On January 19, Paul Ghysels and other Southside locals filed a class action lawsuit with attorney Louis Garcia against the members of the Interfraternity Council (IFC). The plethora of charges ranges from public drunkenness and distribution of alcohol to minors to littering in the street and noise disturbances. According to The Daily Cal, the suit seeks monetary damages, attorney fees, and hopes to add a required live-in supervisor in the fraternity chapter houses. Currently all sororities have “house mothers” to be guardians of the houses.

Ghysels lives in the heart of the Greek community on Durant, between a fraternity and cooperative housing. The house has been part of his wife’s family for generations, since before most fraternities and sororities founded their chapters at Cal. Previously, he has had a history with Panhellenic sorority Kappa Alpha Theta, as he would videotape their front door across the street for a documentary, but the chapter restricted his footage to the front sidewalk. This proved to be beneficial when there was a burglary at the house and the footage captured the culprits on tape last year.

While Garcia has said, “The behavior-assaulting people, breaking people’s phones, throwing rocks and bottles, public drunkenness-that’s mainly what (the lawsuit) seeks to (address),” some within the Greek community argue that this behavior is simply inevitable by living in such close proximity to the UC Berkeley campus. The Greek community also argues that the suit is attributing a variety of charges to all chapters in the system, rather than addressing specific problems within each individual chapter. One such example is Alpha Gamma Omega, a Christian fraternity that is part of IFC that is being sued for disorderly conduct, despite being an alcohol-free fraternity.

According to Grahaeme Hesp, Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, he does “know that some fraternities have engaged in behaviors that have upset neighbors, and the University has worked extensively over the last few years to bring together fraternity members, neighbors, and others to address these issues; we will continue to do so.” He believes in the integrity of all varieties of fraternities as they “are engaged in activities that build leadership skills, foster strong lifelong friendships, and aid charitable organizations.”

But Ghysels claims that campus, university and law enforcement officials have taken minimal action against the fraternities after his complaints and that community forums have not worked. With hours of video footage of the allegations, he said the legal avenue is the only way to go, and the general motive for the lawsuit is “to curb disturbances in the neighborhood.”

There are some members of the Greek community who have differing opinions on these allegations, though Hesp is not granting authorization for sorority or fraternity members to speak to any kind of media on the lawsuit, even Panhellenic President Katrina Ziegenhirt.

However, one sorority member who wishes to remain anonymous believes that “It is unfortunate that this man has formed such a negative opinion of the Greek community. I feel that he is targeting our community for activities that many non-Greeks participate in, while ignoring all of the time and money that Fraternities and Sororities give back to their larger college communities.”

While most members of sororities and fraternities generally seem outraged at the allegations and are turning a blind eye to their activities, fraternity member Anthony Wright does acknowledge that some of the complaints would be applicable towards individuals. However, he does stand by the general belief of the Greek community that IFC or any single fraternity is responsible for all of these charges.

Wright finds this suit to be questionable, as “many of his complaints are baseless or proof-less, and that he waited 30 years until a vast majority of officials have cited improved conditions to file a suit, compiled with his lack of involvement in continued attempts by his primary plaintiff, the Interfraternity Council, to improve community relations through the City Partners monthly meeting.” He further notes that many do not realize that noise standards vary across different communities (i.e., cities versus suburbs), and the population of Southside is competitive with the density of New York.

However, the Greek system as a whole is undergoing positive changes to benefit the community. Hesp has said that over the last couple years, IFC members have been working in partnership with Southside residents and the City of Berkeley for “an award-winning earthquake disaster preparedness program funded by the Department of Homeland Security and last year began a multi-year roll-out of a Neighborhood Watch program for the Southside in light of a crime wave of assaults against women located on Southside.”

According to Wright, who is community relations and life safety liaison for Campus Life and Leadership and a member of the Greek community, not all of the plaintiffs have been served yet. The next legal move will be to file a response to the case in court. If this case goes to trial, it has been speculated that the trial will take years to process and evaluate these allegations.

The affair began in mid-February when members of a fraternity created a Facebook event for a “Compton Cookout” party in honor of Black History Month. Girls were encouraged to dress like “Ghetto Chicks.” “Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes – they consider Baby Phat to be high class and expensive couture,” the invite said, “They also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave, usually in bad colors, such as purple or bright red.”

