879 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/08/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Editorial Board likes to keep actors both on and off our campus accountable, which is why we’ve hit hard on the responsiveness of our student government this semester. The administration of Jose Mitjavila, the IUSA President for 2013-14, has repeatedly disappointed students.The outgoing administration has few significant accomplishments to show, despite their somewhat self-congratulatory tone at the conclusion of last year’s election. We’ve seen Mitjavila push for what we’ve lovingly dubbed an Applebee’s (it’s not an actual Applebee’s) in the Indiana Memorial Union and lobby for Lifeline Law amendments similar to those from Hoosiers 4 Solutions, one of the tickets that opposed Mitjavila in the 2013 IUSA election.The announcement that Plus for IUSA was running unopposed all but eliminated any hope we had for our student government. Plus went on to win the executive ticket, as well as every congressional seat for which they put up candidates.The Editorial Board, however, has seen evidence to suggest that the incoming administration might actually bring the change we’ve been waiting for. On March 30, IUSA voted to make elections more equitable and less biased. The resolution moves the Election Commission from the executive branch to the judicial branch, which houses the IUSA Supreme Court. The student body president appoints the supreme court justices as spots open up, and justices serve a term for the entirety of their time at IU. The polling stations are also no longer going to be staffed by members of the individual campaigns, but rather by members of the Election Commission. In addition, members campaigning for tickets must stand 300 feet away from polling locations. Students will start being alerted when voting is open via a campus-wide email, and the next year’s election dates will be set at the end of the prior administration. The Editorial Board sincerely applauds and approves of these changes by IUSA, which passed these changes with only one member voting against them. It’s a huge step forward. In the past, IUSA has been plagued by what could be considered nepotism and inside knowledge. For the past three years, IUSA administrations have consisted mainly of recycled, handpicked members of the previous administration. With their experience in the previous administration, these tickets have prior knowledge as to how to run an IUSA campaign and when election dates will be set. And while we can’t fix the nepotism that results in handpicked administrations, the step towards giving all tickets equal notice to the election dates is a great one. This year, Unify IU, the ticket that was originally slotted to run against Plus, dropped out of the race because they felt Plus had more time to prepare. We have struggled over the past year with our trust in IUSA and then our trust of Plus. However, Plus has been receptive and clearly supportive of these election reforms, for which this Board has been advocating for years. While the elections process is still not perfect and IUSA still needs improvements, this is a step in the right direction. IUSA is moving towards becoming a legitimate student government once again, and we applaud this transition and those who support it.opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(04/04/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>You remember George Zimmerman, right? The man who shot and killed an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, a few years back? Excuse us, Martin was armed that night. With Skittles and iced tea. We digress.Anyway, Zimmerman recently thought it would be a good idea to agree to appear as a special guest at the New Orlando Gun Show in Florida. He signed a few autographs — between 20 and 200, depending on which news source you believe — shook a few hands and went about his day. Unfortunately, as benign as this gun show appearance might have been for Zimmerman, it carries more weight than most would like to acknowledge.Zimmerman, a man who shot and killed an unarmed teenager and got away with it, was invited as a special guest to a gun show. It was offensive and distasteful on several levels, so it is difficult to choose where to start.It seems no one thought about how treating Zimmerman as a celebrity would affect Trayvon Martin’s family. It must be unimaginably hard for his parents, family and friends to see Zimmerman parading about in public, being treated as a celebrity after he murdered their son, their nephew, their best friend.It says something about our society that a known murderer has been elevated to a kind of warped “celebrity” status. Zimmerman’s fame comes from nothing but his decision to shoot an unarmed black teenager and his luck in getting away with it.It’s hard to understand why any gun-rights activists are OK with making Zimmerman the poster child for the freedom to carry a weapon. He is not the most likable character, and he has not proven himself to be a responsible gun owner.If the message of the pro-gun rights community is to allow more people to own guns because they use them in self-defense and act responsibly and prudently, Zimmerman should be the last person they would turn to for support. However, since they insist on keeping him around, their message must be something less responsible and more reckless.The only reasonable explanation for Zimmerman’s appearance at this gun show is he was offered compensation to do so. If that is the case, it makes sense that he willingly took the money to participate in this event, given the millions of dollars in legal fees he still owes. But even if Zimmerman is in debt, it does not excuse this behavior. There are other less offensive ways for him to make money to pay off his debts. Monetizing peoples’ racism and gun lust is no way to exist in the world, especially when doing so actively hurts those who know someone who was a victim of gun violence.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
