Valuing Life

Having just read Professor McAdams' post about the upcoming execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, I felt the obligation to defend what he describes as the "attachment that liberal activists and Hollywood airheads have for [Mr. Williams]."

While I found the Boston Globe article he referenced interesting, (and indeed, disturbing by the details of violence in them), I felt that it was extremely one-sided, and did not take into account the positive things that Mr. Williams has done since his incarceration in 1981. This man has been on death row for 24 years. He has been in prison longer than I have been alive. In the time that Mr. Williams has been imprisoned, he has denounced his gang ties, and has worked to end gang violence.

I am not advocating that Mr. Williams is innocent of these crimes. What I am advocating is that he should be granted clemency. This would mean that he would be spared from the death penalty, but he would remain in prison for the rest of his life.

Professor McAdams writes that "Death penalty opponents claim that executing murderers somehow sends the message that killing is alright, since the state is killing. This sort of logic says that sending an army to invade Germany in World War II sent a message that invasions are alright. Of course, it sent exactly the opposite message."

I disagree. I don't think that death penalty opponents think that by using capital punishment, we send the message that killing is ok. It is for several reasons that I will outline that I believe capital punishment is wrong. These reasons are not a complete list, but merely touch on examples that I have encountered in my research.

As a death penalty opponent I have done extensive research and talked with several attorneys who have handled cases where capital punishment was at stake. Most of these people who work to ensure the justice of this country do not believe that the death penalty significantly deters criminals from committing a crime. Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School testified before the New York State assembly with very compelling evidence that capital punishment has not been proven to deter crime.

There are other options besides death; a punishment of life without parole is just as a deterrant for crime as capital punishment. Studies have repeatedly shown that a life imprisonment is also less costly than using the death penalty because of the huge costs of appeals. For these reasons, I do not believe capital punishment ought to be administered.

I also believe that employing the use of capital punishment has moral implications. Professor McAdams says that "executing murderers sends exactly the right message about the value of human life." What message is this? Yes, we should recognize that there are victims of those who are currently on death row. Yes, their lives were valuable and yes, there ought to be a punishment for the crimes against them, but aren't the lives of those on death row also valuable? Stanley Tookie Williams has worked diligently to bring peace to America's gang ridden inner cities. Yes, he allegedly killed several people, but his life still has value, even in prison. By murdering these people (yes, murder is the cause of death when someone is killed through capital punishment. it is quite ironic) we send a vengeful message about the value of human life. Can someone explain to me how we value human life by killing? Yes, I understand that by executing someone it acts as a retribution for killing someone else, but that doesn't end the pain for a family who lost a loved one. The only message sent through executions is that this nation only values certain lives--the lives of those who are victims. Everyone has done something wrong in their lives, some more than others. We mere and fallible humans cannot reasonably make the determination of whose lives are valuable and whose are not. To me, every life is sacred. Every life has value. Criminals should be in prison, but they should be allowed to live and to contribute to society, even from behind bars.

I don't disagree that there are evil people in this world and that we must have a system in place to ensure the protection of citizens, but capital punishment does little to protect people. It does not detract from crime, it is costly, and to say that executions show that we value human life is the most oxymoronic thing I have heard in a long time. We must have a system of justice where criminals are prosecuted, but to kill someone to say that killing is wrong does not value life whatsoever.

Final Petition Update

The following petition was submitted to University officials and The Marquette Tribune yesterday with 297 signatures:

Freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas are essential in an academic setting and should be encouraged rather than punished. The signers of the petition demand that the student who was suspended for expressing his personal beliefs online in a form of a personal blog be fully reinstated to the University and that all disciplinary actions taken against him be overturned. Specifically, the signers of petition believe that the decision by the Marquette University Faculty/Student Conduct Board should be overturned on the following grounds:

Whereas: The Dental School Faculty/Student Conduct Board denied the student a fair hearing

Whereas: The University grossly infringed on his right to freedom of speech by using statements made to a close group of friends on his personal blog against him

Whereas: The punishment was overly excessive and can be shown to be more than arbitrary and capricious

Whereas: The decision, If upheld, would set a disastrous precedent for student free speech rights and would give the University a seemingly limitless reach into students lives.

