Volume 7, Issue 5

12ReviewT h e P u r d u e

A JournAl of ConservAtive thought And opinion

Bayh Will Not run Again

After 12 years, Evan Bayh is leaving the Sen-ate. It’s just too parti-san. Candidates on both sides of the aisle line up in droves to fill the vacuum left by his exit

Conservatismin A nut shell

We continue our semes-ter long series on defin-ing Conservatism. What is it and what are its defining principles?

value of an educationAs college tuition has gone up, the standards and quality of that edu-cation have gone down. Are we being well pre-pared for the workplace?

g r a d i n g our gradesLast year, Purdue moved to a plus/minus grad-ing system. Is it fair? Not when an A+ is worth the same as an A. How has the switch affected you?

volume 7, issue 5 | March 2010

Price vs. People

new vice president for human resources

position at purdueIs it worth the $100,000 salary increase?

We think so.

pg. 10

3 17 14

2 March, 2010 The Purdue Review

letter from the editor

Join Us: The Purdue Review is looking for staff writers, columnists, pho-tographers, section editors, copy editors, layout editors, full time media specialists, graphic designers, and web designers.

If you’re interested in joining The Purdue Review, please contact the Editor in Chief, Jay Wood at [email protected].

All Majors Welcome.

Support Us: The Purdue Review is funded completely by dona-tions and advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University, the Repub-lican Party, or any political organization for that matter. Without the generous dona-tions from readers like you, the Purdue Review would not exist.

If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and our cause, please con-sider making a financial donation. Donations can be mailed or made online. Checks should be made out to The Purdue Review, Inc.. Mail subscriptions are free and can be ordered on our website or by contacting the Publisher.

[email protected]

The Purdue ReviewPO Box 931Lafayette, IN 47902

Jay Wood, Editor in ChiefScott Sowers, Publisher

Rohan Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Managing EditorAaron Anspaugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Features EditorChris Ellison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State/Local EditorJordan Hebbe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Politics EditorDave Siukola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout EditorAndrew Nguyen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Layout EditorAbbie Krueger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus EditorJosh Teasdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senior Staff Writer EmeritusJennifer Haywood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterTyler Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterMorgan Ikerd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterKristin Patras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterJohn Westercamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterAsher Dimitroff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guest CommentatorAshley Hobbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant PublisherDirk Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant PublisherStewart Simpson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Graphic ArtistRebecca Dirkse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Graphic ArtistSean Horoho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy EditorAnne Charlton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy Editor

Board of Directors: Nathan Arnold, ChairChase Slaughter, Adam Rusch, Jeff Schultz,

David Bridges, Jan Payne, Vicki Burch

[email protected]

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the March Issue of The Purdue Review! Our publication was founded in January 2006, and the first issue came out the following month. The Purdue Re-view has been publishing issues every semester since. We are extremely proud to continue the tradition of providing a distinct conservative voice not only to the Purdue campus, but to the Greater Lafayette community as well. Despite its physical appearance, The Purdue Review is not a newspaper. It is a journal of thought and opinion. As a journal, our focus is not on break-ing the news, but rather on providing our analysis of the news, which goes deeper than just who, what, and where. Our interest is in the why and how.

It seems to me that even in difficult times, there always seems to be a silver lining. Often times, unfavorable events don’t necessarily tell the whole story. We witnessed a heartbreak-ing hockey loss in the Olympics to our friends north of the border, but the United States still won the most medals. Robbie Hummel suffered a season ending injury, but Purdue still won a share of the Big Ten title. Many of us have midterm exams this week, but Spring Break and St. Patrick’s Day are right around the corner. A lack of exercise may have taken a toll on our bod-ies during the winter months, but the weather is getting warmer, and we are becoming more active. The same thing is true in American politics.

As conservatives, we have experienced something of a winter ourselves. 2006 and 2008 took a toll on us. We slacked off and it caught up with us. The story isn’t over though. There are still more chapters to be written. Our values might not be well-represented in Washington D.C. today, but what about tomorrow? We haven’t thrown in the towel. We’ve stepped back in the ring and we’re putting up a fight. I hope that you enjoy our publication as much as we enjoy producing it for you. I hope our message resonates and inspires you to join our growing movement.

God Bless,Jay A. Wood

ReviewT h e P u r d u e

www.purduereview.com

Mission Statement: The editorial staff at The Purdue Review will utilize the medium of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue University as well as the entire Greater Lafayette community.

Disclaimer: The views expressed within these pages are the views held expressly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not neces-sarily reflect the opinions of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue University. This paper is in not directly affiliated with Purdue University; however, the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue students. This paper is distributed by the University Conservative Action Network (U-CAN), a registered Student Organization. The first copy of this issue is free at distribution sites. For additional copies, contact the Publisher, Scott Sowers at [email protected]

3The Purdue Review March, 2010

Conservatism In A NutshellFollowing the election of Barack

Obama and Democratic gains in the House and Senate in 2008, many political pundits proclaimed that the Conservative era of governance was over. Americans, they claimed, had thoroughly rejected Conserva-tive ideas because those ideas had been demonstrably disproven for they had led to the greatest eco-nomic downturn since the great depression. The only problem with this analysis is that the ideas in question are not really Conserva-tive ideas.

For many people, especially those in Generation Y, their main experience with governance has been the government of the last decade which, though primar-ily dominated by Republicans, was not necessarily Conservative, but a hybrid of Conservative ideas (e.g., low taxes) and Progressive ideas (e.g., government as the engine of economic growth) which had di-sastrous effects. Additionally, we have not seen an overwhelmingly popular Conservative spokesper-son since Newt Gingrich in the ear-ly 1990’s.

It is no surprise then that many Americans do not have a good grasp of what Conservatism really is. It’s not that Conservatism is too complicated for most people to un-derstand, or that it has not been explained well enough, for Conser-vatism is something that the ma-jority of Americans inherently un-derstands and agrees with. Rather, Conservatism has not really been explained at all for quite some time and, more importantly, has not been implemented or adhered to by those in Government who claim to be Conservative.

Our goal then, for the rest of the semester, is to explain the Conser-vative philosophy in a way that many people have probably not heard since the Reagan years. We

who is to say what is necessary? This entire definition of greed is based on the idea that there is a distinct limit to success, and any-thing above that limit is unnatural or immoral. According to the Left, the government should not only decide what is necessary for each person, but also what actions to take to remedy the injustice of hav-ing (or pursuing) “excess” wealth.

Looking at it from that perspec-tive, who wouldn’t be a socialist? If one actually accepts the premise that there are moral limits to suc-cess, and that the government is the best entity to fix this problem, then it would make perfect sense to see capitalism as the promotion of greed, and socialism as the only solution. But this skewed defini-tion of capitalism only explains the

mindset behind socialism. True free-market capitalism is

based on a different defi-nition of greed: pursu-

ing self-interest.It is in human

nature to want to succeed, to want to better one’s condition in life, to want to pro-vide for one’s family and en-joy prosperity. Our Founders

CapitalismBy AARON ANSPAUGH

Imagine a playroom filled with toddlers. One of the toddlers de-cides to take all the toys for himself. The other children are left toyless and crying. The teacher sees this injustice and then distributes the toys amongst the kids, making sure that everyone has an equal amount and no one is left out. Any liberal would look at this example and make the clear connection be-tween the greedy child and a capitalist, as well as between the teacher and a benevolent socialist government. But is this simple example really a good illustration of the differ-ence between capitalism and socialism?

To say that capitalism is based on greed requires that greed be defined. When lib-erals use the term “greed”, they refer to someone de-siring or pursuing mate-rial wealth beyond what is necessary to them. But

will attempt to explain what we believe Conservatism really is and what the main tenets of Conserva-tism are. Despite the common per-ception, there is more to Conserva-tism than lowering taxes, repealing Roe v. Wade, and fighting wars in the Middle East. In fact, this is as an extremely poor representation of what Conservatism is.

In this issue, we will be address-ing the pragmatism and individual-ism of Conservatism. We will also be dissecting the time tested eco-nomic system of Capitalism as well as the negative effects of Welfare. In the April Issue, we will be discuss-ing foreign policy, American Excep-tionalism, and national security.

See “Conser-vatism...” on

pg. 4

Adam Smith


From Page 3Conservatism...

See “Conservatism...” on pg. 5

“poor” people having hardly any. The only way their mind can con-ceive of making the situation more “fair” is to redistribute that static pizza. But this view of the economy completely ignores the concept of economic growth. Imagine the same pizza, but instead envision that the pizza is constantly grow-ing bigger. Economic growth, by a dictionary definition, is the yearly growth in per capita GDP. An easier way to think of it is that our econ-omy is not simply shuffling around the wealth that already exists. It is creating new wealth and therefore improving the standard of living of the entire nation.

