Republicans will be better able to prevent government functionality. The only significant change may be the ease with which Obama will be able appoint his people to leadership positions. In general, the country can expect more of the same, which is to say more of not much.

Obama has increasingly operated using executive orders. Pushing policy this way has serious constitutional issues and sets a precedent for future presidents that Congress is unnecessary. Working with the President on some issues would allow Republicans to better keep executive power in check, but this will not happen. Obama has been fully convinced that the Republicans in office are not allies.

The real consequences of a Republican victory are the implications for 2016. Historically speaking, an unpopular president working with a Congress completely controlled by the opposing party has fought an uphill battle. Obama was swept into office in wake of a Congress controlled by Democrats and an executive controlled by a Republican. If this is a lesson, Republicans have a good chance at combating naive idealism two years from now. Republican control of the Senate will exemplify a conservative shift in the mentality of voters. It is no guarantee of a Republican presidential victory in 2016, but it’s a good start.

Guest Columnist Professor Seyb: Midterm Election Miasma

By Ronald Seyb, Associate Professor of Government and Joseph C. Palamountain, Jr. Chair in Government “Midterm elections” is the worst brand since Harley Davidson cologne. Recent surveys show that almost 50% of Americans are unaware that midterm elections will be held in less than a week. Even those Americans who are aware of the midterm brand are not bothering to do much product research. The Pew Research Center reports that only 15% of Americans are following the midterms “very closely,” a sharp drop from 2010 when 25% of Americans followed those midterm elections, which, for perspective, is just slightly higher than the number of Americans who believe that they can become a princess.

Such aggregate numbers can be, of course, misleading. What makes midterm elections midterm elections is that they fall in the middle of a president’s term, with the consequence that there is no national election capable of galvanizing the entire electorate. But voters in competitive states or districts this year are getting more attention from candidates and their surrogates than Lorde gets from aggrieved Kansas City Royals fans.

Senate elections in a number of states have taken on increased importance this year because a shift of six seats from the Democrats to the Republicans would make Mitch McConnell, Jon Stewart’s favorite live action turtle, the Senate majority leader. There are also, according to The Cook Political Report, 65 competitive House races that are capable of getting voters in those swing districts thinking about something other than whether it is appropriate for their 6 year old to dress up as a brain-splattered Daryl Dixon for Halloween. Ask voters in any of these states or districts if they are following the midterms, and they are likely to suggest that your question is akin to asking them if they are “following” that stump grinder squealing outside of their bedroom window. The Wesleyan Media Project reports that voters in six states—North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, and Kentucky—have seen more than 10,000 ads in the past two weeks. Less well known is that many voters in North Carolina volunteered as tribute during this span in order to escape from a dystopian political landscape that had been overrun by 20,389 ads that cost their sponsors $13.7 million.

Many political scientists claim that this conspicuous and exorbitant investment by campaigns and outside groups in political advertising is sound and fury signifying…well, maybe not nothing, but not as much as many media trackers would like to think. The new paradigm—a tired phrase that signals just how transitory this phenomenon promises to be—in campaigning is so-called “microtargeting” strategies that allow campaigns to tailor their appeals to voters based on not merely their political views or interests, but also on their consumer preferences and their social affiliations. While campaigns continue their past practice of slicing the electorate into demographic groups, they are also trying to identify what one Republican consultant has called “social precincts” such as homeschooling parents or community garden activists or middle-aged rugby players on the cusp of divorce (which is a category that includes all middle-aged rugby players). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, for example, has invested $60 million in “The Bannock Street Project,” which is using data analytics to inform its efforts to employ techniques lifted from social psychology and behavioral economics to “nudge” to the polls, in particular, African Americans, unmarried women, and young people, all groups who both lean Democratic and have historically turned out at considerably higher rates in presidential elections than in midterm elections.