This petition is officially sponsored and endorsed by: Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College Republicans, 1832, The Warrior Blog, Leaning Blue, Brewtown Politico, GOP3.com, Adam Chernow's Blog, The Office of Homeland Security and Eminent Domain.

Thank you to all of you that took the time to sign it.

MUSG Concedes Marquette Has Right to Censorship

I don't know what I was thinking when I had hope that MUSG would actually do something positive for their fellow students on campus. This is the MUSG after all that is led by Alex Hermanny who actually "thanked the administration" for the input it took from students in the "GOLD" annoucement.

Resolution 1: "On Behalf of Student Expression", which was passed, contained the following statement:

"Whereas: It is recognized that Marquette University, in accordance with its Jesuit values and ideals and in compliance with its Policies and procedures, reserves the right to monitor and censor expression both on and off Marquette's campus"

Um hello MUSG!?!?! When did censorship become an ideal " in accordance with Jesuit values"? So thats where the Dental School got the suspension idea from--the Jesuits! (Im clearly joking, I assume this was just poor wording that none of them caught).

MUSG passed the resolution despite the fact that I stated in the public comments section, that including such a statement makes the rest of the resolution null and void, much like the War Powers Act fails to limit Presidential War Powers because the Congress conceded that the President has the right to insert troops into combat without the consent of the Congress.

During the debate, Alex Hermanny and Brock Banks stated that (from the GOP3.com live blog):

SENATOR BANKS: Talked with Dean McCarthy. Their view is that when you commit yourself to MU student, you sign onto a contract with a policy and student conduct code, and that they have the right to censor student expression whenever they want since when we're on campus we'’re theirs and when we're off-campus we're a representative of the University. Still, just because they can censor us doesn'’t mean they should. Brock points out the negative effects that can occur when the University does exercise their right. MUSG wants the University to be prudent in its decisions to curb student expression, given our goal to make the University an open forum for the free exchange of ideas.

DANIEL: Alex mentioned that he talked with Fr. Andy, and Fr. Thon [sic] said that he felt part of this issue was the higher standard of conduct expected from professional school students.

Jeez guys you talked to Dr. McCarthy the Dean of OSD, which is the Department that is the main oppessor of speech on and off campus, and Fr. Andy Thon who both agree that Marquette has an absolute right to "monitor and censor speech on and off campus". They clearly wouldn't have a vested interest in claiming such a right even if its doesn't legally exist.

Did any members of MUSG speak with a lawyer or Professor from the law school to verify this? Nope. Apparently none of the MUSG Senators even bothered to readl this Marquette Tribune staff editorial that stated:

The expelled student could argue that the university rule in question was not clear enough with regards to off-campus speech. He could also argue that Marquette received money from the government for the dental school building, and in that way is a government actor, broadening the student's right to free speech, according to Erik Ugland, a professor of media law at Marquette. Ugland said in an e-mail interview that he hoped the university would rescind its suspension.

I'm going to write a lot more later this weekend about everything that is wrong with this resolution because I have a lot of work to do tonight.

However, I will say this, unless MUSG is willing to put up a tougher fight with the Admin, I have zero faith in MUSG's pledge to pass a real "students bill of rights" next semester that actually protects students.

Last Day To Sign The Petition To Protect Free Speech!

Please take the time to sign this petition if you have not done so already and forward it to all of your friends!

1832 will deliver the petition to Dental School tomorrow between 8am-9am to make sure it gets in before the appeal hearing.

Thanks to all of your efforts the petition jumped from the #2 petition to the #1 spot today on www.ipetitions.com:

1. Protect MU Students Free Speech Rights

2. Start a bar for Homophobes in Baie-Comeau!

3. Help Fix the RIT Residential Mealplans

4. Support the Yale-New Haven Cancer Center

5. Save Al-Mansuri Family and their little Canadian D

Lets mare sure it says #1!