(04/03/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s a reason for-profit corporations are called for-profit. They exist to make a profit — not to practice a religion or vote or exercise many of the hundreds of other rights and privileges reserved for actual people.Corporations are not people. They are entities owned by an individual or a group of individuals. But their existence is and should be secondary to the existence of actual people and actual citizens of the United States.A case currently before the Supreme Court of the United States seeks to expand the application of religious freedom to for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood are both for-profit corporations owned by religious individuals.These individuals oppose certain contraceptive measures they view as abortifacients and believe their corporations are extensions of themselves. But those corporations are not covered by any of the exemptions to the requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans pay for these contraceptives. They are asking the Supreme Court to grant them an exemption under a 1993 law that places restrictions on when a law can “substantially burden” the practice of religion by a “person.” It’s that last word that is in contention. Is Hobby Lobby a person? It is clear to the Editorial Board that the answer must be no.The Dictionary Act, which provides the meaning for certain words as used by Congress in legislations, defines a “person” as inclusive of corporations and other associations. As is often the case, Congress got it wrong.To appeal to a religious argument, it should be immediately clear that these corporations were not “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” the same rights that the right to religious freedom stems from.Even if corporations are people, they do not have to be perfect extensions of the beliefs of a small set of individuals we might call owners. There are 13,000 other employees of Hobby Lobby whose livelihood and industry are fundamental to any corporeal nature we might seek to find in the company.If corporations are people, they are people explicitly owned by other people. That statement is absurd — not least in that it might seem to conflict with the 13th Amendment — and its absurdity should serve as another indicator for just how ridiculous this conversation is.Corporations are not people. They do not vote. They do not bleed in our wars. They are entities of collaboration among and between individuals. They are systems of organization, and they should be given particular privileges that allow them to function, but they should not be enfranchised in the same way real, live Americans with beating hearts are. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(04/02/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When news broke that Russia had invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea, part of Ukraine’s territory, alarm bells went ringing across the world. The European Union and the United States, among other world powers, immediately began paying attention. Among the typical rhetoric thrown around whenever international conflicts arise, many pundits have been claiming that we are witnessing the rise of a second Cold War.The Editorial Board sees this narrative as an incorrect portrayal of an international conflict involving a nation with which we’ve had a strained relationship in the past. When the Cold War was beginning, there was a definitive clash of ideologies between the U.S. and the then-Soviet Union. The Soviet Union saw capitalism as a flawed, destructive system, while the U.S. viewed communism as a cancer of the world and an existential threat to our democracy. Today, Russia is attempting to liberalize its economy, pushing for more free market opportunities. Instead of being a worldwide conflict between the East and West of ideology, it’s one of jostling for regional influence. Russia is not acting out of power. It’s acting out of weakness.Modern-day Russia pales in comparison to the Cold War-era Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, at the time of the Cold War, had a population of about 400 million people. Today, that number has plummeted to 143 million. The U.S. has almost 320 million people. The Russian economy is also unimpressive, standing at $2.1 trillion compared to the U.S. economy, which is at $16.7 trillion. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, is orchestrating a power play to try and appeal to Russians domestically. Meanwhile, he’s further isolating himself from the world.Russia needs the support of other nations in order to maintain its economy. Currently, trade accounts for roughly 40 percent of Russia’s economy, making it dependent on its relationship with other nations. Additionally, when Putin grabbed Crimea, he supported a vote that Crimea held, under Russian occupation, to join Russia and separate from Ukraine. Putin argues that, since Crimea is mainly Russian-speaking or ethnic Russian, they deserve to be able to choose whether or not to be part of the “motherland.”Putin has witnessed and experienced instances of territories within Russia attempting to separate as well, the most memorable being Chechyna. The heavily Islamic territory of Chechnya attempted to secede from Russia, during which the Russians led a war against the state. During the First Chechen War, Russia was unable to defeat the small state, despite having tremendous military, economic and technological advantages. It stands to reason that Putin will have to answer to states in his country, such as Chechnya, as to why he supports Crimea separating from Ukraine due to ethnic differences, but won’t allow other states of ethnic variance to do the same in relation to Russia. What Putin has succeeded in doing, in our view, is grabbing a relatively small territory that is useful in trade and oil transport. He has, however, potentially risked internal upheaval, further international isolation, disdain from the U.N. and an overall expectation of power that he simply does not control. The Editorial Board does not believe that a second Cold War is imminent. And we pray that we’re right. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(04/01/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In a state as conservative as Indiana, IU students are fortunate to live and study in a city as diverse as Bloomington. Our University is an institution which guarantees that if you work hard, play by the rules and are willing to go the distance, no matter what you look like, where you’re from or who you love, you can achieve success. But last week, a vote at the University of Alabama reminded us why institutions like IU must continue moving forward and never look back. A weakly-worded resolution went up for a vote in the University of Alabama’s student government assembly that was meant to affirm the school’s commitment to tolerance. The Machine — an unofficial but increasingly not-so-secret society composed of representatives from 28 all-white fraternities and sororities on UA’s campus — effectively killed the resolution, using parliamentary procedure to table the bill for the remainder of the year.The reason for the resolution at UA arose last summer, when racial segregation inside Alabama’s greek system — particularly its sororities — gained national attention. Two superbly qualified women, seemingly the perfect potential pledges on paper, were denied membership to any of UA’s 16 Panhellenic sororities because of their race, Alabama’s student newspaper reported. The ensuing firestorm put the university on the defensive and led to a push by administrators for greater integration within Alabama’s historically white fraternities and sororities. Proposed within the university’s student government, the resolution was meant to, if only symbolically, help the integration effort within UA.“Ultimately, the resolution was to just encourage further integration based on diversity, specifically racial diversity on our campus, which I think a lot of people would agree with,” one student sponsor said.The Machine — launched in 1914 as a chapter of Theta Nu Epsilon — is widely known at UA to have a stranglehold on student government elections, the result of machine-style politics. But what is even more sinister about the organization and its role in killing the tame resolution is its history as a white advocacy group. After Cleo Thomas, the only black candidate to date that has won the UA’s Student Government Assembly presidency in 1976, ran and beat the Machine candidate, cloaked men in white sheets burnt crosses in what many say was a response to the first black student body president. As a result, the Machine extended membership of sororities into its ranks, since Thomas won through a coalition of black students, independents and white sorority members. In 1993, a non-Machine candidate was attacked in her home and left with a knife wound on her face. Later that Thanksgiving, crosses were burnt on her front lawn and a note was left with the words “Machine rules bitch.” The SGA was then suspended until 1996. The defeat last week of the resolution supporting integration at UA did not come as much of a surprise.Back here at IU, Alabama’s shortcoming should serve as evidence as to why we must continue the welcoming heritage of our school and our community. Though more steps can and should be taken toward inclusiveness, IU’s focus on diversity is essential to prevent the sort of environment that seems to exist at UA. While some might question the relevance or success of diversity programs, Alabama is stark reminder of why institutions of higher education should have them. When it comes to student government, the election process at UA should also makes us look at our own IU Student Association elections with a grain of salt. The lack of competitive elections in years past is a sign that we might be not be doing all we can to make them as competitive as possible. The last four administrations have in some way or another been connected, not including next year’s incoming executives.IUSA needs to make election reform a priority to ensure it remains a representative and credible organization for all IU students. Fortunately, the problems with our own student government are not as extensive as IUSA’s counterpart in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Some credit must also be given to our own greek system. Though it has its imperfections and areas which need growth, its ongoing efforts to make the greek community a more diverse and inclusive community — UNIFY IU, for instance — should be commended. Though we may be leaps ahead of Alabama in promoting tolerance, neither complacency nor purely cosmetic changes should be entertained. The consequence of not advancing diversity is a toxic culure, as UA shows, Our state may have a chequered past when it comes to those that are different. But through IU’s legacy of progress, we’ve managed to carve out a space for everyone on our campus. And we can’t afford anything less. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
(03/31/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s rare when the Editorial Board comes to the defense of a “conservative.” But in this instance, we’ll make an exception. Last week, Stephen Colbert, host of the hour-long satire TV show “The Colbert Report,” found himself on the defensive. Someone from Comedy Central’s social media staff tweeted from “The Colbert Report” account, “I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”Outraged Twitter users nearly broke the Internet in their rush to vent their swift condemnation of the tweet. Some were also quick to label Colbert a racist, going as far as starting the #CancelColbert hashtag. Yet the most important bit overlooked in conversations involving both the show and Colbert has been context. Unbeknownst to many seething at Colbert, the dumb tweet in question was actually part of larger point he made on his show. Which, by the way, often caricatures the absurdities of the right. Colbert’s fictional “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation” was a satirical take on a very real and very devious situation involving the name of the Washington Redskins.The punchline of Colbert’s satire isn’t and shouldn’t be read as an cheap attack on Asian-Americans. The punchline is the fact that a real world organization, the Washington Redskins, refuses to acknowledge that the term “Redskins” is a racist epithet. Instead of addressing the matter and changing the team’s name, the owner of the team has resorted to funding an organization that provides resources to Native Americans, thus completely ignoring the point. The Editorial Board believes Colbert did nothing wrong but point out and mock the idea that racism can be hidden under the guise of charitable giving.Instead of targeting our moral outrage at a liberal comedian making fun of racists, we should be redirecting our anger towards those who continue to hold our country back by refusing to acknowledge that certain race-based names and expressions can be derogatory. And, in this instance, we need not go farther than what the owner of the Washington Redskins is trying to do. Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, argues the team’s “charitable” giving will “provide meaningful and measurable resources that provide genuine opportunities for tribal communities.”Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has chimed in on the Redskins’ name controversy, put it bluntly.