Student Bar Association Coverage – By Matt Kern

November 16, 2009 in SBA by Editor | No comments

After some interesting internal maneuvers on the part of the Docket, and the Senate’s decision to not simply grant us our request for committee updates directly, I am now covering the SBA for the Docket.  So, yay! for no more random national political musings?

A little background first.  Kuni Mirchandani, our editor-in-chief of the Docket, also serves as a 3L member of the SBA Senate.  When Kuni sent out a request earlier this year for committee updates, he received limited responses.  The responses he did receive he put into an SBA forum.  For the committees about which he received no responses, he indicated as much.  This caused great consternation amongst the SBA Senate members, seeming to culminate in a response by SBA Senator Meghan Sheehan lashing out against Kuni and the Docket.  In light of the seemingly obvious conflict Mr. Mirchandani potentially faces in being both editor-in-chief of the Docket and an SBA Senator, David Byrnes and I appeared at the last SBA meeting to submit a request on behalf of the Docket for committee updates.  In the course of that meeting, we observed an hour’s worth of updates on SBA activities.  We also saw how the SBA really feels about many of the members’ claims of increasing accountability.

So first, the SBA updates.  Rodney Pratt, our illustrious SBA President, gave a presentation about bar passage concerns and the impending end of year activities which are currently being planned.  So far so good, right?  Next it moved to the individual SBA committee updates.

I’d be more specific about the updates, but because I wasn’t initially planning on writing this column I wasn’t taking notes.  So the Docket asked SBA Secretary Carrie Primas to provide us a copy of the minutes she took during the meeting.  It’s Friday evening as I write, and still nothing.  Irony, thy name is Student Government.

So, in no particular order and with some apologies in advance as this is based on my own un-aided recollection, the SBA committee updates included these highlights:

Academic Committee:  ACHB reported that her attempts to converse with faculty regarding the current way the school schedules classes (i.e., allowing professors to pick their time slots and then not making them move when too many classes conflict) and about exam conflicts (i.e., not caring if we have exams on back-to-back days or 3 exams in 4 days) produced no results.  Surprise…

Dean’s Advisory Committee:  Kuni reported that they haven’t met since the last SBA meeting, but they would have something soon.

Facilities:  The ongoing struggle over the bathrooms and grounds management is stuck in the muck.  Apparently, the custodial staff is not managed by the individual school buildings, but rather is controlled by the University as a whole.  Because the school officials have no control over whether or when the facilities are maintained, short of a university-wide overhaul you can expect more of the same.  Great…

IT:  Senator Budzinski asserted that there were no IT issues at this time.  Yeah, right…  This interesting statement prompted other Senators to question whether internet connectivity issues are being addressed, whether scheduling on SIS will be problematic as always, and other issues.  Senator Budzinski did his best to deflect (as he obviously hadn’t considered these issues…), but because the committees are not really accountable to the SBA Senate as a whole, they just moved along.

Libraries:  there was some discussion whether the study rooms would have the opaque paper put up over the glass as was done last year by the CSO (who likely thought they were doing a service to students).  One female Senator expressed concern that it made it impossible to determine what was going on in that study room, enabling criminal activity of a physical kind to be obscured.

Then, with less than 10 minutes left in the meeting, came the Docket’s request.  After a simple request that committees submit their updates to the Docket for publication, the Senate got really riled up.  First there was concern that Senators shouldn’t have to report to the Docket.  Then there was concern that if we wanted to be treated like a real paper or reporting service we should show up to the meetings and not rely on what would amount to press releases.  Finally, concern was expressed over whether the kind of releases for which we were asking would violate a Senate bylaw, passed a year ago before the ratification of the new SBA Constitution.  The bylaw forbids senators from representing their position as the official position of the SBA.  It does not prohibit communications about the SBA by individual senators.  Indeed, it would be impossible for any individual senator to communicate to their constituencies about ongoing SBA activities.  Such an absurd result surely could not have been what the Senate last year intended in their hastily-prepared bylaw

So with the meeting having gone over time, the Senate voted to “interpret” their existing bylaw as not excluding communications of the type sought.  Our request was not voted upon, and so this column is coming to you in lieu of any kind of semi-official representation by SBA committee persons.  It was telling that the cheers and jeers which traditionally accompany the end of an SBA meeting one senator made a cheer to putting off the Docket’s request for information.