Positive coverage of the event by a student television station led to a strong response from student leaders. Utsav Gupta, president of the UCSD student association, temporarily suspended funding for all student media outlets saying, “We will only open it [the student run station] again when we can be sure that such hateful content can never be aired again on our student funded TV station.”

First Amendment advocates expressed alarm at the funding suspension. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote, “In acting arbitrarily and on the basis of content concerns, Mr. Gupta has demonstrated an alarming misunderstanding of the university’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment when distributing funds to student organizations.” The American Civil Liberties Union also wrote a letter of concern.

The tension was elevated on February 25 when a noose was discovered in the campus library. In response, the Black Student Union (BSU) at UCSD held demonstrations to draw attention to what they see as a pattern of racial intolerance on the campus. On February 26, members of the group held a sit in at the campus administration building for several hours in order to draw attention to a list of demands. The group’s demands were intended to increase minority student representation at the campus. Among them were “We demand [UCSD] Chancellor Fox and the University have mutual respect of the ‘Principles of Community’ and create a precedent of prioritizing students of color and leading by example. We demand that there be repercussions when the “Principles of Community” are blatantly being violated,” and, “We demand the University provide free tutors for the African-American students who seek academic support.”

The protests spread to Berkeley on March 1. Dozens of students dressed in all black – including black cloth over their mouths – blocked Sather Gate for approximately three hours, allowing access only through the sides of the gate where members of the group were distributing leaflets detailing the group’s frustration. “The campus is not a safe space for all students,” senior Lajuanda Asemota told The Daily Californian, “People are often marginalized. People are often silenced throughout the day.”

Student leaders and administrators also voiced their support. “We have zero tolerance for deliberate acts that discriminate or demean others based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic, and know that all UC campuses share that view,” UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau wrote in an e-mail distributed to all students. The ASUC Senate unanimously approved a resolution authored by Senator Huda Adem “to stand in solidarity” with the San Diego Black Student Union’s demands.

At the San Diego campus, tensions continued to increase as a KKK style hood was found on a campus statue of the late children’s book author Dr. Seuss March 1. As of press time, officials are still investigating the incident. The next day, campus police asked the San Diego city attorney to consider whether the previous noose incident constituted a hate crime, according to The San Diego Union Tribune.

The student who left the noose in the library, who described herself as a minority, apologized anonymously in a letter to the student newspaper, The UCSD Guardian. “As a minority student who sympathizes with the students that have been affected by the recent issues on campus, I am distraught to know that I have unintentionally added to their pain.” she wrote. The student claimed the noose was left after friends were playing with some rope and admiring each other’s knotting abilities. She claimed no racist intent but remained suspended from the university.

Campus officials and BSU leaders reached an agreement on March 4 that will require the university to fund efforts to increase the minority population at UCSD, find places to display art representing minority communities, and consider new diversity course requirements for undergraduates. The settlement has sparked a new round of concerns from those who worry that the agreement violates California’s ban on affirmative action in public school admissions. Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who authored the initiative that banned the practice, told The La Jolla Light that he is reviewing the settlement to see if it is within the law.

Our first speaker event was for Republican candidate John Dennis, who plans to run against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for San Francisco’s 8th district congressional seat. Mr. Dennis considers himself a “liberty Republican,” that is, a libertarian candidate who believes that the Republican Party is the best channel to spread freedom. His speaker event, which was co-sponsored with Berkeley College Republicans, drew approximately forty attendants. In his speech, Mr. Dennis addressed what inspired him to run as a Republican in a notoriously liberal district, what he believes the future of the liberty movement is, and what we as young freedom fighters can do to energize the movement. On an interesting note, Mr. Dennis’s talk was being recorded by a reality television crew for a short documentary that will be broadcast on the Bay Area’s local Comcast network. Mr. Dennis was the biggest name our club had hosted up to that point, so I personally was quite nervous about the event’s success. Fortunately, at the end of the night I was able to sigh a breath of relief when Mr. Dennis shook my hand and told me he was impressed at the liberty movement in Berkeley.

