57 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/30/14 8:12pm)
The Obama administration issued aggressive guidelines to combat sexual assault on college campuses.
Meanwhile, reform of the way the military handles sexual assault among its own ranks continues to languish in Congress.
The measures include confidentiality for reporters of sexual assault, anonymous student surveys on sexual assault and other anti-assault measures universities have found successful.
They come mostly from a report on sexual assault issued by a task force formed by the administration earlier this year.
The administration also established Notalone.gov, a new government website tracking enforcement and offering information to victims of sexual assault.
These are important actions for the safety of college campuses nationwide. To many, they seem like common sense ideas, but sometimes common sense ideas are the easiest to overlook.
Sexual assaults in the military, however, remain unaddressed by this administration.
A bill seeking to expand options for individuals who are sexually assaulted in the military passed the Senate unanimously in March.
That bill has failed to move in the House of Representatives. The bill’s ability to unite the entire Senate is an indicator of its minor scope.
Though it offers victims new options and strengthens the rules of evidence in sexual assault proceedings, it leaves the military justice system intact.
Cases of military sexual assault will still be tried in military tribunals, not civilian courts.
If the commander-in-chief can unilaterally issue new, more effective guidelines for U.S. universities, surely he can do so for the U.S. military.
Sexual assault on a campus is no more or less heinous than sexual assault on a military base.
Sexual assault on university campuses is endemic in this country. According to the White House task force, one in five women in college will be a victim of sexual assault.
Statistics on sexual assault in the military are unreliable in that they represent a culture unfriendly to reporting.
In a 12-month period beginning in June 2012, members of the U.S. Armed Forces were 15 times more likely to be sexually assaulted — and report it — than to be killed by an enemy.
The expansion of the options to victims is a start, but these cases need to be taken out of the military justice system.
The U.S. military needs to be reminded that it serves at the will of the people and within the scope of their discipline, not beyond it.
Clearly, the U.S. military needs reform just as desperately as U.S. colleges.
When we applaud the members of our armed forces for their sacrifices on our behalf, it should be for their willingness to fight for our country, not their assumption of the risk of sexual assault.
drlreed@indiana.edu
@D_L_Reed
(04/23/14 4:00am)
The Supreme Court continues to make a farce of liberal democracy in this country. On Tuesday, this country’s highest legal authority affirmed an attempt by Michigan voters to ban affirmative action in their state. This might sound like a contradiction. After all, we often call something democratic if the people themselves have chosen it, but I promise you, it’s not. We often place limits on what the people of a democracy can democratically do.President Lyndon Johnson, advocating for affirmative action in 1965, argued that a man hobbled in chains for years and years cannot merely be set free and fairly compete in a foot race. For years and years, that man has been unable to prepare himself, held by chains in a limited range of motion. He cannot possibly compete on a level field with those who have been more fortunate. Those who oppose affirmative action claim it goes beyond its mandate, that it creates undue advantages for those it applies to and results in inefficiency. They argue that all minority groups deserve is a level-playing field, not a level range of outcomes.These people fail to realize that the playing field of the present is the product of the playing field of the past. Past inequalities do not disappear when individuals have and raise children — often they are perpetuated, sometimes even magnified. In the absence of intervention, equality of opportunity in the present is influenced, if not dependent upon, equality of outcome in the past. All this is to say, you cannot randomly select two children in this country and assume they were both offered equal opportunities. Too many factors dependent on outcomes in the past — like socioeconomic status, access to high-quality education, health care and nutrition, stability — serve to throw the playing field out of proportion. Inequality of outcomes is an important component of economic efficiency, and I am not arguing for its elimination. Rather, I would seek to create interventions that help equalize opportunity for the generation that follows.Affirmative action is clearly not a perfect program, and I don’t mean to defend it on its own merits. But clearly something needs to be done.Affirmative action is doing something, even if it could do more. The solution is not the elimination of a problematic program that is trying to level the playing field, but rather creating a program empowered to make the playing field tomorrow more level. Allowing a simple majority of voters in Michigan to eliminate that process and throw the odds once again in their favor is majority rule, not democracy.drlreed@indiana.edu@D_L_Reed
(04/22/14 4:00am)
The National Rifle Association will soon be host to a convention in Indianapolis. The event will be the biggest meeting organized by the city in 2014, according to representatives of Visit Indy. You wouldn’t know it though, judging by how quiet the city has been in the lead-up to an event that, despite controversy, will nevertheless funnel a whole slew of cash into various pockets.When the NRA comes to town later this month, they’ll bring with them thousands of people who will argue the only way to truly combat gun crime is to increase the amount of guns on the street. Students for Concealed Carry just organized an empty holster protest on this campus, arguing they were being put in danger by laws forcing them to remain unarmed on campus. There’s little empirical evidence to support this argument, but it does seem appealing on its face. After all, if the average person were considering shooting someone, they would be much more likely to do it if they knew that person didn’t have a gun as well.The problem is the people who contemplate shootings aren’t the average person.The way I see it, there are two — and only two — mechanisms by which an increase in guns on the streets could possibly reduce gun crime. The first is deterrence. Deterrence makes sense to you and I because we behave rationally. We’re concerned with our own well-being. The problem with deterrence is that when you’re not behaving rationally, it fails. Clearly individuals like Adam Lanza or James Holmes were not behaving rationally when they embarked on their respective killing sprees. It isn’t likely that they or those like them would have been deterred by the idea that someone they were about to kill might have killed them.The second mechanism is the killing or disabling of an active shooter by an armed individual in the area. When the gun lobby advances this argument they suddenly turn the entire population of the United States into military commandos capable and willing to take out an active shooter at the drop of the hat. This expectation isn’t just theoretically unreasonable, it’s factually false.Stories of active shooters disabled or killed by civilians don’t make the news because they are virtually non-existent. What’s more, if people were armed and attempted to disable a shooter, they’d likely end up hurting more people. There’s a reason professionals who wield firearms are highly trained to do so. The average citizen can’t just pick up a handgun and effectively stop someone on a rampage.Most of us live in overwhelmingly safe environments. Telling people otherwise — that their lives are constantly in danger — is not only wrong, it’s irresponsible. Obviously the NRA has a right to exist and plan a conference in our capitol, but that doesn’t make their arguments correct. drlreed@indiana.edu@D_L_Reed
