Tyler Clementi, a student at Rutgers University, took his own life when pressure from cyberbullying overwhelmed him in September. Megan Meier, a teenager from Missouri, committed suicide after being cyberbullied by a friend’s mother through a fake MySpace account. Duke’s Karen Owen thought her satirical “senior thesis” would be safe in the inboxes of her friends.

Even Rui Dai, a sophomore at Duke University, was ridiculed when she wrote a Chronicle opinion article on the “Engineered Happiness” of Pratt students.

Technological advances like the Internet are usually viewed as positive steps in mankind’s growth. But there has been some concern regarding the Internet’s effect on society. Instances of incivility have become more apparent as expanding technology provides new outlets for expression, especially as email and YouTube have allowed information to go “viral” in just a few hours. Anonymous websites like CollegeACB are home to vulgar and offensive comments that college students post about their classmates, Greek life, and sexual activities. Even websites that are not anonymous, like MySpace and Facebook, provide opportunities for harassment and rudeness.
Emily Post, the “Mistress of Manners,” once explained that “nearly all the faults or mistakes in conversation are caused by not thinking.[i]…‘Try to do and say those things only which will be agreeable to others’.” In face to face interactions, Post’s rules of etiquette still seem to apply. However, with the expansion of the Internet and the anonymity it grants its users, civility and manners have been on a rapid decline, leading people to wonder, in the words of Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz: “Is Internet civility an oxymoron?”[ii]

The Anonymous Murderer of Manners

When Rui Dai argued that Pratt students were happier than Trinity students because they had less freedom, she experienced an almost immediate backlash. Twenty-eight comments were posted on Dai’s September 8 article[iii], each with its own scathing analysis of the column’s flaws. Dai was told that she “severely underestimate[s] the ambition that fuels many” Pratt students, she has “absolutely no idea what” she is talking about, and that her column constitutes a blatant “insult to Pratt, Trinity, Duke” and especially herself. The overwhelmingly negative comments were mostly anonymous.

However, the barrier of the Internet still separated Dai from those disagreeing with her. In face to face encounters, Dai’s readers were not nearly as critical. “Everyone thought [the article] was reasonable, and they kind of agreed with me. When I explained myself, and [the Pratt students] reflected on their engineering experience, they weren’t as angry as the comments made them out to be… I didn’t get anything nasty face to face.”
The Chronicle’s anonymous comment section is far from an anomaly: most websites allow authors to respond to blogs, posts, and articles anonymously. There are even gossip websites, such as CollegeACB and the now extinct Juicy Campus, that encourage anonymous postings. Dan Zak, a staff writer from The Washington Post, wrote in a September article: “If you’re anonymous and immune from repercussions, then you’re more likely to act inappropriately.”[iv]

Bullying 2.0

This loss of manners can be seen in more places than the Comments section of the Chronicle website. Though society may not be less civil today than in previous generations, Dr. P.M. Forni of Johns Hopkins University’s Civility Project told The Washington Post that “There is plenty of evidence that we are dealing with lots of rudeness.”[v] Rudeness seems to be a polite term, however. The recent suicides of Tyler Clementi, Megan Meier, and other young people draw attention to a new phenomenon: cyberbullying.

In a recent study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, cyberbullying victims were almost twice as likely to have attempted suicide compared to youth who had not experienced cyberbullying.[vi] Cyberbullying, however, is not only limited to anonymously bullying others. The spread of information without regard to its confidentiality can be just as harmful as direct bullying. Karen Owen’s PowerPoint presentation on her sexual exploits instantly became an Internet phenomenon. The harmful nature of the presentation’s contents was disregarded, as it was forwarded to multitudes of college students and eventually websites like Deadspin and Jezebel. The men described by Owen are victims not only of cyberbullying, but of incivility.

The Restart Button

Though the online community lacks civility, some individuals and groups are taking a stand to re-introduce manners. Organizations like “STOMP Out Bullying” have adapted their platforms to include cyberbullying. Rutgers University recently started “Project Civility,” an initiative aimed at “creating a more charitable campus culture.”[vii]

Duke is also taking steps to hit the restart button on Internet civility. The Duke Online Discourse Project is searching for research proposals related to “Civic Discourse and the Public Sphere in the Age of the Internet.” Students have also been standing up against incivility, both online and on campus. Students recently participated in a campaign to wear purple on October 20^th in support of the LGBT teens like Tyler Clementi, who have committed suicide. A recent CollegeACB post told readers: “This site is so [expletive] worthless.” Though just as vulgar as the posts around it, the comment reflects the negative feelings of some Duke students toward the site.