Also if you have time please contact the following Marquette officials and let them know what you think:

Dr. Denis Lynch: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Contact Dr. Lynch via email at: denis.lynch@marquette.edu

Contact Dr. Lynch on the phone at: 414-288-7485


Dr. Anthony Ziebert: Chairman of Department of General Dental Sciences

Contact Dr. Ziebert via email at: anthony.ziebert@marquette.edu

Contact Dr. Ziebert on the phone at: 414-288-3704

Student Senate to Vote Today on Resolution to Protect Free Speech

According to a friend of mine who is close to MUSG, the Student Life Committee has approved a resolution that condemns the Dental School's decision to suspend a student over the contents of his blog and that a "student bill of rights" is also on the table.

The Student Senate will vote on the resolution and discuss a possible "student bill of rights" tonight at 7:30pm in AMU room 227.

A "student bill of rights" or MUSG resolutions that further protect students right to free speech on and off campus is something that I have long advocated for. I just find it sad that an event such as this, is what forced to the table.

Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College Republicans, The Warrior Blog, GOP3.com, 1832 and even my old Students for Dean group have long warned that Marquette student's freedom of expression has been under attack by the administration--the time for change is now.

Petition makes it way up to #2 petition on iPetitions, TuckerMax.com reports on "Dental-gate"

The petition started by 1832 to reinstate Marquette Dental Student Theodore Schrubbe and have all disciplinary action taken against him overturned has already jumped to the #2 petition of the day on www.ipetitions.com:

today's Top Petitions:

1. Save Movies at Spangenberg Theatre

2. Protect MU Students Free Speech Rights

3. Save Al-Mansuri Family and their little Canadian D

4. Oprah Winfrey for Nobel Peace Prize

5. Start a bar for Homophobes in Baie-Comeau!

However, don't take this to mean we don't need more people to sign it! Please take the time to sign the petition and forward it to anyone you know!

For those of you with more time, we also encourage you to email or call Associate Dean Denis Lnych's office at:

denis.lynch@marquette.edu

Phone: 414-288-7485

Click here to view his webpage

In related TuckerMax.com, who received a lot of notoriety for posting about his drunken escapades while at Duke Law School, has also reported on and condemned the suspension of Theodore Schrubbe.

Some People Should Not Be Parents

My stomach turned when I read that Jason Strickland, a 31 year old auto mechanic, was appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to keep his stepdaughter alive. Haliegh Strickland has been comatose, and on life support since September.

The man trying to keep her alive is allegedly the reason she is in the hospital barely clinging to life. Police charged Strickland with beating Haliegh. Those charges will be upgraded to murder if Haliegh is taken off of life support.

It makes me so sick. Strickland never officially adopted Haliegh, but because he lived with her for four years and took on a fatherly role, he should be viewed as her de facto parent. Thus, he believes he should have the right to decide when she is taken off of life support. What gets me is that she wouldn’t need the life support had he acted like a parent ought to act. He should have been loving, and caring, and protective of this girl that now, when his own life is at stake, views as his daughter. This is so incredibly selfish. He only wants to protect himself. I am glad that his case has little legal merit in that he never officially adopted Haliegh, and therefore will probably not win his appeal.

Petition Drive Update

So far 52 people have signed our petition demanding that all of the disciplinary actions taken against Marquette Dental Student Theodore Schrubbe be overturned, but given all the traffic that is coming into 1832 right now, we really should have more. If you haven't signed the petition yet, please take the time to do so.

In addition, the petition has now been endorsed by the following groups/blogs: Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College Republicans, 1832, The Warrior Blog, Leaning Blue, Brewtown Politico, GOP3.com, Adam Chernow's Blog, The Office of Homeland Security and now Eminent Domain.

In related news, Slashdot.com has picked up the story:

whiteSanjuro writes "Reported first by the bloggers, and now the mainstream press, is a story of a student being suspended by his university for the rest of the academic year because of entries in the student's blog which the university did not view favorably. It has already had some chilling effects and looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online. The student (who wishes to remain anonymous) is appealing the university's decision in an effort to remain in classes and finish out the current semester, but even the terms of re-admittance (pdf) leave the blogger subject to probation, minus a scholarship, and prohibit future free blogging. Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog."