In stark contrast to our first event, at our second speaker event we hosted one of San Francisco’s premier bisexual male sex workers, Starchild. The title of Starchild’s talk was “Our Bodies, Our Choices: the Struggle to Decriminalize Sex Work.” My fellow club members and I often pridefully joked about how only a libertarian club like our own could follow up a speaker event for a Republican congressional candidate with one for a male escort. I say “joke” because the situation is indubitably ironic. I say “pridefully joke” because as a libertarian organization, we are proud of the fact that we have a consistent view of freedom. After all, freedom is not something that one can pick and choose which liberties should be granted to which groups. True liberty is true liberty for all, and I believe hosting such a speaker as Starchild truly displays our organization’s nondiscriminatory perception of freedom, and its success proves just that.

The event was the most popular one our club has had so far, drawing a crowd of over sixty. Starchild set a lovely atmosphere
by distributing candles and turning off the lights. Ceremonial drums were also beat by fellow students to set a peaceful mood. In his talk, Starchild addressed how he believes prostitution should be decriminalized given that at its very core, it is a voluntary exchange between two consenting individuals, as is every other legal business transaction. Furthermore, the criminalizing of sex workers is a massive burden to the tax payer and distracts law enforcement officers from addressing serious crimes that do not involve consenting individuals. Being that Starchild’s event was our most successful one to date, we plan to have him come back to speak to us in future semesters.

We also plan to host two more speaker events. Philip Berg, the Libertarian Party candidate who is also running against Nancy Pelosi for San Francsco’s 8th congressional district seat, will speak to our club about the most effective way the liberty movement can address society’s misconception about market forces in an event titled “Libertarians Against Capitalism.” Finally, our club’s final speaker event of the spring semester will be for Patri Friedman, the executive director of the Seasteading Institute and the grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. Mr. Friedman’s talk is titled “The Blue Frontier.” In his lecture, Mr. Friedman will address his organization’s goal to build politically autonomous sea communities that encourage individualism and liberty. Mr. Friedman’s lecture will doubtlessly give audience members an unorthodox, innovative, and interesting view of the future of the liberty movement.

In addition to our four exciting speaker events, our club plans to participate in a “Great Debate” with Cal Berkeley Democrats, hosted by the Undergraduate Political Science Association (UPSA). Although our club participated in an informal debate last semester with Berkeley College Republicans, this debate will be unprecedented for us being that it should doubtlessly draw a bigger crowd being in a larger lecture hall and being endorsed by UPSA. This debate is sure to draw much attention to our club and hopefully establish ourselves as a political club comparable in prestige as both Cal Berkeley Democrats and Berkeley College Republicans.

Finally, the grand finale of our second semester will be the Legalize Marijuana Rally & Brownie Sale that we plan to hold at the Mario Savio Steps of Sproul Plaza on April 20th (4/20) with Cal’s chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. At the rally, we plan to have several students from both of our organizations speak on different topics regarding marijuana, such as its legality, medicinal purposes, effect on crime, personal testimonials, et cetera. We hope to attract local political activists to also speak. Starchild, for instance, has officially confirmed that he will participate. With the combined forces of Students for Liberty and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, this should be a great event, especially now that the national organization of Students for Liberty has graciously given our club a $200 grant for the event. This should prove to be a great finale for a great semester of fighting for freedom.

In short, the liberty movement is alive and well at Berkeley, and Students for Liberty will keep up its fight in future semesters, years, and hopefully even decades at Cal and its surrounding
community.

1. Noah Stern, Student Action’s Candidate for ASUC President

Noah Stern, a sophomore and current ASUC senator, is running for the position of ASUC president on the Student Action slate. Stern told the Patriot that he is running on a moderate, inclusive platform focused on creating a strong campus community. We were impressed by his apparent leadership abilities. He recounted instances of working with campus administrators and current ASUC leaders and finding solutions to problems, in particular the November 20 Wheeler Hall occupation. In addition, he pledged to promote policies and activities that will help improve the student experience at Cal. He proposed working with local printers and other businesses to allow student groups to buy in bulk at discounted rates and encourage groups to form coalitions for their mutual benefit. He also hopes to bring more popular entertainers and speakers to campus and ensure that students have access to them, complaining in particular that more than 1500 students should have been able to see former US President Bill Clinton’s speech in February. However, we do have some concerns about Stern. He has been very loyal to the Student Action party and appears to remain ideologically loyal to them: will he be in tune with the issues of the student body or those of his party? In addition, we wonder if he is ready to stand up to campus administrators when necessary. He did cite some examples where he thought officials need to improve (lack of student inclusion, focus on student needs, etc) but these seemed very generic in nature and did not convince us that he would be a strong force against the chancellor when necessary instead of his spokesman to the student body.