People outside of college campuses are also coming out against Internet incivility. Powerful Internet figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and renowned blogger David Weinberger have united to create a set of guidelines that will “shape online discussion and debate”[viii]. One of the guidelines recommends that “bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages”. Wales explains that while anonymous comments may be acceptable in some places, names and accountability should be encouraged in others.

These solutions seem feasible in fighting Internet civility. Hitting the restart button on Internet manners may be the only way for society to move forward more effectively. Online civil discourse based on respect will lead to a more productive Internet culture.

[ii]Crovitz, L. Gordon. “Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?” The Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2010.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704246804575190632247184538.html

[iii] Dai, Rui. “Engineered Happiness”, The Chronicle. September 8, 2010. http://dukechronicle.com/article/engineered-happiness

[iv] Zak, Dan and P.M. Forni. “The Civility War”. The Washington Post. September 22, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/19/DI2008091902516.html

[v] Ibid

[vi] Hinduja, Sameer and Patchin, Justin W. “Cyberbullying Research Summary: Cyberbullying and Suicide.” Cyberbullying Research Center. 2010. http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf

[vii] Rutgers University. “Project Civility”. http://projectcivility.rutgers.edu/

[viii] See endnote iii.

By Trent Serwetz

The latest nationwide hullabaloo over the alcoholic drink “Four Loko” provides a poignant reminder of how quick America is to point the finger. Four Loko, for those who are unfamiliar with the beverage, is a 12% ABV drink sold in 23.5 ounce cans which also packs a hefty dose of caffeine. It’s like super-concentrated Smirnoff Ice mixed with Red Bull. The drink is sold at grocery stores and 7-11’s and comes in a variety of fruity flavors.

Last week, New York called for a voluntary ban on Four Loko distribution “for the concerned parents among us.” Since then, numerous state legislatures have considered banning the drink for fear of its health consequences. North Carolina’s Governor Purdue has called for a voluntary ban of Four Loko until its healthiness can be investigated further. Since several college students have been hospitalized after drinking Four Loko to excess, a national frenzy has sprung up condemning this drink instead of the students themselves.

There are two distinct fears which have all conflated together to indict Four Loko:

1. Fruity alcoholic beverages are more likely to induce overdrinking
2. Alcohol and energy drinks are a dangerous mix

Fruity, but hardly dangerous

“Protect the children!” the outcry against this alcoholic drink has exclaimed. With Four Loko in the world, students have access to their favorite intoxicating substance in fruit punch, cranberry lemonade, even watermelon flavors. It sure sounds dangerous, doesn’t it? Regrettably, none of the individuals currently writing about the drink’s dangerous appeal to underage drinkers seem to have actually tasted the beverage. Four Loko tastes terrible. I would personally rather down a margarita or a half-and-half than this disgusting concoction any day.

For an underage drinker aiming to get wasted, Four Loko may have more appeal than a case of Busch Light. But it has the same ABV as a bottle of wine. You can buy André at the grocery store too, it comes in fruity flavors, and it’s just as disgustingly cheap. The problem with going after Four Loko is that it is not uniquely responsible. Many drinks are fruity and designed to cause rapid intoxication at the same time. Most of them taste a lot better than Four Loko and are available at your neighborhood Kroger.

For (presumably 21) college students, beverages are available at the ABC store that are both fruitier and more alcoholic. Bacardi sells a “strawberry daiquiri mixer” which consists of ready-to-drink half and half. It’s more concentrated than Four Loko, it tastes a lot better, and it’s in the neighborhood of $15 for a whole handle. Seagram’s makes a “gin and juice” mixer which masks the alcohol so well you can chug it right out of the fifth.

On one hand, we are singling out Four Loko while there are significantly tastier and more dangerous drinks available. On the other hand, we are blaming a beverage for what are entirely human errors. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!

There is nothing more un-American than persecuting the Four Loko found in his or her hand.  If your car is hit by a guy going 95 in his Ferrari, you don’t blame the sports car for being too fast and maneuverable. You blame the driver for abusing the vehicle he legally purchased. Similarly, when a minor overdoses on Advil or some other household drug, you don’t condemn the pills for being inherently dangerous; you blame the poor choice on the child’s part and the adults who should have been better supervisors.