The perspective propelling Bannock Street’s effort is what Cass Sunstein calls in his book Nudge “libertarian paternalism,” which encourages so-called “choice architects” to take advantage of familiar decision-making biases such as the planning fallacy (i.e., people’s tendency to underestimate the amount of time it will take them to complete a task) and norm compliance (i.e., people’s propensity to adjust their behavior to match what they think their peers will do) to “influence people’s behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better.”

Perhaps it is too much to expect that campaigns can be more than efforts to prod one’s unwilling partisans to the polls, particularly in this polarized era when voters have sorted themselves into partisan camps whose walls are as unbreachable as those of Troy. This election cycle certainly suggests that, as Sasha Issenberg, the author of The Victory Lab, notes, campaigns have concluded that “the smartest way to win the next vote is by mobilizing a nonvoter instead of trying to win over a voter.” But, as Jeremy Waldron recently observed in The New York Review of Books, efforts to nudge nonvoters to the polls “take advantage of [their] deficiencies in the way one indulges a child.”

Those currently indulging voters are, of course, not interested in buttressing human dignity or even constructing a more participatory democracy. They are interested in winning. And if Willie Stark, Robert Penn Warren’s avatar for Huey Long in All the King’s Men, was right that “Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption,” then perhaps we can only expect elections that are as good as human nature. But the framers of our Constitution—who were not exactly Panglossian about humans’ ability to resist the urgings of their passions and interests—showed us that the proper institutional setting and political culture can breed a politics capable of transcending our base natures. To forget this lesson, that politics can inspire transcendence as readily as it prompts machinations to determine who gets what, when, and how, is to concede that we are merely sheep to be herded by the data analytic dogs rather than voters capable of making informed and autonomous choices.

Childish Immigration Politics: It’s Time to Call a Refugee a Refugee

By James Rider '16

Although the immigration problem has fallen out of the news with the advent of ISIS and Ebola, the problem has not gone away. The United States’ handling of the child immigration crisis has failed to address the root causes that are compelling immigrants to leave their native countries.

This past summer, American politicians (primarily Republicans) unethically and irresponsibly failed to identify people fleeing Central America as refugees. When people feel forced to flee violence and extortion in their home countries, it is the duty of neighboring countries to take them in and provide safety. By denying many Central American children and adults amnesty, the United States demonstrated not only heartlessness but also a continued disregard for the United Nations’ definition of refugees.

The United Nations defines a refugee as someone who, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." However, in American politics, refugee status has adopted a different meaning.

Historically, the United States has chosen to give refugee status only to those who provide a political advantage. This is why for the vast majority of the Cold War it recognized only those fleeing Communist regimes as refugees. For example, in the 1980s, the United States took extreme efforts to bring 125,000 Cubans to Florida in the Mariel Boatlift and at the same time refused refugee status to Haitians, Salvadorians, and Guatemalans fleeing from similar conditions.

Strangely enough, El Salvador and Guatemala were both on the list of the top three countries from which child immigrants fled last summer. Furthermore, they were fleeing their countries for largely the same reasons as they did in the 1980s: violence, extreme poverty, and fear for their lives. Once again, they were refused amnesty by the United States.

Why is this? Immigration has become such a divisive issue in the United States, that rather than face the facts, many politicians prefer to claim that Central Americans are flooding the United States in order to leech off of our social welfare and take away jobs from hard-working Americans. However, the driving force motivating Central Americans to leave their countries isn’t the “pulling” economic advantage of the United States, but the “pushing” fear of violence, particularly that of well-connected gangs which can bribe government officials and police officers.

Studies of the countries from which the immigrants are fleeing show the severity of this violent “push” factor. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, and Guatemala all rank among the top five countries with the highest murder rates in the world. In fact, Honduras has the highest homicide rate per capita with an average of 90.4 homicides per every 100,000 people.