In addition to our petition, please join the EFF as well.

In Defense of Offshoring

The loss of American white-collar jobs to India, China and other locales through the practice of outsourcing has become one of the hot-button issues in politics today. But perhaps just as controversial, if not more so, than the application of outsourcing is offshoring, defined by reporter and author Thomas Friedman as “when a company takes one of its factories that is operating in Canton, Ohio and moves the whole factory offshore to Canton, China (where) it produces the same product in the very same way, only with cheaper labor, lower taxes, subsidized energy, and lower health care costs." Offshoring has gained a great deal of negative attention in recent media coverage, as the press laments the loss of American blue-collar positions, disappearance of tax revenue from production, and alleged human rights violations in these foreign factories. However, it appears at times as though both sides of the story of offshoring are not being told by America’s mainstream media and many politicians.

Some local representatives have been eager to act on the resentment of offshoring labor shown by their constituents. California lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would have prohibited agencies in their state from offshoring labor unless the contractor could prove that all of the work would be done inside the United States by American workers. Although the proposed regulation was eventually vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it only seems as if protectionist sentiments in this country are becoming more and more prevalent. Infoworld reports that “bills related to offshoring or outsourcing, some of which would severely limit or outright stop those practices, were introduced this year in nearly all 50 states as well as in the U.S. Congress, and there is no indication that legislative trend will stop."

Despite the good intentions of elected officials across the country, the fact remains that companies which choose to offshore production are effectively employing the law of comparative advantage, and choosing real goals such as efficiency and price over intangible variables like their perception by potential consumers. Unfortunately for companies that do choose to outsource, this image is often altered by those that seek to keep American jobs inside our borders at any cost. Offshoring labor can actually create positions here in the United States, as shown by Murray Weidenbaum, who chronicled the results of Delta Air Lines’ experiment. He writes that “in 2003, Delta outsourced 1,000 jobs to India, but the $25 million in savings allowed the company to add 1,200 reservation and sales positions in the United States." Of course, positive stories about offshoring such as this, which saw our country gain 1,200 higher-paying positions at the expense of 1,000 blue-collar placements, are largely hidden as the “offshoring is bad” contingent of the media tends to dominate discussion.

Perhaps most of all, protectionist politicians and jingoistic journalists are guilty of claiming that in regards to offshoring, the sky is falling, when that really is not the case. After all, America still is the world’s largest manufacturer, and per Friedman, we still produce 75% of what we consume. All of our jobs are not moving across the Pacific. In fact, some high-paying jobs are moving in the opposite direction, as foreign car companies have found it advantageous to set up production facilities right here in the United States. Honda now has a plant in Ohio, Nissan currently manufactures vehicles in Mississippi, and Toyota operates production lines in California, just to name a few. In addition, technological firms across the world often move operations to the United States to take advantage of our culture of innovation and highly educated population. Offshoring does go both ways.

People need to realize this simple actuality in the new global economy – due to globalization, offshoring is here to stay, despite legislation, rallies or other movements against it. But it does not have to be a threat. The offshoring of global positions presents thousands of new opportunities just waiting to be leveraged. It frees up workers in America to manage, rather than work with their hands, and to deal with information instead of raw materials. And while it is an enormous transformation, it can inevitably work out for the best, for both employers and employees.

Counterpoint from the Comments Section

Editors Note: The following was originally posted in the comments section of this post on this suspension scandal at Marquette and while we disagree with it a lot of it (but not all of it), 1832 also fully supports and believes in the freedom of expression and encourages the free exchange of ideas. Thus we have elevated these comments to "guest blog" status as it is a well written counterpoint:

I’m a Marquette grad, and I emailed Professor McAdams yesterday with a few two cent opinions on this whole mess.

I read the Marquette Tribune pretty often on line and also the new student paper, as well as Dr. McAdams blog and this one.

For whatever it’s worth, as a life long conservative on most every issue, I have a quickie take on this biz.