But the pizza illustration is still incomplete. What does someone do once they have pizza? To fix the pic-ture, imagine that a “rich” person could trade

pizza for stuff they want. While the rich person got their stuff, every-one who had a part in making that stuff would get some pizza. The pizza did not have to be redistrib-uted or “spread around”. It natural-ly “trickled down” the supply-side economics chain, creating the eco-nomic growth that grew the pizza and improved the lives of everyone involved.

The concept of “trickle-down economics” is a central tenet to free-market capitalism. This idea fights against the misconception that excess wealth is immoral. For example, think of some million-aire wanting a mansion. A liberal view would be that the mansion is greedy, so the millionaire should be taxed heavily in order to give mon-ey to those people who don’t even have houses, much less mansions.

Not only does this punish the millionaire for

being wealthy, but it also

robs the o t h e r

p e o -p l e

in

the sup-ply chain of

their share of the wealth that mansion would have created.

A true view of trickle-down economics realizes the value of

wealth in the supply chain. If the millionaire is

kept from building the house, the

a r c h i t e c t a n d

c o n -struc-t i o n

compa-nies lose

money. Then

clearly understood this, with the 3rd God-given right in the Decla-ration being the “pursuit of hap-piness.” This recognizes that indi-viduals are created with a sense of “greed”, that is, a desire to pursue personal success. Our nation was unique at the time of our founding, in that we wanted to let people’s destinies and position in life be de-termined by their own actions rath-er than the class into which they were born. We began the switch from a class-based aristocracy to a free-market-driven meritocracy.

Over the dynamic history of our nation, building upon the Transpor-tation, Communication, and Indus-trial Revolutions, these principles of a meritocracy created oppor-tunities for people that had never before existed in history. Through boom and bust, war and peace, our people continued to pursue their own self-interest and thus guide what Adam Smith called “the invisible hand.” As technol-ogy and society evolved, people’s self-interests changed, and the economy naturally adapted. Our na-tion’s economy almost single-h a n d e d l y n u r t u r e d the con-d i t i o n s necessary for one of the most important strengths of capitalism: e c o n o m i c growth.

I m a g i n e our economy as a pizza. Social-ists see the pizza as a static object, with the “rich” people having a large share and the

the painters and plumbers and carpet companies lose business as well. Gardeners, pool cleaners, maids, butlers, and even the kid down the street who mows the lawn would all be removed from that supply chain, stripping them of their share of the economic growth. All things considered, hundreds of people could be involved in the building or upkeep of a mansion, every one of whom would be af-fected negatively when the wealth is kept from trickling down from the highest levels.

One misconception of capital-ism is that it is the same thing as a laissez-faire-style economy. In this form of society, the government is literally not involved at all with the economy. While this gets libertar-ians and anarchists very excited, capitalism does not mean that gov-ernment will have no part in the so-ciety. First of all, government prints the money. Without a standard of stable currency, no economic sys-tem would advance past barter-ing with precious metals. Second, government is needed to write and enforce laws that keep people from harming others. A stable system of justice is completely necessary to create a safe, level playing-field on which the economy can stand. Third, the government is a con-sumer within the economy. People cannot ignore the fact that the gov-ernment requires money to oper-ate functions such as defense and infrastructure, and this piece can-not simply be thrown out of the equation.

However, when the government is used as a solution to economic problems, rather than letting the free market work itself out, irrepa-rable damage can be done to the economy. Excessive taxing, spend-ing, and borrowing all tamper with the free market in ways that the



IndividualismBy DAVE SIUKOLA

The United States was once called “the Land of Opportunity” because any one person could leave the Old World and journey across the ocean to make something of himself. In the Old World, some-one’s status remained stagnant throughout his life. The opportu-nity in the United States allowed an individual to succeed without re-spect to where he was born or from which class he came. The power of the individual and the success it brings is what created the Ameri-can Dream.

Unfortunately, the focus of the Ameri- c a n

rest of the economy cannot easily resist. Putting restrictions on the rest of the economy holds back economic growth even further. Combine those problems with irre-sponsible management of currency and it becomes clear to what extent a government can damage the very entity from which it draws its life-force (tax dollars). To remedy this, a capitalist’s goal in government should be to meet the minimum requirements of government while having as little impact on the econ-omy and liberty as possible.

At the core, the debate between Capitalism and Socialism comes down to liberty. Free-market capi-talism wants people to control their own destinies, fulfill their own am-bitions, and write their own success stories. Socialism wants people to be equal, even if it means being equally miserable. Capitalism does not ensure success, nor does it pre-tend to. Although not everyone can be wealthy, everyone should have a shot. Any perceived economic injustice cannot be addressed by the government without screwing with the supply and demand sides of the economy in the process and hurting those who help create eco-nomic growth in the first place.

The ironic thing about Socialism is that, while supposedly enacted to fix the “evils” of Capitalism, it re-quires a formerly-Capitalist nation to fully work its magic. Socialism creates no wealth of its own; it only spreads the wealth around, allow-ing much of it to evaporate through waste, corruption, and bloated bu-reaucracies. Just as parasites re-quire healthy victims from which they can draw their sustenance, Socialist states require a strong Capitalist economy to coast on until the wealth dries up. In America today, we know the parasite exists, and we know how large it has got-

Dream is not the opportunity to make anything of yourself, but what the average American feels that they are entitled to have. A house, a reliable car, 2.2 kids, and a six-figure salary are not guarantees for every American because they are Americans. These things must be earned by the person who wants them be it through an invention, a small business, climbing the corpo-rate ladder, or whatever he sees fit to succeed. If someone else wants to take a different path to success, he is more than welcome, but I will not stand in the way of his success and I do not expect him to stand in mine.

As a Conservative, I believe that the American Dream should not come from government. Govern-ment can make things more dif-ficult for the individual by getting in the way. A smaller government gives you more control over your life. To quote former president Ger-ald Ford, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” You cannot guarantee that government will make the same decisions re-garding your family that you would. Giving up that freedom prevents you from being an individual.

Being an individual enables you to take your own way in life. You can choose not to take the advice given to you by your peers. No one should force you to make up your

mind. Your mind is your proper-ty and no one has the right to

your ideas. You are allowed to weigh both sides of

an argument a n d

choose accordingly. Life is a Choose Your Own Adventure book, except that we cannot skip a bunch of pag-es and see if we fall into the pit of despair. The uncertainty of success makes life all that more enjoyable. It would not be nearly as rewarding if you had someone preventing you from going your own way.

Where we end up in life is up to us. Each one of us was given talents, and we must learn to use these talents to the best of our abil-ity. Unfortunately, each person’s ability is not the same. Ability is another attribute that makes them an individual. The Left is the cham-pion of diversity and does not think that people should be evaluated on their ability alone. Affirmative Ac-tion uses race to give preferential treatment to college applicants.

The Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court case dealt with a promotion exam for New Haven firefighters. It was said that the test was unfair be-cause the race of those that passed the exam was not representative of the community. The test was de-signed for those with the best abil-ity to pass the exam, and therefore, those who passed the test should deserve a promotion. The people that passed the test should have received a promotion because they have earned it. Liberals sided with the minorities because it looked to them like the test discriminated against them based on their race. Conservatives sided with the fire-fighters because throwing out the test discriminated against the abil-ity of those who passed the exam.

When we move to a society where ability is king, there will be winners and losers. We are not the same in that regard. Life will never be fair. Others may use their abil-ity to cheat you of an opportunity. Through income taxes, the govern-ment will cheat you out of the mon-


ten by feeding off of our economy. Will we do what it takes to remove the parasite of Socialism before we are too weak to fight anymore? Only by following free-market capi-talism can America fight the threat of Socialism and unleash the power of the American spirit once again.



Conservatives are not opposed to help-ing others, nor are we opposed to sharing. We are, however, op-posed to Wel-fare. We believe that despite its good in-tentions, W e l -f a r e

does more harm than good. Why is that? How could a program de-signed to provide assistance be-come such a detrimental force? First and foremost, Welfare cre-ates dependency. By its name, dependency is the opposite of in-dependence. Instead of being self-sufficient, the dependent becomes reliant on government to be the provider. This sense of ‘provider’ is very important because what starts out as a practice of relying on government can quickly become a lifestyle.

Welfare takes away the father’s

traditional re-sponsibility

to provide for his fam-ily. Too often, this leads to

families w i t h absent fathers.

In many c a s e s ,

the father leaves his

family

when his role as provider is re-placed by the government. This compounds the problem. With no father to provide income, the mother becomes further reliant on

government. That provides an even worse example for the children. Sons learn that men can leave their girlfriends/wives to live on Wel-fare. Daughters learn that single women can become deeply reli-ant on the government to provide their basic needs for them. These sons and daughters grow up and are likely to pass the same lifestyle on to their children. The cycle be-comes continuous, destroying one family after another.

