Emily Forden '10 prepares to execute Kyle Block in Roman ritual style.

The first, Jeremy Wolff ’13, introduced the impressive versatility of “circular thinking” in the design field. He raced through the slides at a lightning pace, inundating the audience with circular designs in everyday life and explaining their merits by using Bauer Center, Starbucks, and the Athenaeum designs as examples. Luckily his haste was matched by sharp wit and a strong ability to present alternative examples to the audience during the short Q&A.

The second presentation was by John-Clark Levin ’12 and Jason Soll ’12. The pair spoke about the underlying causes of poverty. Poverty, the two argued, is not a lack of money; rather, a lack of money is a symptom of poverty. With my personal political convictions, I’m inclined to agree with the general premises and most things the conservative pair might argue. Still, I didn’t understand their idea for a solution. Neither did Michelle Kahn ’12, Charlie Sprague’10 or Sandy Russell ’10, who all successively asked variations of the same question: what are you going to do about it? That was the idea the audience was expecting to hear, and didn’t. The guests were further surprised when an unrelated picture of Jason in a track suit appeared on screen, detracting from his presentation. Contrary to popular belief, including a picture of one’s biceps does little to strengthen an argument.

Next up were ASCMC veterans Eric Scott ’11 and Ben Kraus ’11, who presented their idea for the Improvements, Projects, and Actions Committee (IPAC), a committee of students designated to create and implement long-term goals to improve the CMC experience. Eric and Ben recovered flawlessly when some unforeseen technical difficulties erased half of their slideshow, inadvertently giving them an added opportunity to show their command over their subject and presentation. Josh Siegel ’10 “went there” and asked Ben if he would have created the Committee had he won his bid for ASCMC president. “No,” he responded, ”Not immediately.  But by October 2010 I would have figured out that it was necessary to create lasting change at CMC.”

Fourth was Emily Forden ’10, who encouraged active audience participation with a live demonstration of her thesis argument on the Roman torture method unassumingly called “The Sack.” Emily “executed” Kyle Block ’10 with the assistance of David Nahmias ’10 by stuffing Kyle into a maggoty cow’s carcass with a whole ark of dead animals. Then, Kyle was spoon-fed Ath dessert to ensure temporary survival. Kyle’s torture and death was a first for the Athenaeum, which previously claimed zero casualties in its 40-year history. Throughout the demonstration, Emily explained her historical interpretation of this Roman tradition and the purifying effect she believes it had on the collective Roman soul. Liz Johnson ’11 stepped up and asked the question everyone was wondering: “What are some other creative manifestations of Roman criminal justice?”  to which Emily replied, “They aren’t Ath-appropriate!” (If you liked Emily’s talk, then I strongly recommend any class by CMC history professor Shane Bjornlie.)

Roxanne Phen ’10 presented a condensed version of her thesis topic: changing the philanthropic landscape by introducing low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs). Arguably the perfect pitch for a CMC crowd, Roxanne spoke about capitalizing on the benefits and flexibility of for-profit companies for non-profit purposes. For more on her presentation, Roxanne will be publishing a Forum article in the coming week.

Finally, CMC alum Alex Caldwell ’09 spoke about robots. I question the selection committee’s decision to include an alum when so many current students had applied to give talks. Nevertheless, the audience was undoubtedly entertained by Alex’s accessible presentation on our fast approach to the technical singularity point– a moment in time when robots will be able to teach themselves. Noting studies that argue against the ability of robots to ever make moral choices, Alex put forth his idea of  utopia as a day when human labor is rendered obsolete. In his Q&A session, Mr. Caldwell had to admit that, no, he had not seen WALL·E yet.

Voting by text message-- bringing democracy to the 21st century.

In the end, there could only be one. The audience voted by text message and the results were displayed live, yielding a dramatic dead tie between Jeremy and Roxanne. An instant runoff was held and Roxanne took the title of the first Athenaum VIP, solidifying her name on an Athenaeum plaque and snatching a coveted ticket to the head table for Mitt Romney’s talk on April 15.

Congratulations to the lovely Roxanne Phen and her winning idea on future philanthropic models, and to Carl and Michael for hosting a wonderful event and creating a new CMC tradition.   I predict it will become a part of CMC’s Athenaum culture and remain with us for quite some time.

