21 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/24/13 11:51pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Earlier this summer, Purdue’s computer servers were hacked.Three former Purdue students are being charged with an assortment of crimes — among them, conspiracy to commit computer tampering and conspiracy to commit burglary — after a collective four years of unabashed grade-changing that elevated two students from straight F’s to nearly straight A’s.Considering the classified nature of the information these students were tampering with, the apparent ease with which they were able to use their technical know-how to the detriment of the university raised several concerns. What does it take to protect such vital information as grades from ill-willing individuals or groups – what goes into the maintenance and protection of a university’s personal information systems? Dennis Cromwell, IU Associate Vice President for Enterprise Infrastructure, has been working on these issues for years and stresses that cyber-security is something that requires constant, forceful vigilance. “Security is an ongoing responsibility and an ongoing issue,” Cromwell said.He said this is because of the fact that there are many reasons why IU’s servers might come under an attack at any time — as a recent New York Times article notes, aside from the droves of student and employee personal information held by university IT systems, there is also sensitive intellectual property that must be protected.Andrew Korty, University Information Security Officer for all IU campuses, agreed that threats to the University’s cyber-security are constant and continually adapting, and must be dealt with accordingly. “Any organization with an Internet presence is combating online crime and malice every day ... Security is always an ongoing process,” he said. “Technologies are always changing, and so are the techniques criminals use to exploit them.” The University takes pervasive measures to protect against online intruders. Cromwell said the actions taken by University technology authorities to maintain and protect IU’s personal information systems, such as the Central Authentication Service, range from “physical” to “logical” security measures. Physical security measures involve literal protection of data servers. For example, Cromwell said data servers reside in a data center behind three levels of security.Logical security measures include things such as firewalls and prevention of certain connections from entering the servers. Korty added that aside from barriers like those discussed by Cromwell, the University Information Security Office acts as a cyber-sentry, continuously screening for attacks and taking action if anything goes awry. “At IU, we have automated systems that detect intrusion attempts, and we have teams that take appropriate action if such an attempt appears successful,” he said. “If a breach were to occur, we would contain the damage, determine what was accessed, and notify the affected individuals ... Then we would take a more in-depth look at the weakness that led to the compromise and determine what steps to take.” Apart from protective measures taken by the University, both Cromwell and Korty stressed the substantial role of individuals in supporting cyber-security. Individual workstations are far more vulnerable to attack than the system at large and this is particularly true at universities where thousands of students and faculty are logging onto systems such as CAS every day, according to the New York Times article. “The security of individuals’ computers is a key factor,” Korty noted. “In fact, generally speaking, personal computers tend not to be as well-maintained as servers and are more frequent targets for attack.”Cromwell referred to this as “the human side of security” – individuals need to be as vigilant in protecting their computers as the university is vigilant in protecting the entire system.
(07/22/12 10:49pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>My editor’s column last week regarding comedian Daniel Tosh’s rape joke mishap — in which Tosh said it would be “hilarious” if an audience member were raped by five men, after said audience member had shouted out, “Rape jokes are never funny!” — moved me to share my own opinion about the incident.First of all, let me make it clear that I agree with my editor and many others that anything — even and especially the most controversial and unpleasant of topics — is fair game for humor.Not only is humor a way of mitigating the controversy and/or pain of a difficult subject (such as rape, death, 9/11, the Holocaust, etc.), it can illuminate how and why we feel a certain way about certain things, or highlight cultural prejudices and beliefs regarding a certain topic. That is what good humor does.For example, comedian John Mulaney’s “subway station chase” standup routine mocks the societal prejudice that all men, even the innocent-looking Mulaney, are sexual predators. His fear of being mistaken for a potential rapist is no less than the woman’s fear of being raped, and Mulaney’s audience can empathize with the awkwardness of the situation. It’s not an issue of Mulaney joking about rape because he’s doing it in a way that is tasteful, intelligent and funny.When Mulaney jokes about rape, he makes it clear he doesn’t think rape itself is funny. The audience knows he actually thinks rape is horrific.Similarly, Sarah Silverman is absurdly ironic in her routine about rape jokes; she quips, “... (rape) is like the safest area to talk about in comedy. ‘Cause who’s going to complain about a rape joke? Rape victims? They don’t even report rape. I mean, they’re traditionally not complainers.”Although Silverman certainly doesn’t beat around the bush and isn’t afraid to shock, she speaks in a way that indicates she doesn’t think it’s OK that rape is the most underreported crime, and in her humor, she’s pointing out an important fact.Tosh, on the other hand, doesn’t make it clear that he doesn’t think rape is acceptable. Tosh’s joke about the woman in the audience getting gang raped is akin to a comedian making a Holocaust joke consisting of, “Heh, wouldn’t it be hilarious if millions of Jews were methodically murdered, like, right now?” That isn’t funny because the comic isn’t self-aware. The comic doesn’t make it clear he thinks the Holocaust is horrific; rather, his joke indicates he actually thinks the Holocaust was funny.Likewise, Tosh’s jokes threatening an audience member with gang rape, his jokes about his sister getting raped after Tosh replaced her pepper spray with Silly String, and his “rape trap” routine don’t provide any indication Tosh doesn’t find rape to be humorous. His jokes target rape victims — not rapists or the culture at large that allows rape to continue.His jokes are nothing new; they just regurgitate all the cultural B.S. we already hear on a regular basis about rape. Humor works best when it can reveal injustices — not legitimize them.