And, if minors are buying these things with fake IDs, we need to crack down on the 7-11’s that are taking them and the people that made the IDs. Nothing is going to be solved by blaming the Four Loko.

Alcohol, energy…not a good combination

The other putative justification for victimizing Four Loko is the drink’s built-in combination of alcohol and caffeine. Alcohol is a depressant, caffeine is a stimulant, and the combination allows students to drink potentially dangerous amounts of liquor before losing consciousness. This is not new information. Mixing alcohol and energy drinks, especially on college campuses, has been a highly scrutinized and increasingly popular practice since before I came to Duke.

There is no simple solution to this. College kids are not going to stop mixing alcohol and caffeine simply because Four Loko is taken off the shelves. In fact, Four Loko is probably safer than the alternatives. Ever chased Jager shots with Red Bull, which is readily available to over- and underage students alike? Such a combination will lead to intoxication much more efficiently than languishing through 24 ounces (two thirds of a liter!) of Four Loko.

If the goal is truly to get really wasted, there are numerous better and more readily available methods than the newly popular Four Loko. Sketchy punch laced with Everclear is available at many section parties. This is the reality of college life. What is going to be accomplished by violating Phusion Projects’ constitutional right to sell Four Loko? Didn’t we already try this during Prohibition?

Catharsis. Lawmakers can point the finger at this drink and act as if banning it will solve the woes of college drinking. If we just outlaw Four Loko, they think, kids will stop mixing alcohol with caffeine. If we just ban fruity drinks, minors will stop being hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. If we just cancel tailgate, college students will stop drinking at 9 in the morning to pre-game the day’s football festivities. This way, we can sweep under the rug the total inability of law enforcement to prevent the use of fake IDs. And the store clerks who routinely turn a blind eye in order to make the sale. And the dozens of students hospitalized every year after LDOC.

If we just ban Four Loko, the world will be a better place. In our dreams.

Edit: Nov 18, 2010. Phuzion Products, the company that makes Four Loko, has issued a statement indicating their intent to remove the caffeine, guarana, and taurine from their products, despite the company’s acute awareness that their beverage is being singled out among many others.

Edit: As of 12/18/2010, both the House and the Senate have officially voted to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Congratulations to the LGBT community on this resounding victory!

The U.S. military’s longstanding ban on gay servicemen (and women) is over — for the moment. On Sep. 9, U.S. District Court Justice Virginia Phillips called for a “permanent injunction” barring the enforcement of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy.[i]

DADT, crafted by the Clinton Administration in 1993, is the most lenient treatment of homosexuality in the military to date. The law provides that a servicemember will be discharged if he/she has “engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.” Additionally, discharge is required if the person has “stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,” or if the person has married or attempted to marry a person “known to be of the same biological sex.” The policy has been coined “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it protects gay servicemembers from discharge, provided they are not open about their homosexuality.[ii]

In her ruling in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, a case originally filed in 2004, Justice Phillips called for an end to the policy on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. She argued, in the memorandum opinion, that “the Act’s restrictions on speech are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the Government’s interest,” demanding that First Amendment rights take precedence.[iii] Following the trial proceedings and the filed testimony of numerous servicemembers and experts, including General Colin Powell, the court ruled that allowing gay people to openly serve in the military would neither undermine “unit cohesion” nor “military readiness.”[iv] Thus, because no overwhelming state interest in maintaining DADT can be determined, the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights must take priority.

This case is the latest and most potent iteration in a decade of promising reform on behalf of LGBTQ. Begun in 2003 by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that state laws prohibiting sodomy are unconstitutional, the last 10 years have gone a long way towards ending discrimination against homosexuals. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a District Court case decided in August of 2010, similarly ruled that California Proposition 8, a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional.

The legal argumentation at work in each case is strikingly similar. All U.S. citizens are entitled to “Due Process” of law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process means, essentially, that to take away your rights, the government has to have a good reason. The more “fundamental” the right, the harsher “scrutiny” with which the courts will inspect any policy that curtails it. In order to withstand scrutiny, any law restricting rights must serve a compelling “government interest,” otherwise it is unconstitutionally restrictive. In deciding that anti-sodomy laws, laws banning same-sex marriage, and the military’s DADT policy were all unconstitutional, the courts have simultaneously ruled that there is no government interest in continuing to support those policies.