“Dan Snyder, he’s got a great new deal,” Reid sad. “He’s going to throw a few blankets to the Indians and get a tax deduction for it.” “Snyder has to realize, he is on the losing side of history,” he said. “And the sooner he does it, the better off we are.”opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(03/27/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., drew criticism earlier this month when he made what many have interpreted as a tacitly racist comment about inner-city men. Ryan said inner-city men don’t value the “culture of work.” As expected, he’s received a bit of blowback. The Congressional Black Caucus came out swinging, with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., calling it “a thinly-veiled racial attack.” Some of Ryan’s own constituents had similar reactions to the congressman’s statement. Alfonso Gardner, an African-American in Ryan’s district, called Ryan out for using “a code word for ‘black.’”Ryan has denied the statement was intended to be racist, stating he was inarticulate and was trying to talk about society as a whole. The Editorial Board believes this underscores a serious problem with politicians like Paul Ryan. While Ryan might not be shouting racial epithets or going on about conspiracy theories involving President Obama, he is still perpetuating an atmosphere of ignorance. This sort of ignorance is blind to the fact that the average black family makes 40 percent less than the average white family. It also completely overlooks the fact that white felons get jobs more easily than black non-felons.Politicians like Ryan love to point a finger at poor Americans while shaming and blaming them for their circumstances. Yet he’s completely oblivious to the fact that his party’s policies have had a hand in perpetuating the cycle of poverty instead of ending it. In his speech, Ryan quoted Charles Murray, a conservative political scientist who believes black people are genetically less intelligent than whites and that “a lot of poor people are born lazy.” Even though Ryan never said “black” or “African-American,” we know what he was implying. In 2000, 70 percent of black men and women lived in inner cities or the inner-ring suburbs. By pointing toward one of the areas in the U.S. most heavily populated by minorities, Ryan can’t claim that race never crossed his mind. It’s beyond offensive to claim that inner-city men are lazy and then brush off the fact that most of those men are people of color.The Editorial Board sees through Ryan’s “inarticulate” words. By blowing the racist dog whistle and then running in the other direction, he’s not fooling anyone. Comments like Ryan’s about inner-city men only serve to feed the underlying racism in our country. And, as Ryan shows, it’s becoming more and more veiled than ever. In the inner-city, 32 percent of people live in poverty and 14 percent are unemployed. This is compared to the 9.4 percent of suburban people in poverty and the 9 percent of suburban people who are unemployed.President Obama has stressed again and again that everyone — from the government to churches to neighborhood parents — needs to work to give inner-city children more opportunities.Meanwhile, Ryan’s plan seems to be making comments that only serve to hold us back as a nation.opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(03/26/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Fraternity hazing isn’t a foreign concept to most college students. We’ve all heard the stories of forced binge drinking and physical abuse or read the headlines reporting on the reckless rituals some fraternities force their new members to complete to get initiated. One of the largest fraternities in the nation, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, recently attempted to mitigate the issue of hazing. According to Bloomberg News, at least 10 students have died in SAE-related events, which is the highest death rate for a fraternity in the country. In order to try and protect their members, as well as save some face, the national office eliminated its pledge process for good. According to a March 9 press release, men pledging SAE will no longer be forced to endure “servitude,” “memorizing obscure facts,” or “enduring physical challenges.” Also according to the release, prospective members now have only 96 hours from the time they accept their bid to complete the requirements of membership, during which time they cannot be hazed.The Editorial Board applauds Sigma Alpha Epsilon for stepping forward to protect their members from direct physical or mental harm. It’s a step in the right direction of reforming the greek system to make it safer.However, we find a major flaw in the larger logic behind the hazing ban. While hazing is prohibited during the 96-hour pledging period, there’s no explicit mention of parties or drinking. And since the national offices do not acknowledge that drinking occurs at their fraternities, it is not explicitly covered under “enduring physical challenges.” While the specific hazing practices outlined in the new policy are banned, it begs the question of what fraternities will do to “test the worthiness” of their potential brothers.If they don’t want to risk being caught by the national office, they’ll more than likely turn to finding ways to circumvent the new policy. And unfortunately — given the existing culture — drinking doesn’t seemed too far fetched as an option. By condensing what used to be months of pledging — and by extension drinking — into potentially a four-day boozathon, the national office might have accidentally created a catch-22 situation. SAE risks being seen as an organization that doesn’t care about the well-being of its members if it ignores the problem of hazing, but by not addressing drinking in its new policy, it risks doing the exact same. The Editorial Board fully supports the effort to end hazing in greek chapters. But the policy seems geared toward good PR and preventing further insurance liabilities rather than addressing the systemic dangers new members can encounter. The potential for impressionable underclassmen to consume large amounts of alcohol in such a short timespan is still too risky to ignore. But unfortunately, and primarily for insurance purposes, most national fraternities don’t even acknowledge that drinking — including underage drinking — occurs in their chapter houses on any given weekend. They simply look the other way until something happens.The ignorance surrounding binge drinking in the new policy, whether inadvertent or not, is a major misstep in trying to end hazing.It’s almost certain many more fraternities will follow SAE’s lead, given the generally positive response the organization has received. But, if fraternities are serious about tackling hazing, drinking must also be addressed. We say national offices need to reevaluate their policies regarding drinking, otherwise they’re just putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