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(07/08/12 7:48pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never been obnoxious about my vegetarianism. The first two years I went veggie, I didn’t even tell any of my friends, prompting confused looks when I refused to eat whatever meat product everyone else was enjoying (this was in middle school, hence the heightened awkwardness). However, I’ve been thinking a lot the past few years about the conventional meat industry and how it works, and I think it’s time to eschew my habitual meekness, get up on my high horse and proselytize. That’s not to say that I’m going to attempt to turn everyone into a vegetarian — that’s absurd and, for some people, not the healthiest option. What I would like to do, however, is encourage everyone to think before purchasing meat or dairy products. Animal cruelty, cutting down the world’s rainforests to make room for more cattle ranches and the ick-factor aside (I’m sure you’ve all seen “Food, Inc.”), meat and dairy consumption at current levels, especially in Western countries, is totally unsustainable, according to a 2010 United Nations report. But you don’t need a UN report to realize that agribusiness’ use of land, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, genetic modification, etc., is hugely detrimental to the earth and biodiversity. This applies to conventional grain, fruit and vegetable production as well. But meat requires more land and often involves the mistreatment of living beings.So, what’s a meat eater to do? You could stop eating meat. But many people don’t see vegetarianism as a viable option, and some argue vegetarianism is equivalent to being a “silent protester” because vegetarians’ consumer power is not being directed toward local, sustainable meat and dairy farmers.If vegetarianism isn’t for you, eating your meat from small, local farms is the best alternative to buying the agribusiness meat and dairy products sold at most grocery stores. Small, local farms deserve the support of meat eaters for their work in promoting humane, sustainable meat and dairy production.However, not everyone has access to such farms, whether for financial, geographic or other reasons — like being a college student. Moreover, some people argue that small, local farms are not a practical solution, as they would never be able to produce enough to feed everyone and would inevitably have to turn to industrial production in order to do so. Joel Salatin is a farmer who disproved this idea with his large organic farm, Polyface, in Virginia. But even Salatin relies on fossil fuels to run his farm. There’s clearly no easy solution to the problems — environmental and moral — that come with meat and dairy production. The best thing you can do is think before you meat.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(07/01/12 9:01pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I come bearing more summer reading recommendations this week.Riane Eisler’s “The Chalice and the Blade”Hailed as the most important book since Darwin’s “Origin of Species” by anthropologist Ashley Montagu, this book weaves the fascinating tale of human prehistory from the unconventional perspective of shifting gender hierarchy. From ancient matriarchy to modern patriarchy, using evidence from art, archaeology, religion and more. A must-read if you’re interested in anthropology, gender, religion or really anything at all.J.D. Salinger’s “Franny and Zooey”If you like Salinger and/or are moderately angsty, you’ll love this quirky, two-part novella providing a glimpse into the lives of the title characters — siblings in their 20s who are, in their unique ways, undergoing nervous breakdowns. Though both characters are at times obnoxious — again, in their own unique ways — the story feels real in a way that most novels don’t.Joyce Carol Oates’ “Wild Nights! Stories About the Last Days of Poe, Dickinson, Twain, James, and Hemingway”If you don’t think your summer attention span can handle an entire book, the short story is undoubtedly the most satisfying alternative. This collection of singularly uncanny stories about long-dead authors coming back to life and doing very strange things is sure to please those who are fond of ghost stories or any of the writers in the title.“Yes Means Yes!: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape”This collection of essays was edited by Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman. Friedman spoke at IU’s spring 2012 Culture of Care Week. The collection explores every contributing factor imaginable to rape culture in American society and conceives solutions radically different from models used in the past. Everyone, women and men and trans folks alike, should read this book. If you’ve ever been to a college party, if you’ve ever heard the word “slut,” if you’ve ever felt uncomfortable talking about sex, you should read this ground-breaking, astonishing book.Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “100 Years of Solitude”There’s a reason — rather, many reasons — that this is considered one of the best novels of all time. Reading it is like watching a dazzling, ethereal movie. Marquez’s surplus of outlandish characters float in and out of a nostalgic world in which imagination becomes reality as successive generations of a family struggle to escape their bizarre, often self-inflicted problems. This one does, however, require a decidedly long attention span.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(06/24/12 11:07pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Summer, for me, is the only time of year when I’m able to sit around and do nothing, or, preferably, sit around and read things that are not textbooks or the other endless academic readings I print several forests’ worth off Oncourse every semester. That being said, it is a glorious time of year. I’d like to share some of the non-textbook books I’ve read so far this summer, as well as some I plan to read before summer’s end. Try out at least one of these books and you’re guaranteed to have a happier summer.Barbara Kingsolver’s “The Poisonwood Bible”:Kingsolver might be considered “chick lit” by some, but her skillful telling of both actual history and a bizarre story in this novel proves her to be otherwise. I devoured this tale of an American Baptist missionary family in the Congo before and during the civil war of the early 1960s.Ken Kesey’s “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”: If you haven’t read