A year ago the academic bill of rights lost by one vote in our student assembly here at Cornell. However, this semester the bill finally passed — 10 - 8. I’ve attached a copy of the bill below.

Resolution Regarding the Intellectual Diversity Initiative

Whereas, intellectual diversity acts as the lifeblood of the academe, serving to ensure that students are educated¹ rather than indoctrinated²;

Whereas, this is an idea held especially dear at Cornell, given its stated commitment to fostering an atmosphere of “Open Doors, Open Hearts,” and, particularly important in this case, “Open Minds”;

Be it therefore resolved that the Student Assembly recognize the importance of such diversity by supporting, both in word and in spirit, the attached initiative, thus signaling its desire for all precincts of this university to do the same.

(more…)

1. Education is defined as “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life” (Dictionary.com Unabridged [v 1.1]. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education). [↩]
2. To indoctrinate is “to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” (Dictionary.com Unabridged [v 1.1]. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/ browse/indoctrinate). [↩]

Last week I was jealous that I couldn’t hear Fred Thompson’s speech to the National Council for Policy in Virginia. Thompson has released the speech since then, and it’s available here. It’s a very simple speech on a simple theme — focusing on Roberts and Libby as they two intersect in the fight for the rule of law. In my favorite quote Thompson says:

We have always held our federal judiciary in high esteem, even at a time when most of our institutions are under assault. However, if judges continue to act like politicians they will get the respect currently given to politicians. It is already rapidly headed in that direction. The antidote for this, of course, is good judges.

Tom Goldstein from ScotusBlog has some intriguing analysis on the state of the court, especially as we head into the 2008 election. After looking back at the last four presidents who each were able to choose two justices, he writes:

“The next President similarly will have two appointments immediately (replacing Stevens and Souter), and there also is a very substantial prospect that a Democrat would quickly be in a position to appoint a third (replacing Ginsburg). In fact, if a Democrat wins, there will be something of a race for the exits.”

Goldstein further points out that if a Democrat president wins in 2008, and the three replacements (for Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg) will likely be young and able to sit on the court for several decades.

Considering these prospects, it is crucial that we elect a conservative who will not back down from appointing strict constructionist judges in the mold of Justices Thomas and Scalia to the bench. We can’t let Bush’s legacy of Roberts and Alito go to waste.

Classes have finally finished here at Cornell. The last tests have been completed, everyone (except the seniors) are packing their bags and heading out. It’s very nice to finally relax and have everything finished.

On the political scene on campus there is sad news. Cornell’s two right of center newspapers — The Cornell American and the Cornell Review — have decided to merge into one paper. The new paper will start publishing next fall, will take the name of the Review and the slogan of the American — Limited Government. Traditional Values. America First.

Although perhaps it’s good that the Review will no longer be ashamed of traditional values, I still think this development is on the whole very bad for the conservative scene on campus. Competition is good. If a conservative didn’t feel at home or like the people in one paper, he or she could join the other paper. There was room for diversity and there was the ability for both papers to focus on different aspects of the campus left. The more conservative groups that can host speakers the better.

I also can’t understand why either newspaper would think it is in their best interest to merge, or why Eric (the old editor and chief and one of the founding members of the Cornell American) signed off on the deal. Maybe they just want to split up the work?

Although we often didn’t agree, I was always very proud that Cornell had two conservative papers on campus. Unfortunately that is no longer true. . .