2. Nanxi Liu, Student Action’s Candidate for Executive Vice President

For the office of ASUC executive vice president, the California Patriot is reporting on Student Action’s Nanxi Liu. As a sophomore, she has quite an ambitious agenda for the office. First, she is a big advocate of transparency for the budget, which is a common goal for students running for executive office. Second, she wants to increase accessibility of resources for student groups, such as grants and general equipment for meetings and events. Finally, she would like to get in touch more with the student population and not just let the vocal minority be heard, and her main strategy is to update the ASUC website and send out more notifications in an attempt to get more students engaged and have opportunities to get comfortable with their student government. The main responsibility of the EVP is conducting senate meetings, but her ability to do this remains questionable given her inexperience with the university and particularly the ASUC. Her response regarding this is that she believes one essential quality is leadership experience. She claims her experience as an ASUC senator intern and as a financial officer who has to meet with every organization, has helped her get to know many different student groups and their needs. Also, it has been reported that she has a clear understanding of Robert’s Rules, which is essential in managing ASUC senate meetings. However, should Ms. Liu be elected, do not be surprised to see the ASUC make political statements of the sort made at UCSD; when asked about her views on the UCSD “Compton Cookout” fallout, whether the ASUCSD was right in revoking funds from student media organizations for speech deemed to be inappropriate or offensive, Liu indicated she would have supported the decision. Overall, Liu is a somewhat impressive candidate, but her expressed agenda, background, and answers to our questions are not without reservations about her ability to perform her job strictly as EVP.

3. Bundit Kertbundit, Student Action’s Candidate for External Affairs Vice President

Running for the ASUC office of external affairs vice president is Bundit Kertbundit, a junior transfer with significant experience in student government. Throughout his high school and college education, Kertbundit has pursued various leadership positions and responsibilities with the aim of improving conditions for students. Kertbundit has previously served as a lobbyist and deputy chief to current ASUC Executive Vice President Tu Tran, in addition to working as a student advocate at his former college. He was actively involved with last year’s March 16th protests on the Capitol along with 5,000 community college students.

However, he is a believer in the effectiveness of peaceful protesting and that the riots our university has experienced reflect poorly on the student body. Should he be elected, he intends to focus on the issues of living affordability for students as well as begin a porch light campaign and texting hotline to make students safer in their environment. Additionally, Mr. Kertbundit says that the ASUC could be improved by focusing more on matters that directly affect students rather than taking a position on outside political issues.

4. Yoori Chung, Student Action’s Candidate for Academic Affairs Vice President

We are featuring Student Action’s candidate Yoori Chung for the position of ASUC academic affairs vice president. Chung prioritizes academics as her most important focus at Cal. As a Christian student, Yoori wants to bring her religious and moral values into the ASUC. Some of her goals include strengthening the CourseRank online system by providing important details for students to be aware of, such as add and drop deadlines. Yoori additionally wants to cut through the bureaucracy that student groups have to go through in order to receive funding each year, but we wonder whether her “streamlining” approach wouldn’t just create more bureaucracy within the ASUC. Also, we are worried that her plan would lead to more money being spent as a result of more student groups potentially applying for and receiving grants.

Chung is an advocate of keeping libraries open 24 hours during the finals weeks, and is also in favor of keeping various rooms lit in Dwinelle and Barrows for studying during finals. Extra energy costs and security costs, however, may go into effect under such a policy. Finally, she was interested in expanding the Career Center and making it more accessible to students living in the dorms their freshman year, as well as incorporating programs for the RAs to implement and include a portal for the Cal Alumni Association. Although we wince at the notion that the ASUC is necessary for making any great improvement on student life, we find Ms. Chung’s proposals both achievable and well-supported by the majority of students. We are, however, worried that her agenda will mean an increase in ASUC spending.

The crisis was followed immediately by an outpouring of humanitarian aid from across the globe, leading to the dispatch of medical teams to the nation as well as vast sums of monetary donations. The United Nations initiated an emergency phase of relief that ended on January 22nd, along with an extensive search for survivors. Such dilemmas are not new to Haiti, which experienced 3 hurricanes in the summer of 2008 alone.

