April 21, 2006 - Forum

Josh Silverman hasn't had enough yet: now he wants to get rid of Roe v. Wade! Boys, your girlfriends will like you better if you avoid talking to this one-man controversy machine

by Josh Silverman

Roe v. Wade has become a sacred battleground for pro-choice advocates. Any question of the ruling’s merits or constitutionality is tantamount to sacrilege, and understandably so – this ruling was a huge victory for the choice camp. Yet the legal gymnastics required by the Supreme Court to pass Roe has proven detrimental to both this country and to abortion rights. Every other wealthy country has engaged in a protracted debate on abortion within the legislature or through a series of public referendums. These efforts have led to a resounding victory for abortion rights supporters. But instead of consulting the electorate, U.S. pro-choice advocates have flown over the heads of all popularly elected bodies and have instead tackled the issue within the courts. They have argued that abortion is a fundamental right of privacy, and in a split decision the Supreme Court agreed. The right to an abortion in the U.S., while currently protected, remains highly vulnerable to legal attacks.

The South Dakota Legislature’s February decision to outlaw nearly all abortions is symptomatic of a nation that relies on its courts to settle its policy disputes. South Dakota lawmakers drafted the bill fully expecting Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups to challenge the ban in court. This would instigate a legal battle lawmakers hope would lead all the way up to the Supreme Court, where now sits a decidedly less liberal bench than the one that passed Roe. v. Wade in 1973.

The Roe decision was extremely flimsy, requiring a very flexible reading of the constitution. It relied heavily on the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the precedent that the “right of privacy” was protected by the constitution. The court extrapolated that “penumbras and enumerations” from the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments explicitly protected an individual’s right to privacy, which in this case protected the right of married couples to freely obtain contraceptive devices. This reading was stretched further in 1973 when access to abortion was placed under the newly established umbrella of privacy.

Not only is this ruling extremely vulnerable to reinterpretation, but it also alienates those pro-choicers who in good faith cannot find the right to an abortion hidden within “penumbras and enumerations” of the constitution. Additionally, dragging the Supreme Court into such political issues damages not only the credibility of any abortion ruling, but it also damages the court’s intended apolitical function. This was clearly demonstrated in the confirmation processes of the last two Supreme Court nominees. Liberal senators, who were charged with the duty of gauging the nominees’ political philosophies, could barely hide their quest to reveal how the nominees would rule on Roe v. Wade. Yet can we blame them? In the U.S. we demand that the nine individuals on the Supreme Court unilaterally decide if a woman should have access to an abortion. If they can grant this right as they did in 1973, they can also take it away.

Bringing the fight to the Supreme Court was a tactical decision motivated by the perception that in 1973, the court was more liberal than the legislature and the country at large. Yet in doing so, the real issues have been completely skewed. In most European countries, the abortion debate has centered on what would be best for families, mothers, and children. Legislatures asked the fundamental question, what would make most people in their country happy? But in America the debate has lost itself in a set of constitutional principles. Pro-choice advocates seem terrified of asking what the public wants, lest the answer oppose their own political agenda or moral principles.

Court decisions do not change people’s minds the way the Legislature can. Compare the effects of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) with that of Civil Rights Act of 1964. A decision based on the presumable popular will of the people carries far more weight than one based on a perceived legal technicality.

Though the Roe decision was a significant pro-choice victory, it has politically alienated the movement. Only in America do we demand that our pro-choice advocates also be judicial activists. Instead the movement should embrace the democratic process and ask what the people want, a process that requires none of the tricky legal footwork that erodes the integrity of the constitution. Roe has painted the pro-choice movement as a bunch of legal tricksters who will sacrifice anything, including the constitution, in order to further their political agenda. Yet most pro-choice activists support the Roe decision simply because they want to protect abortion rights. Many do not understand the legal arguments behind the decision, and if they do they are often uncomfortable with Court’s reasoning. What is becoming increasingly clear is that many support the ends of Roe. v Wade – abortion rights – if not the means by which these rights were obtained.

So what would the overturning of Roe v. Wade entail? Though there is disagreement over which states would restrict abortion in what ways, it would inevitably result in a few states enacting bans that would force women to cross state lines to get an abortion. But this is already happening. Mississippi and North Dakota, the states that would be most likely outlaw abortion, already have so few clinics that most women travel large distances to secure an abortion.

If the abortion debate entered the federal Legislature, public opinion would clearly fall on the side of abortion-rights advocates. Since the mid-1970s polls have shown that roughly 80% of Americans continue to support abortion in at least some circumstances.