If this crippling lifestyle be-comes too ingrained, men and women can start to believe that they are somehow entitled to Wel-fare handouts. It is a Conservative belief that those who are well off do not (as a result of their success) “owe” their money to those less

fortunate. By the same token, we believe that those with less wealth are not automatically

entitled to a share of the earn-ings of higher wage earners.

Often times, the Left will talk about how the

distribution of wealth is unfair in the United

States. What is un-fair, however, is not that some people in America have more money than others, but that

those with lots of money pay dis-proportionately to benefit those who have less. Take 2006 for ex-ample; the top 1% of wage earners accounted for 37% of the income

tax received by the federal govern-ment, the top 10% accounted for 71% of the income tax received, and the top 40% accounted for 99.1% of the income tax received. That means that the lower 60% of wage earners combined to account for less than 1% of the income tax received by the federal govern-ment. Did the people contributing over 99% of the income tax in this country benefit from the aid pro-grams they paid for? No. The Left will go on and on about how in-come inequality is unfair, but what is actually unfair is that those pay-ing the least in to the system are drawing the most out.

As Conservatives, we believe that even though the top 40% pays over 99% of the income tax, everyone should strive to earn enough money to be in that cat-egory. Welfare, however, provides an enormous disincentive for wealth accumulation. As long as the Welfare recipient is being pro-vided with all of the benefits he/she needs, where is the incentive to make money? Why go to college? Why work harder and earn a pro-motion? Why do anything to bet-ter yourself? If the government is providing a standard of living that

“I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading

them or driving them out of it.” - Benjamin Franklin

WelfareBy JAY WOOD

ey you have earned from a job. Fair-ness has been distorted to mean that every person should be al-lowed to have the same amount of something. The Fairness Doctrine tried to give equal time to Liberal and Conservative talk shows on the radio. Liberals say it is unfair to oil companies to make “windfall” prof-its. They have decided that they need to tax those that make too much money. The idea of fairness should return to its roots. To be fair is to give to everybody what he has earned, not what he needs.



you deem acceptable, why risk los-ing your benefits by making more money? As long as government is providing everything, why give up that security? In effect, Welfare is keeping these people poor. It was designed to help the less fortunate get back on their feet, but in real-ity, it is serving as a disincentive for wealth, and it is maintaining their needy status.

Seemingly, the only people who benefit from Welfare are Liberal politicians who promise it and work to either maintain it or in-crease it. Do these Liberal politi-cians receive Welfare checks? No. They receive better. They receive votes from dependent Welfare re-cipients. The people who depend on receiving government checks (in the form of Welfare) also de-pend on Liberal politicians receiv-ing government checks (in the form of a salary). In other words, it is in the best interest of Welfare recipi-ents that Liberal politicians stay in office and continue to provide them Welfare benefits. If receiving a gov-ernment check rests with election outcomes, the recipient would be a fool to not show up to the polls reli-giously. However, while the Liberal politicians stay in office, stay pow-erful, and stay wealthy, the Welfare recipients stay poor. There is some-thing wrong with that equation.

Conservatives are not out to de-monize the poor. In fact, we want to help the poor. We just feel that Welfare is the wrong way to ac-complish that. It is damaging in so many ways. Welfare makes people dependent on government, which in turn gets Liberals elected. It cre-ates a sense of entitlement and al-lows those who pay the least in to the system to take the most from it (while those who pay the most receive nothing). It creates disin-centives for wealth which keeps poor people poor. It eliminates the

father’s traditional role as provider for the family and makes govern-ment the provider instead. That practices becomes a lifestyle that is passed down from one generation to the next. Welfare contributes to absent fathers and literally de-stroys one family after another.

That is no way to help people. As Conservatives, we believe that creating jobs and providing incen-tives for wealth by allowing work-ers to keep more of what they earn are some of the best ways to benefit the poor (and the wealthy for that matter). We also believe in private charity (faith-based and other-wise) and philanthropy. The simple fact is, Welfare does not solve poor people’s problems. Welfare com-pounds poor people’s problems.


Pragmatism of ConservatismBy JOSH TEASDALE

Nailing down a definition for a political ideology to accurately reflect a large number of people’s opinions is nothing less than a har-rowing task. Conservatism, Lib-ertarianism, Liberalism, Commu-nism, Socialism, and Anarchism are but a few ideologies in the plethora of political thoughts possessed by members of society. These ide-ologies all have popular and some-times clear cut definitions. How-ever, get any two libertarians in a room and it is good money to pre-dict you would hear a wide ranging debate over what Libertarianism is, should be, has been, and is not. As with other ideologies, you will hear Libertarianism broken apart into many subgroups, such as Anarcho-Capitalism, Geolibertarianism, Minarchism, and many others as individuals attempt to accurately

define their own views vis-à-vis other opinions. Conservatism is no different.

The most popular definition of Conservatism links the ideology to the past and to tradition. This defi-nition appears fairly common in political discourse as well as vari-ous dictionaries, such as Webster’s, which defines Conservatism as “a political philosophy based on tra-dition and social stability, stress-ing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” Under this defini-tion, Conservatism would seem to have our future largely resemble our past. Established institutions and practices benefit under this type of traditionalism.

While this definition is common, it is still rejected by many individu-als who call themselves Conserva-tive. If you were to take a straw poll of a handful of Conservatives and ask “Do you think we need to change the way we do things

in America?”, it is very likely you would receive a resounding “YES.” So if tradition is not the basis of many Conservatives’ political ide-ologies, what is? Instead of a single idea or concept, you will likely get a handful of phrases from any de-cently sized group of Conserva-tives. Among these concepts, you will likely hear about free markets, limited government, individual freedom, individual responsibility,

and equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. Cramming these ideas into a single package is a vexing task, much less predicting how individuals will apply them.

A less common definition of Con-servatism would state that it is an antithesis of an ideology altogeth-er, instead defining Conservative principles as those ideas and prac-tices which demonstrably work in the real world. From this point of view, Conservatism is not an ide-ology consisting of a core intellec-tual framework which dictates its application, but a pragmatic set of solutions which have been shown to work in the past and which are valuable in guiding our future. This form of Conservatism is neither dogmatic nor rigid. It does not cling blindly to the past, nor does it allow irrational exuberance to drive soci-ety into blind change. It seeks solu-tions however they are structured, as long as they can be shown to have desired outcomes.

Agreeing on what those desired outcomes are is a mildly easier task than agreeing on how to get there. It is fairly universal that people would agree that prosperity, free-dom, opportunity, security, and general happiness are desirable goals both for individuals and for a society at large. Developing the policies necessary to deal with the

See “Pragmatism...” on pg. 8

“A less common definition of Conservatism would state that it is an antithesis of an ideology

altogether, instead defining Conservative prin-ciples as those ideas and practices which demon-

strably work in the real world. ”


ever changing obstacles to these goals must include a healthy dose of pragmatic conservatism which values experimentation and evi-dence over abstract ideology.

Current conservative responses to these problems build solutions

based on experience. A long stand-ing goal of Liberals in America has been to ensure equality in our healthcare system. In order to ac-complish this, they have often proposed to transfer much of the decision making away from private players to government bureau-crats. This fairly common propos-

al to “ensure” a specific outcome by simply legislating that it shall be ignores the complexity of eco-nomics. Taking costs away from patients (giving the appearance of “free lunch” government poli-cies) removes any incentive to save

money, or choose less expensive drugs. This has the result of inflat-ing prices and the percent of our economy dedicated to healthcare. Here in Indiana, health savings ac-counts incentivize frugal spending by placing cost decisions with pa-tients and doctors. Public employ-ees in Indiana using health savings

accounts, which give ownership of the accounts to patients, incurred costs which were 35% lower than public employees on the traditional plan.

Our country faces major prob-lems today in fiscal policy at the national level. Our national defi-cit (resulting from discretionary spending) has grown radically since the current economic downturn began. In addition to the deficit, we know our entitlement programs are structured in a manner which will result in massive amounts of debt being added to our already bloated national debt. Despite the situation, there remains much im-petus to increase the amount of federal spending in order to stimu-late productivity during the current economic downturn. The unwieldy impracticality of our current fis-cal situation is often drowned out by those trying to follow a political ideology which demands fairness without regard to real world out-comes.

In order to solve our fiscal

problems, we must focus on solu-tions which will have the outcome of stimulating economic growth, while ensuring that incoming rev-enue matches expenditures. Nei-ther increased spending nor blind tax cuts will result in fiscal balance.

