The Respectable Right
The Relative Unimportance of Being Earnest
Last month, Rolling Stone published a piece of investigative journalism written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely that explored rape culture at the University of Virginia. The article was particularly noted for its description of the brutal gang rape of “Jackie” by a group of fraternity brothers, and the subsequent appalling dearth of assistance that she received both from her friends and from university administration when she attempted to report the assault. The story garnered widespread attention from major media outlets and other universities. On Friday, however, Rolling Stone issued a statement acknowledging that Jackie’s story has been called into question due to various details uncovered by The Washington Post and other outlets, details that directly contradict her account.
A brief litany of the information that Rolling Stone missed, as outlined by the Post: There was no date function at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on the weekend in question; the man Jackie claims took her as a date to the event was never a member, nor did any member work with her at the campus pool in the fall of 2012; although her account portrays the rape as an initiation ritual for new members, UVA fraternities only conduct pledging during the spring semester; and even Jackie’s friends who encountered her that night, and who maintain that some form of sexual assault almost definitely took place, say that she was visibly shaken but uninjured and that details of her story have changed in the intervening years.
Let Us Govern Again
Last week, President Obama addressed the nation to announce that he was taking executive action on immigration. Nobody is entirely happy with his plan, although the withered Democrat House minority is pretending that they are. Republicans denounced it as an unlawful “amnesty,” while immigrants rights groups are angry that after all this time the president still refuses to go far enough.
I must admit that when a President resorts to executive orders to implement a major policy change, I cannot help but view him as something of a failure in the legislative arena. At the risk of delving too deeply into political science jargon, executive orders are intended to function as part of the president’s “completion power.” Although there is no explicit mention of them in the Constitution, executive orders have been issued in differing numbers by every president since Washington under the justification of Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 that orders the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” They are used primarily as a method for filling in the blanks in legislation. Congress is by no means omnipotent, and hence the laws that they pass tend to be of a general nature. They paint the contours of a new policy in broad strokes, and the president in his capacity as chief executive is expected to fill in the details by issuing marching orders to executive departments and agencies regarding their “proper” interpretation.
The Elephant(s) in the Room
UPDATED: November 11, 2014, at 2:50 p.m.
The reports of the demise of the Republican Party were greatly exaggerated.
Worthy Goals
I recall a conversation last year among a group of friends in which we discussed a topic that I suspect is far from the minds of most Harvard students: our future spouses. This group shared their dreams of marrying doctors, lawyers, and various people pursuing other occupations that carry with them Western society’s stamp of sure financial success. When the conversation meandered around to me and it became obvious that I was expected to share my hopes for my future wife, I shrugged. “I don’t know, I don’t particularly care what she does.” The oxygen left the room in a sudden collective intake of air. “What a considerate husband you’ll be,” one girl said with a roll of her eyes. I attempted to explain what I considered a reasonable position. “I’m not saying that I would be apathetic about my wife’s career, I’m saying that I would lend her my support regardless of what she chooses to do with her life.” “You don’t mean to say that you would marry a housewife, right?” one boy asked in horror, poised to brand me with the worst form of moral opprobrium. Though grateful for the escape hatch he was offering, I declined to take it. “If that’s what my wife prefers, then I would have no problem with that,” I answered truthfully. He shook his head sadly and responded, “I would never allow my wife to just stay home and raise the kids.” And all of the good feminists said, “Amen.”
A disclaimer is in order: I do not believe women should feel compelled to be homemakers, caregivers, or anything of the sort. I do not believe that they should feel required to have children, or even to marry. I believe that all occupations should be open to accepting women who meet the standards necessary to excel in their chosen field. In fact, considering that I intend to pursue a career in public service (a path that promises many worthy rewards that happen not to include the financial variety), it would actually be ideal if my wife were the primary breadwinner in our future household. I have no problem with strong women, strong men, or strong people–but many Harvard students do. They are not frightened of raw ambition, the relentless pursuit of worldly success that carried a large number of us here to Harvard and still sends 31 percent of Harvard graduates into career fields like finance and consulting. That kind of “strength” is familiar to everyone at Harvard; they’re much more uncomfortable with the self-sacrificial kind that comes with supporting a family and raising children.
The Case for American Power
By now many of you have probably seen Campus Reform’s interviews with Harvard students. The question posed to students on the Science Center Plaza: “What is a greater threat to world peace, ISIS or America?” The results were predictable. College students predisposed to a pacifist viewpoint attempt to give a concise, nuanced answer to a silly question, and are made to sound like flag-burning radicals.
America and ISIS are impossible to compare. One has been the world’s greatest economic, military, and political superpower for seven decades, and the other is a band of jihadists that came into existence after most of us began college. When one examines the destabilizing effect that each has had on the world at large, the answer is clear. America has intervened in more countries, supported more resistance movements, and toppled more leaders than ISIS. If the interviewer had asked students which entity is pledged to a doctrine of violence, or which is the least morally admirable, I would assume that most would choose ISIS. Some would still douse Old Glory in kerosene, but most, I think, would recognize that the United States has been a greater force for good in the world than the Islamic State. After all, we are currently helping the Christians and Yazidis that ISIS would like to massacre. Religious liberty and the protection of minorities are worthwhile goals.