(03/25/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Earlier this month, the governor of Idaho signed a bill into law that would allow students with gun permits to carry concealed weapons on university campuses across the state.The reaction to the law in Idaho has been relatively negative, with all eight of the state’s public universities speaking out against it. The schools claim the law will threaten public safety and repel prospective students. Alarmingly, the momentum for the Idaho law stemmed from a bill passed in the Indiana State Legislature that would allow high school students to keep their guns in their cars during the school day. The Indiana bill has yet to be signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence.But the question at hand is whether or not students have the right to carry concealed weapons on public university campuses. The Editorial Board believes the answer is a resounding no. As is the case with every other politically charged issue of our time, we recognize that there are many layers to deal with when it comes to addressing gun violence. No one wants any more tragedies like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora or the more recent tragedy at Purdue.The National Rifle Association, which drafted the Idaho bill and later sent it to the legislature for passage, believes this law would result in increased safety for students. Its president has said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” On the other side of the aisle, progressives are more willing to pass laws restricting the use of guns in certain areas, hence the transformation of school campuses into “gun-free zones.” Unfortunately, it is obvious that making schools legally “gun-free” doesn’t result in schools being free from gun violence itself.It seems that the solution to problem of gun violence is more complicated than most people would like to admit. But allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campuses won’t solve the issue. If anything, it might even result in more accidents and deaths than it would prevent. Regardless of the effect of the Idaho law, we recognize there are more comprehensive and effective reforms we can undertake to reduce and prevent gun violence. A few of these reforms include: mandatory background checks on gun buyers — a policy supported by nine out of 10 Americans — imposing a waiting period on the purchase of guns, monitoring the purchase of ammunition and implementing mandatory gun safety training.The political problem with gun violence is it’s always framed as a question of balancing the number of laws imposed on gun owners with the number of deaths that result from gun violence. We believe this might not be an issue of how many laws we pass to reduce gun deaths, but rather an issue of passing smarter laws aimed at preventing the problem. We will have to sit back and watch how the rollout of the Idaho law plays out. But, in the meantime, if any Indiana legislators are getting any similar ideas, all we have to say is thanks, but no thanks. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
(03/24/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Echoing Kanye West’s own words, “Let’s kill the hypocrisy / This is an aristocracy.”Vogue announced West and his wife-to-be — Kim Kardashian, fellow lightning rod for the American public’s vitriol — would be featured on the cover of the magazine’s April issue. Following the release of the cover, the faux outrage on Twitter and other social media was palpable. The primary source of this rage seems to stem from the belief that the Kardashian-Wests are undeserving of such a high-profile feature in one of America’s most storied publications. But what detractors seem completely blind to is the fact that, whether we like it or not, Kanye and Kim represent the best in their respective fields.Their marriage only further cements their positions in the cultural elite. That’s why the Editorial Board, despite our very mixed opinions about West and Kardashian themselves, believes their appearance on Vogue’s cover is deserved.Though we completely understand there are more pressing issues in the world to discuss, many of us have grown tired of the derision and dismissal toward West and Kardashian that the Vogue cover controversy has brought to the surface yet again. And it deserves to be addressed. For the pop culture oblivious, mentioning West likely still conjures images of the Taylor Swift incident in 2009 that for which West was labeled a “jackass” by the leader of the free world. Or perhaps it might remind one of his “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” remark back in 2006, during the incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina by the Bush administration. But what many tend to overlook in the process of calling West an egotistical asshole is that said egotistical asshole continues to be the single most innovative force in hip-hop with more than 380 award nominations and 21 Grammys. He has experience as a producer, businessman, cultural provocateur, high-fashion designer and, even if some only begrudgingly agree, the embodiment of black excellence. Kim Kardashian, though already existing in a space of wealth and privilege, has managed to create an enterprise for herself despite the fact that her claim to fame was a leaked sex tape, which for others might have spelled out the end of any sort of career. She has been able to maneuver the entertainment industry — for better or worse — to become arguably one of the most envied and followed women in America. But if there’s a single major reason why West and Kardashian should be on the cover of Vogue, it’s because they represent our culture at this point in time and, by extension, ourselves.Vogue editor Anna Wintour put it best in the issue’s editor’s note.“Part of the pleasure of editing Vogue, one that lies in a long tradition of this magazine, is being able to feature those who define the culture at any given moment, who stir things up, whose presence in the world shapes the way it looks and influences the way we see it,” she said. “I think we can all agree on the fact that that role is currently being played by Kim and Kanye to a T. (Or perhaps that should be to a K?)” opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
(03/14/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s no secret that Bloomington is different than the rest of Indiana.We’re lucky enough to live in an open, educated and progressive city inside a state that produced Richard Mourdock as a candidate for the United States Senate and also saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in state politics after World War I.The Indiana State Office of Tourism Development, in an effort to brand the state in a fashion they apparently thought was a good idea, recently unveiled the new slogan for the state: “Honest-to-Goodness Indiana.”Thus, the Editorial Board took it upon itself to create a couple of more slogans that more accurately reflect the proud nature of our state.opinion@idsnews.com
