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

December 2000

Staff Editorial
There is hope in an era of Bush.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

UC Endorsement
Steve Smith and James Coleman are the liberal's choice.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

Canadian Comrades
It really is better up there.
by Danny Schlozman

Triumph or Tragedy?
Clinton's legacy is one of calculated compromise.
by Jeffrey Theodore

Buying Survival
Africa needs money, now.
by Ved Lekic and Alexandra Neuhaus-Follini

Pharmitas
Pharmaceutical companies fund Harvard research.
by Nathan Perl-Rosenthal

Students for What?
Folic acid has a hidden message.
by Shelby Meyerhoff

Greens Take Root
PERSPECTIVE talks to Cliff Ginn.
by Dev Purkayastha

A Year to Remember
A year from Seattle, the WTO protests go on.
by Bob Elliott

Cry Freedom
America's ideal of freedom is questionable.
by Nikhil Jaikumar

Introspective
In Defense of Money
by Brad Hershbein

Salmagundi

The Back Page
Keeping Christmas
by Julia Silvis

TOO MUCH ENFRANCHISEMENT: Has anyone else heard that Florida election ballots from American soldiers were discarded from the tallies, while those coming from convicted felons were included in vote counts? Doesn't this make you mad? Seriously, I'm really pissed. Well, I did some research, and I found a whole bunch of other groups that had their votes counted while the army was ignored. For example, how about women? Counted! People who don't speak English? A travesty, they were counted too! Senile senior citizens? Counted! Oh wait, maybe not that last group. Man, even people who don't believe in the holy gospel of the Lord had their votes counted! Anyway, all of this makes me remember the good old days, back when only us white property owners could vote. So when someone blames this election mess on the Electoral College, tell 'em that the whole universal suffrage thing is the root of the problem!

BETRAYAL AT THE BALLOT BOX: Massachusetts betrayed its conscience on November 7 when its citizens voted against numerous ballot questions designed to protect education, strengthen health care, and defend the rights of its less fortunate residents. The Cellucci-backed tax cut on Question 4 will cost the state approximately $1.2 billion in tax revenue each year, but the majority of the population-the poorest 60 percent-will only save about 23 cents a day. Prisoners were also dealt harsh blows: incarcerated felons lost their right to vote with the passage of Question 2, and the defeat of Question 8 prevented more money from going toward the rehabilitation of non-violent drug offenders, in place of imprisonment. Perhaps most heartless was the defeat of Questions 5, which would have provided for universal healthcare in Massachusetts. The only positive outcome was the defeat of Question 6, another tax proposal that would have cost the state $700 million a year. Yet this one victory cannot make up for the immense damage that will be caused by the unconscionable actions of voters on other issues. Living in a city that endorses such progressive measures as a living wage ordinance, it is embarrassing to be part of a state that could vote against universal health care, violate the civil rights of prisoners, and give even more money to the rich at the expense of the poor.

-Gabriel Katsh

BETRAYAL REDUX: Speaking of unthinkably callous actions by Massachusetts voters, Ballot Question 3, which would have ended greyhound racing at the state's two remaining tracks, was narrowly defeated 51%-49% after the dog racing industry poured thousands of dollars into opposition ads. Ignoring the cruel reality of dog racing, which has a long history of mistreating and killing greyhounds, voters chose to allow the industry to continue, even though interest in the “sport,” and consequent attendance at the tracks, has dwindled in recent years. In fact, given that state revenue from dog racing has decreased by 74% since 1990, it is curious that anyone besides the few who still find dog racing entertaining would have any reason to vote in favor of keeping it. Why the majority of the population would, for no apparent reason, sanction such unnecessary cruelty to animals is perplexing on the one hand and extremely troubling on the other.

-Gabriel Katsh

UP A TREE: An informal Perspective survey found that not one, not two, but at least three houses-Adams, Eliot, and Cabot-have installed Christmas trees in or near their dining halls. Combined with last May's “Jesus Week,” the collective message these houses send is all too clear: get out of Harvard, non-Christians! Not since junior high school have we seen such blatant exclusion based on arbitrary lines of division. Supporters of the trees argue that they are merely trying to encourage a festive mood with a largely secular symbol. But the argument is wrong. To children of Jewish, Islamic, and other non-Christian faiths, the Christmas tree sends as a loud, clear message: either reject your identity and accept the dominant culture, or get away. Nor would it be appropriate to stand a Christmas tree beside a Chanukah menorah and a Kwanzaa candelabra and declare peace. These actions still exclude Muslims and atheists. Moreover, because the Christmas tree is a symbol of a dominant and assimilating culture, it will always be an exclusionary symbol, and it will never be appropriate in public spaces. Christmas trees are appropriate in dorm rooms. But dining halls-the places where we would like to chew our veggie burgers and chat with friends in peace, not under the thumb of a religious regime-are no place for the exclusionary spirit of Christmas.

-Shai Sachs

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S RICH, WHITE MEN: When Neil Rudenstine decided to step down last May, the University's powerful elites formed a presidential search committee to choose his successor. Similar committees at other schools included representatives from the student body, reflecting the important role students play at those universities. Our search committee sent undergraduates a single letter this September requesting our informal input, indicating our minimal importance to the university. Alumni sit on our search committee; current students do not. We cannot exercise real power on campus until long after we've left it. Regardless, let's take advantage of the crumbs we have and speak up. Brown's next president will be the first black woman to head an Ivy League school. Harvard should follow suit, choosing its first minority or female president, as the first step in an effort to diversify the university's faculty and administration. Harvard should choose a president willing to unite the different faculties behind important goals, especially improved working conditions for all University workers. Like her predecessor, Harvard's next president should be firmly committed to affirmative action, and should be willing to use her considerable clout to defend the program to the rest of the country. Hopefully, the search committee will see fit to include undergraduates-or at least consider their opinions seriously-in its decision-making process. With any luck, Harvard will enter the twenty-first century with its first strong, progressive, female or minority president.

-Shai Sachs

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