Ithacan Round Up

* The cover story is pretty good this week, focusing on the effects of pollution released by the Morse Chain division of Borg Warner, which was purchased by Emerson Power Transmission in 1983. Specifically it looks at the effects of chemicals in the soil on residents of the area. Good Job to the Ithacan and writer Stacey Coburn for covering this. I'd heard mention of this problem during the summer from a professor, but never was able to get a writer to follow up on it. I'm glad someone has now.

Interesting quote at the bottom from Ithaca College's own Meg Jamieson:

Jamieson said she hopes Emerson, the DOH and the DEC are being honest when they say they want to help ensure the safety of residents’ homes. But she said officials at the Jan. 25 meeting failed to mention what happens when residents are exposed to the eight chemicals that are considered to be related to the plant.

“There were continual reassurances that they were doing the right thing, but there was also a continual stonewalling of the neighborhood’s concerns, and our only presentation of options was furthering testing,” Jamieson said.

* It's good to see SGA attempting to connect students to politics and legislation outside of the campus. Focusing on student aid is a good way to forge the connection that what happens in Capitol buildings (on the local, state, and federal level) can have a real world effect on students and members of the academic community. Two thoughts about the article/story:

1)It quotes senior Julie Roberts as if she were just a random student who was in the pub during the protest and was inspired to get involved, but the article does not divulge that she is a rather active member of Students for a Just Peace (SJP), a group in which Dan McCarey, one of the organizers of the protest, is also a leader in. I have no problem with what Julie said or that she was quoted, but I do feel like this piece of information does provide a bit more context for her words.

2)This might be a half-baked notion, but I've thought for a while now that having to secure a particular permit for a particular place in order to demonstrate using one's free speech rights was rather antithetical to the notion of free speech. I realize there are legal precedents for free speech being hemmed in by time, place and manner considerations, but the idea that free speech on this campus can only happen at "Free Speech" Rock or by approval of bureacrats on campus just doesn't sit right with me. I know that there have been demonstrations and what not on campus that have not been at free speech rock, but comments like:

“We have procedures in place for students who wish to demonstrate or put up displays, but without the proper approval, groups run the risk of losing all ability to advertise and solicit on campus,” she said. “Purposefully ignoring college policies undermines the sense of community we are trying to create.”

not only sound like a threat, but also like "it's ok to express your opinion in demonstration, but only if you do so with in the boundaries we set up for you." Alas, kudos to the fire safety official who allowed the tent to stand for the remainder of lunch.

* Intersting editorial about the St. Patricks Four. I do believe it contains the editorial board speaking out against the war in Iraq, calling it unjust and a violation of international agreements. Good for the Eds on that point. However, I do think they are slightly off point with the headline "Criminalizing Peace Activism." Although the editorial acknowledges that the convictions were "appropriate" and that "The St. Patrick’s Four should be punished for breaking the law," the headline and subheadline give the impression that the paper feels they should not be punished for what they did. While I agree with the main thrust of their argument that this should not have been a federal case and federal imprisonment is not the appropriate punishment, the headline "Criminalizing Peace Activism" reminds me too much of when Tom Delay told his supporters that liberals and the press were "criminalizing conservatives". It has always been my understanding that part of civil disobediance was the acceptance of the legal punishment for your crimes. I've actually always thought that was part of the symbolic power of non-violent action, in that a person is willing to risk their comfort and break the law in order make their statement. In doing so, the action elevates the cause above the individual. But within that is the knowledge that one's actions are breaking established law, whether that law is just or not is a different story, but it is the standing law at the time of the action. So, it seems to me that being legally punished for knowingly breaking the law is hardly having one's actions criminalized. Now, if they wanted to talk about the troublesome aggresiveness of the government in pursuing the case, I would most definitely support them. And in fact, I support most of this editorial. There is a disturbing trend in this country right now of singling out anti-war and left voices, as was demonstrated with the arrest of Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union for simply wearing a T-shirt with the number of dead US soldiers on it. One example of this that is clearly illustrated by the St. Patrick's Four case is the stupid practice of relating them to "terrorist organizations." Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric is an asshole for trying to argue that the St. Patrick's Four is part of a terroist organization.

* Their editorial on Bill Bradley is rather stinging. Can't complain with much there. Though I do doubt much change will come about in terms of how the commencement speaker is chosen, since the only people agitated by it are likely to be seniors, and changing the process won't do anything for them, since they've got Bradley now and the decision is rather final. Real change on this point would have to come pro-actively and pre-emptively from younger classes, so that they aren't caught complaining about the process after the process has already been completed. As for Bradley, he may be a boring speaker, but hopefully he'll have some good things to say. I'm not really familiar with him as a politician as 2000 was right before I started paying attention to politics and about 2 years before I became a news and political junkie.

* Dean Lynch gives another indication of the direction she is trying to push the Park School, and with that, much of the rest of campus. My one question is if the student's in the Park School's Advisory Council is enough student input. I'm especially curious if students were given the information about the proposed changes in a timely manner that would have allowed them to air their concerns with their representatives so that their representatives could legitimately speak for other students, rather than just themselves as students. None the less, Dean Lynch seems to have some good ideas, and she is pretty damn supportive of student projects and what not. As always, I'll be checking her blog and keep things updated over here on what she is publicly stating over there.

* Pretty interesting Op-Ed by Jon Bougher about Iran and the media's coverage of it. Definitely made me think, and I would say it is one of the better guest commentaries I have read in the Ithacan in a long time.

* Strong column by Kim Gilman this week. Glad to see someone speaking loudly about this issue. Especially given the Ithacan's disappointing coverage of labor issues in the past. Two words I feel are missing from the column though. Peggy Williams. What are her feelings towards unions? Do we really know what she thinks about any of these hot button issues?

* Although I can't say I hardly ever come close to agreeing with him, Patrick Schwab has written his first ever coherent letter to the Ithacan. This is an important, perhaps even monumentous, occasion for the Republican presence on our campus. The first step towards having your politics respected is having your words follow actual logical trains of thought. I personally don't mind having a robust conservative movement on campus as it kind of forces us liberals to keep our politics robust. Hopefully this example of coherence means we won't have to sit and read shit like this and this again. However, as is the case with most of what Mr. Schwab writes, I can't help but focus in on certain rhetorical flourishes he uses, like "it seems as if Williams relented to a particular group." Who could this particular group be? Would Schawb be as outraged if Williams caved to his particular group and accepted their Intellectual Diversity proposals?

However, even if I can read some problematic undertones into his words, I do have to agree that the logistical concerns he raises are legitimate, though I would also say that the conversation of how to incorporate an MLK Jr. day holiday into our campus schedule has been going on for a long time now, and Mr. Schwab could have participated and "spoke up" back then when his voice could have constructively done something. But of course, then he might have had to interact with "particular groups," and that would have hurt his intellectual diversity.

That's about it for me and the Ithacan today.

- Glitter