(04/22/14 4:00am)
The National Rifle Association will soon be host to a convention in Indianapolis. The event will be the biggest meeting organized by the city in 2014, according to representatives of Visit Indy. You wouldn’t know it though, judging by how quiet the city has been in the lead-up to an event that, despite controversy, will nevertheless funnel a whole slew of cash into various pockets.When the NRA comes to town later this month, they’ll bring with them thousands of people who will argue the only way to truly combat gun crime is to increase the amount of guns on the street. Students for Concealed Carry just organized an empty holster protest on this campus, arguing they were being put in danger by laws forcing them to remain unarmed on campus.There’s little empirical evidence to support this argument, but it does seem appealing on its face. After all, if the average person were considering shooting someone, they would be much more likely to do it if they knew that person didn’t have a gun as well.The problem is the people who contemplate shootings aren’t the average person.The way I see it, there are two — and only two — mechanisms by which an increase in guns on the streets could possibly reduce gun crime. The first is deterrence. Deterrence makes sense to you and I because we behave rationally. We’re concerned with our own well-being. The problem with deterrence is that when you’re not behaving rationally, it fails. Clearly individuals like Adam Lanza or James Holmes were not behaving rationally when they embarked on their respective killing sprees. It isn’t likely that they or those like them would have been deterred by the idea that someone they were about to kill might have killed them.The second mechanism is the killing or disabling of an active shooter by an armed individual in the area. When the gun lobby advances this argument they suddenly turn the entire population of the United States into military commandos capable and willing to take out an active shooter at the drop of the hat. This expectation isn’t just theoretically unreasonable, it’s factually false.Stories of active shooters disabled or killed by civilians don’t make the news because they are virtually non-existent. What’s more, if people were armed and attempted to disable a shooter, they’d likely end up hurting more people.There’s a reason professionals who wield firearms are highly trained to do so. The average citizen can’t just pick up a handgun and effectively stop someone on a rampage.Most of us live in overwhelmingly safe environments. Telling people otherwise — that their lives are constantly in danger — is not only wrong, it’s irresponsible. Obviously the NRA has a right to exist and plan a conference in our capitol, but that doesn’t make their arguments correct. drlreed@indiana.edu@D_L_Reed
(04/16/14 4:00am)
I went to a high school with a pretty high number of skinheads.The bathroom stalls had swastikas etched into the paint. Use of racial slurs was rampant. Confederate flags were worn as fashion accessories. Being called a Jew was a kind of insult.Kids are idiots, but sometimes idiot kids grow up and become idiot adults.On Sunday, 73-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller was arrested on suspicion of shooting and killing three people in Kansas. Though none of them were Jewish, they were shot outside of two Jewish community facilities in the town of Overland Park. From the backseat of a police car Sunday, Miller shouted “Heil Hitler.”Probably, Miller shouted that phrase Sunday afternoon because he knew there were journalists in the area who would pick up on it. We have a tendency to disregard such statements, especially when connected to such violence, as the ravings of a madman.Miller’s vitriol can clearly be dismissed as such, but we should also take an opportunity to recognize that they’re not isolated incidents.Rhetoric like “foreigners taking American jobs” and screaming that your president is a socialist or the anti-Christ isn’t all that far removed.Us-versus-them implies a zero-sum game. It makes the veiled case that what someone else gains, I must necessarily lose.It’s what allows kids from my high school to insult each other by placing on them a label that was historically a scapegoat for every possible ill. It’s what allows Miller to spew his hate. It’s what rationalizes groups like our Traditionalist Youth Network, founded in part by IU student Thomas Buhls.There is no “them.” For others to do well, to succeed, doesn’t require that you have less.Hate is not born, but it can be engendered in youth. Students scratching racist symbols on bathroom walls might seem silly, even pointless. It is. But it can also grow into something more insidious. When people like Miller and Buhls are still defended, supported and rationalized, they produce their own replacements.drlreed@indiana.edu
(12/11/16 8:43pm)
Indiana law requires approval at the state level for any voter referendum in the counties that comprise Indianapolis regarding transit programs.If the city and the six counties that make it up want to raise their own taxes to fund their own transportation infrastructure, they have to get state approval first. What seems like a parliamentary rubber stamp has serious real-world effects on the transportation options available to residents of our capital city. At the end of March, Gov. Mike Pence quietly signed a bill that gave the six counties of Indianapolis the right to hold a referendum about a new transportation package. “Our capital city is a world-class destination and needs a world-class transit system,” Pence said as he signed a bill his legislature had gutted of any potential to actually deliver on that world-class transit system. The original bill proposed a corporate tax to cover about a tenth of the cost of a system that would include light rail extensively connecting the entire city to its suburbs. This kind of infrastructure will be fundamental to the growth of a city of almost 1.5 million people during the coming decades. Unfortunately, it’s also precisely the kind of infrastructure the city will lack. The state legislature removed the corporate tax from the bill and added a