Home | Read Issues | Join | Advertise | Donate | Staff List | Search | Contact Us

Trampling Our Values

Cash on Delivery
Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places
by Mae Bunagan

Page Inflation
The Rising Cost of Textbooks
by Lily Huang

Democrats' Dilemma
Finding a Message in Opposition
by Eli Sprecher with Danny Schlozman

Courting Disaster
The Case of Rehnquist v. Liberties
by Patrick Taylor Smith

Starving for Treatment
Inadequate Coverage for Eating Disorders
by Leah Litman

Introspective
Deconstructing the T
by Danny Schlozman

Salmagundi

The Back Page
Moore Strikes Again
by Brendan Connors

Jesse and Strom represent the worst aspects of American feeling, and have been doing so for a very, very, very long time. Jesse has distinguished himself with vivid fundraising letters (one of which helpfully observed, “Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade school classes that teach our children that CANNIBALISM, WIFE-SWAPPING and the MURDER of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior.”), race-baiting campaigns, obstructionist foreign policy, declarations that gay men deserved HIV infections, and generally inflammatory bigoted bullshit. Half a century ago, Strom ran for President as a Dixiecrat and became a Republican because of the Civil Rights Movement. He holds the record for filibustering and won that achievement by blocking the Civil Rights Act for over twenty-four hours, including time spent straddling the doorway of the Senate floor with a bucket below his crotch so that he could pee while preventing blacks from gaining civil rights. Though he has long ago left even the edges of lucidity in favor of drooling and unconsciousness, he has still managed to faithfully vote “no” for any issue remotely progressive, name everything in South Carolina after himself, maneuver his son into political prominence, and sexually harass every woman in D.C. While the New York Times may mourn the “dazzle” that they brought to Washington, I will be at their funerals with a shovel. Oh, and Phil Gramm's going too. Hallelujah.

-Rabia Belt

ACTIVISM FOR BEGINNERS: Opening an innocuous-seeming e-mail, I was flabbergasted by the topic for an upcoming discussion with IOP Fellow Theresa Amato. It was billed as “Women and Activism: How Women Can Promote Social Justice.” Immediately, I wondered in what way, exactly, women should be promoting social justice differently from men. Giving the topic more thought, however, I realized I could not simply look past the ridiculously-phrased title to the discussion's presumably good intentions. First of all, the historical implications are tremendous; such a phrase cannot help but conjure up images of past “progressive” eras, when women were encouraged to do their part in the fight for social justice by raising their sons to fight battles from which they, as women, were excluded. The phrasing certainly seems to imply that women still need to be taught how to get involved, that they need to be led to the battlefields of social justice. A more widespread social conscience is necessary in our society; but why is there an implication that women in particular need guides to fight to improve the human condition? The focus on the “how” of the issue puts a special emphasis on tactics. Why should women be expected to be different kinds of activists? Activism consists of fighting for things that should be universal but aren't: human rights, fair laws, equal treatment, decent standards of living, respect, justice. It seems not just misguided, but patently insulting to tell women that, in the battle for social justice, they'll be segregated into their own less-developed regiment. But what do I know? I'll be at home raising my Eagle Scout to be nice to poor people.

-Katie Monticchio

SLOUCHING TOWARD WALL STREET: Every fall, the transformation takes place. T-shirts, ratty jeans, and DHAs give way to pinstripes, power ties, and wingtips. The investment banks, consulting firms, and behemoths of the financial world have come to find the cogs that keep their apparati running at full speed. And hundreds of seniors line up to greet them, silently screaming, “Pick me, pick me!”

So begins the Harvard recruiting season and the selling out. Almost every organization that participates in Harvard's e-recruiting program is a private, for-profit firm specializing in hiring bright people to do one thing: make money by helping other companies increase their profit margins. Who are the biggest beneficiaries of this pecuniary success? Wealthy stockholders. Harvard seniors gleefully jump aboard the corporate money train, transporting money from the rich to the richer. And Harvard itself tacitly approves that its students, among the most intelligent and promising in the world, work to perpetuate income inequality.

Why do so few non-profit or public sector organizations use e-recruiting? OCS calmly explains that those firms do not find it cost effective to use the system. Well, duh! They don't have tons of money to throw away on expense accounts and flying candidates across the country for interviews. They are not in the business of making money for the precious few, but of fighting against social problems such as unemployment, racial discrimination, and AIDS. And when the country's best shun non-profits to pad their resumes and their pocketbooks at Goldman Sachs, Harvard should be proud of the “world leaders” it has created. Bravo!

-Brad Hershbein

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu