On February 27, conservatives lost an icon – arguably, the founder of the modern conservative movement, and the “scourge of liberalism.” More importantly, however, America lost, in William F. Buckley, was a great American thinker, who, from an age not more advanced than our own, began to shape the intellectual, cultural, and political dialogue of this country.
What if you could say anything you wanted, to anybody you wanted, without anyone knowing it was you who was speaking? What would you say? Who would you say it to?
The concept of anonymity is one found throughout our society in many different forms. You can call an anonymous tip line to aide law enforcement in reporting a crime, or attend an anonymous help group like Alcoholics Anonymous to seek assistance with a problem you might be ashamed of. If you are Catholic, you might confess your sins to a priest from behind a screen. We walk through crowds in big cities as just another face in that crowd—no one watching really knows who we are. To the person across the room from you in your economics lecture, you might just be that guy who wears the same sweatshirt every day to class.
Unless it is through tomes of learning, students of history rarely get to interact with those figures that actually make history. On January 31, however, students of Professor Thomas Schwartz's class on Power and Diplomacy in the Modern Middle East were so fortunate.
In 1988, over the course of eight military campaigns, thousands Kurds were murdered in the northern regions of Iraq. Some estimates put the death toll at 200,000. Vanderbilt Professor Michael Newton said, in a lecture delivered last October at the Vanderbilt Law School, that this was a âdeliberate, systematized, and orchestrated series of campaigns intended to eradicate every trace of Kurdish civilization and culture across a broad swath of Northern Iraq. The campaign was one meant to deny the Kurds their fundamental human right to exist in peace and dignity. Saddam Hussein and others, such as Chemical Ali, had made history carrying out one of the most horrific genocides to date.
Who wouldn’t want to be able to pick up national news and commentary as
easily as they grab The Hustler or The Torch on the way to class?
For many years, Vanderbilt students have heard news about the possibility of bringing widely known, national newspapers to campus to be available free of charge to students. This USA Today Campus Readership Program seems to be a great idea on the surface, and has been billed as such by Vanderbilt Student Government and Vanderbilt students alike.
Picking up a recent issue of The Vanderbilt Hustler, you may have been surprised to learn a few things about yourself that you never knew before.
For example, did you know that you “misunderstand” individual people and their stories in favor of large, fabricated stereotypes and generalizations?
Did you know that you have “constructed walls” around yourself, presumably to isolate you from those other kinds of people who aren’t like you?
And I’ll bet you never guessed that instead of “getting to know each other,” you’d rather just take the easy route and apply a label to each one of your friends and acquaintances.
How much would you pay for something you could legally get for free?
This may seem like a ridiculous question to ask, but on October 10, music fans everywhere had the chance to witness – and participate in – the changing landscape of the music industry, and especially how we purchase our music.
By now, most students have had the opportunity to go visit the Commons and witness the changing scope of Vanderbilt’s campus. The debate rages, both on campus and in the pages of this publication, over the positives and negatives of Vanderbilt’s new residential college system and how it will change the face of our university. The values and ideas upon which the Commons and ensuing residential colleges are founded will affect many future students of this University, and despite what many on campus would have you believe, that is a good thing.
Why do we hate? This question, the main theme of this year’s Project Dialogue, was posed on September 11th to Gore Vidal, “one of America’s foremost essayists, authors, social, and political critics.”
Of course, this question implies that we do in fact hate someone, or something. Do you know precisely what you hate, or why? Do you feel comfortable disclosing and analyzing your hatred? Is hatred always a negative trait, or can it be healthy and cathartic? No matter what you answer to these questions, it remains that hatred is a uniquely human trait that is often too frightening to address head-on.
Two weeks ago, you could probably count on two hands the number of Vanderbilt students who could tell you who Don Imus is or what he does. Today, however, anybody who pays any attention to the daily news will most likely tell you he is a racist.
Imus, for those who have not heard of him, was until recently the host of Imus in the Morning, a radio comedy show on New York’s WFAN that was simulcast on television on MSNBC. As one of the very first “shock jocks” who began his career in the 1960s and ‘70s, Imus has long been ridiculing everyone in the public sphere, including himself. While his daily guests included presidential candidates, senators, journalists, military officials, and musicians, his show was comedic, and Imus never pretended to be a journalist.
Last month, plans were announced for the institution of a new group on Vanderbilt’s campus. By blending various political organizations on campus together, the existence of the Advocacy Council raises a number of questions regarding the nature of politics and culture at Vanderbilt.
Described in its constitution as a “conglomeration of…Vanderbilt Republicans, Vanderbilt Libertarians, Dores for Israel, Vanderbilt Amnesty International, Vandy Fems, Vanderbilt College Democrats, Students for Life, Free the Children Free the Slaves, Global Health Council, and Democracy Matters,” the Advocacy Council represents a group of Vanderbilt organizations that have characteristically political motives.
Continue reading "Advocacy Council Funding Misguided, Inefficient" »