Though aid was provided from around the world, these efforts faced many obstacles. As Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, emergency services were proven to be unable to handle a disaster of this magnitude. Very few hospitals were left standing following the quake, causing the Argentine military field hospital to be the only one available the day the earthquake occurred. Doctors Without Borders, which has played a key role in relief efforts, reported that medical facilities were so flooded with the injured that many swift amputations were forced to take place. Furthermore, the limited amount of medical supplies led to crude reinforcements including cardboard splints and frequently reused latex gloves. The amount of injured citizens was such that nearly 20,000 Haitians died each day who would have been saved by surgery, had sufficient medical facilities been in place.

An unfortunate complication of relief efforts was that most of Haiti’s communication and transportation systems were destroyed by the quake, making such efforts significantly less effective. Air traffic became thoroughly congested, as were the capital’s morgues that had no choice but to bury tens of thousands of bodies in mass graves. US traffic controllers handled this by assuming control at the Toussaint L’Ouverture International Airport, making sure that planes equipped with emergency medical supplies could not leave the country. These complications were met with confusion over who was in charge, followed by violence from injured survivors who felt that aid was not properly distributed. Aid workers from the region took issue with US dispatched workers, who were accused of letting a number of relief trucks remain unused at the airport. In response to these and other disagreements, US officials as well as Haitian president Preval acknowledged that diplomatic cooperation is central to guide the nation toward recovery.

While there were many complications along the way, Haiti received a remarkable amount of international assistance. In the two days following the quake, over 20 countries dispatched military personnel to the nation to provide medical care and search for survivors. After arriving at maximum possible speed on January 15th, the USS Carl Vinson super carrier delivered 600,000 emergency food rations, 1 million liters of water, and 19 helicopters for victim recovery. These helicopters became essential in the distribution of these rations, as the damage from the quake made many areas inaccessible by land. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Haiti on January 16th to survey the damage, and announced that the U.S. had raised $48 million in relief aid. Two days before, President Obama pledged $100 million to the nation, stating that the victims of the disaster “will not be forgotten”. The European Union was another key contributor, promising $474 million in long-term aid. Recognizing that crowding was a source of much hindrance of relief efforts,

President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal allowed Haitians access to free Senegalese land. The positive response to this may lead to an entire region being allocated for this purpose. In addition to immediate fiscal contributions, corporations including Coca Cola and AT&T instated donation strategies that allowed consumers to donate digitally from around the world at the click of a button.

Though the emergency phase of relief efforts has concluded, Haiti is nowhere near the end of its ordeal. The damage of the quake was such that the economy will take years to fully recover. Trade and Industry Minister Josseline Colimon Fethiere predicted that 1 in 5 jobs would be lost, while many citizens will need continued medical care for serious injuries. As Vice President Joe Biden explained, President Obama “does not view this as a humanitarian mission with a life cycle of a month. This will still be on our radar screen long after it’s off the crawler at CNN. This is going to be a long slog.”

The governor made the plea in his annual budget proposal, released in January. The state will ask Washington for $6.9 billion in funds it claims are owed from the federal government. “Federal funds must be part of our budget solution because the federal government is part of our budget problem… right now there are discriminatory formulas that force California to subsidize other states. We are asking the federal government to pay us what they owe us,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech.

Members of the state’s congressional delegation were not initially receptive to the request. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who faces a tough re-election campaign this year, disputed the assertion that California has been shortchanged. According to The Sacramento Bee, she released a report that concluded that California actually received more than it sent to the federal government in 2008 and 2009, a result of increased federal stimulus money. “I just wanted to make the case that California is struggling, and we’re helping,” she told the paper.

California’s other senator, Diane Fienstein (D) argued that the problem is not in the nation’s capitol. “It sounds like the governor is looking for someone else to blame for California’s budget. California’s budget crisis was created in Sacramento, not Washington,” she said, “These problems are not going away until there is wholesale reform of the state’s budget process.”

The criticism led to a strong rebuke from the governor. He noted that during the Bush administration many leaders, including Senator Feinstein, had no problem complaining about the underfunding of California. “Members of our delegation rightly castigated the federal government when President Bush was in office because those promises have not been kept,” he wrote in a January 13 letter. “You were right to fight for California then, and we need you to continue fighting for California now.”

However, many analysts predicted that the governor would likely end up with little or none of what he asked for. The nonpartisan legislative analyst reported the chances of the full amount of federal funds arriving as very small. “The Legislature should assume that federal relief will be billions of dollars less than the Governor wants,” the office wrote. The opinion is echoed by most experts, including academics and bond analysts.

Some suggested that the state could expect a higher likelihood of success if it combined forces with other states, making it a request from states in general, not just California. “To win the support of Congress, our governor should be going to Washington arm in arm with the 45 other governors who are also facing shortfalls this year,” said Jean Ross, director of the California Budget Project in the Christian Science Monitor.

Should the state be unsuccessful in attaining federal dollars, Schwarzenegger would likely propose more cuts to state services. Higher education funding could be impacted, which Schwarzenegger declared in his State of the State speech he would prefer not to cut further. HD Palmer, the governor’s finance director, told The Daily Californian that the state may look at decoupling Cal grant awards from UC and CSU tuition increases. Other cuts would likely come from social services and local governments, among other areas. Schwarzenegger has vowed not to increase taxes after doing so in February of 2009. A revised budget will be released by the governor in May, with the legislature required to pass a spending plan by June 15, although the constitutional deadline is routinely missed. The new fiscal year begins July 1.

A previous college student in Britain and the son of a top Nigerian banker, Abdulmutallab claims to be tied to al Qaeda and to have received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Abdulmutallab had sewn a part of the explosive device to his underwear, where airport security would surely not check. As the flight began to descend toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab set off the device, which initiated a spark instead of an explosion. Abdulmutallab was treated for burns at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama was on his Christmas holiday in Hawaii when he was briefed about the attack. In his first public comment after the incident, he said that he directed his national security team to “keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.” Three days after the terror attempt, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for alleged US attacks on Yemeni soil. In a message written in Arabic, which was published on radical Islamist Web sites three days after the scare, the group claimed that it tested a “new kind of explosives” and hailed the fact that the explosives “passed through security.” Still yet to be determined valid, the message additionally clarified that the bomb failed to explode due to a technical problem.

An analysis of the bombing device showed that it contained PETN, a high explosive also known as pentaerythritol. PETN is frequently used in military explosives and is popular among terrorists because it is small and powerful. The analysis found that the amount of explosive was sufficient to blow a hole in the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab’s father’s warning to US officials about his concerns of his son’s religious beliefs provided no grounds to place Abdulmutallab on the “no-fly list” or to revoke his visa to visit the US. Abdulmutallab was placed on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which includes people with known or suspected ties to a terrorist organization. This list, however, does not prohibit a person from boarding a US-bound airplane.

The last time someone tried to blow up an airplane at Christmas time, the bomb was planted in the suspect’s sneakers. From that day on, all passengers have been required to remove their shoes every time they fly. This solution, however, did not work in the case of Abdulmutallab, as he managed to pass through security with the bomb in his underwear. Airport security focuses very little on people individually, as most of their attention is directed towards what they carry. Focusing attention on individuals, however, leads to a question of racial profiling.

A tense debate about racial profiling, which terrorism experts claim will stop terrorist attacks, developed shortly after the Christmas Day debacle. Many people were left wondering if profiling would have stopped Abdulmutallab from boarding the Northwest flight. Executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former journalist, Steven Emerson, supports using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process, calling it “smart screening.” On the other hand, former FBI agent and American Civil Liberties adviser Michael German calls this kind of screening “ineffective and unconstitutional.” Saying that “terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities,” German claims that racial profiling could in fact encourage terrorism, as racism is one of the aspects that trigger terrorists. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, supports German’s take on the issue and states racial and religious profiling to be counterproductive and to “lead to a climate of insecurity and fear.”

We have yet to see what kinds of measures airport security is willing to take to work towards a competent method of safety. Until then, we can only hope that our current approach and improved knowledge of terror mechanisms will prevent such an occurrence from happening again.

A previous college student in Britain and the son of a top Nigerian banker, Abdulmutallab claims to be tied to al Qaeda and to have received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Abdulmutallab had sewn a part of the explosive device to his underwear, where airport security would surely not check. As the flight began to descend toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab set off the device, which initiated a spark instead of an explosion. Abdulmutallab was treated for burns at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama was on his Christmas holiday in Hawaii when he was briefed about the attack. In his first public comment after the incident, he said that he directed his national security team to “keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.” Three days after the terror attempt, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for alleged US attacks on Yemeni soil. In a message written in Arabic, which was published on radical Islamist Web sites three days after the scare, the group claimed that it tested a “new kind of explosives” and hailed the fact that the explosives “passed through security.” Still yet to be determined valid, the message additionally clarified that the bomb failed to explode due to a technical problem.