Far too often, intelligent, well intentioned ideologues fall into the very old trap of believing they can accurately predict the outcomes of their ideas without the need for empirical evidence. This is a failure that dates back centuries (if not millennia) to early philosophers who believed that from simple pre-cepts, they could reason out all sci-entific knowledge without the need for experiment and empiricism. However, as scientists in every field from physics to genetics have dis-covered, theories are only as good as how well they predict actual re-sults. Responsible policymaking re-quires us to continually verify our political theories and ideology with evidence. This is the basis of Con-servatism in today’s America.

From Page 7

Pragmatism...

“In order to solve our fiscal problems, we must focus on solutions which will have the outcome of stimulating economic growth, while ensuring that incoming revenue matches expenditures. Neither increased spending nor blind tax cuts will result in fiscal balance. ”

Spring Break Ideas When You Forgot to Go Anywhere

1. Take a vacation from yourself (grow a mustache).

2. Build a fort in your apartment.3. Walk around campus and

see how long it takes to see another person.

4. Ride the City Bus to the mall. It should fill up an afternoon.

5. Look at the rest of the se-mester and plan what days you’re skipping class

6. Take a nap on every couch in the Union

7. Try to read Atlas Shrugged in a week. Good Luck.

8. “To the bar!”


When You Forgot to Go Anywhere

Richard CosierBy ROHAN JOHNSON

Krannert School of Management

In August of 2009, Richard Co-sier, the Dean of Krannert School of Management, announced that he will be stepping down. “It’s been an honor to lead our world-class faculty and be a part of the ener-gy and dedication that surrounds Krannert,” Cosier stated. “My plan was to do this job for 10 years, and it will be 11 years next summer. It’s time. I look forward to returning to the classroom and reconnect-ing with the students who drive this university.” Cosier’s commit-ment to the fundamental academic lifeblood of any successful univer-sity, the classroom, was made clear through his descent from the ranks of dean while continuing to serve as Krannert’s Leeds Professor of Management.

On March 4, 2010, Cosier was appointed the Joyce Gray Director of the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship in Discovery Park. Effective in January 2011, Co-sier will serve as the chief head of the center. Cosier, who originally directed the center in 2004 at its inception, will be replacing Ken-neth Kahn, who left the university last fall. The Burton D. Morgan Cen-ter for Entrepreneurship serves as an interdisciplinary hub for entre-preneurship at Purdue. It provides much needed business develop-ment for budding technologies and

concepts that have been developed in University research.

Earl Dowell served as the dean of engineering at Duke University for sixteen years. When asked to explain the role of a dean in the most simplified way possible, he responded with just two main jobs: “Hiring and raising money. If you do both of those well, all the others come a lot easier, but if you’re not able to do those, it’s a lot harder.” As explained by the veteran Dean, amongst the meetings, the paper work, the thorough planning, and various other meticulous tasks, a proficient dean must be able to hire effective faculty and raise money for the school. Richard Cosier has not failed to meet any of these scru-pulous requirements.

In his eleven year tenure as Dean of Krannert School of Management, several strides have been made to financially advance the program. Cosier is in large part responsible for the creation of Rawls Hall in 2003. This project was funded par-tially by a gift of $10 million from alumnus Jerry S. Rawls. Dean Cosi-er also administered an $18 million endowment from fund manager Michael F. Price and an additional $12 million from the State of Okla-homa in recognition of the accom-plishments of the Oklahoma native. During Cosier’s tenure, Krannert

also started an annual Leader-ship Speaker Series which serves as a successful fundraiser for the school. In its nine year existence, the series has hosted such notable keynote speakers as former Secre-tary of Labor Elaine Chao and ac-tor/economist Ben Stein. In total, Dean Cosier’s fund raising efforts added more than $130 million to the Krannert endowment and fund

raising effort. While Dean Cosier has served at

Krannert, both the faculty as well as the reputation of the program has increased. Krannert currently has 114 faculty members and an ad-ditional 100 staff members. There are currently 2,647 undergraduate students, 686 masters students, and 109 doctoral students enrolled in the school. The quality of the staff is reflected clearly through the world wide rankings of the prestigious program. Krannert is

extensively recognized as a leading business school. The Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek , and U.S. News & World Report consistently rank Krannert amongst the world’s elite business programs.

As Dean, Cosier reports directly to the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Provost, Randy Woodson. Woodson, the pro-vost of 25 years who will be leaving

Purdue at the end of the academic year, had only praise for the work of Richard Cosier. “Krannert has enjoyed major strides under Dean Cosier’s watch,” Woodson said. “Rawls Hall was built, the number of endowed professorships in-creased, an international MBA was launched in Germany, and Kran-nert’s national and international rankings continued to reflect the school’s outstanding academic pro-grams. While Purdue will miss his academic leadership, our students will continue to benefit from his teaching and mentorship.”

A nationwide search for a dean was launched early in the academic year. While the school has yet to release any information on poten-tial candidates, it is likely to make a statement soon. Finding an in-dividual who to fill the shoes that Richard Cosier has been wearing for the last eleven years as Dean of Krannert may prove to be a very difficult task.

“My plan was to do this job for 10 years, and it will be 11 years next summer. It’s time. I look

forward to returning to the classroom and recon-necting with the students who drive this

University.” - Richard Cosier


New HR Position Will Be Worth The CostBy Scott Sowers

On February 2nd of this year, the Purdue Board of Trustees ap-proved the nomination of Luis Lewin as Vice President of Human Resources, creating a brand new vice president level position in the Purdue President’s cabinet. The decision to create such a position has faced much scrutiny in the past few week weeks by many members of the Purdue Community, most no-tably Purdue faculty and staff.

Facing a giant tax revenue short-fall, Indiana Governor Mitch Dan-iels has asked higher education institutions in the state to trim $45 million from their budgets. Purdue will have to cut $45 million from its own budget, $33 million from the West Lafayette campus alone. Pur-due employees will not receive pay raises for the second year in a row and their benefits are being cut due to the budget shortfall. It is under-standable then that many faculty and staff members are skeptical of or opposed to this new position and its $100,000 price tag.

With any potential investment, it is necessary to calculate the pres-ent value of its costs and benefits. If benefits exceed costs, then the investment is worthwhile, but so many people have focused on the seemingly high, upfront cost of the new vice presidential position that they have forgotten to compare it with the benefits which are likely to result from this position, which is an investment in the faculty and staff of Purdue University.

According to Al Diaz, Executive Vice President for Business and Fi-nance, Treasurer, the creation of a Vice President for Human Resourc-es came from a recommendation made by a human resources com-mittee that was part of the strate-gic planning phase in 2008. Diaz has only been with Purdue Since July of 2009.

Purdue University employs

more than 18,000 individuals and it is unusual for an institution of this size not to have a human re-sources director with the author-ity to make and implement policies with respect to human resources.

“I don’t know of another situa-tion where with this many people you don’t have someone at a very high level reporting with respect to HR,” Diaz said. “It’s really some-thing I would have expected to see here.”

It is important to note that a new position has not really been created. Rather, the previous posi-tion, Director of Human Resources, has been elevated to a cabinet-level position. The Director of Human resources was more of an advi-sory position and did not have the ability or stature to influence and make decisions concerning human resources.

“I think [the human resources director] did a great job given the position they were in, but this is a much bigger job, than they’ve been able to address.”

The elevation of the director’s position to a vice president level position will allow the University to more effectively manage human resources which is currently de-centralized and inconsistent in its practices. Every college and school in the University has its own hu-man resources unit which leads to inconsistent practices and overall confusion about how human re-sources decisions are made and who makes them.

Diaz explained, “I think we’ve seen human resources as what I’ll call a “transactional activity,” es-sentially performing actions at ev-ery level. What we need is some-body who will look at it more as a “transformational activity” and try to understand how best to have it organized and how best to deliver the services that are provided.”

Chris Berger, Associate Profes-sor of Management and Human Resources, expressed a similar sen-timent: “I would envision this role ought to improve the quality of ser-vice provided. I would argue that looking at current jobs and assess-ing how well those jobs are carried out will help us out tremendously.”

Additionally, the new position is likely to help improve the selection of employees’ benefits packages in the midst of immense budget cuts.

“I’m really anxious,” Diaz stated, “to take advantage of [Lewin’s] in-sights into healthcare benefits and how we can accomplish our objectives, not only in terms of reducing the Universi-ty’s expens-es, but reducing the over-all cost to all of us of health-care. I think he can bring some in-sights there that would take a lot to develop ourselves.”

The re-cruitment process for the position now held by Lewin began shortly

after Diaz arrived at Purdue last July. The decision to wait until the position of Executive Vice Presi-dent for Business and Finance was filled before searching for a Vice President for Human Resources was made because the latter would be reporting directly to the former.

According to Diaz, the new posi-tion will be funded by the redirec-tion of accrued savings, money that the University already has.

“We have internal resources,” Diaz explained. “We’re not asking for additional resources. It is lim-ited to an investment that I have

every reason to expect will show a return at the out-

side of three years. I can’t even imagine

that it will show a return sooner than that re-ally.”