Roughly 26% support it in all cases. Lawmakers must ultimately answer to the people, and such support would inevitably be reflected in the nation’s laws. It just might be that the Constitution has little, if anything, to say about abortion. So instead of searching the document for answers that may not be there, pro-choice advocates need to finally embark on the democratic process every other wealthy nation has navigated. This is exactly what is going on now in South Dakota. Lawmakers wanted a court battle they were sure they could win. But instead of taking the bait, abortion rights advocates decided to take the issue to the voters. They are invoking an 1898 South Dakota provision that allows voters to challenge a law passed by the Legislature if enough signatures are gathered. If 16,728 of the state’s 486,000 registered voters sign the petition by June 19, the ban will be reconsidered. Already the South Dakota governors’ support numbers are dropping. Voters are letting it be known that their legislature has gone too far and that they support abortion rights.

This is democracy in action.
Back to top
Editor reviews unfinished plans, failed goals and botched projects
by Beka Feathers

t’s interesting how, as the year draws to a close, every senior seems increasingly afflicted by the Hallmark syndrome. As we walk around campus, down Terwilliger, or through Tryon Creek State Park, we have a tendency to run our eyes over the top of the Manor House, cast a longing glance toward Mt. Hood, and mutter some expression loaded with anticipation of the nostalgia we’re sure we’ll feel three months from now, when we enter the dreary world of the full-time job.

I am as guilty of this as any other senior—perhaps more so, since I have a lot of classes in Howard, affording me an excellent view of Mt. Hood from which to express my pre-nostalgia. But in this, my final piece of writing for the Pioneer Log (you may all cheer), I do not intend to indulge in any more sentimental nonsense than I can help. I’ve had a good run here at Lewis & Clark. But I’m not the last student ever to come here, and I haven’t done everything that needs to be done. I haven’t even done everything I should have done.

So instead of talking about myself, I’d like to remind my fellow seniors—and enlighten you younger folks—about a few things that didn’t get done while I was at LC. Some of these things are important because they should have happened and didn’t, some are important because they shouldn’t have and did, and some are important because they are likely to show up again next year, or in a few years’ time, and you’ll be the ones solving the problems and averting the crises. So, without further ado, here goes:

•The CAP report: In 2002, a special task force appointed by President Mooney released the CAP report, an overview of LC academics that recommended such sweeping changes to the academic program as the addition of a Classics minor and the elimination of the East Africa study abroad program. Fortunately, the Curriculum Committee had the good sense to accept the positive change of the Classics minor while relegating the elimination of the East Africa trip to the oblivion it deserves. However, the idea of a broad change in the way LC envisions itself has manifested again in the work of the Planning Task Force.

•Gender-blind housing: The idea of gender-blind housing caught the attention of LC students in the spring of 2005, and could have been an opportunity for LC to be a pioneer (no pun intended) in the field of gender relations. Sadly, gender-blind housing has not yet become the norm.

•30-year plan: LC is plagued by a nebulous plan for improving and renovating the buildings on campus that is constantly undergoing revisions and delays. Some aspects of the plan have been completed, such as the renovation of Albany and the construction of Howard Hall, but others, like the creation of much-needed additional residential housing on campus, have not yet come to pass. Alternative ideas for the housing problems that plague LC, like off-campus undergraduate houses, have not received enough serious consideration.

•Community time: The catchphrase for this year’s ASLC elections was “community,” a continuation of the theme President Hochstettler’s administration has adopted since his arrival here two years ago. But community, as a brilliant professor I know once said of something else entirely, is not like Lipton tea. We cannot hope that merely throwing the world around incessantly will cause community to occur. Community will be born only out of a concerted effort by faculty, student government, student group leaders, and the administration to provide a place for it to grow. It will thrive only if the student body takes it upon itself to create and sustain a sense that scholarship at LC is part of something bigger and more important than just attending class. This is the greatest challenge facing LC in the next five years, and I look forward to seeing what you create.

No single individual or committee at LC can solve these challenges, and if they are to be solved with fairness and finality, it will take more than six months or a year. You who are now freshmen will not see the conclusion of every story I have begun or recounted here, but it will be up to you to continue the tale in a way that brightens your future and the future of LC.
Back to top
Letter to the Editor

“Minority-based scholarships [do not] enforce prejudice”

In the March 24th issue there was an editorial about minority scholarships being racist. The author congratulated schools that have taken a race-blind approach to scholarships.

The main issue we want to raise in regards to that editorial is that of white privilege. White privilege is the set of advantages and benefits white people receive because of how their racial identity is and has historically been treated in this society. How does this privilege relate to minority-based scholarships? Here are our thoughts:

1. The current financial aid system benefits white people. For example, children of alumni are favored through legacy scholarships, even though the history of higher education in this country reveals that alumni of prestigious institutions are disproportionately white.

2. The majority of the people in higher education making decisions about admissions and financial aid are white. These people are more likely to identify with and understand other white people. If white people create the scholarships, it is likely that the scholarships themselves reflect their ideals of what makes a good candidate. Minority-based scholarships aim to adjust for that bias.