this classic yet, you need to — you won’t regret it. It’s a must-read for anyone who loves the wild, quick-paced language of the beat generation (though Kesey was a self-pronounced hippie-beatnik hybrid), anyone who has ever felt the slightest bit like an outcast or anyone who loves reading. Put simply, you don’t have a choice and therefore must read it.Brooke Gladstone’s “The Influencing Machine”: This book details a subject that might be boring to some people — the history of media in American democracy — in a marvelous format: graphic nonfiction. I learned more about media from this book than from any other source and enjoyed it, largely because of Josh Neufeld’s funny and thought-provoking illustrations. Also, I happen to be interested in the topic, which helped. Give it a read if you’ve ever abhorred news bias of any sort!Dave Eggers’ “What Is the What”: If you read “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius”, or anything else by Dave Eggers, and loved it, read this. Eggers chronicles the story of a refugee from the decades-long Sudanese conflict in his usual, beautiful, self-effacing style.Tom Robbins’ “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues”: Tom Robbins is the sort of writer who says a foreboding sky is “the color of Edgar Allan Poe’s pajamas,” who insists that “just because you’re naked doesn’t mean you’re sexy; just because you’re cynical doesn’t mean you’re cool” and tells readers “it’s never too late to have a happy childhood.” Throwing quotes at you can’t do justice to Robbins’ bizarre but accurate metaphors, keen wit and never-ending sense of existential crisis, so I suggest you pick up “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues” — the tale of a young, beautiful, ambitious hitchhiker — and get to know him a bit yourself.David Michaelis’ “Schulz and Peanuts: A Biography”: This is a must read for anyone whose childhood obsession with “Peanuts” has blurred into adulthood. This 600-page biography tells you anything you’d ever want to know about the enigmatic figure of Schulz and the element of biography inherent in the strip.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(06/17/12 9:34pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On May 30, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on serving high-calorie drinks (defined as drinks having more than 25 calories per eight ounces) in containers larger than 16 ounces in licensed food service establishments, thus alienating one of his largest and most important constituencies — people who drink excessive amounts of soda.Bloomberg concocted his anti-Big Gulp proposal as part of his ongoing fight to reduce New York’s obesity rate, asserting that sugary drinks are one of the leading causes of the nation’s obesity epidemic.Although Bloomberg has provided no conclusive evidence that soft drinks are in fact the leading cause of fat Americans, the proposal is overwhelmingly popular with the New York Board of Health. However, Bloomberg will continue his annual endorsement of National Donut Day, provided that participants do not indulge in a 24-ounce soda to wash down their donut.Bloomberg and the Board of Health have not included diet sodas in their anti-Big Gulp proposal, which is because they have the word “diet” in them and are thus inherently better for you. In fact, studies have shown that diet soda drinkers are just as likely to gain excess weight as their soda-drinking counterparts — but whatever.This is not just about public health, however. This is a much more serious issue, a clear instance of government infringement on individual liberties. First it was trans fats (who doesn’t like the occasional dose of super-cholesterol?), now it’s enormous sugary drinks. Bloomberg has gone too far in attacking the rights of Americans to slowly kill themselves in the most trite, meaningless ways possible. — ccleahy@indiana.edu
(06/10/12 10:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In Pennsylvania earlier this year, a law was passed that enables individual counties to charge hydraulic fracturing companies a set fee for drilling within the county’s borders. Sounds like a great law, until you read the provision requiring medical professionals who request information about “trade secret” chemical additives used by drillers to sign a confidentiality agreement.Under Pennsylvania’s Act 13, drillers are required to tell any doctor who asks what chemicals they are pumping underground — but doctors are prohibited from sharing this information with anyone else. What’s more, there is no standard confidentiality agreement form, so each drilling company drafts its own terms.This isn’t anything new — there are similar laws in Texas, Ohio and Colorado, and withholding information about environmental hazards from the public is a well-tested government practice. In 2009, for example, the Obama administration decided to keep secret the location of four dozen coal ash waste storage sites (they said it was a matter of national security).The debate of individual citizen versus corporation rights is well-known in American history, and it’s been raging in recent years. Take the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which explains that if a corporation discloses information to the government, the information is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and the company is exempt from persecution. What’s more, whistleblowers for such corporations can get into serious trouble.What’s more important? A citizen’s right to know when their health is being threatened, or a company’s right to protect “trade secrets” in which they’ve invested millions or billions of dollars? I would hope the protection of human and animal life would come before the protection of economic assets, but this certainly isn’t the case with current laws in Pennsylvania and other states.Citizens are unable to respond to anything if they don’t have access to necessary information. During World War II, American news outlets and the government told the official story that no lethal radiation was released by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suppressed stories to the contrary. Current government agreement with hydraulic fracturing companies to keep information about toxic chemicals secret from the public comes from a similar line of thinking.The practice of non-disclosure is anti-democratic, disempowering citizens in matters that directly affect them. Although the option for anonymous disclosure by fracking companies is available (such as through the website fracfocus.org), this is not a solution, as it does not hold companies accountable for their actions. It only provides information to select citizens — those who live in areas where fracking companies have chosen to anonymously disclose online.Pennsylvania’s Act 13 clearly acknowledges that chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing are potentially harmful to humans, other animals and the environment, and studies have found that certain fracking chemicals contain known carcinogens.The “is it safe?” debate is over. Now is the time to ask more legitimate questions, such as why no preventative measures (such as outlawing fracking, as Vermont has done) are being taken, why profit is being valued more than human and animal life and why such drastic and harmful measures are being taken in pursuit of a form of energy that is ultimately unsustainable.