Exactly what did the Senate think was going to happen?  Sure, we’ll put off their request for info as long as possible because they won’t do anything about it.  We all ran on “increasing SBA accountability and making the process more open to all” but that was clearly a bunch of bull.  We operate in a relative air of secrecy to the extent that no only do NO students ever show up to meetings, but they probably won’t care even if some of what happened gets reported.

This presents a myriad of problems I hope to explore in my remaining semester here.  First, and maybe most critically, is the lack of real student input.  Aside from annual voting which students feel is their only obligation to the whole process, from my experience no one who is not elected ever shows up to the SBA meetings when they are not either up for an appointment or in line to get SBA money to put on student org programming.  By definition, we’re all guilty of it.  Even aside from the merits of the situation, we allow Senate to operate in the way it does.  Short of someone running a campaign on a funny picture, people who won their first year don’t lose.  The numbers are even worse for the transition from 2L to 3L.  Short of 2L Senators dropping out of the race to focus on other things (newly created Article II Executive positions, journal editorships, classwork, a jobsearch, etc…), 2L Senators win reelection.  While some of this is the fact that people who didn’t win their first time out don’t run again, we have to question the political customs of the law school which produce these results.

Second, and almost as critically, we need to question the role of Student Government.  In the words of President Obama, “let me be clear.”  I’m not saying that Student Government isn’t a worthwhile organization or that they don’t do things which benefit me.  To the extent that they work on issues tied to my daily existence in the building, I’m glad they try.  We need to focus, however, on what power the SBA really has.  The inconvenient truth is that SBA has only those powers the faculty and administration allow it to have.  The SBA cannot unilaterally vote to force the administration to re-schedule classes which haven’t changed time slots since you were born.  They can’t even make the custodial staff more accountable for the shitty bathrooms.  And even though the moot court room is hardly used for moot court and is a terrible mock trial room, it’s likely that that room will look exactly like it does when you finally decide to hang it up in 40-something years.  It’s not that SBA is useless, but it might be damn close.  In truth, SBA is a kind of organized union.  It doesn’t have power to change the rules by itself, but operates as a kind of go-between between students and those who really have the power.

In the coming semester I hope to flush these issues out and present a real picture of student government at the law school.  Although I admit many friends are members of student government, I hope to present a rather objective picture of the SBA so that every student can decide whether and to what extent we wish to continue along this path.  So far the Docket has been your snarky Monday morning entreat into the political news of the past week-and-a-half and crossword puzzles you do on the bridge while waiting for your next class to start in an hour.  Personally, I want to see the Docket be more vibrant, and so I will strive to provide more substance (with the same amount of snarkiness you crave to keep it interesting).  To the extent you care, let me know.

Chomsky – By: Kunal Mirchandani, Editor-in-Chief

November 9, 2009 in Politics by Editor | No comments

Noam Chomsky’s long career as a political commentator has been marked with a deep critique of American policy. Since his first book in 1967 he has authored over sixty articles, papers, and books evaluating US national and international policy. Hegemony or Survival takes a deep look at the past and future of the United States dominance as a sole superpower. It is clear to see that 9/11 has acted as a catalyst for powerful elite to push their plans of continued US global domination. However, this plan is failing, and the US is facing a battle over hegemony or it’s continued existence as we know it.  Although Chomsky has often been charged as a hypocrite for working at MIT, the largest non-profit military contractor, his critiques are well justified and offer a stern warning to the future of the industrial military complex.

Very few people know that Noam Chomsky began his career as a linguistic anthropologist. His contributions to the field include the theory of universal grammar. A theory that states humans have innate linguistic tools that allow them to code grammar and acquire language in similar ways. Simply put, it means that humans have similar grammar and acquisition skills regardless of the specific language they learn. The theory is revolutionary because it suggests that humans contain neural pathways that allow them to learn language. This would mean that our closest biological relatives, monkeys, might have the same powers. Washoe is a chimpanzee raised in an environment rich with American Sign Language (AML). She has learned over two hundred signs and is often considered to be the first non-human to learn a human language. However, there has been much critique over this title by Herbert S. Terrace who claimed that chimps could not learn grammar. His experiments with Nim Chimpsky, a cleverly devised name to rile Chomsky, concluded that chimps did not learn any meaningful sequential grammar, and it could not be considered language. Controversy rages on between the theories as Washoe began teaching her offspring ASL as a method of communication.