My sense of the atmosphere at Marquette these days is that there seems to be an acrimonious relationship between liberal and conservative factions, student and faculty alike. Whatever happened to the days when people could disagree with eachother without having to fear someone coming by their house and shooting their windows at at 3am?

First, unfortunately the Dental student’s blog is off line now, apparently, so no one can read the whole thing and draw a thoroughly reasoned conclusion.

But based on Dr. McAdam’s post yesterday, it seems the University’s decision to discipline this student rests on his use of one particular word (a bad toilet word he used in reference to a professor — whose identity obviously could be inferred by readers, though the professor is unnamed).

Second, I don’t think it’s fair to say Marquette censored anyone, unless they forced this guy to take his blog down. It seems he did it on his own after he got nailed for calling someone a bad name. The student seemd to cave in when forced with an embarrassing disciplinary mess. He seemed to reject their feeling he needed counseling, and so took the blog down as an afterthought.

It seems the posts here (on this site regarding free speech) are predicated on a juvenile at best notion of what constitutes “free speech.” Of course no one suggests shouting “Fire in a theater” should be protected. But there are many other levels and grades of things that merit argument. This is one of them.

It’s interesting that another blogger here accuses the Dean of reacting like a three year old — but what’s more childish than calling someone a bad name and then crying foul when there are consequences?

I’m not taking Marquette’s side in this. Not by a long shot. But one has to recognize the climate of our culture.

As I wrote to Dr McAdams, 16 years ago today an engineering student at the University of Montreal shot 14 female students to death in a classroom.

No one is saying this dental student is deranged, but universities, corporations, airports, malls, and so forth are all taking things that smell of potential whacked out behavior much more seriously today than they ever did before.

Maybe a hundred years from now, or more, when people stop walking through shopping malls with assualt rifles, killing their girlfriends’ parents over curfew, and going to churches and kindergartens with deer rifles, then you can safely say that people who post blogs in a moment of anger are just “blowing off steam,” as Dr McAdams says this guy is doing. But today, corporations, law enforcement, schools, etc, are paying attention to “fighting words,” which is the real name for this student’s language.

By the way, read Chaplinsky v the State of New Hampshire in this regard. It’s the Supreme Court case that helped shape legal definitions of “protected speech.”

Also, it’s possible there’s more to the dental student’s story than the blogs and media are reporting. If he put those words in his blog, it’s likely he shot his mouth off in the dental school. News travels fast. Perhaps he has a reputation.

Plato wryly points out that the purpose of punishment is pedagogical.
What’s done is done and punishment can’t change the past. However, punishment teaches perpetrators and everyone else what happens if someone transgresses a law.

Dr. McAdams may know this student personally, and can vouch for his character. I don’t know. But go talk to people in Columbine about how they feel about students who use blogs to blow off steam. Then come back and look at this case again.

This just is bad timing on the student’s part, and quite obviously the left leaning administration has seized this opportunity to make an example of him.

Moreover, the student said what he had to say, and Marquette exercised its right to decide who gets to be on campus and who doesn’t. (There’s an Italian saying: Choose your friends for their looks and you enemies for their brains. I wonder how this fits the present circumstance.)
As I said to Dr McAdams, and I don’t think he agrees with me, student criticism of a professor might go something like this:

“Is unprepared for class.”
“Returns assignments late and with few useful comments.”
“Does not hold office hours regularly and is not available.”

These are critiques.

Name calling like that is hate rhetoric. It’s not “a free discourse of ideas” to tear people down. Anyone who thinks that calling someone a “c—kmaster” is sharing an idea isn’t worth arguing with.

What would liberal and conservatives alike think of a Marquette faculty or graduate teaching assistant, who, in a blog, referred to a student as a “c–k-anything,” who everyone could identify contextually? Further, what if the professor or TA said that 20% of his students weren’t college material?

Would we all be rushing to defend their right to “free” speech?

Would every one agree such a person deserves to be on the faculty of a major university?

Ultimately, there can’t or shouldn’t be two sets of standards for people in an academic community.