complete ban on light rail before allowing it to go to referendum. The new plan will have to rely on bus rapid transit, a system which creates dedicated right-of-way lanes for specific types of buses in cities, in place of rail. Bus rapid transit is certainly cheaper, but also has severe effects for livability like widening already-existing, heavily-traveled roads. The first phase of the plan will span ten years and focus on creating transportation ties between Marion and Hamilton counties — the core of the city and the county with its most affluent suburbs. This effectively means the other four counties will pay increased taxes for 10 years to create better travel options for some of the state’s, and the country’s, richest individuals.It’s clear to me that the plan as it stands is flawed, and these flaws largely extend from control of the agenda and referendum rights by the state as opposed to the city. The federal government also tends to distribute funds for transportation to states as opposed to counties, localities or municipalities. State governments are notoriously hostile to transportation spending, even when individuals in the areas it would serve want and often desperately need it. Incentives for states are different than those faced by municipal governments. Those alternative incentive structures are important in many decisions. This isn’t one of them.Creating world-class destination cities doesn’t mean token transportation initiatives designed to limit the burden on businesses and make the commute for the rich marginally more comfortable. It means real, actionable, useful transportation initiatives that don’t confine the city to the trajectory of its history for future development.dlreed@indiana.edu@D_L_Reed
(04/07/14 4:00am)
The US Supreme Court continues to replace the maxim “one man, one vote” with “one man, one wallet.”Last week, in a 5-4 decision, our highest court removed another barrier to campaign spending by eliminating the aggregate limit on campaign contributions. In order to understand what that means, we need a crash course in campaign finance. In 1974, Congress placed significant limits on how much individuals, PACs and political parties could contribute to campaigns. In 1976, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, Buckley v. Valeo, that split campaign spending into two camps. According to the ruling, political contributions are funds given to a particular candidate, while expenditures are funds spent in an election but not on behalf of a particular candidate — political party or PAC spending, for instance. Under that decision, contributions could be regulated out of an interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, but expenditures were a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. As a result, the court upheld the limits on contributions and aggregate spending but removed the limit on independent expenditures. Before last week you could donate $2,600 to individual federal candidates — up to an aggregate limit of $48,600 — and $5,000 to any committee — up to an aggregate limit of $74,600. Those aggregate limits are no more. Now the average American finally has something to do with that extra $100,000 sitting in the bank. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that the government’s interest in preventing corruption or its appearance was absent in these aggregate limits by presenting a definition of corruption so absurdly narrow it might as well not exist at all.“Government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford,” wrote Roberts. Under his definition, the literal purchase of political influence is not corruption, but “a central feature of democracy.”Only in America could a provision specifically designed to limit the influence of an elite few be called undemocratic. The expansion of influence for an already-enfranchised elite cannot be a central feature of a system predicated on equality before government.Theorists have attempted to define democracy for hundreds of years. Some call it the rule of the majority, some political equality. Alexis de Tocqueville, describing the nascent United States, called it the equality of conditions — an holistic, egalitarian state-of-being that expanded beyond just the political sphere into the social and cultural realm as well. Roberts’ “central feature of democracy” is clearly abhorrent to all these definitions. It is obviously not the rule of the majority, directly in conflict with the creation of political equality, and clearly even further from some pervasive equality of condition.I can think of only one idea of democracy consistent with Roberts’. Joseph Schumpeter argued in 1942 that democracy means you and I have virtually no influence on our democratic politics, that our opinions are essentially determined for us by an elite who compete amongst themselves for our support. If that idea doesn’t bother you, perhaps Roberts’ argument isn’t so bad after all.dlreed@indiana.edu
(12/11/16 8:43pm)
The IU Student Association Congress voted Sunday night to amend the election code to include two reforms I recently suggested in a March 12 Indiana Daily Student column and another reform I strongly support. The Election Commission will now be housed under the judicial branch of IUSA as opposed to the executive branch, a change that should hopefully decrease conflicts of interest in information dissemination for IUSA campaigns. Dates for elections will now be announced as much as 11 months in advance, removing a significant barrier to tickets from outside the current administration. Previously, election dates were announced during the spring semester, meaning opposition tickets had a few months to prepare while the incumbent ticket had as much as 12. Campaign staffers can also no longer work at polling stations. In the past, these staff members have advocated for their particular tickets at the polling station, effectively turning a secret ballot into an open one. Instead, these will be staffed by election commission staff, and campaign members will have to stay at least 300 feet away. I’m thrilled these reforms have been enacted. They’ve restored a bit of the confidence in my student government that I have lost over the last four years.PLUS for IUSA has made it clear that they support these reforms as well and that they want to take a sincere look at how student government represents students. A portion of their platform is an open committee application process, another reform I have suggested and an important part of a robust level of student participation in future administrative decisions.Their feedback forum and mobile safety technology for campus are well-planned and executable strategies. Increased recycling and a longer drop/add period, while more ambitious, would be valuable additions to campus. As a Counseling and Psychological Services user myself, I know the significant effect increased access to such a valuable resource could have. I’ve written quite a few columns lamenting administrations that were elected unopposed, and I oppose uncontested elections for student government purely on principle. When a ticket doesn’t have to compete against anyone else for power and knows it, there’s a much smaller incentive for it to get it right.In any case, PLUS for IUSA seems to have done just that in spite of a lack of competition. Their platform is strong, their ticket is diverse and their energy is high. They have my vote and my support for the coming year.dlreed@indiana.edu