3. The idea that people of color have particular experiences and perspectives is not “patently false” nor does it imply that “all minorities think in a certain way.” Obviously not all students of color are the same. But students of color are often disadvantaged in the educational system because they are not white. Minority scholarships acknowledge this and help remedy the racial injustice that has historically benefited white people.

4. Race-blind approaches to financial aid reinforce racism. “Color-blindness” is not the solution; it is in fact another white privilege. White people can afford to be “colorblind” because we choose when we want to “see” race. If race is not a required factor by which white administrators make their decisions, then the decisions will most likely favor white people.

This is not about excessive political correctness or about making white people feel guilty. This is about our commitment to truly allowing access to higher education for all people.

This is also about our desire as students to have a meaningful education, one that is truly filled with a diverse set of perspectives. If we define diversity in terms of “idiosyncracies,” “life experiences,” and “political views” without considering race, we will continue to perpetuate racial inequalities.

Minority scholarships do not only serve the minority students that receive the scholarships, they improve education for all students.

-Lizzie Fussell (‘07) and TJ Harrison (‘06)
Space program does not deserve inflated budget

by Stephanie Beechem

Well, pardon me if I don’t get choked up over a man in a puffy silver suit doing a little dance on the godforsaken lump of clay we call the moon—that big silly rock copycatting Earth’s orbit from a few million miles away and serving, so far as I can tell, very little viable purpose aside from popping up in bad love poems and overplayed radio power ballads.

This past February, the Bush administration called for a 2007 NASA budget of 16.8 billion (for visualization purposes, 16,800,000,000 dollars), a 3.2 percent increase over the 2006 fiscal budget. NASA official Michael Griffin explained in a press release after, having fielded questions that NASA would not have enough money to fund its most critical programs, “There’s never enough money for everything NASA wants to do, so let’s not be silly.” Now, of all the words I might apply to a figure like 16.8 billion, silly is just not one of them.

The NASA funds requested this year fall into one of two main categories: Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration (includes a gigantic range of programs, from solar system exploration and exploration systems to innovative partnerships programs and science education), and Space Operations (includes the International Space Station, space shuttles, and space and flight support).

As far as the latter category is concerned—consuming 6.8 billion of the 16.8 total budget—it would be incredibly euphemistic of me to say that NASA’s space shuttles have struggled in the past few years.

With the exception of the Discovery flight in July of 2005—during which a piece of debris fell off the shuttle only two minutes after its launch, sparking concerns that the shuttle was still not safe enough to consider a manned mission—NASA hasn’t launched a shuttle since February 1, 2003, when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart during its landing approach, killing all seven astronauts aboard. And since the International Space Station serves, for all practical purposes, merely as a docking station for our space shuttles—well, you see the difficulty. A gigantic amount of money, and, as far as the eye can see, not a shuttle in sight.

As far as studying the planet we monkeys actually live on—I’m all for it, except the Bush administration and NASA aren’t as interested in that as they are in sending some puffy-suited gibbon to plant a flag on Mars. This program is, apparently, thriving: “We have a robust Mars program,” said NASA administrator for Space Science Mary Cleve this February. “Every other year we’re going to be launching to Mars.” Great! Let’s figure out the mechanics of another planet, even though we haven’t even got a grip on our own yet. And NASA doesn’t seem to be moving in the right direction there either; funding for science education and research is only being increased a paltry 1.8 percent this year, and will be reduced to a 1 percent increase in subsequent years in order to funnel more money toward the space shuttle and the space station.

To put these numbers in even more perspective—after six or seven zeros my eyes also start to water—this year the Bush administration’s projected Department of Education budget is 3.1 billion less than last year, an overall decrease of 5.5 percent. In my eyes it’s unjustifiable to decrease the Dept. of Education budget—the department that has already bore the brunt of the fiasco that is ‘No (or Every?) Child Left Behind,’ along with this administration’s chronic apathy about improving a public school system that educates the vast majority of its young minds—while upping NASA’s by 3.2 percent.

NASA and the Bush Administration have their hearts on the stars, which I suppose is admirable enough—but their heads must be in the clouds.
Back to top
Bar codes, biopsies and billions: NASA impacts the lives of Americans

by Craig Gilden

Why spend money on exploring outer-space when there are so many problems that need fixing here on Earth? It’s a nice little argument, sounds so simple. There is one major problem with it though, the facts. The impact that the space program has on life in the U.S. is enormous and taking it away would leave a giant hole to be filled.

For residents of Houston, Texas the space program is an essential institution to the makeup of the city. The Johnson Space Center in the bay area of Houston accounts for 26,435 jobs with personal incomes from these jobs over 2.5 billion. NASA provides 72 million dollars in grants to Texas colleges and universities and 44 million to non-profit organizations.