This kind of danger has motivated many citizens to apply for asylum through the United Nations. The UN reports that from 2008 to 2013, there was a 712% increase in asylum applications to Central American countries like Mexico, Panama, Belize, and Costa Rica, which border the more dangerous countries. However, many people cannot wait for these applications to be processed while their lives and the lives of their children are on the line. It is clear that for the majority of Central Americans, crossing the border was not an act of selfishness, but an act of desperation.

Interviews conducted by the United Nations with children staying at temporary detention centers emphasize that fear of violence, not the promise of economic opportunity, was the driving force causing children to cross the border. When the UN High Commissioner on Refugees interviewed 404 Central American children immigrants staying in temporary detention centers, 58% of them mentioned threats of violence from gangs in their home countries as their primary cause for leaving their countries.

Although the United States is quick to grant refugee status to those in Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, where it has more vested political interest, it is slower to recognize the crisis just next-door. It is time for the United States to take responsibility for those fleeing Central America, and recognize that a refugee is a refugee, no matter where they come from.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.” However, many Congress members seem to prefer that immigrants suffocate from the violence below the border, rather than “breathe free” above it. Politicians need to stop calling those who fled Central America last summer poll-tested, politically palatable names like “undocumented immigrants” and “illegal aliens,” and recognize them as what they are: refugees. Only once this occurs will America truly begin to live up to its ideals.

The Blue Side: Midterm Predictions and Their Implications for the Obama Administration

By Noah Tananbaum, Staff Writer

The Democrats will lose their majority in the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. Conventional wisdom has made the case for some time now that the Republicans will gain a majority and, in recent weeks, these predictions favoring a Republican victory have intensified. As history has shown us, time is often a politician’s worst enemy. In my view, the concept of the “6-year itch” is a very real phenomenon. In virtually all of the modern two-term presidencies, the opposition party has gained Congressional seats. The parallels between 2014 and 2006 are striking. As was the case with Republicans in 2006, many of the current Democratic incumbents come from swing states, their President remains unpopular with the country, and elected officials are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the President. This pattern seems to hold even if the President is popular. 1986 was a perfect example. President Reagan was immensely popular at the time and the GOP still lost seats in Congress. Ironically, the only recent midterm in a President’s sixth year where major gains were not made by the opposition was 1998, the year the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

It is also worth pointing out that the demographics generally do not support the Democrats in midterm years. Two of the major demographic forces that Democrats consistently rely on in presidential elections are young people and minorities. In presidential years, there is always a much higher turnout among voters as a whole but particularly among minority voters and young voters. In midterm election years, these cohorts show a sharp decrease in voter turnout. The voters who steadily show up are the older, whiter, and wealthier voters; these demographic groups usually vote Republican. Historical precedent tells us that, unless something irregular occurs in this election, this will not be a good year for the Democrats.

Regardless of midterm outcomes, Obama’s position will not change drastically. Public approval has consistently dropped for Obama ever since he gained reelection and it’s hard to envision circumstances that would impel a turn of events for him. Even with a majority in the Senate, Obama’s major domestic achievements (the bailout and the Affordable Care Act) were signed into law before the Republicans gained a majority in the House in 2010. The past several years have ushered in a climate of divisiveness and polarization in Washington. Arguably, a GOP takeover of the Senate in the current climate will not significantly affect the balance of power in Washington. An unwillingness to work across the aisle has dominated national politics since Obama took office and this is not a pattern that will change, regardless of the outcome of the midterms. One of the changes that will most likely take place if the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate is an increase in Obama’s use of veto power. Although the Republicans will have majorities in both chambers of Congress, the Democrats will still be able to easily muster a third of their party to prevent the Republicans from blocking Obama’s veto attempts.

Ezra Klein recently wrote that “elections are about stakes.” The stakes were high in 2006 when Democrats finally regained power and intended to defund the Iraq War and derail President Bush’s agenda. The stakes were high in 2010 when the Republicans took the House and threatened to block Obama at every turn. The stakes are not high now. All the evidence points to a continuation of the gridlock and ineptitude that has embroiled American politics for the last several years.