T h e $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 price tag may seem steep to some, but it is necessary in order to attract

See “Lewin...” on pg. 11

Luis Lewin


someone with the knowledge, skills, and abilities of Lewin. It would be difficult to fill a position of such stat-ure and importance without a sub-stantial increase in salary expense.

As Berger noted, there are rea-sons for making investments out-side of just reducing costs. “It often depends,” he said “on what you are

getting in exchange for those em-ployment dollars that are expended. It depends very much on the execu-tive level of the individual that is heading it up. How persuasive can they be? How much do they under-stand the mission and goals of the organization? “

Is Luis Lewin then, the right man for the job? According to Diaz, “Ab-solutely. He has 30 years of experi-ence in HR at every level and most recently at Ohio University, but be-

do Not Be FooledBy JAY WOOD

Many on the Left will tell you that they want ‘women and mi-norities’ in office. Do not be fooled. What they actually mean is that they want ‘LIBERAL women and minori-ties in office. Take the 2008 Presi-dential Election for example. Many feminists and others rallied behind Hillary Clinton in the primaries and supported her wholly (or at least in part) because she is a woman. These people had a strong desire to put a woman in the White House. Hillary Clinton was eventually defeated in the primaries. Shortly thereafter, John McCain chose Sarah Palin (a woman) as his running mate and the Left threw a hissy fit.

Now wait a minute! I thought these people said they wanted a woman in the White House. “Nope nope nope! Not her! Not Palin!” What was that about voting for Hill-ary because she is a woman? What was that about wanting a woman in the White House? “NOPE NOPE NOPE! Not her! Not Palin! This is to-tally different!” There was a woman competing in the General Election. Did these people vote for her? The answer is no. The answer is they smeared her and watched with glee as she lost. Yet these same people complain because there has never been a woman in the White House. Do not be fooled. Feminists and the like are not interested in putting a ‘woman’ in the White House. They

are interested in putting a ‘LIBERAL woman’ in the White House.

The same hypocrisies and half-truths apply to minorities as well. Take Clarence Thomas’ nomina-tion process for example. George Bush Sr. was stuck between a rock and hard place. He had to replace a retiring Thurgood Marshall, the first black person on the U.S. Su-preme Court. If Bush nominated a white person, he would probably be viewed as a racist who was try-ing to ‘cleanse the court’. So instead, he nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man. Initially, there was a concern among many liberals that Thomas’ presence on the Court would threaten Roe v. Wade because just one year earlier, David Souter, a presumed conserva-tive, had replaced William Brennan. Many liberals were also concerned that Clarence Thomas did not have enough experience for the job (they conveniently did not accuse Barack Obama of that).

When those concerns did not put Thomas away, a last ditch ef-fort was made to destroy him. Anita Hill made false sexual harassment charges against Clarence (he was proven innocent). Why would there be such extraordinary efforts made to destroy Thomas by people like Al Sharpton and those who identify with him? Do they not want a black person on the court? They certainly

want a black person on the court, but not Clarence Thomas. Why? Clarence Thomas is a conservative. Therefore, he is not viewed as ‘Jus-tice Thomas’, but instead, ‘Uncle Thomas’.

He is viewed as a traitor, simply because he thinks for himself and does not kowtow to an old order that says because he is born with a certain amount of melanin in his skin, therefore he and everyone that looks like him must automatically think the same way, that way be-ing liberal. Do not be fooled. Sharp-ton and the like are not interested in a ‘black person’ on the Supreme Court. They are interested in a ‘LIB-ERAL black person’ on the Supreme Court.

Twisted views regarding minori-ties did not stop after the Clarence Thomas nomination. On May 9th 2001, George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Miguel had argued 15 cases before the Su-preme Court and he had received a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Associa-tion, their highest possible rating. Sixteen major Hispanic groups en-dorsed Estrada. Despite all of this, Senate Democrats filibustered Es-trada’s nomination. On September 4th, 2003, Miguel withdrew his name (over two years after being nominated).

Why did this happen? Perhaps a memo sent to Senator Dick Durbin on November 7th, 2001 says it best. The memo explains that Miguel Es-trada is “dangerous” partly because he “has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” This was not the same sentiment Senate Demo-crats felt when they confirmed Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009. As far as they’re concerned, Miguel Estrada on the Supreme Court would be “danger-ous”, but Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is a cause for cel-ebration, because she is the first Latino with that distinction! Do not be fooled. Senate Democrats are not interested in a ‘Latino’ on the Su-preme Court. They are interested in a ‘LIBERAL Latino’ on the Supreme Court. That is what they got with So-nya Sotomayor.

The Left will tell you again and again that they want ‘women and minorities’ in office, but do not be fooled. As they have shown time af-ter time, they only want ‘LIBERAL women and minorities’ in office, and in some cases, they will go to extraordinary measures to ensure that conservative female and minor-ity nominees are not only defeated, but are permanently destroyed.

From Page 10Lewin... fore that at the corporate level at

the Tribune. I think we have every reason to believe that he has the kind of background and capabilities needed.”

Only time will tell if the benefits of such a position will outweigh the upfront cost which has been the cen-ter of many individual’s concerns, but it is very likely that this will be the case. Even though the University is facing a budget crisis, this is the right time (if not a little past time) to

invest in the employees at Purdue.Diaz summarized, “Given where

we are and given the kind of issues that we need to address, this is ex-actly the time we need a person of this stature to be helping us through this process. It’s my expectation that having someone in this position will make us far more effective in deal-ing with human resources issues. I think it’s going to be a net positive experience any way we look at it.”

after Diaz arrived at Purdue last July. The decision to wait until the position of Executive Vice Presi-dent for Business and Finance was filled before searching for a Vice President for Human Resources was made because the latter would be reporting directly to the former.

According to Diaz, the new posi-tion will be funded by the redirec-tion of accrued savings, money that the University already has.

“We have internal resources,” Diaz explained. “We’re not asking for additional resources. It is lim-ited to an investment that I have

every reason to expect will show a return at the out-

side of three years. I can’t even imagine

that it will show a return sooner than that re-ally.”

T h e $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 price tag may seem steep to some, but it is necessary in order to attract


Bye, Bayh!By KRISTIN PATRAS

With 24 years of public service in tow, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh announced Monday, February 15 that he will not be seeking reelec-tion in what could have been the race of his career. The news came just over 24 hours before major party candidates were required to file a petition of nomination with a mandatory 4,500 signatures. Thus, those interested in running on the Democratic ticket were, in essence, robbed of their opportunity to take part in the primary election. Now the Indiana Democratic Central Committee is left with the extraor-dinary task of choosing a candidate for the ballot by June 30.

Constituents were only given vague answers as to why the two-term senator chose to sit this one out. In his speech, Bayh stated, “For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much par-tisanship and not enough prog-ress.” This reasoning might have had more merit if America did not already have a two party system that has been oozing in partisan-ship long before Bayh first took his Senate seat in 1998. Bayh went on to insist, “My decision was not moti-vated by po-litical con-cern. Even in the c u r r e n t c h a l -lenging e n v i -

ronment, I am confident in my pros-pects for re-election.” This overly optimistic statement is practically comical considering the GOP’s vic-tory in the notoriously liberal state of Massachusetts. In addition, there are predictions that the GOP is ex-pected to take a large number of seats in November due to growing opposition to the Obama agenda.

Suspicion over the entire ordeal escalates when Bayh’s votes on key political issues are taken into account. Not only did the senator vote for the stimulus package, but he also voted for the

h i g h ly c o n -

troversial health care bill. It makes one wonder why the Democratic Senator of a conservative leaning state would choose to vote in favor of such heated issues if he planned to run for reelection months later. Not only were these bills divisive, but they were also coming from a president whose approval ratings were slipping at an alarming rate.

After taking this all into consid-eration, the Senator’s statements make absolutely no sense. Bayh chose not to run again because he realized that Congress can be parti-san at times. He’s been in Congress since 1998! If he is just figuring this out, then why was he a Sena-tor to begin with? It makes even less sense why he would vote in fa-vor of controversial bills that were presented by a President with less than appealing approval ratings.. That would be political suicide at its best. If that was the case, whoever his political strategist was should go down in history as the worst po-litical strategist of all time. So, why would Evan Bayh support career ending bills and practically hand over the Democratic nomination for the big shots to decide? I guess no one will know. Maybe next year

when Mr. Bayh is appointed to a board or another

similar posi-tion this will all make m o r e sense to us Hoo-

siers.

Although there will not be a Democratic primary, the race to win the Republican primary is un-derway, and boy is it proving to be a fierce competition. The contend-ers include Dan Coats, Don Bates Jr., Richard Behney, John N. Hostettler, and Marlin A. Stutzman. Although there is no clear choice at this point, it is clear that the GOP has a second grade crush on former sen-ator Dan Coats. This, however, irri-tates many Republicans who would much rather throw their support (and cash) behind one of the four alternative candidates instead of the former Senator.

Another controversial candidate is the founder of the Indianapolis Tea Party and Indy Defenders of Liberty, Richard Behney. The au-thor of Stand!, a daring account of the current political spectacle en-suing in Washington, announced his surprising candidacy on Sep-tember 4, 2009. It is unclear wheth-er or not his campaign can take the heat against the other four candi-dates, but it will be very interesting to see how the Tea Party movement plays a part in the 2010 election. If the recent Massachusetts’ election was even a small indicator of what is to come, then Dan Coats most definitely has a reason to watch his back given the fact that Rich-ard Behney, Don Bates Jr., John N. Hostettler, and Marlin A. Stutzman all have more than just a chance in the primaries.

In order to provide students with the opportunity to learn more about each candidate, Young Amer-icans for Liberty will be hosting a debate in which an all student panel will ask questions of the can-didates. It will be held on April 1st in Fowler Hall at 7p.m. The primary election will then take place on May 4th and the general election will take place on November 2nd. For voter registration information, visit www.indianavoters.com.


Higher Education’s Lost ValueBy JORDAN HEBBE

Education. The word conjures up images of teacher’s pets, spelling tests, ISTEP (for us Indiana kids), algebra, home economics class, science projects, research papers, and calculus homework. But what about college? Endless exams, in-decipherable professors, confusion about career plans, the exhausting search for an internship, résumé building, and astronomical tuition bills come to mind. Is it a stretch to call education exactly what it is: an industry?

By the time that the average student graduates from college, he or she will have accumulated somewhere around 125-150 class credits. The key word here is “ac-cumulated.” Each major seems to contain a variety of required courses that are out of touch and will serve the student no purpose in life. After the final exam is taken and the course textbooks are sold for less than half of what they were bought for, the material is forgot-ten and never used again. Liberal Arts students are required to take 6 credit hours of science and 6 hours of mathematics. Krannert students must also complete 6 hours of sci-

ence, 3 hours of fine arts, and 3 hours of literature. Let’s be honest: how often will a Creative Writing or Management student use the mate-rial “learned” from those classes? Most of the classes are dumbed down to tailor to students who are weak in the given subject area or they are heavily curved at the end to compensate for low grades. The teachers know that most of the students do not care and are only taking the class because it is re-quired. As a result, they make the material so easy that it would be palatable to the average 5th grader, or they originally make it difficult, but eventually end up curving the grades.

The entire situation could be avoided if these pointless require-ments were removed entirely. The

leftover credit hours could be ap-plied toward free electives to pro-

vide students with some enjoyable class work, or better yet, the extra hours could be elimi-nated. Given the fact that they are wasted anyway, why not just get rid of them? The answer is simple: the student could graduate early. That is exactly the op-posite of what colleges want. What happens when students graduate early? The college loses money. It seems that anymore, that is what it is all about.

While the price of a college education con-tinues to increase, the

standards and quality of that edu-cation are steadily declining. From 1995-2005, public college tuition prices rose by more than 50%. If there were a way to measure it, could we expect to see a similar increase in learning or quality of education? My guess is no. We are

made to memorize and regurgitate information so that when the time comes, we can be tested over it. How much of that information do

we actually absorb? We are not asked to think critically or question the material, and often when we do question it, we are ridiculed. The motivation to get good grades is not to learn, but to get a good job after graduating. Good grades do not even guarantee that a student will get a good job; they are a false predictor for success. Without lofty club credentials and executive connections, great first jobs are not in the cards for most graduating students.

Often, if a company chooses a graduate on the basis of his or her high GPA alone, they will be disap-pointed with job performance be-cause the bulk of collegiate course-work does not adequately prepare one for the real world experiences that one will face in a given career. This course material is presented

from PowerPoint slides, cryptic textbooks, and dull lectures. The information is pushed into our brains in a format that has little connection with the world of em-ployment. Therefore, once most students are thrust into the work-place, they don’t know how to ap-

ply the concepts they memorized on paper to real life situations.

Throughout the course of four (or five) years, students push through all sorts of different class-es. In a blur of going through the motions, some of us will come out at the other end with a degree. But what will we have learned? We know how to BS our way through the easy classes and squeak through the hard ones thanks to the professor’s 50% equals a C+ grading scale. We know how to bolster a résumé with bogus skills and titles. When we get into the workforce, will we actually know how to apply anything from the previous four years of classes?

Some might assume that I am against higher education, but that is not the case. I am actually in fa-vor of higher education and that is why I feel this subject needs to be addressed. The point that I am making is that higher education is no longer about the education. The only thing that is higher about it is the cost. Today, a college student can expect to shell out $100,000 or more for four years at a public university like our own, so it is only fair to ask that we get what we are paying for.

“The information is pushed into our brains in a format that has little connection with the world

of employment.”

“From 1995-2005, public college tuition prices rose by more than 50%.”

Although there will not be a Democratic primary, the race to win the Republican primary is un-derway, and boy is it proving to be a fierce competition. The contend-ers include Dan Coats, Don Bates Jr., Richard Behney, John N. Hostettler, and Marlin A. Stutzman. Although there is no clear choice at this point, it is clear that the GOP has a second grade crush on former sen-ator Dan Coats. This, however, irri-tates many Republicans who would much rather throw their support (and cash) behind one of the four alternative candidates instead of the former Senator.

Another controversial candidate is the founder of the Indianapolis Tea Party and Indy Defenders of Liberty, Richard Behney. The au-thor of Stand!, a daring account of the current political spectacle en-suing in Washington, announced his surprising candidacy on Sep-tember 4, 2009. It is unclear wheth-er or not his campaign can take the heat against the other four candi-dates, but it will be very interesting to see how the Tea Party movement plays a part in the 2010 election. If the recent Massachusetts’ election was even a small indicator of what is to come, then Dan Coats most definitely has a reason to watch his back given the fact that Rich-ard Behney, Don Bates Jr., John N. Hostettler, and Marlin A. Stutzman all have more than just a chance in the primaries.

In order to provide students with the opportunity to learn more about each candidate, Young Amer-icans for Liberty will be hosting a debate in which an all student panel will ask questions of the can-didates. It will be held on April 1st in Fowler Hall at 7p.m. The primary election will then take place on May 4th and the general election will take place on November 2nd. For voter registration information, visit www.indianavoters.com.


From CPAC...

Glenn Beck at CPAC

CpAC reenergizes ConservativesBy CHRIS ELLISON

For the past year, events like tea parties and town hall meetings have shown that people are begin-ning to form a general distaste to-ward liberal programs such as cap-and-trade and government-run healthcare. Conservatism seems to be on the rise right now because Americans are upset about a lack of efficiency in Washington. They are also beginning to show that they do not connect with a Presidential ad-ministration that has proven itself nothing short of radical.

This current movement was re-invigorated just a few weeks ago with the annual Conservative Po-litical Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. During this event, the American Conservative Union programs focused on defin-ing conservatism and discussing ways to expand the ongoing move-ment through 2010. Key political figures such as Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, and Glenn Beck were some of the most popular speakers at the three-day event.

The 2010 Con-servative Po-litical Action C o n f e r e n c e was held on the weekend of Febru-ary 18th-20th. An estimated 1 0 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e all of ages and from all over the cou nt ry

attended this event. CPAC began on Thursday and featured speak-ers Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. Rubio is a young conservative who is currently the Speaker of the Flor-ida House of Representatives. He is planning to transition on to the national political stage by running for the Senate in 2010. He attri-butes his current successes to hav-ing the opportunity of growing up in America. Rubio’s relatives came to America after they w e r e e x i l e d from a s m a l l town in Cuba.

O n e of the m o s t powerful voic-

es at CPAC was potential presi-dential candidate Mitt Romney. Throughout his speech, Romney highlighted some of the programs that Obama has proposed and that Americans have rejected. Most im-portantly, Romney noted that the Obama administration has lost fo-cus on the ability to help rebuild the economy and create jobs. Rom-ney did not see the stimulus bill, in which America borrows and spends

more money, as a way of fulfilling this purpose. Instead, Rom-

ney believes that America’s economy can be regener-ated by lowering taxes and promoting more capital investments. Romney em-phasized the importance of strengthening the economy by proclaiming, “Instead of leading the world in how much we borrow, it’s time that we make sure we lead the world in how much we

build and create and invest.”Indiana Congressman

Mike Pence was one of the featured

s p e a k -ers on F r i -d a y . In his a d -dress, Pence

praised the American people for fighting back against some of the liberal programs that have been pushed by the Obama administra-tion. He strongly believes that the reason these programs were not passed, despite Congressional con-trol and a liberal influence in most outlets of the media, was because the American people stood up against big government in 2009. Pence had a showing on the straw poll that was announced later in the convention. Of all the regis-trants polled, 5% said they would prefer Pence as the 2012 Republi-can candidate for president.