(03/26/14 4:00am)
Former President of the United States Jimmy Carter is just as concerned about the NSA’s spying practices as you are. Earlier this week he told the Associated Press that he now handwrites his correspondence because “there are some things I just don’t want anybody to know.” Far from the senile paranoia of an aging man, Carter’s choice represents a real concern for Americans today. And among politicians, Carter’s candor is refreshing.Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are tied as the oldest currently-living presidents of the United States — both turn 90 this year — and while the first President Bush has gone into a relatively quiet retirement, President Carter is still kicking.The hardest part of watching a presidential inauguration for me is always knowing that somewhere in those bleachers behind all the pomp and circumstance is a man who has peaked. For Carter, a one-term president who only received 49 electoral votes in his re-election campaign and was handily defeated by Ronald Reagan, a demi-god of the American right, it must have been all the worse. And, for better or worse, Carter regularly chimes in on American affairs in ways few former presidents do, perhaps because, unlike Bill Clinton or other former presidents, he no longer has skin in the game. Because of this, I’m much more inclined to listen to what he says than any other former president. Carter, whose post-White House legacy has largely been focused on human rights, has negotiated on behalf of the United States with multiple foreign leaders, including those of North Korea and Syria. Like anybody, he has his share of unpopular thoughts. During the scandal last summer over racist comments made by Paula Deen, Carter appeared on CNN defending Deen’s humanitarian work in poverty-stricken southern Georgia, although he also condemned her use of language.Carter regularly publishes videos on Big Think, a website that aggregates expert opinions on world issues. In his videos, Carter has the luxury of being more honest than any other contemporary politician. His videos include admissions few others could make and stay in office, including China’s geopolitical position in relation to the United States, the reliance of our culture on consumption and the belligerent tendencies of American hegemony. He gives the American people honest, real talk about what’s going on in the world. In a world of spin, he is a refreshing voice precisely because he is now on the outside looking in. Parodoxically, it’s only once you’re out of the game for good that you can actually start playing the game for the good of the people.dlreed@indiana.edu
(03/13/14 4:00am)
The field is wide open for PLUS for IUSA, the only ticket still running for the executive office of the IU Student Association.There are those who argue the de facto inheritance of IUSA administrations represents a strong knowledge of the system and a willingness to serve the student body on the part of the executive ticket. But when the student body is given no alternative, that argument rings hollow.Others say the fact no other tickets choose to form to contend for the office means those we have must be doing a good job. If no one wants to stand against them, they must deserve the office.That argument would be more understandable, even convincing, if these tickets weren’t the architects and beneficiaries of the process governing their own selection.We all admit knowledge of processes and contacts within the system is one of the key elements for success. It’s why consulting is a profession. It’s why most of us have LinkedIn accounts.When you have the information on the inside, and you know the people who control the channels of that information, it’s much easier to get what you want. A ticket formed from within the current administration is obviously privy to all the information one could want about how to form an effective ticket long before that information is available to the public.This isn’t some abstract idea either, it produces real problems. UNIFY IU, the ticket that originally opposed PLUS, dropped out largely because it felt it had no chance against PLUS — a ticket that had the resources and knowledge to begin planning for this election a year ago.This isn’t necessarily a reason to reject the hand-picked successors of our current administration every year, but it certainly isn’t a reason to elect them. Whether you’re a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior, your executive student government has essentially been in the hands of the same group of people throughout the entire time you’ve attended this University. The office of student body president went to Michael Coleman in 2010, then Justin Kingsolver in 2011 and Kyle Straub in 2012, finally passing to Jose Mitjavila in 2013. Should PLUS for IUSA succeed in its campaign, it will be the fifth consecutive administration formed largely from the ranks of its predecessors.Election reform is necessary to level the playing field. First, the Graduate and Professional Student Association, the representative body for graduate students, requires candidates running unopposed for its executive council to gain a significant portion of support from the student population before being declared the winner. A similar policy is necessary for IUSA. Second, the current voting structure, where students vote electronically — many of them at open-air voting stations around campus staffed by volunteers from the competing tickets — amounts to an open ballot. IUSA should take steps to reform this process and ensure a true, secret ballot for its constituents.Finally, the current system of overseeing elections provides too many systematic advantages to members of the incumbent administration. The election commission should be entirely separated from the executive administration and placed directly under the control of the IU Supreme Court. IUSC justices, although appointed by the president of IUSA, serve terms three times as long. The court is comprised of 11 individuals as opposed to one. They would hopefully be more equitable in distributing information about elections and implementing other reforms.PLUS for IUSA has a duty to incorporate all of these reforms into its platform because it will better serve the student body. If PLUS for IUSA really is the best choice for students, it should have nothing to fear from a more open, equitable and competitive election process.drlreed@indiana.edu@D_L_Reed
(03/12/14 4:00am)