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(06/03/12 10:04pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Take a second to see where the shirt you’re wearing is from. Mine is from Singapore. The cotton, however (I’m wearing a 100 percent cotton T-shirt), is most likely from the United States because the U.S. is the world’s top exporter of cotton.This is the typical journey of a cotton T-shirt made for U.S. consumers: American-made cotton (generously subsidized by the U.S. government and made using billions of pounds of pesticides and water) is exported to countries such as China and Guatemala, where it is then made by low-paid workers (Chinese textile workers earn as little as 12-18 cents per hour) into clothing based on designers’ wishes. This clothing is then shipped back to the U.S. and western Europe for consumption. Americans purchase approximately 1 billion garments made in China per year, and after purchase, a meager 21 percent of this clothing stays in the home. The rest of the clothing ends up in consignment stores, is given a new life as fiber for paper products or industrial wiping rags, is exported for resale in developing nations, or goes directly into landfills. Americans throw away more than 68 pounds of clothing per person annually, and this statistic is steadily rising. What many people don’t grasp, however, is that there is no such thing as “away” — even clothing donated to resale stores such as Goodwill or Salvation Army often goes to waste, as only about 1/5 of donations to such companies are actually used or sold.What’s more, the production of synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon is energy-intensive and hugely harmful to the environment, requiring massive amounts of oil and leeching pollutants into the air and soil. Non-synthetic fibers are not much better — cotton, the most widely used natural fiber, is one of the most water- and pesticide-dependent crops grown today.The power of individual consumers must be used if we are to discourage fast fashion and the throwaway culture that comes with it. Reject the new “needs” and “must-haves” crafted each season by advertising and the fashion industry. Shop exclusively at consignment and resale stores and, if possible, support people in your community who make clothing using materials closer to home. If you need to buy something new, do your research first; for example, don’t buy anything made with conventionally grown cotton. Do not throw away old garments or even donate them to resale stores; mend them or reuse them within your home as dust rags, quilts or rag rugs. It’s time to redefine “need” and dismantle the incredible wastefulness driven by our consumer culture.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(05/21/12 12:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Two weeks ago, my cousin gave birth to a healthy baby boy. This new, tiny human, for the first many months of his life, will be breastfed and will wear reusable cotton diapers. Although I believe in breastfeeding and natural diapering, I don’t think either of these choices will have any significant effect on how the baby turns out later in life. What’s more important, I think, is the fact that my cousin and her husband are sure to be excellent, enthusiastic and loving parents.Popular media seem to disagree with me on this point. According to the recent sensationalistic cover story in Time Magazine about attachment parenting (brazenly titled “Are You Mom Enough?”) and the frenzied debate it provoked about mothering in general, my cousin’s breastfeeding and natural diapering make her a feminist, an anti-feminist, an ideal mother, a terrible mother, a saint and a monster. It just depends on who you ask.The Time cover for May 21 displays an attractive, young, blonde woman nursing her son, who looks old enough to be in kindergarten. The story discusses attachment parenting, which maintains that employing certain early parenting practices — such as breastfeeding, co-sleeping and “baby-wearing” — will lead to happier, healthier kids.Supporters of attachment parenting claim that, as mentioned above, it leads to healthier kids. Attachment parenting has also been described as a paragon of feminism for (among other reasons) its “refusal to endure a male-centered obstetric history that has taken over women’s bodies and molded them to their preferences for their convenience, their comfort and for their worldview.” So, according to this view, mothers who employ attachment parenting are perfect, angelic feminists whose perfect, angelic children are probably going to take over the world and have magical attachment-babies of their own.On the other hand, opponents of attachment parenting say it pressures mothers to make motherhood their entire identity and implies that in order to be a good mother, one must sacrifice everything and devote one’s entire life to motherhood. In other words, opponents see attachment parenting as anti-feminist, pulling women away from having a life and career outside the home. The children of these mothers are going to become dependent, wimpy kids who cry easily and obtusely eat glue in the back of the classroom.I’m not buying either argument.First of all, “feminism” is not so easily defined as adhering to “non-patriarchal” obstetrics or the idea that women work outside the home. Let’s try a broader definition: Feminism is when women — and men — do what they want, regardless of social gender constructs. This might mean being a stay-at-home dad, or a working mom, or vice versa, or an attachment parent; it’s whatever ultimately makes sense for the individual parent or couple.Second of all, maybe we should be less concerned with whether mothers’ parenting methods of choice are “feminist” and spend more time promoting healthy parenting that fits individuals’ respective lifestyles and values. It’s absurd to criticize someone for taking on the enormously difficult (and selfless) task of raising a kid because they’re not doing a “good enough” job. Let’s let parents be parents, whatever that might look like.