At the end of the day on Satur-day, the results of the annual straw poll were cast. Residents for all 50 states and Washington D.C. were represented in the balloting. Of all the registrants in the poll, 48% were students and 54% were ages 18-25. In the poll, most registrants said that their main goal was to promote the expansion of free-dom and reduce the size of the fed-eral government. Others said they were most focused on protecting traditional values, traditional marriage, and the lives of the unborn. A smaller proportion said that they were primarily fo-cused on guaranteeing security and safety at home and abroad.

Registrants were then asked to rate their approval of some well known political figures. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck all scored high favorability ratings of at least 70%. Mike Pence (R-IN) had a 59% favorability rat-ing while Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele scored 42% favorability. Harry Reid (D-NV) had an 88%

See “CPAC...” on pg. 15

Marco Rubio at CPAC


From Page 14CPAC...

unfavorable rating while Nancy Pelosi’s unfavorable rating was a whopping 94%. In terms of job approval, Barack Obama scored a 98% disapproval rating from all re-spondents, while the Republicans in Congress scored 62% approval for their efforts to combat some of the Democrats’ big-government programs.

Then, participants were asked, “Thinking ahead to the Novem-ber elections, how many seats, if any, will Republicans pick up in the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives?” Over a third of respondents believed that the Republicans would pick up 40 or more seats in 2010. This would give the Re-publicans back the majority in the House, which they have not had since 2006.

Finally, members were asked who they would prefer to vote for as the next Re-publican president in 2012. Texas Con-

gressmen Ron Paul won the high-est proportion of straw poll votes with 31%. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney scored the second highest amount with 22%. Coming in third place was Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin with 7%. Ron Paul’s victory in the poll-ing represents the conservative’s

growing de-sire for

limiting t h e

scope of the federal government. Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party, which seeks to promote this very task. Paul’s victory can be attrib-uted to people’s anger toward the Obama administration’s attempts to expand government as well as his popularity among younger con-servatives, who made up the great-est proportion of the straw poll.

In his CPAC address, Paul de-clared, “The purpose of govern-ment is to protect liberty, not to run your personal lives, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live.” Everyone seemed to enjoy Paul’s speech on limited gov-ernment and less federal spending. However, a mixed reaction, with both cheers and boos, came from the crowd of conservatives after it was announced that Paul was the presidential winner.

Later that night, a large crowd was energized and ready to lis-

ten to the keynote speaker, Glenn Beck. As a talk

radio and TV show host, Beck has been one of the faces of the con-servative move-ment in 2009. His show has en-

tertained and i n f o r m e d

Americans about the

history of the Unit-

e d

States and the role government has played throughout the 20th cen-tury. Beck acknowledged that both Democrats and Republicans have had problems when they were in power. He sees America’s problems not stemming from everyday liber-als and conservatives, but from the influence of progressivism. Early in his speech, Beck announced, “Pro-gressivism is the cancer in America and it’s eating our Constitution and it was designed to eat the Constitu-tion, to progress past the Constitu-tion.” Beck argues that progressiv-ism has slowly been developing big government programs that have, to an extent, taken people’s rights away or have regulated their life-styles. At the end of his speech, however, Beck acknowledged that he had hope for America to lift itself off its feet and restore itself to the original principles created by the Founding Fathers.

The theme of CPAC has deviated from those of years past. This year, speakers like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck set the stage for a confer-ence devoted to more people be-ing against big government. Not only were people there to promote conservative values, but also to outright reject the liberal programs proposed by the Obama adminis-tration. Anger towards Washington and some policies Congress has at-tempted to pass set the conserva-tive movement in motion. Time will only tell what kind of influence the tea parties, town hall meetings, and CPAC have on the 2010 and 2012 elections. However, the anti-big government and anti-heavy spend-ing tone of CPAC clearly represents how millions of conservatives across America are feeling right now. Marco Rubio at CPAC


terview, he was concerned whether Michelle Obama’s goal of ending childhood obesity could actually be achieved. “She can tackle it, she can start it, but I’ve said for a long time, this is a generational change,” said Huckabee. “This needs to be looked at as how we are going to affect the next generation, not the next elec-tion.”

Michelle Obama said the Let’s Move campaign will encourage more physical activity for children, healthier food in schools and more accurate food labeling. Some of her initiatives, such as tax breaks

From Michelle...

By MORGAN IKERD“Let’s Move”

Even with the war in Afghani-stan, terrorist plots, a plummeting economy, and a multi-trillion dol-lar national deficit, we should be thankful that our First Lady still has sufficient time to construct a “cure” for our chunky American children. Truthfully, Mrs. Obama is right; nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese, and that rate has tripled in adolescents and more than dou-bled in young-er children since 1980. However, is it really the g o v e r n -m e n t ’ s place to tell us n o w wh a t w e

should and shouldn’t eat, how many calories we need to burn each day, and what junk foods should be prohibited? Is this “Let’s Move” campaign really a “Let’s Fight Obe-sity with Even More Bureaucracy” campaign? Unfortunately, the latter seems to be more likely.

Mrs. Obama’s strategy for pro-moting a healthier American life-

style, not surprisingly, stems from a focus on top-down

bureaucratic programs stressing nutrition. She called for improving the nutrition of school lunches and earmark-ing $400 million a year to “eliminate food desserts” in areas with no access to fresh and healthy foods. The

First Lady justifies this by saying, “This isn’t

like a disease we’re still waiting for the cure to

be discovered—we know the cure for

this… We have everything we need, right now, to help our kids lead healthy lives. Rarely in the history of this country have we en-

countered a problem

of such m a g n i -

t u d e a n d c o n -

sequence that is so eminently solv-able.” Solvable, yes, but by govern-ment intervention? Sure, people will like the do-it-yourself nature of this obesity project, but all in all, it is far from first priority on the agenda right now. It is apolitical; it is ill-timed; and it is a safe way to expand the already-too-large fed-eral government.

Mrs. Obama took the idea onto a personal platform by proclaim-ing that her children’s BMIs (body mass index) were too high and she was shocked by how small altera-tions in their diets and lifestyles brought about such a tremendous change. The first lady said after the surprising doctor’s visit, she made some small transformations that got her daughters, Malia Ann and Sasha, back on track. No more weekday TV, more attention to portion sizes, low-fat milk, water instead of soda, and more fruits and vegetables were seemingly the magic steps behind the improve-ment in health. Mrs. Obama states, “The physical and emotional health of an entire generation and the eco-nomic health and security of our nation is at stake. This isn’t the kind of problem that can be solved over-night, but with everyone working together, it can be solved. So, let’s move.”

Despite the genuine act of con-cern for our generation of young people, we have seen time and time again that behind every seem-ingly “good deed” supported by the Obama administration, there is a deep-pocketed left-wing interest. So we have to question: Who really

benefits from this crusade against obesity and push for improved nutrition in schools? The Service Employees International Union, perhaps? These bigwigs don’t care about slimming your kids’ waist-lines. They do care, however, about beefing up their membership and swelling their treasury. What about Big Labor? SIEU represents tens of thousands of the 400,000 work-ers who prepare and serve lunch to American schoolchildren and are actively attempting to unionize many more. “More robust expan-sion” of the federal school lunch law means a mandate for higher wages, increased benefits, and gov-ernment-guaranteed health insur-ance coverage (the more luxurious, the better now that SEIU has nego-tiated its Cadillac Tax exemption in Democrats’ health care takeover bill). Therefore, there are seeming-ly strong ties between SEIU lobby-ists and this “good deed” proposal by the Obama administration (not surprisingly).

The First Lady held an exclusive interview with former presidential nominee, Mike Huckabee, who has done his own work on the problem of obesity during his time as Gov-ernor of Arkansas. Mrs. Obama dis-cussed the importance of finding a solution to this epidemic, and how the issue concerns her both as First Lady and as a mother. Although Huckabee was very inspired by her message and her willingness to change a generation of bad nu-tritional habits, he seemed skepti-cal about this campaign actually making the changes it proposed. “Fast food companies don’t make us fat, we have to put it in our mouths,” Huckabee said. “And the quantities, we have to choose. You are personally responsible for your own health.” By the end of the in-

See “Michelle...” on pg. 17


terview, he was concerned whether Michelle Obama’s goal of ending childhood obesity could actually be achieved. “She can tackle it, she can start it, but I’ve said for a long time, this is a generational change,” said Huckabee. “This needs to be looked at as how we are going to affect the next generation, not the next elec-tion.”