Chomsky has also contributed the field of computer science with his theory of hierarchy. Simply put, the theory states that each symbol can produce a context for the proceeding symbol. For example, I like dogs, is context bound by the first symbol to relate to the speaker, the second symbol bounds the object to something likable, and finally the third symbol is context free. The theory, although simply put here, has been effective in writing computer rules and codes.

However important and ground breaking his contributions to other fields Chomsky is internationally known as the foremost political dissident. He claims that the United States has had a long standing history of double-standards for itself and other nations. Although the US promotes itself as the world protector of freedom and liberty, it’s actions, both domestic and international, severely undermine the claim. Chomsky writes that the military industrial complex, a term coined by former President Eisenhower, is the true running policy of the country. For example, while there are very few, if no missiles capable of reaching the US, there has been significant spending on missile defense systems. There are systems in development that would allow the US to engage in a space based attack of any location on the planet. Intelligence agencies predict that this build-up will lead to a Chinese build-up of similar proportions. Although the Chinese have continually designated their army as minimally deterrent force, this new frontier will likely lead to a re-designation of priorities. Eventually, the proliferation will trickle down to defense systems being sold to “Axis of Evil” countries like, North Korea, Iran, and Syria. The US has even taken active steps to ensure the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs. By cutting the funding to help support the maintenance and security of the former Soviet Union’s weapons, it is opening up the opportunity for scientists and weapons grade munitions to be “miss-placed” in the hands of the “Axis of Evil.” As Chomsky so brilliantly puts out, “The National Security Strategy of 2002 virtually ignored measures to alleviate the threat of military confrontation. No less disturbing, it invited potential adversaries to”.

The clearest and most blatant example of this form of proliferation is the current Iraq war. Virtually any lay person could have predicted on March 19th 2003, that invading Iraq would only cause more US resentment and hostilities. This war was a clear sign that US policy is against using weapons as a source of deterrence, but solely as a source of war. But the war has much broader implications than just confirmation on the fact of US aggression. The Iraq war signifies a world superpower in the final battle for its hegemony over the world. With the rise of China, with one hundred year policies, and control of over one trillion dollars of debt, the US is finding it impossible to be the world’s sole economic superpower. To counter this fear, the US has attempted to take control over the as much oil as possible in the middle-east. On the belief that controlling the world’s energy resource will put a reign on Chinese economic expansion. Unfortunately, the US has not been able to control Iraq, and is finding itself the target of even greater animosity. In addition, Iran, the world’s second largest oil producer and second largest gas reserves, has strong economic ties to China. Chomsky’s title, “Hegemony or Survival” is based on the likelihood of the US risking its survival in a World War III or acquiescing to the inevitable fall as the worlds sole superpower.

Chomsky’s statements cause significant controversy, and he has been labeled anti-American, anti-Semite. This goes without regard to his American birth and Jewish heritage. David Horowitz has often charged Chomsky of misquoting and taking out of context the comments of government officials. He penned the nickname ”Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate” and called Chomsky one of the most dangerous intellects in America. He has also charged Chomsky of having a pathological hatred for his own country. However, there is relatively scarce information to support the claims. Although he claims wild misquotations, this author has not been able to find anything supporting the claim. On the other hand Horowitz has been cited countless times for his manipulation of quotes, and poor fact checking. His main work about the liberal bias on most university campuses is widely regarded as having more holes than Swiss cheese (imo). Several of his “horror” stories of the left have failed to be corroborated, or been widely manipulated for the authors motives. Horowitz has often been considered a racist and bigot by leading civil rights activists like Morris Dees.

Noam Chomsky is one of the most prolific dissenting authors of the century. His commentaries on the double standard of American politics have etched him a place in history. Although he is constantly attacked for his simple explanation of fact, his adversaries are few and clearly un-credible. His bleak predictions on the future of global politics should cast fear into the hearts of all peace loving people. In contrast to the highly propagated belief of US supremacy, we are witnessing a change in the global paradigm. Within this authors generation the US will take its final throws of hegemony at the cost of survival.

« Older entries