Either there’s scholarly decorum or there isn’t.

It’s not like the guy worked on a loading dock and called his foreman a “c—k master.” He’s a graduate student and if he can’t sound like one then there’s something out of joint.
And you can say on the one hand that a professor is a c–kmaster, and then run and hide and expect people to cut you slack and say it’s ok, you were only “blowing off steam.”

When you call a professor a bad word like a disgruntled 4th grader on a public school playground, people have a right to react to this type of behavior (and yes, language is a type of behavior that is actionable, if you don’t believe me, then try cussing up a storm in a major corporation, on a city bus, or better yet walk up to a cop and tell him he’s a “c—k master”).
What got this young man in hot water isn’t that he was critical of Marquette, rather, what came back to bite him in the ass is that he expressed himself like someone on Jerry Springer or Maury.

He exercised his right to talk like a low life, and Marquette exercised its right to ask him if he really wants to be there.

Regardless of how “equal” we all are politically and socially, if the only way you can evaluate another person is to use toilet words, you’re not equal intellectually to anyone.

Doesn’t sound like this guy is particularly happy there. And since I am not at Marquette, I can’t guess what it’s like to be a grad student there anymore.

So what entitles him to the degree he’s working on? It certainly isn’t his detached intellect or his capacity to think abstractly or philosophically.

It wasn’t so long ago when there was a distinction between public and private discourse. Remember when Nixon had to turn over particular Oval Office recordings of his private meetings? The public was then shocked that the President of the US and his staff cussed like truck drivers and even used racial and ethnic slurs.

But in public, one was expected to express important ideas with appropriate language.
Apparently Marquette thinks so too. They have a right to apply standards of decorum as they see fit.

This guy seemed to use his blog like it was a bathroom wall to write on. The only problem is that on a blog, he invited the world in to read it.

Today, standards regarding language have lowered. We all know it. Everyone uses bad words.
But some people have a right not have to accept people who fob themselves off as intellectuals superiors when all they can do is talk like a low life.

Just listen to kids waiting for the bus at a bus stop in any city, or listen closely to people on the el or a bus.

But this Dental student isn’t a guest on Jerry Springer or a foul mouthed brat on a playground.
He’s a doctoral student at a major university who expresses himself like a disgruntled potential Unabomber.

And if anyone thinks that if this guy went to Northwestern or Yale and referred to the faculty who graciously gave him an academic scholarship as “c–k masters” that they wouldn’t “do” anything, then they need to think again.

As I said, there are still people out in the world who realize that when you’re sitting in a bar pouring out your heart to your best friend that you’re going to use words that might even make Nixon blush.

But when you post things on blogs, you’re entering the public domain where you’re implicitly inviting an analysis of your ideas.

There are people in the world who still think that there are more and less responsible ways to express what’s in your head.

For a guy who expects Marquette to give him DDS and PhD degrees, he doesn’t sound too prudent. And maybe he was having a bad day. But so were the kids at Columbine and right or wrong, the world is trying to understand who people go postal.

Again. I am not suggesting this student sounds like he would, but there are a number of people who have crossed the line from violent language to violent actions.

(Also, one can’t escape the anger seething beneath the surface of his remarks. I wonder why no one has asked if they’d want someone that angry to be working inside their mouths with sharp objects and drills?)

Maybe he can spend his suspension period watching Jerry Springer and then he’ll realize what he sounds like and that if he expects anyone to take to him seriously, he’ll stop talking like he drives a fork lift at WalMart and lives in a trailor.

Last, if he’s that unhappy at Marquette and if 20 percent of his fellow students are so beneath him, why doesn’t he have the grades and scores to go to a better school?

He’s only 22. When he gets out in the work world — be it a hospital or someother entity, the response to that type of rant will be “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”

When the student went public to his blog, he had a compulsion to be read, and Freud is up there smiling somewhere, because he obviously had a compulsion to get caught and disciplined for his potty mouth — there are no accidents.

There’s that old saying about choosing one’s battles and doing it wisely, apparently he didn’t think of the consequences.