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(05/13/12 11:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports gay marriage came as a triumph and a relief after years of equivocation and insistence that he back gay rights. The announcement has been hailed as a historical breakthrough among leaders of the gay rights movement. It is especially refreshing to hear solid support of gay marriage from the president after President George Bush’s and current Republican presidential candidates’ staunch opposition to it.Indeed, Obama’s announcement represents a milestone — he is the first United States president to officially support gay marriage and should be applauded for finally and clearly expressing his beliefs on the subject. Some have even compared Obama’s support to Kennedy’s push for a Civil Rights Act in 1963.However, despite the significance of Obama’s announcement, it must be asked whether, after finally “talking the talk,” Obama will accordingly “walk the walk.” For, unlike Kennedy, Obama did not call for national legislation to end discrimination. Rather, he has maintained his earlier position that marriage laws should be left up to individual states.Considering the law recently passed in North Carolina (which goes so far as to ban civil unions) and the measures to “protect marriage” in many other states, Obama’s continued assertion that leaving it up to the states is the best option seems weak. What’s more, it certainly falls flat of the expectation created by his statement that he thinks “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”Although Obama was careful to note that this is simply his own belief, something that is important to him personally, it will be unfortunate if this sentiment is never expressed through concrete action. Supporting gay rights, as Obama has done (through, for example, the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy), is vital. I am overjoyed and proud that he has done so. But the marriage issue is crucial and can only be resolved through drastic change — which means more than just talking. Notwithstanding my own criticisms of Obama’s statement, however, I must say I am elated that he has finally said what needed to be said. After all, appropriate action cannot be taken if policy makers have not clarified their views.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(04/26/12 11:58pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This week, I was planning on writing about how Bloomington should have more spaces like the Bloomington Community Orchard, where food can be grown sustainably in public spaces for everyone to contribute to and take part in. Then, I found out this is already a very real possibility. Bloomington is up for the same grant that gave us the Bloomington Community Orchard. This time, the orchard would be located in Will Detmer Park, and the fruit would be used for Hoosier Hills Food Bank . The potential orchard at Will Detmer Park would not only have fruit trees but also garden plots for rent, demonstration gardens and classes to teach people about gardening.This is part of Hoosier Hills’ desire to have a greater quantity and quality of fresh food to provide to nearly 100 other nonprofits across eight Ind. counties . The benefits of larger-scale, free local food production like this abound. It decreases reliance on outside food sources. It is sustainable, provided the farming is done organically. Not consuming the products of monoculture and agribusinesses does the environment a huge favor which is just one of many reasons that produce isn’t being shipped on fuel-inefficient vehicles from miles and miles away. It fosters and strengthens community and encourages working relationships between organizations within a community. In this case, the orchard with the local food bank, will then distribute the fresh fruit to food banks around Indiana. It provides fresh food to people who don’t typically have access to it. It promotes fresh, seasonal food, which has higher vitamin content than nonseasonal produce, and is tastier. The possibility of having another community orchard in Bloomington is exciting, and I encourage anyone who supports this initiative to show their support by voting for Bloomington every day through May at communitiestakeroot.com. —ccleahy@indiana.edu
(04/19/12 9:56pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This past Sunday at the Founders Day Honors Convocation, which pays tribute to student academic achievement, I was astonished to hear a very Christian invocation thanking God for giving us strength and motivation to succeed throughout the years and asking that we be able to maintain this strength and motivation in the future.Indeed, after the opening remarks of Interim Provost and Executive Vice President Lauren Robel, we all stood, many bowed their heads, and an invocation that was very clearly Christian was delivered to students and our families. I wasn’t the only one who was surprised — I heard a girl behind me mutter, “Is this allowed?” It shouldn’t be.I think the invocation was very nice — it was well-intentioned, and its overall message was one of good will, wishing us to continue our hard work as students. It wasn’t so overtly Christian that it ended with an “amen” or anything of the sort. However, I think this is beyond the point because the invocation was very obviously Christian (at one point the word “mission” was used to describe our academic and life goals).The point isn’t that it was Christian. I would have been equally upset had a clearly Buddhist or Jewish or Jain or Muslim invocation been delivered. The point is that a religious invocation was delivered at all. IU is a public university with a richly diverse student body, and this should be celebrated. Rather than harkening back to the Christian tradition of IU — IU-Bloomington was originally founded as the “state seminary,” and the first string of presidents were all Christian clergymen of some sort — perhaps a speech should be given commemorating the great diversity of academically successful students at IU. After all, this is something that everyone can relate to and celebrate. That the group of students at the Honors Convocation on Sunday reflected the diversity of the larger IU student body (diversity that includes, no doubt, many different religious traditions) is something that merits a speech more so than an invocation that is not pertinent to all students. — ccleahy@indiana.edu
(04/05/12 10:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you’re reading this, it’s likely that you or someone you know owns a pair of TOMS shoes.The company, launched by entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie in 2006, quickly became known for its innovative “One for One” business model, in which the company provides one pair of shoes “to a child in need” for every pair bought by consumers.However, a recent investigation of the company by journalist Amy Costello, as well as photos and videos on the TOMS website, reveal that not all children who receive TOMS actually need them but, in fact, already have shoes of their own.This brings to the forefront several issues central to humanitarian work, including working for versus working with the poor, sustainable versus short-term giving and what it means to empower and give a voice to the poor and other historically marginalized communities.The TOMS “One for One” business model is based on what consumers and donors want. It is not based on the needs and priorities of the people and communities receiving the shoes. Donors and consumers would like to give shoes to people who don’t have them, but how can we know that a need for shoes is the top priority of these impoverished communities if we haven’t asked them? What about food, clothing, education and local economy?Research has shown that the TOMS business model can, in fact, harm local economies where shoes are available. Toms is telling these impoverished communities, “What you need is shoes,” without even asking if they need shoes — and making a lot of money in the process.This model is a Band-Aid solution; it deals only with one particular symptom — that is, shoelessness — of the larger problem at hand, which is poverty. An example of a more sustainable solution is microfinance. Microfinance has its own problems, but it empowers those who are historically powerless. It doesn’t give handouts; it provides opportunities.What’s more, TOMS has been in the media in the past year for its extensive partnerships with evangelical Christian organizations around the globe.This is not problematic in principle, but in practice, it has led to a disproportionate percentage of shoe donations going to children in Christian schools. TOMS partner organizations can decide where to distribute the shoes, which often leaves out the very poorest members of a community. Moreover, TOMS is supposed to be a nonpolitical, nonreligious business and prohibits any shoe distribution associated with religious ideology or proselytizing. It aims to serve children in need regardless of their religious beliefs.If you’re going to give your money to what you believe is an honest cause, please do your research first.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(03/30/12 12:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Producing your own food (or some of your own food) is one of the best things you can do for the environment and, by default, for yourself.It’s the time of year to hike (or bike) to your local community garden — you’ll be able to find one in Bloomington, no problem — and start planting. Or, at the very least, start planning what your summer garden is going to look like.Why bother going to the trouble of planting a food garden? First of all, it’s not too terribly difficult. What’s more, the way that agriculture in the United States works today is extremely harmful to the health of plants, animals, soil and humans — even if you might not realize it.According to the EPA, 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides and 30 percent of all insecticides are carcinogenic. The most obvious questions all of us need to ask are these: Why is something as basic and natural as food causing cancer, and why should we stand for it?These chemicals are harmful not only to humans but to the ecosystems where they are used and the organisms within them, as pesticide-laced water flows into the life systems around industrial farms. Pesticides are also hazardous to soil health, harming or killing the microbes and biota that call soil home and have a mutually beneficial relationship with plants growing in the soil.Industrial farming also kills biodiversity in favor of monoculture. More plant diversity means greater genetic diversity, which translates into higher disease resistance and support of the complexity of natural ecosystems. Monoculture goes against nature, killing the natural beauty and infinite genetic variety that is found in the natural world.So, why not just buy organic food instead?Buying food products labeled “organic” is not a viable solution to this problem. Just because something is labeled “organic” does not mean that it was grown sustainably or locally. In fact, the opposite is often true. Food products labeled “USDA organic” have only been around since 2002, and this labeling is, more than anything else, a marketing strategy.Although USDA organic standards are better than nothing, they are still a far cry from the revolution in farming that needs to happen.For example, the standards do not require “organic” farms to replenish the soil with natural nutrients in the same proportion used in the growing process. Another example is that USDA standards require that animals have access to the outdoors but do not say for how long or under what conditions.Moreover, any product can be labeled organic as long as it follows growing conditions, even if it’s being shipped from China to the U.S.This summer, don’t shop at the grocery store, even if it’s in the organic aisle. Shop at the local farmer’s market, or better yet, take a few steps into your own backyard.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(03/22/12 10:07pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This is in response to Will Gryna’s column on March 3.The definition of a slut is flawed. A woman who isn’t ashamed of her sexuality? A woman who has sex, possibly with more than one partner? They’re not sluts; They’re just human beings. This is common sense.So of course, when Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” who “wants to be paid to have sex” because of her views about government and insurance coverage for contraception, everyone was in on the joke. Hilarious! She isn’t a slut, she’s an intelligent young woman standing up for her political views and striving to create change — how funny of Rush to call such an upstanding young citizen a slut!This is the argument that Gryna seems to be making in his March 3 column, in which he compares Limbaugh to entertainers such as Charlie Sheen and Kanye West, both of whom are, incidentally, on the record for saying and doing brashly violent and misogynistic things. I suppose Charlie Sheen’s history of domestic abuse has been received by the general public as a great joke because he is, after all, just an entertainer.Rush Limbaugh, although he does say outrageous things, is not marketed as entertainment. His show is marketed as political commentary. As Gryna notes, “People expect Limbaugh to be more like Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper because he mainly talks about politics.” Gryna then goes on to say that Limbaugh is in fact more like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. However, unlike Limbaugh, both Stewart and Colbert are explicitly marketed as entertainment. What’s more, whether a show is presented as “entertainment” or “fake news” does not necessarily affect what the audience takes away from it.After all, if Limbaugh is really an “entertainer” and his diatribe against Fluke was merely ridiculous, then all of his millions of listeners must not have taken those comments seriously. Republican presidential candidates certainly didn’t seem to, as Romney brushed off Limbaugh’s tirade as “not the language I would have used,” and Gingrich bemoaned that the debacle was even in the news in the first place.But wait — Limbaugh is just an entertainer. So why was it politically necessary for the Republican presidential candidates to (delicately) scold Rush for his comments?Whether Limbaugh is an entertainer or not, he has real political and cultural impact. Politically, his comments forced Republican candidates into a tricky spot — they had to please both the general public (who doesn’t consider such odious, regressive language to be “just entertainment”) and be sure not to alienate their support base by denouncing Limbaugh. Culturally, he is perpetuating the slut myth and the idea that it is acceptable to inveigh against women as long as it’s “just a joke.”But I know Gryna isn’t alone in his view that this is all in good fun — Rick Santorum summed it up nicely with his comment that “an entertainer can be absurd.”— cleahy@indiana.edu
(03/02/12 3:35am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This past summer, I had a conversation with a close friend about the Lauren Spierer tragedy. He said, pointedly, “You’re only as safe as the situation you put yourself in.” I agreed wholeheartedly, and we moved on to discuss something else.Looking back a month or so later, I became extremely disturbed by this casual exchange. Our conversation missed the crux of the issue, which is that the Lauren Spierer tragedy even happened in the first place. This represents a heartbreaking failure on the part of the community to prevent situations like this from happening. Furthermore, it’s obvious each of us is responsible for the decisions we make, but it is warped and dangerous logic to imply we are in any way responsible for the actions of others or harm that others do to us.There needs to be a fundamental change in our current dialogue about abduction and other assault crimes. The conversation shouldn’t revolve around the questions we’ve all heard: “Why was he/she alone? Why did she/he leave her friends and wander off? Why did she leave with that guy? How much did he/she drink? Did he/she have a drug problem?” The conversation needs to focus on far more poignant and relevant questions: “Where were his/her friends? Why wasn’t anyone watching out for him/her? Why hasn’t the perpetrator been found? What is happening in our community and culture at large that makes it acceptable for us to allow something like this to happen?”Those are the questions we need to be asking because, frankly, the first set of questions engages in the vile and regressive act of blaming the victim for the transgression committed against him or her. Let’s instead question the motives of the culprit.We must work together as a community to prevent these things from happening but not through programs that emphasize preventative safety measure. If programs that stress not going out alone and not drinking excessively really prevented assault crimes, then we wouldn’t still be having this discussion.These individuals know what they’re doing and are able to get away with it. Our current dialogue of rape is not only unsuccessful for preventing assault but facilitates it by taking the pressure off the most important people in this equation: the culprits. Victims do not have motives to be victimized. No one wants to be a victim.However, the current mainstream language we have to discuss abduction, assault, rape and abuse fixates on the victim’s behavior.We need to work toward a more positive, supportive and community-driven discussion about preventing abduction, sexual assault, rape and other crimes.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(02/23/12 12:26am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Is it “informed consent” when you’re not given the chance to consent?The politicians who proposed the bill that passed in the Virginia legislature last week requiring women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion certainly seem to think so. The bill, which doesn’t require women to review the results of the ultrasound — it only requires that the procedure be performed, has nothing to do with informed consent, the idea that patients should have as much knowledge as possible about a procedure (in this case, an abortion) before having it done.What it does concern, however, is blatant abuse of women’s reproductive rights and terrifying conservative hypocrisy regarding governmental intrusion in health care.This bill will force Virginia women to undergo a unnecessary medical procedure in order to practice a right that was established almost 40 years ago in Roe v. Wade. As mentioned before, the bill is being legitimized by saying it is expanding Virginia’s “informed consent” laws, but this isn’t the case. This argument is degrading and presumes that women who decide to have an abortion are incapable of realizing the magnitude of that decision without first seeing an ultrasound confirming the fact that they will be terminating a potential life.Moreover, the bill has unabashedly harmful provisions to women’s rights (not to mention simply disturbing), such as the stipulation that the doctor performing the procedure is required to ask the woman if she wants to watch the ultrasound and then note whether she does or not. Whether a woman chooses to look or not will then go on her permanent medical record.No matter what the bill’s proponents say about “informed consent,” it certainly seems the true motivations are to shame and punish women for deciding to have an abortion. Furthermore, something integral is missing from this equation: women’s consent to have the literally invasive procedure in the first place. Virginia Delegate David Englin proposed an amendment to the bill that would require women to give written consent in order to have the procedure done, but it failed by a 64-34 vote.There is something seriously wrong here.Not only is this bill regressive and harmful to women, it’s also glaringly hypocritical. Last week, conservative politicians raised pandemonium about Obama’s universal birth control coverage policy, crying government interference in the institutional and individual rights to freedom of conscience. Why is it, then, that none of the same politicians have said a word about unabashed government interference into individual liberties in Virginia? Unlike Obama’s policy, this is about more than coercive payment. It forces doctors to provide and women to endure an unnecessary medical procedure and a subsequent arbitrary “waiting period” before gaining permission to have an abortion. If the Virginia legislature were really so concerned with informed consent, it would pass laws requiring all doctors to tell women about their lawful rights to have an abortion and obtain contraception. — ccleahy@indiana.edu
