THE BROWN

SPECTATORA JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT • VOLUME IX , ISSUE I • 11/2011

do our public schools

passtoo manystudents?

featured

8

14

18

on anti-intellectualismModern conservatism’s biggest pitfall

fixing foreclosureHow to keep home values afloat

H1N1 nears extinctionEnvironmentalists offer their advice

2 leaving students behind

T H E B R O W N

SPECTATOR

editor-in-chief Ryan Fleming

senior managing editor Manas Gautam

managing editors Kelly Fennessy Olivia Conetta Oliver Hudson

design editor Philip Trammell

photographer Tasha Nagamine

business managers Gabriella Suarez

copy editors Olivia Conetta Stephanie Hennings

contributors MacLain Christie (URI ’13) Daniel Prada Benjamin Wofford Dr. Charles H. Wade Philip Shepherd Tom March

For questions, comments, subscriptions, and responses, email editors@brown-spectator.com.

If you are interested in contributing to The Brown Spectator (or in doing some web design!), contact ryan_fleming@brown.edu.

Dear Readers, It is with great pride that I say, “I attend Brown University.” Pride not in its rich history or prestige, but in the community that Brown represents. The student body is committed not only to seeking knowledge and the truth, but also to striving for the betterment of their community, and mankind as a whole. One would be hard pressed to walk across campus, or even just the main green, without being asked to help some cause, whether it is the politically repressed people of Burma or economically disadvantaged high school students. Wherever there is injustice and oppression, there is a Brown student who is willing to take up the fight of the oppressed. There is one group of students, however, that too often has no voice. That group is the conserva-tive students of Brown University. We find ourselves in a sea of liberalism; our views are openly ridiculed, we become the subject of jokes in classes, and people ask in disbelief how we could possi-bly believe in the conservative ideology. I can think of no other group that is so often rebuked for its beliefs on this campus which preaches from the bible of “toler-ance.” This is why The Spectator exists: to give a voice to the conservative movement on campus. The Spectator is not a soapbox for conservative politics, nor is it necessarily here to agitate the commu-nity. We are not here to pick fights. Our goals to create an open political forum for all views to be shared, to start two sided, rational, political discussions, and to let everyone’s voice on campus be heard, even if their peers wish to silence it.

Kind Regards,Ryan Fleming

Editor-in-Chief

editorial board

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

1

this issue: EDUCATION

ARTS & STYLE

other OPINION

leaving students behindIn today’s public schools, where teachers have the easy choice of watering down material and passing students, many — possibly believing they are doing the students a favor — allow chronic underachievement.

your role in an unknown futureFaced with a rapidly shrinking and shifting world, college students should be prepared to adapt their skills to those that the global job market will demand.

on anti-intellectualismIf they hope to be taken seriously in educated circles, modern conservatives must shed the air of anti-intellectualism for which liberals have understandably come to deride them.

bloated universitiesThe currently popular “everything-under- the-sun” model of higer education wastes money at unsustainable rates and prevents insitutions from specializing in those areas in which they hold comparative advantage.

2

4

S

8

12

gay marriage is not a civil rightInaccurately labelling gay marriage a God-given, unalienable “civil right” estranges many of the movement’s potential supporters and, if carried to its logical end, would significantly curtail freedom of religion throughout our country.

true welfareBureaucratic attempts at charity are inevitably so much less efficient than private or faith-based philanthropies that, instead of taxing those with discretionary income, we ought only to encourage them to use it charitably.

fixing foreclosureA flat-rate interest program wouldincentivize potential buyers to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes and homeowners to remain in their otherwise “upside-down” houses.

paying their fair shareEconomic liberty will be achieved only when every taxpayer and every earned dollar is regarded equally by the law; “progressivity” in the tax code is neither progressive nor truly fair.

6

11

14

16

the professorThe liberal rhetoric of affirmative action violates Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of race-blindess and transfers the task of achieving racial equality from the market, a system designed to reward ability over prejudice, to government, an institution prone to arbitrary discrimination.