In other words, the legal conclusion is: gay rights don’t hurt anyone. The government, as a purveyor of rights, does more harm than good by discriminating against LGBTQ. But legal reform is only half of the battle. Even though Brown v. Board of Education outlawed the “Separate but equal” doctrine in 1954, de facto segregation continued undiminished well into the 1960s and following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968.

The issue in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States is not simply a question of whether gay rights are violated by open homosexuality meriting military discharge. DADT is a constitutional issue because many servicemembers were quietly persecuted for their sexual orientation, but were afraid to report the abuse to their commanding officers for fear of discharge under the policy.

One particularly compelling story cited in the memorandum opinion comes from Naval Officer Joseph Rocha. While serving in the Middle East, Rocha’s sexuality came to light when he refused to copulate with a prostitute. Labeling him gay, his commanding officer “ordered all of the other men in the unit to beat Rocha on the latter’s nineteenth birthday…had Rocha leashed like a dog…tied to a chair, force-fed dog food, and left in a dog kennel covered with feces.”[v] Rocha’s human rights were repeatedly violated during his time in office and he never reported the mistreatment, because to do so would result in his discharge from the Navy under DADT.

His story is only one of many, but as Justice Phillips points out, Rocha was not an anonymous serviceman: he was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Navy Expert Rifleman Medal during his time in office. DADT, in addition to simply curtailing the rights of LGBTQ, commits them to experience discrimination in silence. But will that discrimination vanish along with the policy? And if the government has no compelling interest in subjugating gay Americans, does it not have an interest in protecting their rights?

Evidently not. President Obama, with midterm elections on the horizon, requested that Justice Phillips halt her injunction against DADT, on the basis of military readiness. On Oct. 20, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to suspend the injunction against DADT until further notice.[vi] The court’s decision that DADT does nothing to help military readiness, after extensive review of the available military documentation, didn’t faze the current administration or the federal appeals court.

Despite the fact that the repeal of DADT was one of Obama’s campaign points, he has insisted that the reform take place in Congress, and not through the courts. Democrats tried to repeal DADT legislatively in September 2010, only to be denied by a Republican filibuster. If they couldn’t get the job done in September, how does Obama plan to repeal DADT in November, with a Republican majority in the House?

Ironically, this situation pits the GOP group as the champion of gay rights against the first liberal president of the twenty-first century. The Log Cabin Republicans, founded in 1978, is the nation’s only Republican gay rights group. President Obama, on the other hand, was elected on a campaign platform demanding the “implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.”[vii] The same President Obama who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts to strengthen, among other things, “cooperation between peoples.”[viii]

Admittedly, legal reform is not tantamount to comprehensive social change. Much to the chagrin of those who elected Obama in 2008, change takes time. But Brown v. Board was an important step in the right direction. Roe v. Wade was a crucial decision for women’s rights. And Log Cabin Republicans v. US should be celebrated as the current pinnacle of LGBTQ legal reform, rather than bemoaned for being ahead of its time. Sometimes, social power requires juridical power. Instead of condemning Justice Phillips for doing Congress’s job for them, Log Cabin Republicans v. US should be lauded as the most concrete evidence to date that all people are equal under the law.

References

[i] Log Cabin Republicans v. United States (2010). http://online.logcabin.org/assets/pdf/log-cabin-order.pdf.

[ii] LCR v. U.S.

[iii] LCR v. U.S.

[iv] LCR v. U.S.

[v] LCR v. U.S.

[vi] Tiron, Roxana. “Gates issues stricter rules for discharges of gay, lesbian troops.” The Hill. http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/125339-gates-issues-stricter-rules-for-discharges-of-gay-troops.

[vii] Obama Campaign Holds Policy Briefing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Election/Obama_Campaign_Holds_Policy_Briefing_on_DADT/.

[viii] The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 :Barack Obama. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/.

For all the controversy over University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow’s decision to feature in a pro-life ad aired during the Super Bowl, there was at least one positive outcome.

It made the radically pro-choice left look indisputably silly. The hyperbolic nature of the episode revealed the deep frustration of the pro-choice lobby at the direction of the nation’s abortion debate.