It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies.   This job is harder than people think.  Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool.  That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.

An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time.  We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.”  (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved.  I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)

Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.  How else do you explain articles like this?  Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up?  For some reason these people want to relive that.  They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse.  It’s immature and childlike.

What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:

“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn

With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle.  You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and   wrote this.  No one cares about how you and Andrew work together.  You’re supposed to act professionally.  The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI.  This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.

I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:

“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”

A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds.  I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded.  Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.

Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging.  You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

“Risky Business: Is it About CMC?” by Chase Gray.  Chase explores the possibility that the CMC alumnus who made the movie Risky Business might have

“Genetics Don’t Explain History” by Tina Nguyen, a review of Henry Louis Gates Jr. talk at the Athenaeum

“Dr. Imad Moustapha: Making Excuses for Syria” by Ian Johnson, a review of Ambassador Moustapha’s talk at the Athenaeum.

“Diversity Groups and Academic Performance” by Ilan Wurman

Bonus:

A strange, unsigned article attacking ASCMC for the Ludacris concert. Based on “anonymous sources” and rumors instead of actual reporting, there are so many inaccuracies in this article it almost warrants a quick read; the CI is usually much more reliable than this.  Just remember, if you have a question about ASCMC, all ASCMC Board meetings are open to the public on Sundays at 6 PM in the Heggblade Conference Room and most budget documents are publicly announced here or at ascmc.org.

“At its annual retreat this week in Newport Beach, Claremont McKenna College’s Board of Trustees opted to replace student loans with scholarship grants, joining a small group of elite colleges who can afford to do so. Current students returning to CMC in the Fall will have grants in place of loans, and all packages will henceforth be strictly scholarship and grant money.”

Basically, current loans must still be paid off, but in the future, all aid packages will include no loans, just grants. It sounds like this includes current students, starting in the fall.

As for the source of funding, Wilner writes, “The money will come from an endowed fund set up a number of years ago for the purpose of providing interest-free loans.”

This follows a trend of other top liberal arts colleges and universities that have adopted increasingly generous financial aid policies in recent years.

UPDATE:

CMC Public Affairs posted a news release on cmc.edu today.

The Claremont Political Union was created as a confluence of the Claremont Democrats and Claremont Republicans clubs, and CMC’s two partisan newspapers, the Claremont Port Side, and the Claremont Independent. According to President of the Claremont Democrats, Elaine Maloney (SC ’08), “People might be involved in politics, but might not be allegiant to a party. But this is a good place to start for the same goal.” Mike Whatley (CMC ’11), Vice-President of Operations for the Claremont Republicans, echoed this goal: “It is a good thing to come together, and hold events together in a friendly environment.”

Yet, the debate over the choice of TV channel almost turned the event hostile. A half-dozen Republicans charged the party’s organizers with partisanship because they chose CNN over Fox News. To appease both sides, the CPU decided to switch between channels every 30 minutes. Yet, Mr. Whatley told me that “CNN was better anyway.”

By 6 PM, The Hub was full of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and voting in California was still open for another two hours. Sometime after 6 p.m., CNN made a projection—Barack Obama had won Delaware. The crowd of Obama supporters was glowing and cheering. On the other side, the response was more hushed during Republican projections—when John McCain won New York, the crowd remained mostly unmoved with a few scattered claps and boos.

None of the organizations in the CPU endorsed a candidate as a club, and are now focused on future events and funding. They are planning an “unconventional partisan debate” during Alumni Weekend, and are seeking funding as an organization (a consortium within a consortium?), instead of using funds from each member club. This time, club funds bought sets of red, white, and blue balloons and a handy delegate chart that was much easier to follow than that of the Situation Room at CNN.

Breaking from the usual CMC party scene, the clubs did not buy alcohol with their funds. “No one here is looking to get smashed on a Tuesday night,” said Ms. Maloney. Still, a few students improvised with Chardonnay (Obama supporters).

In CMC’s community of political involvement and partisanship, many students loved the bipartisan atmosphere. Molly Doyle (CMC ’09) said, “I’m just so excited to be here. This event would only happen at CMC.”