An analysis of the bombing device showed that it contained PETN, a high explosive also known as pentaerythritol. PETN is frequently used in military explosives and is popular among terrorists because it is small and powerful. The analysis found that the amount of explosive was sufficient to blow a hole in the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab’s father’s warning to US officials about his concerns of his son’s religious beliefs provided no grounds to place Abdulmutallab on the “no-fly list” or to revoke his visa to visit the US. Abdulmutallab was placed on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which includes people with known or suspected ties to a terrorist organization. This list, however, does not prohibit a person from boarding a US-bound airplane.

The last time someone tried to blow up an airplane at Christmas time, the bomb was planted in the suspect’s sneakers. From that day on, all passengers have been required to remove their shoes every time they fly. This solution, however, did not work in the case of Abdulmutallab, as he managed to pass through security with the bomb in his underwear. Airport security focuses very little on people individually, as most of their attention is directed towards what they carry. Focusing attention on individuals, however, leads to a question of racial profiling.

A tense debate about racial profiling, which terrorism experts claim will stop terrorist attacks, developed shortly after the Christmas Day debacle. Many people were left wondering if profiling would have stopped Abdulmutallab from boarding the Northwest flight. Executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former journalist, Steven Emerson, supports using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process, calling it “smart screening.” On the other hand, former FBI agent and American Civil Liberties adviser Michael German calls this kind of screening “ineffective and unconstitutional.” Saying that “terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities,” German claims that racial profiling could in fact encourage terrorism, as racism is one of the aspects that trigger terrorists. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, supports German’s take on the issue and states racial and religious profiling to be counterproductive and to “lead to a climate of insecurity and fear.”

We have yet to see what kinds of measures airport security is willing to take to work towards a competent method of safety. Until then, we can only hope that our current approach and improved knowledge of terror mechanisms will prevent such an occurrence from happening again.

Just days after Californians cast their votes, opponents of Proposition 8 filed several lawsuits against the state’s marriage registrar, arguing that the content of Proposition 8 represents a revision rather than an amendment to the Constitution. Under California law, a revision to the Constitution requires a vote in both legislative assemblies and a 2/3 majority in a statewide election, whereas an amendment can be passed by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. In May of 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment in a 6-1 vote. The majority opinion found no grounds to overturn the will of the voters, who are granted the almost unfettered right to alter the state’s Constitution.

Since May 2009, Proposition 8 opponents have taken their case to federal courts. Three separate lawsuits filed by gay couples seeking to marry in California have been merged into one case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The trial phase, which began on January 11, 2010, took place in the US District Court located in San Francisco. The case is currently under review by Judge Vaughn Walker, who is expected to deliberate after several weeks of reviewing the case.

Proposition 8’s opponents are now challenging the amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to equal protection under the law. Under current California law, gay couples can enter into a domestic partnership, which grants them most, but not all of the benefits afforded to married couples. For example, domestic partnerships do not entitle a partner of a state worker to the same long-term insurance benefits given to spouses of state workers. Additionally, at least one party must be over the age of 62.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the unlikely duo of Ted Olson and David Boies, the two lawyers who opposed each other in the famous Bush v. Gore case of late 2000. Olson, a prominent conservative, offered to represent a gay couple shortly after the election. He believes that his background as Solicitor General to President George W. Bush lends bipartisan credibility to the legal team.

Olson and Boies face a two-fold task. First, they must reaffirm that marriage is a fundamental right, applying equally to all citizens. In the past, the court has held marriage to be a fundamental right. In Loving v. Virginia, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, calling marriage a “basic civil right”. However, the ruling has not traditionally extended to the right to marry anyone, that is, members of one’s family, multiple partners, or members of the same sex.

The second task facing the Olson-Boies team is persuading the court that gays belong to a “protected class.” Protected classes include members of an ethnic or racial minority, religion, gender and other historically sensitive characteristics. To date, no federal court has established a precedent of recognizing gays as a protected class. If Olson and Boies can convince Judge Walker that gays are, in fact, a protected class, then the court would have to apply “strict scrutiny” to the issue of discrimination in the country. Under that standard, the law must be closely tailored to addressing a compelling governmental interest. If no suspect class is involved, then a state requires only a rational basis for passing a law.