You Can't Fight Terrorism with Terrorism

In the midst of a war that has already been riddled with alleged human rights abuses, last month Vice President Cheney called upon Congress to legalize torture in the interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

In the past week Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff was asked if he believed that Cheney was guilty of war crimes by advocating the use of torture. Wilkerson responded “It was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is--for whatever it's worth--an international crime as well.”

Wilkerson has been incredibly outspoken about the role that Cheney played in the prisoner abuse. In a separate interview he said, "There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to [abuse detainees] originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office.”

We cannot advocate the use of torture while attempting to prosecute individuals like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity. This is incredible hypocrisy. Yes, these people are our enemies, yes, some of them have carried out atrocious violence, yes, they may be difficult to interrogate, but so are our own military who they are fighting against. Using torture on detainees is no better than their torture of American soldiers. We must not stoop to their level.

Some of you may disagree with me. You may say that in times of war, we must use all means necessary to win. My response to that is simply this: if we torture detainees, we only add to the hate that they and their fellow insurgents have for us. The little we may gain through the use of torture would not justify the increase of hatred that would prevail.

Marquette Declares War On Bloggers and Free Speech on the Internet

Dr. McAdams' Blog is reporting that a Marquette Dental Student has been suspended over his personal blog posts that were apparently critical of a Dental School professor, of his second-year dental school class and over a few posts that detailed a few nights of drinking. (The site has since been taken down)

So this either means my letter of dismissal either got lost in the mail or is on its way.....

According to Dr. McAdams, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Denis Lynch:

"wrote the student a letter (dated November 2, 2005) accusing him of "crude, demeaning and unprofessional remarks"” that "“violate standards of acceptable behavior as described in the Standards of Conduct, published in At Marquette (2005-2006, pages 209-211), as well as the School of Dentistry's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. . . .

Lynch then went on and claimed that the student had violated Section IV, Subsection E of the Marquette Dental School Code. He offered the student the option of signing "“an admission of guilt" and accepting a punishment that included probation for the rest of the student'’s Marquette career, making a public apology to his dental school class, and making an appointment with the Director of the Marquette University Counseling Center "“to assess both your alcohol abuse and the underlying basis of your remarks posted on your blog site."

The entire letter from Marquette can be found here.


So beware to Marquette Students who are on facebook, post messages on message boards, have a blog or an online journal, you too could be next! So we all better go and delete our membership to facebook groups or any entries of any kind that are critical of Marquette in general and/or Marquette Professors and/or other Marquette Students. Oh and I guess this means I better remove the picture of me doing a beer bong too!

(I'm actually serious about the above items. If this decision is allowed to stand, the University's power to take action against you for anything you say online is seemingly limitless)

From now on all blog entries on 1832 will begin by proclaiming, "Thank you God,for giving me the privilege of attending a University with a student body, and a faculty and staff, that are all worthy of Sainthood...."

Our first entry will be: "Pam Peters, "Marquette's own Dorothy Day?" Which will then be followed by: "Joseph Kastner, "Most Likely Marquette Student To End Racism and Bring Peace to the Middle East?" we then reveal: "The Warrior: A Publication Written By the Divinely Inspired" but our post of the year will surely be: "Late Night Marquette: What were we thinking before?!?! LATE NIGHT RULES!"

In case you want to thank Associate Dean Denis Lynch personally, you may contact him at:
denis.lynch@marquette.edu

Phone: 414-288-7485

Click here to view his webpage

New Blog on the Block: Philosophy, Baseball and Politics

Nick Zettel, a Senior at Marquette University, and the most well-read and insightful undergraduate philosopher that I have met at Marquette has started a blog that seems to cover current political events and baseball from a philosophical perspective.

He already has some great stuff on there about the Brewers, and Dr. McAdam's favorite, bias in the Academy.

I have a feeling that Nick is going to become an integral part of the intellectual side of the Marquette University blogosphere and I encourage everyone to check out what he has to say. The actual address is http://radiosilence97.blogspot.com .

I'm sure we'll add a link to our blog role soon.