Thoughts on the State of the World, and Our Responsibility to Read the News

By Ryan Davis, Contributing Writer

I often find myself facing a problem when staring at the page of apps on my phone, and it is one that centers on a red button labeled “BBC News.” I’ve been regularly reading the global news put out for free by the British Broadcasting Company since my junior year of high school, with the hope of becoming more informed about the political and economic dynamics of the world that I am growing up in. What I wasn’t expecting however, was a sense of pessimism that slowly came over me as the headlines reflected a world were life is described best by the famous phrase coined by Thomas Hobbes four hundred years ago: “nasty, brutish, and short.”

As Americans we often do not feel the aftershocks of global catastrophes and upsets here at home. Even when it comes to our own domestic news and politics, the general population is at times astoundingly under informed. Our general public has a history of ignorance in which we have failed to understand cultures we go to war with, drugs we continue to demonize, countries we embargo and shun, or even the inner workings of our own government.

This isn’t to say that Americans are uninformed as a whole. However, Americans are stigmatized as more ignorant than our peers in other countries. Jon Stewart recently aired a report on how India’s youth voter turnout rates are much higher than those in the U.S. Politics and world issues are often shunned from conversation in the U.S., and I have been wondering why that might be.

Life in America is fantastic by global standards. Yet to read the news each day, and learn of government corruption and global conflict, seems like an exercise in masochism as opposed to simply going on with your day. Why would we choose to poison our morning by reading the worst things that are happening around the globe? It reinforces a feeling of hopelessness in a broken global system that always seems to be on the brink of catastrophe.

Sometimes one needs a break from the news. Rather than waking up each morning and reading up on such topics as how Ebola is seemingly unstoppable and about to expand to pandemic, I take a break from the news and try to enjoy my day a bit more. I feel that Americans often feel uncomfortable discussing the state of the world, simply because it depresses us, and as such, we want nothing to do with it. Why would young people want to vote when the system seems irreparably broken? Even someone whose news-watching extends no further than the occasional episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report is still left with a sour taste in his or her mouth regarding the state of the world. Yet, to combat this bitterness, I feel we must grit and bear the mental weight of understanding the world in which we reside.

We should read the news, not only because it is the responsibility of a citizen of any nation with a free press, but also to better understand those issues that depress us, even if the seemingly hopeless nature of the world is often what keeps people away. Yet understanding is what I believe will lead to change. If Americans do more to understand their own government, and the world in which that government is representing them, than we might be more inclined to exercise that tiny semblance of control we possess in our ability to vote. Though it often seems that corporate interests have more of a say in government than we do, if the American people banded together and told the government that corporations are not actually people, then maybe we could turn back the tide. Maybe, with a bit of hope in the system, we might eliminate corruption and lobbying. Perhaps we could fix some of the domestic and foreign problems that we have mindlessly left Congress to babble over and do nothing. Better still, with progress on our own shores, perhaps the rest of the world might respect us a little more, not for the power of our military, but for the strength of our leadership as a democracy. Despite all the mistakes we have made as a people, perhaps it isn’t too late to change the trajectory of our nation, and the world that we lead with waning authority. Why not lead by example? We won’t always be leaders in the world, but maybe at least, we could establish a precedent of change for the betterment of the human race. That process starts with understanding. So maybe instead of thinking how the news depresses us, we should think on it as our right to know what is happening, and through our knowledge have the power to change it.

The Blue Side: Appeasing Assad

By Jeremy Ritter-Wiseman, Columnist

U.S. policy towards Syria thus far has been incoherent and reactionary. While the objective of seeing a Syria free of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime remains clear, the strategy has inadvertently been one of appeasement. From the Russian-brokered chemical weapons “deal,” to the U.S. campaign against ISIS in Syria, Assad has been basking in the inconsequential benefits of U.S. policy towards the conflict in Syria. Whether it is most practical to directly engage the Assad regime or not (the consensus seems to say “not”), the U.S. must stop taking measures that only seem to further insulate Assad’s rule and invariably disrupt the rebel-cause.