The intelligence community is gobbling up everything these days, and it’s doing it effectively without any oversight.Tuesday morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the CIA of illegally searching a Senate computer system. While the committee, which is charged with overseeing the intelligence community of the executive branch, was investigating the controversial interrogation tactics of the CIA, a special facility was set up in Virginia for staffers to look over agency documents. One day, staffers got their hands on a document they shouldn’t have seen. They shouldn’t have seen it because it was an internal document that was more critical than the CIA was willing to admit publicly, and it was covered by executive privilege. After the CIA realized the document had been viewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, it conducted a secret audit of a Senate computer system to determine how it happened. Feinstein claims this search represents a violation of the separation of powers, but she has it backward. This issue isn’t a violation of that separation — it’s a symptom of separation gone too far. The CIA argues it was authorized to conduct its audit because the document in question was covered by executive privilege, and the Senate had no right to know of its existence, let alone read it. That’s a problem. If the Senate committee is charged with overseeing the CIA and other intelligence organizations, those organizations shouldn’t be cherry-picking what their overseer gets to see.Far from a safeguard against tyrannical government, the separation of powers has slowly mutated into an excuse for overreach. The Senate can’t adequately oversee the intelligence community because the intelligence community exists significantly outside its sphere of power. We’re taught that this system protects us from the overreach of government, that our many branches balance each other by their very nature. What we’ve ended up with, though, is far from balanced. Today we have the very overreach we claim we’re so effectively safeguarded against.Separation of powers is why John Brennan, the director of the CIA, can claim the audit was perfectly legal. Even more scandalously, it’s why James Clapper, the director of the NSA, can lie about his organization’s illegal activities in multiple sessions before Congress and keep his job. The White House has defended Clapper, saying Barack Obama has “full faith in Director Clapper’s leadership of the intelligence community.” Any effective oversight committee would have chucked Clapper out of Washington already. The fact that Congress can’t isn’t a reason to venerate our system of government. It’s a reason to criticize it.drlreed@indiana.edu
(03/05/14 5:00am)
I’ve never seen so many ostensibly straight men obsess about another man’s penis.Michael Sam is making serious headlines. Last week the man who will likely become the first openly gay player in the NFL made waves when some people looked at photos of him at the NFL combine and decided he had an erection.According to one headline, “Well He Was Working Out At The COMBINE With Other MEN.” This, apparently, served to explain it all. It makes complete sense — how could any gay man possibly keep it down surrounded by the collective burning hunk of man flesh that is an NFL locker room?Spare me.As if that wasn’t bad enough, two days later Sam’s penis once again became the topic of conversation when pictures of flaccid junk were attributed to his particular trunk. Images of a muscular man taking a picture of his dick with an iPad were “leaked” to various gossip sites along with the assertion that they had been posted by an account with a picture of Sam’s face. Before long, speculation was rampant.News organizations from every level of relevance and credibility were weighing in on whether or not this particular penis belonged to this particular gay almost-NFL player. They weren’t, for the most part, concerned with the skill the man does or does not bring to the table. That was swept aside by the present turgidity of his schlong, a concrete point on which the abstract squeamishness surrounding Sam’s open homosexuality could focus.Because there’s a GAY working out at the COMBINE with other MEN. That’s obviously an issue, right? This isn’t a new problem — in fact, it’s safe to say it’s a tired one. For decades we’ve been realizing that it’s possible to find competence in people of all races, sexes, creeds and, yes, even sexual orientations. Sam’s existence, his simultaneous capacity to be a high-quality football player and a homosexual man, isn’t a paradox — it’s a statistical inevitability. Most experts agree 10 percent is a reasonable assumption for the proportion of gay men in the United States. In an organization of more than 1,500 players, we might expect 150 of them to be gay men. Even if players in the NFL were 1/100 as likely to be gay as the rest of the population — which seems extremely unlikely — at least one or two of them are still in the closet.It isn’t necessary to be straight to be a good football player, and we don’t pop boners at every glimpse of men in spandex — especially not when that man is trying to knock you down.Stop obsessing over what’s in Sam’s pants and start paying attention to what he does on the field.drlreed@indiana.edu
(02/25/14 5:00am)
Provost Lauren Robel and her team have impressed me.I have spent almost four years on this campus advocating for a stronger student presence in its governance, but even I can admit that a strong, robust administration is necessary to the creation of things like the Campus Strategic Plan draft that came out of her office.The plan focuses on areas like multidisciplinary programs; “high-impact” practices like internships, research and study abroad; student accessibility in a large and growing University and diversity. The plan uses three main mechanisms to achieve these aims, sometimes alone and sometimes in combination. IU will use technology, establish new University institutions like an Arts and Humanities Council, and leverage programs that already lead their field to position itself for its third century. Obviously, I can’t summarize the entire report here. You should read it — it’s a short 21 pages and the language and structure is straight-forward, accessible and engaging.It’s necessarily vague on many points, but if it wasn’t it would be 600 pages and no one — except, possibly, me — would read it. If you’re seeking specificity or more concrete methods, I would encourage you to read some of the reports from the teams that contributed the report.Of particular interest are the reports on undergraduate education and diversity, which are both equally accessible, innovative and interesting. At times it might read like a rosy wish list of everything we could have in a world without student loans or ill-disposed legislators, but this, too, should be understood as a strength rather than a weakness. We need something to strive for and to focus our energy on. Obviously, not everything in this plan will realistically become fact and we might find some of our goals have to be scaled back. But that shouldn’t be a reason to scale back our ambitions.Put the goal on the table. If it’s a good one, we’ll work for it. Even if we don’t succeed, we’ll likely get something valuable out of the attempt.In all, I was pleasantly surprised to put down the Robel’s new Campus Strategic Plan on Friday and realize I had no major issues with what she and her team proposed to do. The plan represents an ambitious, comprehensive, forward-looking and exciting opportunity for the University.As I prepare to leave IU, I find myself beginning to think about my relationship with the University going forward. One of the implicit goals of the undergraduate education team’s report is the creation of “indelible connections between undergraduate students and the campus.” Reading these reports, I found myself almost jealous of the IU students of 2020 and beyond, seeing for them an even more transformative and intense experience than the one I have had. The successful implementation of this report will create for them an exciting, innovative and well-positioned University.That connection feels pretty indelible to me.— drlreed@indiana.eduFollow columnist Drake Reed on Twitter @D_L_Reed