(Orginally Posted by Zach Corey)

1832 refutes another false GOP3.com claim

Wow today has been a busy day.... Today Mr. Suhr at GOP3.com made this false claim about the Marquette College Democrats T-Shirts:

The College Democrats at Marquette University website, www.MUDemocrats.com, recently came back online. Among its very few and pathetic features are the meeting minutes for their gatherings:

September 6: “T-Shirts: T-Shirts have not yet been ordered, although 5 designs have been approved by OSD. The estimated price is $10, and a signup sheet went around for those interested. The approved designs will be at the next meeting.

September 20: “T-Shirts: Noelle passed the designs around, and the slogan "Whoever heard of a nice piece of elephant?"’ was chosen. Those interested signed up and put their sizes on a sheet.

November 30: Website comes online. I see this, recall a GOP3.com post, and my interest is perked. I email OSD. An official from OSD informs me that the t-shirt design mentioned above was not approved by OSD.

These certainly less-than-classy sexually-suggestive non-OSD-approved CDs official t-shirts can be ordered online still.

I don't know who Mr. Suhr's unnamed source in OSD was but here is Kelly Behmer's email to Marquette College Democrats that gave them approval for them to use any of the proposed T-Shirt designs:

From: Behmer, Kelly
Sent: Tue 8/30/2005 8:05 AM
To: Gilbreath, Noelle
Subject: Re: tshirts


Noelle,
They look fine. I'd ask you to just think a bit about the elephant quote, but it would work if that is what your group decides. If I could just take a look at them first if you are including anything other than the text below. Finally, could you bring a hard copy into our office for your file and a stamp that would be helpful.

Thanks!

Kelly

Swinging Back at GOP3.com (and Connecting)

Wow. It appears as though my last post on 1832 struck a bit of a nerve over at GOP3.com. I had no idea that my tongue-in-cheek exercise in procrastination would generate an entire article on their site, especially because I’d categorize my response to The Warrior as largely positive. That said…

Yes, our traffic jumps through the roof when we talk about The Warrior. “Desperate for traffic” might be a bit of an overstatement, though – we have no advertisers and no competition, at least in terms of other left-leaning blogs on campus, so thus, we have no reason for desperation. The increases in traffic are purely for excitement. No offense to those who write or enjoy pieces on state politics, but I’d much rather argue about The Warrior or other campus issues than gubernatorial primaries or Peg Lautenschlager’s driving record. Look at the comments on our respective sites – I think our readers agree.

-I never attributed Kastner’s statements to Sroka. If you click on the links in that sentence, the first is what Kastner said, and the second is Bray’s response. The “you” pronoun I used was directed at Kastner, not Sroka, and I apologize if this was unclear.

However, she did write about the “unfortunate effect of a campus culture in which…an outspoken student is considered a bigot.” Kastner’s McCarthy-ist posts calling out members of the Muslim and Arab student associations based solely on their heritage, and the outrage that followed, was the most prominent example of an outspoken student being considered a bigot this semester.

-Concerning Henak’s employment status, my information was current as of October 21st, as on that day, he wrote that he currently works as a consultant at Miller Brewing Company. Perhaps “I work as a consultant for a firm whose current client is Miller Brewing Company” would have been a bit more accurate.

I know how this works. This summer, I worked as a consultant for Wells Fargo. And although my check didn’t say Wells on it, I parked in their ramp, wore one of their ID badges, used their computers, and worked alongside their direct employees. I might go as far as to say that as a consultant, I owed my position to the continued positive performance of Wells Fargo. Odds are that Henak’s terms of employment are similar, and that he stands to gain from increased consumer interest in Miller products. Unless, of course, he’s off the account. Let us know, will you?

Lastly, I’d like to say that I didn’t mean to start some sort of war between 1832 and all entities Red on campus – the “thesis” of my post, if you will, praised The Warrior’s current issue, and most of my jabs were pretty lighthearted and good-natured. Simple misunderstandings do not equal "blatant lies". I’m not going to take this too seriously, and I suggest you do the same.