H1N1 nears extinctionWith the global H1N1 population rapidly declining, leading environmentalists warn that unless governments act swiftly to multiply their numbers, we all risk the possibility of a sterile world to which it will never return.

music review: CeruleanWill Wiesenfeld, the artist behind Baths, brings an ingenious new flavor to the indie electronic music listener’s palette.

laugh now, cry laterA collection of political cartoons for your enjoyment

5

19

keeping students behindIn today’s public schools, where teachers have the easy choice of watering down material and passing students, many — possibly believing they are doing the students a favor — allow chronic underachievement.

on anti-intellectualismIf they hope to be taken seriously in educated circles, modern conservatives must shed the air of anti-intellectualism for which liberals have understandably come to deride them.

fixing foreclosureA flat-rate interest program would incentivize potential buyers to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes and homeowners to remain in their otherwise “upside-down” houses.

H1N1 nears extinctionWith the global H1N1 population rapidly de-clining, leading environmentalists warn that unless governments act swiftly to multiply their numbers, we all risk the possibility of a sterile world to which it will never return.

2

8

14

18

COVER

COVER

20

Julius Caesar supports breast cancer research.

18

FEATURED

many students. Most teachers, possibly believing they are doing the students a favor, will not fail many. This cycle continues until unprepared students graduate from high school or, worse, fail to graduate from high school. This phenomenon is not unique to the group I was teaching. In fact, my students were voluntarily tak-ing classes during the summer, so the general population is likely less prepared than they are. In New York City, approximately 75 percent of community college students who graduated from public high schools are required to take remedial English or math before taking college

courses in those departments.1 Nationally, roughly one-third of students beginning their higher education need reme-diation of some kind.2 Derek will undoubtedly test into a remedial math class if he man-

ages to make it to college. Required remedial classes then make college more expensive and time-consuming, mak-ing students less likely to graduate. Why are such students failing to learn what they should in high school? Teachers everywhere respond to incentives. When a teacher passes a problem student, he is passing the problem along to another teacher. Failing a student causes trouble for everyone involved, and the teacher would likely face backlash from the student, the parents, and even the administration of the school. If the teacher instead tries to fight to amend years of inadequate teaching, more work ensues for both the teacher and the students, who may rebel against this extra work, espe-

In many ways, Derek* is a typical rising ninth grader. He prioritizes his social status and enjoys poetry and novels. He is from a poor socioeconomic background

but has dreams to change that. He even participates in Breakthrough Collaborative, a summer program in-tended to prepare middle school students for high school and put them on a path toward college. Derek has said several times that he hopes to attend the University of California at Berkeley. Unfortunately, this dream seems quite unlikely. Derek lacks even the most basic math skills. As Derek’s math teacher this sum-mer at Breakthrough, I was shocked to learn that he and several other students did not understand fractions or nega-tive numbers. These students, including Derek, took Algebra I in middle school, yet many of them did not understand the concept of variables. Some students had already taken geometry, and they were asked to learn Algebra II. Many of my students did not learn Algebra I in school — they learned “Algebra I.” Their transcripts say they took and passed Algebra I, but they did not actually acquire the relevant knowledge and skills. Their teach-ers either taught a watered-down version of Algebra I, passed students who should have failed, or a combination of both. Such students are passed off to other teachers in the next grade, and those teachers have no choice but to teach these unprepared students a watered-down version of the class, pass students who should fail, or actually fail

KELLY FENNESSY

leaving students behind by pushing them ahead

2 S education

Teachers have the easy choice of watering down material and passing students. Most teachers, possibly believing they are doing

the students a favor, will not fail many.

ARE THESE THE RIGHT NUMBERS?

1 in 3 3 in 4

Not every teacher fails to teach at an adequate level, and not every student isunprepared for college. Enough are, though, to cause concern. Nationally, roughly one third of students beginning higher education — practically all of whom have graduated high school or earned general-equivalency diplomas — need remedial education of some kind. Within certain demographics, such as New York City community college students from public schools, the fraction jumps as high as three in four. If we ever hope to figure out how America’s classrooms can stop failing their students, we first must determine the opposite: how can it stop passing them?

3Seducation

Pretty soon, this will pass for high school geometry and algebra.

school students. It is never too early to help keep students on the right track. I highly encourage my classmates to look into teaching for the summer with Breakthrough Collaborative. This program allows college students to teach (often underserved) middle school students during the summer at 33 affiliate sites located throughout the country. This program has changed my life — I learned to appreciate my education while helping ninth grade stu-dents reach their potential. We may not be able to help every student in Derek’s situation, but every little bit we do makes a differ-ence. I encourage everyone reading this to be part of the solution.