The entire bay area community of Houston revolves around the space center and eliminating NASA would decimate the area. The fourth largest city in the U.S., fresh off the Enron fiasco and welcoming 150,000 Katrina evacuees, could not afford the destruction of a city institution. There are not enough jobs for everyone living in Houston right now and eliminating 26,435 more would further add to an already gigantic problem that even the removal of self-serve gas couldn’t fix.

But Houston is far away, so how does NASA affect my life here at LC? Have you ever shopped at a grocery store, worn sunglasses, or put on tennis shoes? Those are just 3 of the almost 30,000 everyday products that NASA technology helped to create.

NASA has also made numerous contributions to the world of medicine. Such devices as pacemakers and ultrasounds use technology discovered through the space program’s experiments.

The NASA budget was recently announced for 2007 at a robust figure of 16.8 billion dollars, which is actually only .7 percent of the overall federal budget. Any way you slice it that is still a lot of money and I will be the first to say that NASA could probably find better ways to spend their money than they currently do. Most of us associate the space program with failed missions to far away moons that really have nothing to do with us.

Yet NASA does much more for our everyday lives than many people realize. The scientific research and discovery done in the space program has produced numerous inventions that have improved life here on Earth. NASA first developed the technology for computer bar codes that are used in stores everywhere since in the 1970s. The material in fireproof clothing used in firefighters’ suits was first developed on a spacecraft. Products such as tennis shoes, wristwatches, power tools, and sunglasses are just some of the other items that NASA technology has helped to develop and improve.

Most importantly NASA technology has provided many benefits to the medical field. Pacemakers that are used to treat cardiac patients were first derived from the systems that first monitored astronauts and spacecrafts. Most of the medical equipment carried on ambulances originated from the portable equipment astronauts’ use in space.

Biopsies, which have helped detect breast cancer, laser angioplasties that help clear clogged arteries with increased precision and fewer complications, and ultrasounds that can quickly asses burn damage are just three of the improvements in medicine initiated by NASA technology that have undoubtedly saved many lives.

Whether it was a medical operation or just the soles of the shoes you have on your feet, NASA has definitely impacted your life in some way and the eradication of the space program would leave a huge void in important scientific research.
Back to top
Mr. Hamster advocates a skills based education, even for us

by Matt the Savage

e attend a liberal arts college where education is often focused on a blissful pursuit of knowledge to be followed by graduate school, rather than “real world” applications. Which is why it should come as no surprise that the art department is eliminating its classes and concentration in graphic design, choosing instead to focus on the pursuit of artistic knowledge. The only problem is what the hell is someone with a Bachelor of Arts degree in art from Lewis & Clark College going to do with their newfound education, especially if they need to find a way to pay for graduate school?

I can certainly relate to this frustration. As someone who has done a fair amount of work in the political arena, I have often been perplexed as to when I would need to know abstract political science theories about the realignment of political parties or if any country can really be a democracy. And don’t even get me started on Nietzsche (crazy bastard). Classes on public speaking, negotiations, canvassing, and making connections with politicians and political organizations would be far more useful for political work than political theory. And while Research Methods will help me get into graduate school, it doesn’t help when I’m trying to run a mayoral campaign in San Jose.

What is the point of college anyway? Learning practical skills for getting jobs in the outside world? Acquiring knowledge for graduate school? Learning anything that will help you pay back $150,000 in student loans by the way, thanks for cutting student aide, President Bush. Is it a place for unique opportunities to hear speakers, read great books, and meet lifelong friends? Or is it just an excuse to get drunk and stoned, and hopefully hook up with as many attractive people as you possibly can?

I would argue that is all of these things, and more. I concede that I probably will have to go to graduate school, and I will probably hate it (all the studying and none of the party). But I would also stress that even liberal arts colleges should give their students practical knowledge that students can use, especially since not everyone goes to graduate school (another $75,000 in student loans!).

And a perfect example of this is the art major. While art is pretty, and one can be a starving artist being beautifully creative and depressed at the same time, art can also be a useful skill. Advertising is one of the areas that uses people with graphic design skills and digital photography skills. And it doesn’t mean that you have to work for an evil corporation and ‘sell out to the man.’ I hire graphic designers for my campaigns, and I’m not evil. So do other great causes and organizations.

A liberal arts education may provide a foundation for us to view real life problems through a critical lens. But such an education should be supplemented with the skills to influence the aspects of life which we critique.

As I wrap-up this column, I apologize for the lack of practical application to any contemporary issues in politics (except for the need for more student aid, Congress). It was an abstract and theory based essay, and hopeful it will help me get into graduate school.
Back to top