Following President Obama’s ‘red-line’ ultimatum speech in 2012 and the Syrian government’s subsequent use of chemical weapons on its own people a year later, Russia helped facilitate a deal that would purportedly rid Syria of any and all chemical weapons. Occurring before a congressional vote that would have likely voiced opposition against retaliatory airstrikes in Syria and embarrassed the Obama administration, the deal has done little to hamper Assad’s fight in the ongoing civil war. Instead, it has distracted from the reality that Assad continues to wreak havoc on his own people with perfectly lethal and effective conventional weapons.

Most importantly, the plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapon cache is not working. Being routinely road-blocked by a reluctant Syrian government and by the fact that the massive undertaking is being conducted inside country in the midst of civil war, the project is severely behind schedule. Because of the ongoing conflict, most of the weapons sites are too hazardous and therefore inaccessible to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the group tasked with supervising the removal and destruction of the weapons stockpile; this past May the group came under attack while trying to reach a weapons site. Furthermore, the scale and fragility of the project will mean a long road ahead in realizing its goal. In the meantime though, Assad can continue his cruel campaign against rebels and civilians, with the peace-of-mind that the West is busy trying to eliminate chemical weapons he does not even need. From its conception, the deal was flawed and proved unlikely to succeed. This is evidenced further in a report released this summer by the UN and OPCW showing that chemical weapons are still being used inside Syria.

For most of the three-year conflict, Assad has been fighting a war on essentially two fronts; first against the Western-backed Syrian opposition and second against Islamic extremist groups like ISIS and the al-Qaeda linked Khorasan group. However Assad now has help in the form of the U.S. Air Force in his battle against arguably the more formidable opponent. Having the U.S. taking on ISIS, the Syrian government can now focus its sole attention on battling the army being explicitly supported by the West. This hypocritical policy is not likely to lead to a cessation of hostilities in the near future as the prospects of a political resolution seems more distant now than ever.

Though arming rebels consistently remains the strategy in Syria against ISIS and Assad, the policy could very well prove fruitless. A recently released CIA report concludes that in its long history of arming rebels around the world, the strategy “rarely works.” Considering the moderate Syrian opposition’s apparent weakness and disunity, the CIA report may soon have more evidence to support its hypothesis. Additionally, in attempts to supply Peshmerga (Kurdish) forces in their battle against ISIS militants, the U.S. unintentionally ended up arming the wrong side; ISIS militants received an airdropped care package full of American-made rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition and medical supplies this past week. Although its supposedly a relatively insignificant amount of supplies, it is extremely unnerving knowing ISIS militants are using U.S.-grade weapons to carry out its barbaric crusade in the Middle East.

In the case of Syria, the “enemy of my enemy” is not my friend. Both enemies, in this instance, are equally despicable. Assad and ISIS have both shown equal disregard for human life by exacting brutal violence on civilians on the basis of religious or political intolerance. The indiscriminate killing of innocent people should be condemned equally for both Assad and ISIS. U.S. policy in Syria should thus be constituted by a “let them fight” mentality. While being vigilant to protect U.S. interests and allies in Syria, and alert to impending humanitarian crises, the U.S. should not be engaging with ISIS whatsoever in Syria as it is only advances Assad’s cause and hurts the rebels’.

Throwing more money and weapons at a conflict as complex as Syria will not yield results until a clear and proven strategy is realized. Containment must be that strategy. Protection against spillover into Turkey is paramount, but the U.S. must wade carefully in its arming of rebels with full awareness of its potential and realistically negative consequences. No steps should be taken to make Assad’s life any easier as his regime presents a much more tenable threat to civilians inside Syria than ISIS does. U.S. policy should start reflecting this reality.

The Red Side: Legalize It?