(03/12/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s hardly surprising to hear that Congress hasn’t exactly been running smoothly, and yet every time we’re reminded of its ineptitude, we’re still disappointed. Seth Rogan was especially disappointed when 16 senators failed to appear, or worse, left in the middle of his address about financing Alzheimer’s research. Rogan’s heartfelt speech was spurred by his personal experience with the devastation of Alzheimer’s. His mother-in-law suffers from the disease. Though he started with a few ice-breaker jokes, it was pretty clear Rogan took the issue and the platform seriously.So it boggles our minds why some members of Congress couldn’t respect him enough to just show up.Perhaps they take his political involvement as a novel publicity stunt, and that’s why they didn’t feel the need to pay attention. But the truth is, for Rogan and the American people, it was anything but a joke. Rogan tweeted after the address, calling out the absence of all but two senators, saying it was symbolic of the lack of priority that Alzheimer’s seems to have in Congress. To the Editorial Board, it seems characteristic of the lack of priority Congress has been exhibiting to the American people, period.Alzheimer’s is a disease that affects people of every party all over the United States and in every district that these Senators represent. Caring for their constituents is their job. And even if they fail on that front, they should take this into account: Alzheimer’s affects 5 million people aged 65 and older, while the average age of a U.S. Senator is around 62.Our Congress has fallen into such a state of ineffectiveness and removal from the well-being of the American people that its members can’t even bring themselves to pay attention to legislation that could benefit some of their own. It is a simple issue to agree on, and can anyone really say they don’t want people suffering from Alzheimer’s to get some help? But even this bipartisan issue, that anyone could at least consider, doesn’t get the time of day. For 16 of the 18 senators who were supposed to attend, something else was more important than doing their jobs. The saddest part is that attendance records this dismal are the norm. Rogan expressed the Editorial Board’s exact concern when he responded to this behavior on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews: “It’s indicative of a mentality that we find so frustrating. It seems like these people don’t care.” It has reached the point where we have Hollywood actors, whose contribution to society up until now was “genetalia-driven comedy,” taking more of an interest in the American people and policy than the people who have made it their careers. Congress needs to wake up and get to work. Whether they can actually get to work and actually accept responsibility for policy in this country is another question.opinion@idsnews.com
(03/11/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Thursday, the United States Senate debated a bill that would take sexual assault cases and other major civilian crimes out of the military chain of command by allowing military trial lawyers to decide whether or not to bring those cases to the courts-martial. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was fiercely debated in the Senate before it was defeated in a 55-45 vote, falling short of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. Indiana’s Senators were split on the issue at hand. Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., voted in favor of the bill. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., voted against it. In 2011, 26,000 men and women in the military were sexually assaulted. “The Invisible War,” a documentary about military sexual assault, explains how many of these sexual assaults are perpetrated by ranking officers in the military. The current system places these same ranking officers in charge of deciding whether or not to bring a sexual assault case to trial. Gillibrand argued the bill was designed to protect men and women in the military from sexual assault. Many female senators, most of who voted for the bill, questioned whether or not the male-dominated military leadership understands how to deal with sexual assault effectively. On the other side of the debate, senators argued removing commanding officers from the chain of command would damage morale and military effectiveness and cohesiveness.The Editorial Board categorically condemnns the defeat of this bill. In particular, the fact that one of our own senators voted against it should bring shame to our state. This defeat underscores the underlying issues surrounding our male-dominated military and government. And while the armed forces ought to be respected, the safety of our women and men in uniform shouldn’t come second to the cult of worship of our military. Sexual assault is a major problem in the military. Our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, seem too willing to turn a blind eye in favor of pretending our citizens in uniform are infallible. The argument that the bill by Gillibrand would damage the morale of the military is absurd. We don’t buy into the argument that allowing military lawyers to control military conduct cases is damaging to morale.What damages military morale is fearing that your commanding officer could rape you and never face trial. Our lawmakers need to shed this “boys will be boys” attitude when it comes to sexual assault. It isn’t a male tendency to rape people. That’s a savage, destructive, inhumane tendency. Lawmakers across the country, such as Coats, are perpetuating and advancing the existing rape culture in the U.S. Lawmakers like Coats are more than willing to forego the safety of women in exchange for pandering under the guise of being patriotic.Patriotism is not turning a blind eye to the problems that we face as a nation. Patriotism is standing up and working to fix those problems. Coats and his 44 friends in the Senate are not patriots. They bring shame upon the Senate, military and U.S. as a whole. When women and men are sexually assaulted by commanding officers and infantrymen alike, we need a change. We applaud Gillibrand’s truly patriotic efforts to try and make the military safer. God knows they shouldn’t fear their fellow soldiers. opinion@idsnews.com @ids_opinion.