To make their case, Olson and Boies called witnesses to testify on the underlying sentiments behind voter support of Proposition 8. If they can convince the court that support was heavily grounded in anti-gay prejudice, then gays could potentially be considered a protected class, and Proposition 8 will be subject to strict scrutiny. Additionally, several experts on the history of marriage, and on the potential economic and psychological consequences of the amendment all testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The defense seemed confident that their side had persuasively argued the State’s interest in recognizing only opposite-sex marriage. “We say that the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing, and raising the next generation,” said Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the defense, “Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships.” The defense called only two witnesses to testify, choosing not to address many of the issues raised by the plaintiff.

Regardless of Judge Walker’s ruling, the case will almost certainly be appealed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some gay marriage supporters fear that it is not a good time for this case to be tried in the highest court in the country. “A loss now may make it harder to go to court later,” said one anti-Proposition 8 activist. “It will take us a lot longer to get a good Supreme Court decision if the Court has to overrule itself.” The Supreme Court has tended to not overturn laws which have strong public support. Voters have rejected same-sex marriage ballot proposals in 31 states, including California.

The UC system is one of many social organizations that have taken a hit due to the state’s $26.3 billion budget deficit, leading directly to a $813 million budget cut to take place over two years. State employees are suffering income reductions, while over $470 million worth of IOU’s are clogging government ledgers. In addition to the 30% fee hikes that are slated to occur for the spring semester, many UC students narrowly avoided having their Cal Grant awards withdrawn. Many California residents have protested that students should have high priority despite the state’s budget issues, arguing that thousands of students would be unable to continue attending their school should their tuition be raised. This was cited as a key dilemma by the Commission, who recognized that limiting the amount of college graduates is a detriment to the long-term goals of the state and would have ominous implications for the economy in upcoming years.

Yudof reflected upon the state’s funding limits, saying, “The candid truth is that the state of California has become an unreliable partner and has been an unreliable partner for years. The commission is designed to take an integrated, holistic look at all of UC’s priorities, knowing that we do not have the financial resources to maximize all of those values.”

The Commission is comprised of five working groups, each with different focuses on how to better the situation for UC students and faculty. The first is Size and Shape of UC, chaired by UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal and UC Santa Cruz commission member Cynthia Brown. This group’s goal is to effectively maintain ideal enrollment levels and high quality of academic programs. UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley and UC Davis professor Keith Williams oversee Education and Curriculum, a group that focuses on creating cost efficient alternatives for delivery models that can maintain high program quality. A third group, Access and Affordability, is chaired by UC Student Regent Jesse Bernal and UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake and aims to make a UC education attainable to students of all backgounds. The Funding Strategies group is chaired by UC Santa Barbara Executive Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas and UCLA Vice Chancellor Steven Olsen, and focuses on how to effectively generate revenue for the UC system. Academic Senate Immediate Past Chair Mary Croughan and UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang chair the final group, Research Strategies, the goal of which is to examine how UC schools can recreate research practices and collaboration.

The first stop for the Commission was at UC Santa Barbara on October 22nd, where students gathered to give input on how the crisis was limiting their ability to attend their university. This meeting was followed with visits to UC Merced and UC Irvine, and by mid-December the Commission plans to have visited all 10 UC campuses.

These meetings served as an outlet for students and stakeholders to voice their frustrations. Many students who attended these meetings reflected that fee hikes will cause minorities to be even more underrepresented in the student population of UC’s, while others lamented that their tuition is planned to increase at the same time that their parents’ income is set to be reduced. A number of students also shared frustration at the lack of an effective outlet for their ideas. UC Irvine senior Sarah Thompson acknowledged her school’s lack of concern for student input during the Commission’s visit to her campus, sharing an encounter she had when she asked a financial aid counselor for advice. “I asked, ‘Where do I protest this? How do I get involved?’ And she laughed at me.”

The UC system has a long and difficult road ahead of them toward the goal of maximizing student interests while staying within financial constraints. Despite many students’ view that their voices are not being heard, Yudof has vowed to take every student into consideration. “Being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: There are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.”