By Billy Kristol, Conservative Columnist

Marijuana legalization is coming to this country. It’s hard to call that an opinion anymore. Every social movement designed to give more freedom to Americans has started in one or two states but eventually become national. The legalization of marijuana will have profound impacts on our country. Many innocent, casual users will be freed. Tax revenue combined with reduced enforcement costs will bolster our economy. But let us not forget why this drug was made illegal in the first place.

Study after study shows that marijuana is far from harmless, especially in adolescents. Regular marijuana use in adolescence is shown to reduce cognitive functions. It can cause abnormal brain structure. It can induce short term paranoia regardless of age. It is far from non-addictive: marijuana treatment programs report withdrawal symptoms in patients. And finally, teens who smoke daily are over 60% less likely to complete high school or graduate college.

There is no question that alcohol is more destructive than marijuana. There is no question that tobacco products are inherently more deadly than marijuana. Prescription drugs are more addictive. You cannot overdose on marijuana; it is a subtly destructive drug. But it withdraws a user from society. It makes a user lethargic. It reduces productivity and increases social anxiety. You may respond that it does not affect you in this way. I concede that some heavy marijuana users are productive and intelligent members of society. But most are not. I worry that as more states begin to legalize the drug we will forget its negative affect on our society.

Occasional marijuana use, just like the occasional drink, is fine. Your brain will survive and your body will rid itself of the chemicals in a few days. Use it when stressed out, when you need a spark of creativity, or when you see an old friend. I rarely see discussions that promote moderate use, however. What I do see is a growing culture of pot where there is nothing wrong with waking up and smoking, smoking when you get home from work, and smoking when you go to bed.

I am not suggesting that marijuana stay criminalized. In fact, I wholly support the legalization movement: Americans should be free to treat their bodies as they like. Many Americans also require the drug for their healthcare treatment plans, and they should use as much as their doctors tell them to. But for the rest of us, too many have been incarcerated for victimless crimes associated with marijuana, and it is time to stop making criminals out of responsible citizens. But as marijuana becomes more common in our society, we must not forget that it is still a drug. Just like harmful prescription medications, just like alcohol, and just like tobacco. There are a vast number of resources that addicts of those mentioned drugs can turn to for help. Are there enough resources for marijuana addicts? We must handle legalization responsibly and not forget about the negative sides of drug use.

Editorial: On Pony Club's Downfall

By the Editorial Board Pony Club—the mysterious Facebook profile that boasts 1,725 friends—works with locations in downtown Saratoga Springs to provide Skidmore students with discounts and drink specials. Scrolling back through Pony Club’s past posts, one may notice a distinct shift in Pony Club’s attitude and language, and in its reception among students. The Editorial Board believes that recently, Pony Club has lost its relevance among the Skidmore student body and lost sight of the purpose that it once served.

Rumors aside, we don’t know who actually runs Pony Club, who is organizing their deals with bars downtown, or writing up their advertisements. This lack of transparency was not always the case. A post on their Facebook page from 2012 states: “We would like to open our Facebook page as a forum for anyone to ask questions about any aspect of Pony Club. We have nothing to hide and encourage everyone who is curious about Pony Club to ask us questions. We work hard to create fun weekend events for the school with only the best intentions.”

However, when an editor of the Skidmore News recently contacted Pony Club, inquiring as to who is in charge of Pony Club and if they have a mission statement they would like to share, the page responded with the message, “I am just a person who is helping students find drink specials downtown....No name needed and no other response.” What was once a group of students looking to create fun events for their peers has become an opaque operation, whose actions suggest its members hold ties with certain establishments downtown.

In the past, students had dialogues with Pony Club over Facebook. The Club made a post in 2012 stating: “PONY CLUB WANTS YOUR INPUT…” Pony club events were popular and well-attended, and their reception was overwhelmingly positive. Now, few people even feel comfortable with the events that Pony Club hosts, let alone attend them.