What was noteworthy about the ad, which was made by conservative group Focus on the Family and showed Tebow playfully tackling his mother as she spoke vaguely about the decision to keep her dangerous pregnancy, was how little it actually said about abortion. In fact, the word “abortion” was never stated even once.

By contrast, what was noteworthy about the reaction to the ad, which began before the ad even aired, was its stridency and vitriol. Pro-choice groups practically threw the kitchen sink at Focus on the Family for daring to raise the issue of life, however obliquely, during the Super Bowl.

A few quotes are valuable for perspective:

Before the ad aired, Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center said, “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together.”

After it aired, the National Organization for Women alternately declared that the manner in which Tebow tackled his mother reflected an “undercurrent” of “violence against women.”

If only they were joking. The criticism is revelatory, if only of the paranoid psychology of its advocates.

The reaction to the Tebows’ ad from pro-choice groups seems to mask a deep sensitivity among these groups to having any kind of national debate about abortion at all. That the ad, mild as it was, sparked the outrage that it did before and after its airing, reflects the desperate need among pro-choice groups to not let pro-lifers get away with a public relations victory.

Considering the larger trends in the abortion debate and recent poll numbers on the subject, it’s not hard to see why.

A May 2009 Gallup poll send shockwaves through the political world for its revelation that for the first time, more Americans self-identified as “pro-life” than “pro-choice” by a substantial 51 to 42 percent margin.

The data set was not an outlier. Another poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in late December and early January 2010 showed that young people (voters aged 18-29) among the most pro-life, with 59 percent calling abortion “morally wrong.” The most pro-choice group seemed to be the Baby Boomers, aged 45 to 64, of which only 51 percent found abortion morally wrong.

The data on young-people has taken the pro-choice lobby particularly by surprise. Where attitudes among older populations are easier to dismiss as white noise from polling, the numbers on youth suggest a true generational shift. Nothing could be more alarming to abortion defenders who have lived the last forty years with a distinctive upper hand in the culture war.

Clearly, the momentum in the abortion debate has shifted towards pro-lifers. According to the popular narrative, the profusion of fetal imaging technologies and increased knowledge about embryonic development has heightened public sensitivity to the humanity of the unborn child. The narrative may well be true. The result is a pro-choice lobby that is bewildered, frustrated, and as we now know, neurotically hyper-sensitive.

One has to wonder what groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood are so afraid of.  That those who defend “choice” recoil at the prospect of a robust public conversation on abortion that could better inform the decisions of women considering the procedure seems contradictory, to say the least.

Resolution may come from the fact the “pro-choice” moniker is more a function of political convenience than ideological accuracy. “Choice,” as NOW, Planned Parenthood, and like-minded groups envision it, conveys entitlement, not deliberation.

Which is precisely why a national abortion debate is so horrifying to them. Pro-lifers might actually win.

I want a lot of things – a good career, happy family, nice house, health care, limited government, etc. I expect that I will have to work and sacrifice to attain those ideals. However, it seems that on a larger scale, Americans have forgotten this simple principle. We expect government to achieve our interests without any sacrifices – we want health care but don’t want to pay higher taxes, climate change as long as the change doesn’t involve us, and action on unemployment without increasing the deficit.

We expect the government to fix itself and the economy, but we also want it to be smaller and have less power. Well, it’s time to either lower our expectations or continue being disappointed.

If we want change, we cannot expect it to be free. The mortgage crisis and economic recession was caused largely in part by a ‘something for nothing’ mentality – large homes that cost little (at first), large loans with small down payments. With that evidence against us, why do we keep thinking this way?

We need to change or limit our expectations. We need to decide what we want accomplished and what we are willing to sacrifice. This does not include backroom deals or the health care bill earmarks – I’m talking about what individual Americans need to sacrifice: either an overall increase in taxes or an overall decrease in government spending. Our growing deficit shows us that we cannot continue to support the something for nothing trend.

Americans seem to want the government to actively solve our problems, while simultaneously also arguing for government to do less. When asked to identify the most important issues for the President and Congress to deal with this year, over 80 percent of Americans responded “extremely important” or “very important” to the following issues: the economy, unemployment, and the federal budget deficit¹.

