It’s almost Spring here in Ithaca, and all the upperclassmen (sorry, upperclassPEOPLE) at Cornell know what that means: The Cornell Daily Sun commemorating the anniversary of the armed takeover of Willard Straight. This year, the 40th anniversary, they are kicking it up a notch. Instead of just one or two feature articles, the Sun is running four interviews with people involved with the armed takeover, followed by a supplemental section some time after Spring break, and will then cap it off with a panel discussion in April.

The first interview was with New York City attorney Robert Gottlieb ’72. Gottlieb was a freshman at the time, giving him a first hand view of what the effects of the takeover have been. According to the interview he credits the takeover with leading to; the establishment of Student Trustees at Cornell (understandable), and Barack Obama getting elected (a bit of a stretch).

Gottlieb, who was one of the first four student trustees, then went on to lament the diminished role of the student trustee. During his time, there were four student trustees with voting rights, one of whom served on the almighty Executive Board. Now there are only two student trustees, and neither serves on the E-Board.

Is that really a problem though? Sure there may be some dinosaurs on the Board of Trustees who have no idea what issues students in the 21st century face, but most likely those aren’t the ones who serve on the E-Board, and if they do I think that’s fine. I would much rather have an experienced business executive, banker, lawyer etc. on the board than more wide eyed moonbat activists. Especially given the current economic state of the country and University. It is times like these idealism needs to take a back seat to the hard facts at hand. So far the Board of Trustees has done a decent enough job of that, instead of focusing on going green, they are working on saving green, this would be harder to do with more student activists on the board filibustering every move.

On a side note Gottlieb praised the students at NYU who staged a takeover of Kimmel Center for Student Life last month, likening their demands similar to the demands of the students who took over WSH in ’69, more student involvement in the administration, student seats on the board of trustees, and oversight of university investments. He even offered them legal assistance. Upon watching this video, filmed during the end of the takeover, you will hopefully lose all respect for Gottlieb due to his willingness to help these yahoos. My favorite part comes at the end when they claim the police won’t steal their reusable water bottles or clothes because they “drink corporate water… (and) don’t wear clothes, they wear suits”

In a seemingly innocuous op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of the Cornell Daily Sun, Daniel Eichberg writes about the differences between the Hotelie and ILRie mindset.

But apparently, Eichberg knows something none of us do:

Of critical importance to both Hotel and ILR is President Obama’s recent signing of the Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation aims to make it easier for unions to enlist workers because it would let them join unions by openly singing cards rather than through the traditional secret-ballot election system in which companies can campaign against the union. Needless to say, the Hotelies are pissed, while most ILRies need a change of pants due to happiness.

Perhaps that’s true in Eichberg’s world. But in America, EFCA has only been introduced in the House and Senate, not signed into law.

Although I don’t agree with the Sun’s decision to run an op-ed with such a glaring error, I do support their call for a “public editor” for obvious reasons. Giving its readers a public forum will make the readership more aware of the frequency of these errors. As the newspaper of record at Cornell, the Sun‘s fact-checkers [if they exist] should have the wherewithal to at least do a serviceable job.

Today at 12:52 PM, 40 AAP students charged through Statler Hall to promote Dragon Day. Wearing only their underwear and with bodies painted green, the architecture students shrieked, “Dragon Day!”

One hotel school student, DM, described the event, giggling, “They looked funny in their underwear.”

Yesterday afternoon a few of us from the Review had the pleasure of hearing a talk by Robert Malley, former Clinton advisor at Camp David and current program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group in Washington, D.C. The subject of his lecture: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Malley addressing an attentive audience in GWS. Photo Credit: Oliver Renick

Malley began by saying that many tunnel-visioned perceptions drive the current discourse on the conflict, and that it is impossible to properly understand the issue and solve the problem without first understanding how both sides are living the experience. The Israelis see the conflict as a series of aggressions and rejections by Palestine and other Arab neighbors, all of them questioning the legitimacy of the one place on earth where Israelis feel protected. On the other end of the spectrum, the Palestinians experience is one marked by constant aggression and occupation by Israel for land that originally belonged to the Palestinians.

We are at a moment of great paradox, according to Malley. Never has there been greater clarity and consensus about the necessity of a two state solution. Although there may be disagreements on the details, logical solutions are on the table. Why, then, with so much consensus, is everything going in the other direction? Malley cited several reasons: 1) The collapse of U.S. credibility as a peace broker in the region. 2) Fractionalization of Palestinian movement and the growing physical divide between the West Bank and Gaza. 3) The fact that every recent Israeli government has fallen apart as it tried to touch the peaces process.

After his lecture, Malley receives questions from the audience. Photo Credit: Oliver Renick

So, with so many obstacles, how will this conflict be eventually resolved? Malley believes that in order for a sustainable peace to be agreed upon, it will have to reflect the authentic feelings on both sides. It must reflect the acknowledged wrongs and transgressions on both sides. The most important point, at the moment, is that the scope of the peace process must be broadened. Other Arab states must be brought to the negotiating table because, ultimately, Israel wants peace and recognition from all of its neighbors.

I don’t think there is a better expert on this topic than Malley, but I am skeptical about his last point. Is it really reasonable to believe that all Arab states would help broker a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, when, only recently, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel will soon be “erased from the geographical scene”? I still doubt that there is any short-term possibility of creating genuine harmony between Israel and its surrounding Arab neighbors.