(02/16/12 10:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Is it possible to promote abstinence-only education, which research shows contributes significantly to increasing teen pregnancy rates, and be anti-abortion?As the bizarre Bristol-Palin-got-knocked-up mishap in 2008 strikingly demonstrated, holding these seemingly contradictory beliefs is not only possible, but is in fact widespread among conservative politicians. This combination even holds strong in the face of teen pregnancies galore — almost 1 million per year in the United States, the highest rate of any industrialized nation. As a direct result of abstinence-only education, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are all staunchly pro-abstinence-only education and anti-choice.So what’s the problem here?Let’s start with the basics. Research has proven abstinence-only education is not only ineffective but detrimental because it puts teens who decide to become sexually active at a much higher risk of becoming pregnant and contracting STIs. And according to the National Abortion Federation, four out of five Americans have sexual intercourse before age 20, so the “wait until marriage” camp is the stark minority. It is important to note that abstinence-only education is not “sex education,” but rather a promotion of one subjective view of “morality.” In my middle school’s abstinence-only program, the teacher showed us a glass of water that had an Oreo soaking in it for about an hour next to a nice, clear glass of water and asked us which one we would rather give to our future spouse. How lovely, to be compared to a glass of soggy-Oreo water.Sex is portrayed as dangerous and dirty. Our teacher told us that even if you had a condom that covered your entire body, you could still get your partner pregnant and/or get an STI. Just don’t have sex. It’s that simple. Really.Nearly 20 percent of abortions in the U.S. are for women between the ages of 15 and 19. It’s obvious that in the U.S., because of cultural norms and governmental policy, young people have the most difficulty accessing contraception and other reproductive healthcare. Abstinence-only education only aggravates this crisis and contributes to a higher abortion rate.The mentality of current conservative politicians regarding sex, education and reproductive rights completely denies people — women especially — any power in their own sexual and reproductive decisions. Subjective views of “morality” and politics should have no place in dictating what people can and can’t do with their bodies. Only individuals should make those decisions. Sex education needs to be comprehensive. This means presenting abstinence as a legitimate and viable option but still explaining all types of contraception and STI-prevention, along with their relative efficacy. Moreover, a young woman should not be condemned for choosing to carry a pregnancy to term — and labeled a teen mom — instead of choosing not to do so. This is especially true when that woman was never given access to resources to learn about birth control in the first place. — ccleahy@indiana.edu
(02/09/12 11:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Susan G. Komen for the Cure, with its ubiquitous pink ribbons, is the most well-known breast cancer charity in the United States, but its recent disastrous PR flop has caused it to fall on hard times. The Komen foundation’s decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood — and its almost immediate reversal of that decision — perfectly illustrates the positively horrific muddle that results when nonprofits mix with politics.It’s not like this lethal combination is a new thing. Komen has been experiencing pressure from pro-life groups since it began its partnership with Planned Parenthood in 2005. For example, the group LifeWay Christian Resources, which sold pink Bibles to benefit the Komen foundation, took the Bibles off the shelves as soon as it discovered the foundation’s partnership with Planned Parenthood. This pressure came despite the fact that the funding Komen provides for Planned Parenthood is used exclusively for breast cancer screenings and education, supplying preventative care for countless underserved women every year.Given this precedent, the Komen foundation should have known better than to deny further funding to Planned Parenthood and then overturn that very decision days later. Either way, Komen couldn’t win — both the initial decision and its repeal led to immense fluctuations in donations from groups for and against each decision.Frankly, I don’t think it should matter, in this case, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice — the fact of the matter is, Komen has a noble goal that is worthy of support, regardless of one’s political persuasion. However, when an organization that relies heavily on private donations acts in a way that puts its own integrity at risk, it can’t expect donors — and former donors — to do much better. In making such politically charged decisions, whether they were actually politically motivated, Komen in a sense legitimized the politically motivated and misdirected reasoning of its supporters and adversaries.This controversy has also brought to the fore the essentiality of investigating where an organization’s money goes before one takes the step of donating. However, much of the questioning that has been directed toward Komen in recent weeks isn’t centered around whether Komen’s money is providing tangible results that are conductive to the cause of preventing and curing breast cancer.Rather, the questioning has been whether Komen’s leaders are for or against abortion. Questions such as this are not only irrelevant but detrimental to the foundation’s mission. Komen has clearly learned this the hard way.— ccleahy@indiana.edu
(02/03/12 3:45am)
We need oil: It is the foundation of our current economy, and we simply can’t deny that vital need. But we also can’t deny our responsibility to future generations, the Earth and, by default, our own long-term interests.