Just a few months earlier, however, 57 percent of polled Americans (the highest percentage in a decade) said, “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.”² Granted, more Republicans agree with this statement, but even numbers among Democrats are rising. As much as this is a party issue, it’s more of a national issue. The growing number of independents indicates discontent with both parties.

It is an easy oversimplification to lay the blame entirely on political parties and argue that partisanship is accomplishing little and that members of Congress are too focused on their own special interests. These are important concerns that need to be addressed, but who is going to address them? Americans elected Obama hoping he would “fundamentally change the way Washington works” – to change the system Americans had lost faith in. The majority of Americans expected Obama to fix things. He didn’t.

Congress hasn’t either, and neither has the Democratic majority. So, Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, but he’s not going to fix things either. Scott Brown has the same conflicting ideals we do: he wants to save money and spend it too. (Brown is in favor of tax cuts, opposed to Medicare cuts.) The problem isn’t that individual parties have conflicting ideals – it’s that WE have conflicting ideals. Americans want the benefits without the costs, the budget in the black and our taxes in the red.

Reduced taxes in combination with reduced government spending have already proven effective on a state level. As governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson balanced the budget and lowered the rate of governmental growth by 50% without raising taxes or firing staff³. He did this by rejecting bills that created expenditures and favoring bills that allowed for privatization and increased freedom. Although he was rejected by some members of his party, his actions allowed the government to address pressing needs rather than stretching thinly to make up for a growing deficit.

At a national level, even small expenditures need to be sacrificed in order to meet the pressing needs of the population. If we, as members of any party, are willing to concede some benefits, we can provide for more essential costs while also reducing the size of government and the size of our deficit.

Ultimately, the buck needs to stop with US. First, evaluate your expectations. Identify which issues are most important and sacrifice the others. Second, don’t expect anyone to grant your wishes without knowing what they are. Write or phone your representatives and let them know where you stand. If they don’t know your interests, they’ll keep pleasing special interests. Finally, feel free to complain. Our nation was founded on complaints against the status quo. But it was only founded because citizens took action against that status quo, and they sacrificed plenty to achieve change. Unless we are also willing to speak up and sacrifice, we’ll have to lower our expectations of the change we deserve.

1 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. January 2010. Federal budget, taxes, economic policy. <http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm>

2 Newport, F. September 2009. Americans more likely to say government doing too much. Gallup, <http://www.gallup.com/poll/123101/Americans-Likely-Say-Government-Doing-Too-Much.aspx>

3 Anonymous. January 2010. Governor Gary Johnson, chairman of OUR America Initiative, travels to New Hampshire to spread message of lower taxes. Business Wire, <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=350&did=1942770391&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1266808265&clientId=15020&aid=2>

There is something about youth that is uniquely susceptible to hubris.

The phenomenon may help to explain why so many young people have an uncanny affinity both for utopian ideology and for the elitist snobbery, sometimes masquerading as self-anointed intellectualism,which accompanies it. Students today seem increasingly elitist in their political views, as they dismiss the reactions and arguments of those who they deem less educated than they are.

Not only is this supreme self-confidence hysterically unwarranted, it hinders a great deal of actual learning. It dovetails with an obnoxious belief in the specialness of Now, captured succinctly in then-Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign line that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” and seems to all too often preclude introspection among the college-age demographic. With a health care debate and economic crisis reinvigorating American populism, it’s worth considering why students are so in the wrong when it comes to their high opinion of themselves.

When we choose to go to college to further pursue our education, the implicit assumption, one would hope, is that we recognize that we have more to learn. For budding scientists and engineers, perhaps this consists of technical knowledge. But for students of the humanities, the path forward can be less clear. Before this ambiguity, there may be a tendency for some students of the liberal arts to view their education as a rubber stamp—a necessary process that must be undergone to enter the professional world, rather than something of intrinsic value.

Alternately, I would argue that for most students of the humanities, the real purpose of an undergraduate education is to develop our thinking skills and situate ourselves within an intellectual history. To do so, we must necessarily look back on previous thinkers who have explored and reflected on age-old questions and themes relating to the human condition, most of which continue to be the subject of dispute and contestation. This lack of settlement, one would think, should inspire both humility and curiosity.