(02/19/14 5:00am)
I’m enough of a realist to acknowledge this University is not and never will be small enough to allow each of us the opportunity to express our own input in front of the Board of Trustees or members of the administration.That’s why initiatives like this year’s “Your View. Your IU.” Student Experience at the Research University survey are so important.The email invitation to take this year’s survey went to all IU Bloomington undergraduates. The survey is used at large research universities around the country and is designed to allow them to compare themselves to each other.The SERU survey is one of two large-scale national student experience survey efforts used by IU’s Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education and the only one administered to all students at the University simultaneously.In the past, surveys like this have influenced areas of University decision-making from student orientation and First Year Experience programs, to advising services and even new faculty workshop orientations.For multiple semesters this page of the Indiana Daily Student has had no shortage of columns lamenting a lack of student input in University administration. We usually lay the fault for that conspicuous absence at the feet of administrators like Provost Lauren Robel or student government figures like IU Student Association President Jose Mitjavila or his predecessors. Pieces with my picture appearing alongside have not been least among them.Student participation in committees at this University is more of an afterthought — even potentially a façade — than a priority. Your student government is more concerned with developing a casual dining option in the IMU and taking credit for the enacted policies of tickets they ran against than actually placing student advocates in these positions and ensuring they are empowered in a timely manner.Unfortunately, as much as IUSA may be ineffective and unresponsive or the administration and Board of Trustees structurally indisposed to student issues, they don’t, between them, exhaust the shares of blame.No, there’s another culprit — you and I. Apathy among the student population is certainly among the principle reasons we have the problems we do.Now you have a chance to participate meaningfully and, most importantly, easily in the process that governs this University. This isn’t voting for a student government that proceeds to ignore you for the next year or taking a seat on a committee that is intimidating and confusing. It’s barely even a time commitment. I took it during lunch.This is a direct line to the top, straight from your computer screen to the desks of the real movers and shakers at this University — and if you still need a little convincing, you might even win prizes like an Amazon gift card.So pull up your computer, find your link to the Student Experience at the Research University survey and take it. Maybe it’s not the loudest, most effective way to make our individual voices heard — I never said it was perfect — but at least it’s something.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(02/13/14 5:00am)
Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, R-Ohio, has his doubts. He doubts the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act. He doubts his ability to get re-elected without looking like he just got back from Florida.Most of all, he doubts the willingness of the Obama administration to dutifully enforce laws passed by his chamber. So, in response, he has vowed to simply stop passing them. Boehner declared last week that the House likely won’t be sending immigration reform to the president’s desk until that changes. We can debate various readings of the president’s constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the law back and forth along a spectrum of strong to weak executive power. Boehner seems to believe in an executive that follows Congressional instructions to the letter. He and those like him would have you believe they are fighting a valiant, selfless, ideological battle against the unconstitutional expansion of executive power by a dangerous man. Never mind that this expansion of executive power has been taking place for decades or more — arguably as early as President Harry S. Truman — across various realms of public policy. Apparently it’s just now that Congress, as fallaciously represented by the GOP, is realizing this might not be in their best interest. Never mind the controversial executive orders of President George W. Bush, including everything from wire-tapping to stem cell research to broad legal protection for United States oil companies operating in Iraq.Boehner stands in front of cameras and tells you he just doesn’t know what to expect from the president. He implies that he would rather see nothing get done on immigration than risk leaving even small details up to the president’s apparently wild and unpredictable agenda.This should sound familiar because it’s exactly the kind of strategy this party has been spewing since the day Obama was sworn into office. Obstructionism, non-cooperation and denial of bipartisanship has been the playbook of the Republican party from day one.In the 2012 book “The New New Deal” former Republican Senator George Voinovich told author Michael Grunwald, “If (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it.” For five years, the Republican strategy has essentially been No-bama.That’s no way to govern a country. Boehner and the Republican party are not the holy anointed stewards of all that is truly American and right. If their chamber is able to pass a bill and the president doesn’t want to enforce the way they wrote it or chooses to veto, it’s likely because he doesn’t agree with it. What Boehner doesn’t seem to understand is that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. There’s a reason Boehner’s party doesn’t control all of Congress and the White House — it’s because a significant part of this country still doesn’t agree that they are right. So instead of simply refusing to function within a political system that’s specifically designed to give him and his party less than 100 percent of what they want, it’s time for the GOP to buck up and give the American people what they need — real immigration reform that is palatable, even if not perfect, for all stakeholders involved.That means not only a bill that can pass Congress, but also a bill that the executive branch is enthusiastic to sign and execute.— drlreed@indiana.edu Follow columnist Drake Reed on Twitter @D_L_Reed.