Out of the thirteen events on their page since September, eleven have been hosted at the Paddock Lounge. While past issues of underage drinking and false identification have caused bars to close their doors to Skidmore-related events, the lack of diversity of locations prompts suspicions that Pony Club is now directly tied to Paddock Lounge.

One of Pony Club’s recent event descriptions on Facebook includes the line, “All you sexy ass girls come down to the Paddock.... we will be giving out gift cards to the Brightest and the Tightest of ladies!!!” The implications of offering gift cards for free drinks to women who are wearing the tightest, most revealing clothing is offensive, misogynistic and completely contrary to the values we hold as a campus community. If it is a student running the Pony Club Facebook page, it’s unacceptable for them to address their female peers in this way.

Pony Club’s recent promotions do not seem to have the students’ interests in mind anymore. They are fostering a culture that does not align with the Skidmore values, and as students, we have the ability to support or oppose the group by choosing to attend or not attend these events. Pony Club’s unwillingness to connect with students demonstrates it has lost sight of the purpose it once served. There are better options for students downtown, and it seems inconsistent with Skidmore’s values to support a group that uses misogynistic language to promote events evidently aimed more at turning profits rather than providing fun nightlife for students.

The Blue Side: The Importance of Immigration Reform

By Noah Tananbaum, Staff Writer 

America has always been a country comprised of immigrants. Initially, Western European colonizers washed up on our shores. They have been followed by Irish families, German and Dutch settlers, Eastern European Jews and Chinese immigrants at the turn of the 20^th century and, more recently, a large cohort of Hispanic immigrants. Our government and citizenry must realize that one of America’s great strengths is that we are made up of a diverse group of people with far-reaching cultures and backgrounds. This bolsters our country rather than hinders it.

The patterns of immigration illustrate that by the end of the century, the United States will more than likely become a “majority-minority” country. And yet, despite all of this, there are those in our country who feel threatened by the arrival of new immigrant families. While there is no doubt that there is a border crisis occurring in our country and that there are many undocumented workers living in here, these are issues that can be addressed. While it is eminently reasonable for Americans to be concerned with the effects that a fast-growing population has on job availability and government spending within the country, many Americans simply do not want more immigrants because they view them as an existential threat to their way of life.

Political scientists have studied this theme of a symbolic threat that immigrants represent and dubbed it the “acculturation threat hypothesis.” This hypothesis presents the idea that native-born citizens undergo a culture shock of sorts when their environment encounters a massive ethnic change, wherein they are exposed to different cultures and sets of values that ultimately create a wedge between the natives and the immigrants. To find evidence of this, look no further than the Super Bowl earlier this year. Coca-Cola ran a commercial which portrayed numerous different ethnicities living in America, all singing “America the Beautiful” in different languages. Sadly, this ad stirred up controversy with conservative members of the media, many of whom were outraged that anyone would have the nerve to sing “America the Beautiful” in any language other than English. This is a remarkably intolerant outlook on other cultures. If America is to succeed in the future then we must embrace multiculturalism rather than shun it. If the United States continues to reject multiculturalism, it will be to our own detriment. Immigrants enrich our country. Accepting them makes smart economic sense. There are brilliant people all over the world, many of whom come here with temporary visas, take what they learned here and bring it back to their country where they compete against us because they were not allowed to stay here on a permanent basis. When seeking a path to citizenship, immigrants are required to take a test that many Americans would fail. Having some form of a citizenship test is important but America must either modify the test or establish a broader, more sophisticated plan of educating those preparing to take the test, ensuring that they are on a more even playing field.

For years now, Democrats have attempted to push through comprehensive immigration reform and the Republicans have blocked their attempts. The immigration trends for the remainder of the 21^st century are clear and if Republicans do not modify their stance on this particular issue, their constituency will become a minority. The issues that immigration creates are very real, but we have no hopes of solving them if we continue to express xenophobic tendencies and oppose the acceptance of those who would bring new ideas and cultures to our country.