Cornell Insider

a blog by the writers of the Cornell Review

Archive for February 11th, 2010

‘Daily Stun’ Burns the Constitution In A Single Editorial

Posted by Oliver Renick on February 11, 2010

[UPDATE]: I realized I just couldn’t let this pass until later.  As an update to my earlier post about yesterday’s UA resolution to pass a worthless – in every sense of the word – anti-discriminatory clause, I’d like to present the following to our readers.

For those of you who haven’t read the Daily Stun‘s editorial today, here is an excerpt (the only excerpt worth reading):

…an anti-discrimination clause would inhibit the University’s ability to provide free speech, free association and free expression rights in a manner akin to the federal government….we deny that Cornell should provide such unrestrained First Amendment rights to its students in the first place.

Finally.  I can finally give praise to the Stun editors for not restraining their eternal, deepest, most insidious desire to send a giant middle finger to the Constitution of the United States of America.  At very last they have come out of the radical closet to admit that they believe Cornell University should have every right to impede upon every student’s free speech, association, and expression.  I’m proud to be part of an institution that allows me to print a paper this coming Wednesday that will offer an opinion of reasonable, perhaps intellectual, and stable mind.

If you agree with the editors at the Cornell Daily Sun that you are smarter, wiser, more prudent, and more visionary than all of the following men, then support their movement.  Or, if you are rebellious enough to embrace the belief that the following men had something good going on, or if you just enjoy your liberty, I desperately ask you to make yourself known.  Write Skorton. Write the Review.  Write the Stun. Write on your blog.  Post a comment.  Be heard.

People the Stun thinks are baffoons:

1             Washington, George

2             Read, George

3             Bedford, Jr., Gunning

4             Dickinson, John

5             Bassett, Richard

6             Broom, Jacob

7             McHenry, James

8             Jenifer, Daniel

9             Carroll, Daniel

10           Blair, John

11           Madison, Jr., James

12           Blount, William

13           Dobbs, Knight

14           Williamson, Hugh

15           Rutledge, John

16           Cotesworth, Charles

17           Pinckney, Charles

18           Butler, Pierce

19           Few, William

20           Baldwin, Abraham

21           Langdon, John

22           Gilman, Nicholas

23           Gorham, Nathaniel

24           King, Rufus

25           Johnson, William

26           Sherman, Roger

27           Hamilton, Alexander

28           Livingston, William

29           Brearley, David

30           Paterson, William

31           Dayton, Jonathan

32           Franklin, Benjamin

33           Mifflin, Thomas

34           Morris, Robert

35           Clymer, George

36           Fitzsimons, Thomas

37           Ingersoll, Jared

38           Wilson, James

39           Morris, Gouverneur

Posted in Campus Insiders | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

SA vs. UA: Thumb-Twiddling Competition

Posted by Oliver Renick on February 11, 2010

Any form of an anti-discrimination clause is a bad idea. They’re overly broad, ambiguous, and in practice usually accomplish nothing.  Of course, some students on the Stun, Student Assembly and University Assembly fervently disagree.  They propel their idea by the tactic of labeling their opposition as being discriminatory bigots.  Nobody wants to be that one guy who disagrees with ‘the rest.’  So, the proponents of such legislation are experiencing some success.  Today that team, led by Andrew Brokman, has managed to encompass all of the properties of a typical discriminatory clause (see: broad, ambiguous, useless) and passed Resolution 14 (PDF of Res – please read).  Among other issues, this resolution will literally change nothing.  Brokman is quoted in the Stun saying “it puts people on notice that if you harass someone…then there will be consequences.”  Profound.

Now Brokman is often on the same page as we at the Insider but we’re reading completely different books on this one.  Because he wants to take it one step further, and extend the resolution’s words to apply to individual organizations.  As of now, according to the Stun, the UA cannot interfere with individual cases; Chi Alpha would still rightly be able to remove Donohoe from leadership.  So what has the UA accomplished as of yet? About as much as Rammy has by proposing elimination of the swim test.  Right now the two assemblies are struggling for relevancy.  If there’s nothing good to be passed, they shouldn’t pass anything  – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  There are times when idle legislators are more insightful than active ones.  If the members of the SA and UA are really getting this  jittery in their seats, they can come help me with my engineering homework.

More to come…

Posted in Campus Insiders | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.