Yet the do-gooder attitude of these self-appointed “intellectuals,” characterized by a righteous indignation at the moral or intellectual inferiority of other persons or some aspect of society, seems too frequently driven by emotional and egoistic, rather than rational, impulses. This is not to say that the ideological liberalism with which the mentality often conspicuously dovetails lacks an intellectual tradition—far from it. Indeed, students of all political stripes benefit from immersion in arguments from thinkers on the left, as well as from on the right.

But for the lay student, leftist policy positions, with theirutopian self-confidence in the ability of a select few ivory tower academics to lead society towards greater wisdom, are pure hubris. The assumption underlying this attitude, too often, is that because of our Duke education, we are automatically and uniquely qualified to hold these positions without reflection and introspection. Our status as “de facto” intellectuals is reason enough.

The more one reflects on this idea of “student intellectuals,” the more laughable it becomes. If anything, our education should lead us to ponder the extent of our own ignorance.

The idea that we are already “intellectuals” by virtue of where we stand insulates students from the type of deep self-reflection and self-criticism that true education requires. Learning demands the humility to question oneself and one’s most basic assumptions about the world—and accepting that those assumptions exist.

Part of this approach involves the recognition that we are not ahistorical beings, existing independent of a history of ideas. Indeed, we live very much within such an intellectual history and are deeply influenced by arguments originating with intellectual ancestors both dead and alive, whether we recognize it or not. Our education should help us recognize our place within this history and lead us to reflect on the influences we have inherited and selected.

Instead, the attitude of the amateur egoist privileges the young intellectual as if his beliefs are the purely the product of a spontaneous creativity, rather than the absorption of external influences. This generates a sense of certainty unbecoming of a recent teenager. When students—barely twenty years old—think themselves above imperfection and fully prepared to judge the actions and ideas of those much older than them, fully devoid of any context, we may have a problem.

To be sure, this is not yet a rampant phenomenon and a good many students at Duke are genuine and reflective in their temperament. But for all of us, little humility would go a long way.

I believe in America. America is the leader of the free world, the strongest military power, and a beacon of freedom for the world. America is great, and I’m not afraid to admit it.

There is no need to apologize for our greatness. We set the bar high to be an example for other nations to follow. We are a protector of world order, and we value freedom above all else. America strives to do what is right.

America makes mistakes, and we are certainly not perfect. There are always things to work on, and challenges to overcome. But I still have pride in my country. I have confidence that we will succeed.

I find that people tend to lack spirit and patriotism for their country. They get bogged down in our problems, and fail to see the beauty of America. It’s all a state of mind. Take pride in your country! America is great only because of the people who live here — they strive for excellence and believe in their nation.

America is first in my mind. I am so proud to be a citizen of the greatest nation in the world. It is such a blessing to call it my home and I will never deny the greatness of the people that live here. Don’t be afraid to remember our heritage– the people who have worked before us to create such a great nation. Remember the founders and the principles they enacted. Remember the immigrants who built this nation from the ground up. Remember the soldiers that gave you freedom. But most of all, believe in excellence. Believe in America.

Here is an interesting article from Fox News that details a poll about what Americas are fed up with.

Not surprisingly, 81% Americans are tired of the growing federal debt. 73% claim “they are fed up with Uncle Sam’s spending spree.” And on a side note, 53% of Americans are sick of “people having loud cell phone conversations.”

It’s clear that Americans in general are not happy with what’s going on in Washington. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. What needs to change at the capital? I want to know what you think– leave some comments.

Happy New Year’s everyone!  Now that it’s another year and another decade, take some time to recap on the biggest events in recent history.

• 10 Biggest Political Scandals of the Past Decade (NY Post)
• Biggest Political Winners and Losers of 2009 (USA Today)
• Biggest Political Disappointments of 2009 (Huffington Post) … talk about the liberal media slant…
• Top 5 Outrageous Political Videos of 2009 (Politics Daily)
• Most Read Stories of 2009 (Wall Street Journal)
• Top 9 Political Flubs of 2009 (ABC News)
• Top 40 Political Quotes of 2009 (Fox4kc)
• TIME’s Person of the Year: Ben Bernanke
• Frank Rich’s Person of the Year: Tiger Woods (NY Times)
• Dave Barry (Miami Herald)

A grad student at Duke recently published a story on Salon.com documenting his experience living in a van to better afford tuition.  An interesting read for anyone that needs a break from studying during finals week!

http://www.salon.com/life/pinched/2009/12/06/living_in_a_van/index.html