(02/12/14 5:00am)
I landed in Moscow on a ridiculously cold October morning. I was there — among other reasons — to develop an understanding of the Russian perspective of the country’s new gay propaganda law.As a gay American, I had my work cut out for me.With the Sochi Olympics upon us, it’s time to look back on a few of the things I learned.As Americans, we have a tendency to say a decision is universally wrong if we wouldn’t choose it ourselves. We’re not always right about that.Horrible things do happen to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals in Russia, and their struggle is vital, relevant and deserving of our support. But this image of Russia as a backward, traditionalist society that we have cultivated in response to that reality is also problematic.My first night in the country, I went to meet some Russian students in their dorm. While they gave me a tour, I noticed one of them had a small rainbow flag hanging from her wardrobe door.After the tour finished, I asked her about it. She told me she was an activist, that she didn’t identify as lesbian herself but that she supported GLBTQ people.Then she surprised me even more. She told me she didn’t feel like the Russian law was that important, that she didn’t think it would make that much of a difference, that she thought there were a lot of bigger problems in Russia that needed to be dealt with.And she’s right. Russia has a huge problem with political corruption and cronyism — especially regarding recently-privatized state enterprises. Moscow’s automobile infrastructure is absurdly overstrained and media freedom is a farce. Russia’s population is actually falling. She seemed much more concerned about these problems, and I can see why. There’s a story about the double-headed eagle seen on Russia’s presidential flag. According to the story, the double-headed eagle was a symbol used by the Byzantine emperors. One of its heads kept watch over the eastern half of the empire, the other, the Western.When the Russian Czars began styling themselves as Byzantine emperors, they brought the double-headed eagle to Moscow.Russia is well-represented by this synthesis between East and West. Its relationship with the Europe and the rest of this half of the world is vital to its economic survival, but that same relationship has been a source of strain and tension throughout its history.For decades the Western world, with the United States at its head, looked at Russia and pointed the way down the path of neoliberalism to prosperity. For a while Russia dutifully followed. The results were mixed at best, and often the blame for those results was laid at our feet. A bit of a jaded attitude is understandable.While I was in Russia, I had a conversation with another student who told me he would never agree with me because I was an American. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise today when the Western world scolds Russia for its anti-gay legislation and the average Russian is less than sympathetic to this latest criticism.This doesn’t make them right, but it should remind us “basic human rights” as we conceive of them don’t automatically resonate universally across cultures. They are a Western concept best understood from a Western cultural perspective.— drlreed@indiana.eduFollow columnist Drake Reed on Twitter @D_L_Reed.
(02/05/14 5:00am)
We need to talk, Hoosiers, because we’re not taking care of each other. Even though it’s tempting, more legal responsibility for each other isn’t the answer.There’s a legal concept called duty of care that says we are required to be reasonably safe with respect to the people and property around us.In certain situations, you accept responsibility for the safety of another individual through your own actions — often without even knowing it.Rob and Charlene Spierer are claiming that’s exactly what Jason Rosenbaum and Corey Rossman did on the night of June 3, 2011, when their daughter Lauren Spierer disappeared. If they had a duty of care for Lauren, failed to execute it and that failure contributed to her disappearance, they could be held monetarily responsible.Randall Frykberg, director of Student Legal Services, said the Spierers tried to convince the court to expand the list of actions that create a duty of care. The Spierers want to include things such as attempting to help someone or intervening when someone else offers to.The judge chose not to expand it, although the case is still moving forward under an older Indiana law.As much as my thoughts are with the Spierers, and I respect their efforts to find a small amount of justice for their daughter, the judge made the right choice.The law tends to struggle when it tries to mandate desirable behavior.Establishing that kind of precedent would probably have a negative impact on our interest in the well-being of those around us.There’s already no shortage of apathy and aloofness on this campus.It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario in which large campus organizations, known for their partying culture, begin unofficially training their members on how to avoid assuming a legal obligation for someone else.It’s not that we would be less concerned about those around us. We would just be less likely to act in a way that might make us legally responsible for them.Arguably, that’s because legal obligations are enforceable where moral obligations often aren’t. Many would say that’s precisely why legal obligations are preferable.And in a perfect world, where fulfillment of a legal obligation is entirely objective, I would agree. Back in reality, legal obligations are sticky and subjective. Even if you did fulfil yours, you’ll have to spend a lot of time and money convincing a handful of fallible human beings.For that reason, you’ll probably think twice before taking on an obligation.Legal obligations should exist for when moral obligations fail, not to serve in their absence.The fact that Lauren Spierer walked home alone that night — that this culture is one in which something like that could happen, in which no one thought or chose to make sure she was accompanied or safe — infuriates me. It represents a void of moral character in this community. Unfortunately, that’s not a void that can be filled by legislation. It isn’t a culture that can be written into law, dictated by a court or enforced by the police.It has to start with each individual person. You have a duty of care for every person around you. You have a duty to keep them safe, to get them help if they need it and to take care of them physically, mentally and emotionally.You have that duty not because a judge tells you to or because you’ll get sued if you don’t fulfill it. You have that duty because you’re an adult and a decent human being.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(01/29/14 5:00am)