(03/07/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>MTV’s “Festivals, Sex and Suspicious Parents” recently brought millennial debauchery to attention. On the show, parents spy on their kids via live camera while their beloved offspring takes part in non-surprisingly idiotic behavior. Winter is thawing, and Little 500 is on the horizon. In the spirit of both the show and our communal anticipation, here’s what your parents would be likely to see during IU’s Little 500 week. Stupid Little 500 T-shirtsIf you’re 21 and a student living in Bloomington, there’s no better way to tell the world you went to the bars during the Greatest College Weekend than with a corny T-shirt immortalizing the occasion. Sure, you may have had to wait in line upwards of 40 minutes for that hideous neon orange tank you should only really wear to the gym, but it’s Little Five. Obviously worth it. Mom and Dad might want to pick up an extra for Nana back home, too. Cheap alcohol galoreIt’s no secret IU has an infamous drinking culture. A visit to tailgate fields in the fall — or you know, during Little 500 — will remind you of it. But if there’s one thing fueling the rage machine that’s our party culture, it’s that cheap alcohol flow. Whether it’s grape Karkov, Kamchatka or the ultra-vile Everclear, you’re probably going to see it around. DartyingDay partying isn’t new. But if you’re day drinking at IU during Little 500, chances are mimosas would not be what your parents would find you drinking on a sunny April afternoon. The empty handles on the ground might give them a better idea. The morning afterAt this point your parents might question what exactly it is you do at college given your performance during the week. But after all the craziness of Little 500 week is over, they’ll realize the real reason you love IU isn’t because of the drinking — it’s because you actually go to the greatest school on Earth.
(03/06/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California high school could stop students from wearing American flag-themed apparel on Cinco de Mayo. The decision is intended to promote student safety given the school’s history of racial tension. Two members of the Editorial Board illustrated our differing opinions. Is the ruling a violation of free speech, or does it protect students and the dignity of both cultures? You decide.opinion@idsnews.com
(03/06/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California high school could stop students from wearing American flag-themed apparel on Cinco de Mayo. The decision is intended to promote student safety given the school’s history of racial tension. Two members of the Editorial Board illustrated our differing opinions. Is the ruling a violation of free speech, or does it protect students and the dignity of both cultures? You decide.opinion@idsnews.com
(03/05/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Another season of IU Student Association elections is upon us.Last year, following an uncontested election that brought us a year of lackluster student government, we had a gripping, contested race between three tickets that somehow still brought us a year of lackluster student government. To recap — the executive student government you’re paying for exists to represent you before the administration. Yet it left many of the seats it was supposed to fill on administrative committees vacant, effectively muting student input. Your executive student government campaigned against an expansion of the Indiana Lifeline Law, only to jump on the bandwagon when the expansion was already quickly becoming reality. Your executive student government spends its time purchasing Google Glass, while many of us can barely even afford the price of textbooks for class.Your executive student government pays itself student money for what it sees as the privilege to add a line to individual résumés.As the new season of IUSA elections opens, we encourage you to form a ticket, develop a campaign and offer to represent your fellow students. Or at the very least, just pay attention. The past three IUSA administrations were formed largely from the members of their predecessors, meaning the inevitable ticket formed out of Jose Mitjavila’s staff will be a frontrunner from day one.Our student government, for too long, has behaved more like high school student council planning prom than a body meant to press the administration on student issues. Jared Thomas, the president of this year’s Election Commission previously told the IDS that the rollover of IUSA staff has its positives and negatives. The Editorial Board firmly agrees. In particular, the rollover of IUSA staff has insulated the organization from the concerns of the average IU student. When all the voices in the room are saying the same thing, it’s no wonder our student government has become so out of touch. We need new voices, new ideas and new leaders. This year IU should form a serious ticket that can realistically challenge the establishment. But if the establishment itself can come up with better ideas than those of the last two years, the Editorial Board is willing to listen. Because at the end of the day, we’re all in the same boat. We simply have different ideas of how to steer it. opinion@idsnews.com
(03/04/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every day, members of the Editorial Board notice signs proudly promoting IU as a smoke-free campus, only to see the occasional clouds of cigarette smoke and the seas of cigarette butts outside campus buildings. Annoyances and libertarian considerations aside, we support efforts to reduce cigarette and cigar use on campus. Secondhand smoke endangers passersby to an increased chance of lung cancer.That being said, the Editorial Board still believes the University’s new policy banning e-cigarettes, hookahs, pipes, chewing tobacco and snuff might be taking it too far.Our impression is the original smoking ban was implemented primarily as a health and safety measure. But it appears IU had a different plan from the beginning. The sudden addition of various types of “safer” tobacco leads us to believe the University is attempting to pander to the latest smoke-free craze and push against cigarettes. By further penalizing and shaming smokers, the University might also inadvertently promote cigarette usage again.There would be no incentive for current smokers to change their habits and transition to a less-harmful alternative for their own health or the people around them. This is not to discount the undisputed harmful effects of tobacco. Instead, we want to consider the effects of penalizing the use of alternatives by current smokers. Another rather bizarre consequence of the expanded smoking ban is the added and laughably adolescent punishment that will accompany the citation and fine — a referral to the Office of the Dean of Students.We believe this new approach is rather silly for college students and for Dean Goldsmith, considering both parties likely have more pressing considerations. Though student affairs are obviously within his purview, having a meeting every time someone gets busted seven feet from Ballantine Hall with a cig would be a glaring waste of resources and time. The Editorial Board’s final concern with the smoking ban expansion is the lose-lose nature of the policy in general. If the University doesn’t actually enforce it, IU’s rules might no longer be heralded with the appropriate gravity and respect. But if IU does, it will constitute flagrant and rather childish misuse of campus resources — all to keep that kid in front of Swain from using his e-cig. These new prohibitions will likely have no effect on actual smoking rates. To be clear, the Editorial Board very much supports curtailing invasive secondhand smoke on campus. None of us like to cough up our lungs up on our way to class. However, we can’t support a bad policy expansion that’s more concerned with appearances than actually helping students stop smoking. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(03/03/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The IU administration usually has its bases covered. That is why the Editorial Board was so taken aback this past week when the news broke that more than 146,000 students and alumni may have had their Social Security numbers and other important information exposed given their storage in an insecure location.The Editorial Board by no means claims to be a leading expert in computer science or cybersecurity. We do, however, know a few basic things.The Social Security numbers were accessed by webcrawlers, and Social Security numbers are really important. Webcrawlers, as we understand it, are Internet ‘bots that systematically search the Web for content, such as web pages or hyperlinks. They then index these pages either by copying them or by logging them in a database so search engines, such as Google, can access them more efficiently. It seems that these webcrawlers accidentally “stumbled” upon IU students’ private information by happenstance. Students shouldn’t worry though, because IU says that the University “has no evidence that the files have been viewed or used for inappropriate or illegal purposes.” However, that isn’t the end of it. Though the data might not have been maliciously compromised to steal identities and ruin lives, the University’s inability to keep the data secure despite IU’s vast technological resources is alarming. When we give the University our Social Security numbers, we expect they’ll be locked in the cyberspace equivalent to Fort Knox because of Family Education Rights and Privacy Act requirements set by the federal government and the sensitive nature of the information in question. With all the resources UITS has in its arsenal, the University still couldn’t provide either a secure data management solution or the right policy for the handling of our data. For 11 months, Social Security numbers lacked enough protection that webcrawlers from Google were able to come in contact with them — which is simply irresponsible. Today, it’s a webcrawler. Tomorrow, it could be a 17-year-old hacker.This entire incident reveals a major lapse in oversight. The administration should have actively ensured private information was stored correctly, or that University staff was following correct procedure in handling it. The incident doesn’t reflect well on our campus bureaucracy, either. The exposure should serve as a wake-up call to the administration that it may be time to streamline and centralize its own services and departments, not just our academic ones. Simply put, the University dropped the ball on this one. It is surprising, considering the one thing administration is usually good at is the day-to-day running of IU. The line of defense between our Social Security numbers shouldn’t just be one staff member conveniently discovering the problem. It should be a series of technological fail-safes designed to ensure this situation never happens again. IU Chief Information Officer Bradley Wheeler, Provost Lauren Robel and President Michael McRobbie need to act accordingly. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
(02/28/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In an attempt to become politically relevant again, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., said recently that Americans simply “aren’t ready” to have a female president. Bachmann went on to detail a plethora of reasons why Americans should not vote for Hillary Clinton for president in particular, claiming that Clinton would “effectively ... be Obama’s third and fourth term in office.” Upon reading this, the Editorial Board acknowledges Michelle Bachmann is a troll. She obviously said Americans aren’t ready to have a female president to outrage everyone in the liberal media, and perhaps she doesn’t even actually mean it. Then again, it’s Michelle Bachmann.Let us not forget that Bachmann in 2012 had her own presidential aspirations, which didn’t last long. Perhaps she is using this new line of argument to make herself feel better about having crashed and burned miserably on the road to the White House in 2012. Regardless of Bachmann’s intentions, her argument might be silly and trivial on the surface, but it reflects something more politically sinister. She essentially is arguing against the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016, because Hillary Clinton is a woman. A logical argument against Clinton for president is a substantive one that leaves out her gender entirely. Hillary Clinton’s being a woman has nothing to do with her policies and how she would perform as the commander in chief. Still, Bachmann chose to attack Clinton’s gender instead of her ideology, a cheap political shot. The innocuous, misogynistic idea that Americans “aren’t ready” for women to be in positions of power implies that women are incapable of doing a job simply based on the fact that they are women. The Editorial Board fully rejects this notion. There are more than enough qualified and skilled women to work in just as many positions of power as men in government and in the private sector.In fact, several countries around the world already have female heads of state, including Denmark, Thailand, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Liberia, Bangladesh, Iceland, Costa Rica, Finland, Lithuania and Trinidad and Tobago. To claim Americans are “not ready” for a female president, while the citizens of all of the aforementioned countries are, is ludicrous.This argument empowers bigots who are against women holding positions simply because they are women. It enforces the status quo with a seemingly innocent excuse for America’s lack of progress, and it perpetuates stereotypes about women being less capable of leading than men.It is likely that Bachmann did not think through her comments. Surely she does not wish to be boxed in with all other women as being unfit to lead simply based on her gender. Bachmann should find healthier ways to vent her frustration about her own failed presidential campaign that don’t include undermining the abilities of every woman in America.Just because Americans weren’t “ready” for Michelle Bachmann to be president in 2012 doesn’t mean Americans aren’t ready for a woman to be president in 2016.opinion@idsnews.com