Michelle Obama said the Let’s Move campaign will encourage more physical activity for children, healthier food in schools and more accurate food labeling. Some of her initiatives, such as tax breaks

for grocery stores to move into poorly served communities, will require congressional action. This principle operates under the idea that every parent wants the same things for their kids and feels that by political action, she can make it easier for them to attain the health they desire. The question remains: Will ‘making it easier’ really inspire people to give up their bad habits, exercise more, and lead healthier lifestyles? In recent years there has already been a tremendous in-crease in the promotion of health foods, exercise programs, and diet

tips. The American people are well-educated on what’s good for them and what isn’t, so this pro-gram would need to inspire the population on a whole new level. Is this possible? Sure, we can give kids healthier choices for school lunches, where they can only pick from a certain selection, but what about before and after school, and summertime? It all comes down to a personal desire to eat healthy and be fit.

Implementing this program will make small changes in lifestyle but big changes in extending govern-

From Page 16Michelle...

ment control. They can place as many health foods in as many plac-es as they want and circulate infi-nite propaganda to fight the prob-lem of obesity for our children, but as long as junk food is still available, people will still buy it. Although this message is inspirational and hope-ful, government action is outside its realm of power on this issue. We are, and will continue to be, a free nation of independent thinkers who make their own life choices. Spending our tax money to pro-mote change to a well-established health problem will do.

By STEWART SIMPSON

Political Cartoon


Purdue Grading System: Give it an A-By JOHN WESTERCAMP

Last year, Purdue underwent a change in letter grade evaluations. The University now factors pluses and minuses into students’ grade point averages. The policy was im-plemented with the argument that it would either benefit students’ GPAs or have no effect at all. In the time leading up to this change, newspaper editorials said that on average, a plus would negate a minus. Yet, there was one circum-stance in which this did not apply – the A minus.

The standard grading scale sets the range for the A- from a 90% to a 92% or 93%. Now students are re-quired to get a 94% for an A. Com-pare this scale to sports. Reggie Miller made 92.8% of free throws in 2001. Under the Purdue grading system, this would be an A-. Would anyone really characterize Reggie Miller as an A- player? Probably not, especially if you compare his free throw percentage to that of

someone like myself. (I would need a very generous curve to improve my free throw stats.) Yet students must now pass this threshold in or-der to receive an A.

The A- represents an inconsis-tent, inequitable, and unjustified grade evaluation under the cur-rent grading policy. It is inconsis-tent because there is no upside. If a student receives a B- in one course, they can offset this with a B+ in an-other. Under the current policy, an A+ does not offset an A-.

In addition, the grading system is inequitable because it adds a higher threshold of performance without a higher payoff. Instead of getting a 90% in a class to receive an A, students must now achieve a 93% to maintain the same grade. In financial terms, it is the same re-turn for higher risk.

Lastly, it is unjustified to evalu-ate students with three grades for A’s (A-, A, A+). Are professors grad-

ing evaluations so accurate and reliable that we can distinguish between an A-, an A, and an A+? Teachers have always explained to me that an A represents excellence, and a B is above average. What

does an A- represent? Almost ex-cellence?

Nathan McIntyre, a senior in the College of Science, said that one of his classes currently sets the threshold for an A from 90-100%. “I really like it. It doesn’t penalize you, and it provides you with the greatest opportunity to earn an A. It also gives you the benefit of a B+ if you fall short.” This is a great ex-ample of how a grading scale can

provide incentive for students to work harder.

The new grade system is now in place, and it is not worth the effort change back to the old system. In-deed, only the students that accom-

plish 90-92% are hurt by this poli-cy, yet its principle compels me to critique it. I believe that more peo-ple fall into the 90-92% range than you might expect. My proposal is to count an A+ as a 4.3 with the caveat that a 4.00 is the maximum cumu-lative GPA a student could receive. To me, this seems more consistent, equitable, and justifiable.

“In addition, the grading system is inequitable because it adds a higher threshold of perfor-

mance without a higher payoff.”


Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley

Kakuro instructions: The object is to fill all empty squares using numbers 1 to 9 so the sum of each hori-zontal block equals the clue on its left, and the sum of each vertical block equals the clue on its top. In addition, no number may be used in the same block more than once .

Sudoku instructions: The object is to fill all empty squares so that the numbers 1 to 9 appear exactly once in each row, column and 3x3 box.

Stickey Wicket by Stewart Simpson

Campus diversions are not made of corn

SudokuEasy

Fiendish

Sudokus provided by http://www.sudokuoftheday.com

provide incentive for students to work harder.

The new grade system is now in place, and it is not worth the effort change back to the old system. In-deed, only the students that accom-

plish 90-92% are hurt by this poli-cy, yet its principle compels me to critique it. I believe that more peo-ple fall into the 90-92% range than you might expect. My proposal is to count an A+ as a 4.3 with the caveat that a 4.00 is the maximum cumu-lative GPA a student could receive. To me, this seems more consistent, equitable, and justifiable.


Trillion Dollar PoliticsBy ASHER DIMITROFF Guest Commentator

I am intrigued by the inadequa-cies of our current government. The shortfalls of the government would be more amusing if they were not affecting every man, woman, and child in our great country. We are facing a depres-sion. There is no other appropriate word to describe our current eco-nomic climate. However, no one wants come out and call it a depres-sion because everyone is afraid of the implications. Unemployment is high, the national debt keeps going up, and many students have gradu-ated into joblessness. Politicians are avoiding the ‘D’ word alongside many economists because they do not want to frighten the American public or Wall Street. Well, Wall Street is already afraid, as are those whose money is invested in it. But wait…who cares about Wall Street? Main Street is the heart of America. Yes, “Main Street.” It sounds so nice to be concerned about Main Street because that means you care about all of the ”little” people out there. This is interesting because without Wall Street, Main Street is grabbing its ankles.

Mr. Obama enjoys pulling the Main Street card out of his pocket and sticking it in the folks’ mouths that voted for him. Ah, yes, Main Street is what Mr. Obama cares about. I’m sure that’s the reason he is taking the money from those who live on Main Street and throw-ing it in the pockets of the unem-ployed people who live in slums down from Wall Street. It is aston-ishing, really.

You see, Obama (like any politi-cian) ran for office claiming to have solutions for all of the problems we are facing now. I respect that he has not claimed these solutions would work instantaneously, but it becomes painful to watch him at-tempt impossible feats. It brings to mind the image of a small child

playing with shape blocks trying to punch a square through the tri-angle hole. I, in the same fashion as Alan Keyes, ask how a bankrupt government is supposed save the economy by pumping money into it. Where is this money coming from?

Joe Biden eloquently advised last July that the government has to spend money to keep from go-ing bankrupt. Yes, that is what America voted into public office. This is terrifying, is it not? So after the government saves the economy with money it does not have, buys corporations with money it does not have, fights a war with money it does not have, sends aid to coun-tries with money it does not have, it is going to make health insurance available to everyone with money it does not have. We are supposed to stand by and watch this hap-pen. Are we really supposed to let Obama and the Democrats take more of our money and throw it away? Give it to people who have not sweated and taken risks to get to where we are? On top of it, we are not supposed to say that this is socialism? It is socialism. Obama and his pawns are shoving some-thing down our throats that we simply cannot afford.

It is okay though; they held a bipartisan debate about the health care nightmare, I mean reform, last week. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell asked the Democrats to “start over and go step by step and target the areas of possible agree-ment” that they had discussed. In return, the Democrats are pushing the parliamentary shortcut known as reconciliation to pass this bill. Now, turn this over a few times in your head: was it really a biparti-san debate for compromise when everyone realized that regardless of the outcome, they were going to try to push the bill forward any-

way? I won’t answer that question. The scariest thing in this is that

it is a lose-lose situation for the current administration. I say scari-est because when you think about everything that is happening, you can only wonder why they are still trying to push this massive bill that we don’t have the money for. If Congress passes this current 2,700 page massive disgrace of a bill, they will have effectively pissed off most of the voting population. However, if they start over like many good hearted Republicans and Demo-crats alike have suggested, they lose face. To me, this is frighten-ing because in a political lose-lose situ-ation like this, a President who ran for office claiming that he would work for the peo-ple should make the right decision, tuck away his lib-eral pride, and listen to his country.

Instead, he along with the leftists decided that the government should make your health de-cisions for you. The liberals in power have decided that our tax money should fund abortions. They have decided that the laws of economics do not apply to them and that they can keep raising the debt ceiling to pass massive overhauls without a single vote from the other side. They have decided that our money is not our

money and that our voices do not matter. Well, let us see what they have to say next fall. I’m very inter-ested on their day of electoral judg-ment as to how they will justify ig-noring the logic of those who gave them power to represent the vot-

ers. Think about it.

Volume 7, Issue 5

Documents

Transcript of Volume 7, Issue 5