As a graduating senior, I’ve lived in this town for almost four years. As a 22-year-old lifelong Hoosier, I’m pretty familiar with the culture of the midwestern United States.I’ve developed a routine. The same lunch spots, the same parks for a lazy Saturday afternoon when the weather’s nice, the same beaten path between Ballantine and Wiley, the same bars, shows, bands and meals.There’s obviously comfort to waking up in the morning and knowing exactly what your day has in store for you. We’re told it’s one of the principle accomplishments of the 21st century that you can hop in the car, drive 1,000 miles west and still order the exact same burger at Applebee’s you would’ve gotten 500 feet from your own front door.I’m skeptical.I’m freshly back from a semester in Denmark, where everything was fresh and new to me and “routine” or “habit” was a swear word that meant you were inevitably missing out on something an amazing new country had to offer.I have been changed.That same lunch sandwich that used to be so familiar and reliable doesn’t cut it anymore. I have tasted variety. I have stepped into the wild unknown of Scandinavian edibles — where herring comes pickled on a slab of rye bread coated in lard, candy is some sort of heavily-salted black licorice and the most exciting part of Christmas is the special beer you can only get during the holidays.And it was all amazing. To this day I crave Julebryg.Everything here is so familiar, not just the food. It’s been both the nicest and hardest part of coming back to this country.I’m probably not going to turn the corner and find something new and exciting I’ve never thought of before. The people sitting around me in class probably had the same experience growing up that I did.I’m a graduating senior, and I have no idea what I’ll be doing on May 11th.Sure, I’ve got some things in the works. If all else fails, I might just throw a dart at a map, pack a bag and go.I have that flexibility. Not everyone is so lucky.This isn’t to disparage the Midwest, or even the idea of becoming familiar and comfortable with an area or having common experiences with those around you. Nor do I mean to hold up Denmark as a model for comparison.Lots of people — most people, I would guess — function best when they know tomorrow will be more or less the same as today. Maybe one day I’ll feel the same way. I just don’t think it will be any time soon.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(01/23/14 5:00am)
On Friday, 21-year-old IU student Drew Allen Mendez drove his car through the Sample Gates, causing as much as $25,000 in damage. He was drunk. And we’re lucky he didn’t kill anyone.The Indiana Lifeline Law is an important piece of legislation you should know about.Statistically, though, you’ll have a better chance of saving a life if you memorize the phone number for the local cab dispatch.We can’t get serious about tackling alcohol-related deaths in this state — and deaths that occur as a result of a drinking culture at our University — unless we also get serious about drunk driving.One obvious solution is to simply commit to not driving if you’ve had anything to drink at all. While that’s a perfect remedy, I’m too cynical to believe that kind of mindset will ever become commonplace. Just look how effective abstinence-only education has been.The real problem is most Hoosiers have five or more years of driving experience before they’re allowed to legally drink alcohol.Doing something every day for five years will make anyone feel invincible — more likely to take chances when the time comes. The legal limit is .08. But ask five different people what that feels like or how many drinks that is and you’ll get five different answers. We set that limit with the express purpose of determining a boundary between safe and unsafe levels for the operation of a vehicle.Police officers often go through a training program designed to familiarize themselves with the physical feeling of .08 by more or less getting drunk and taking breathalyzer tests along the way. Why haven’t we also taken a similar approach when teaching young drivers?A similar program for newly-21 drivers would be a start.Getting serious about drunk driving mewans acknowledging slogans like “Don’t drink and drive” and “Buzzed driving is drunk driving” are simultaneously too trite and too ambiguous to ever be truly effective.Instead, we should be giving practical, useful information about the reasonable limits we’ve legislated to young drivers.Anything less is just reckless.— drlreed@indiana.edu
(01/14/14 5:00am)
Radio Disney is getting political. In a 26-stop tour of Ohio elementary schools, the radio branch of one of the most well-known brands in the world is giving students presentations on hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking. Radio Disney has gotten a lot of negative attention in the press for its program, which is funded entirely by an interest group funded in turn by the oil and gas industry.This started as one of those columns. As an individual personally opposed to fracking, I had written almost 300 words about how awful it is to so blatantly attempt to indoctrinate children before I realized something.Groups advocating for programs like recycling or renewable energy go into schools all the time. It is considered fine for them to do so but a moral crisis as soon as someone from the other side of the argument tries to do the same.This might be because of the express goals of these movements. Some would say an oil or gas company’s overall goal is maximizing profit, while the goal of a recycling or renewable energy campaign is more lofty — to reduce garbage, pollution or reliance on finite energy resources.But that argument seems misleading to me. The reality is there’s a positive national discourse surrounding things like recycling and renewable energy. I, like most people, tend to see them as worthwhile efforts.Anything that conflicts with that national discourse, like, for instance, teaching young children about processes for accessing oil and natural gas, gets treated with a different set of standards.Opponents of fracking point out the technique has been linked in many instances to environmental damage and increased earthquakes. Campaigns by big oil and gas coincidentally also gloss over these minor details. But if you think the recycling and renewable energy groups don’t also try to give the best possible picture of their issue, you’re not paying attention.I recycle, and I am a huge fan of renewable energy systems. I don’t take the bus or drive — I cycle almost everywhere. I’d be the very first person in line to teach kids about these ideas and how great I think they are. The people who disagree with me should not necessarily be barred from doing the same. I’m not entirely convinced there are two legitimate sides to every issue or every side of an argument automatically deserves to be treated equally. The racist and oppressive policies of the NYPD’s Ray Kelly did not deserve the exposure and legitimation they would have received as a result of his speech at Brown University. When students at that school protested and blocked his ability to speak, they did their community a service. But we have a responsibility to show legitimate reasons to act in that way. If we’re going to block someone’s ability to express themselves in a forum to which we hold the keys, there must be a more compelling reason than a national discourse and the words “I disagree.”Legitimate reasons may exist in the discussion of fracking, but I haven’t seen anyone articulate them yet.— drlreed@indiana.eduFollow columnist Drake Reed on Twitter @D_L_Reed.