*Name has been changed1http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/nyregion/08regents.html?pagewanted=all2http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5189336-418/college-can-be-a-rude-re medial-awakening.html

cially if the work is in one of their least favorite subjects. The teachers have the easy choice of watering down the material and passing students. In this situation, teachers are incentivized to do what is detrimental to society as a whole. Fixing this problem would be a huge undertak-ing. In effect, we would have to change the incentives of these teachers and the attitudes of students everywhere. Teachers could receive bonuses for improvement of their students’ test scores, for example. Or perhaps if teachers did not have such job security, they would all be more inclined to make sure their students obtain a sufficient education. But how can we remedy the system’s failures in the short term? We can all get involved and help in small ways! Many programs, such the Swearer Classroom Pro-gram, offer Brown students a way to help local public

MANAS GAUTAM

your role in anunknown future

4 S education

With talk of the European Union breaking up due to burgeoning debt, Amer-

ica falling into stagflation, and Asian economies overheating, it seems like anything that can go wrong goes wrong. This is not the time to give up, however, but to face our generation’s hardships and carry on. As Brown students, we live in a sheltered environment. We take classes that “look interesting,” eat in college dining halls or on Thayer Street and go down to the mall for a movie or two. How often do we ask ourselves what the ultimate effects of our educa-tion — our everyday interactions with students and professors — will be? “Professionalization” is a word Brown administration hates, but it is what this world needs. We are going through a time of high unemploy-ment, and I believe it is not a frictional or cyclical form of unemployment but a structural one. Structural unemploy-ment is long-term and occurs as a re-sult of imbalance between the occupa-tional needs of the economy and skills of workers. You are, after all, a unique product, and the job market deems your value based on qualities you have developed. America’s structural unem-ployment problem is further escalated by extremely competitive labor wages in emerging markets like China, India and Vietnam. For a company to exist and thrive in today’s fiercely compet-itive market, it will have to cut costs. If it finds skilled and educated labor available in a third world country with

attractive tax policies, the company will not hesitate to export jobs. Instead of calling for pro-tectionist policies like tariffs and ex-change rate manipulation, perhaps we should recast America as a nation of doers and high-level thinkers who can apply theoretical knowledge to create value. On the macroeconomic level, we should petition our local congress-men to reduce corporate tax rates and

Goliath-like regulations for companies to invest in America, keep their cash here, build infrastructure and train people. Furthermore, we should raise our voices against policies that destroy the value of the dollar through print-ing more money or lending at next to zero percent interest. And if you are really into spring cleaning, why not throw out minimum wage laws? If wages were also determined by forces of demand and supply, and we would not have excesses in failing industries, and we would avoid the fate of being trapped in a long-term unemployment situation, waiting for the world’s wages to rise and meet American minimums of roughly $8 an hour. As students, perhaps we should evaluate our curriculum for skills that cater to a career and de-

mand courses if they are unavailable. We could start by requesting a high-er-level accounting class that prepares one for the Certified Public Accoun-tant test. The world has shrunk expo-nentially due to technological ad-vancements, and the Internet has opened up new markets and allowed startups to be based in any country with a working broadband connec-tion. Perhaps we should also be flex-ible about the place where we work. Who knows — maybe by working and living a good life in New Delhi, you will be able to save more than you would have in New York (to send back to your parents in the United States or to pay down that pesky college loan). I am graduating next year, and I hope the skills I have acquired in col-lege and summer work experiences are desirable. Time will tell whether I am able to adapt to the work environ-ment I find myself in. But just like you, I plan on remaining calm and doing what is right for me. After all, despite what we see in the news every day, the world is not coming to an end.

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeWe should recast America

as a nation of doers and high-level thinkers who can apply

theoretical knowledge tocreate value.

?

5Sar ts & style

DANIEL PRADA

this professor

The fire of his intellectual jargon melts away the irony. What irony?

I once heard a guy say, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” My musings are interrupted by this professor, who states: “Our institutions must be changed to address the racial dispar-ities and inequities set forth from the legacy of oppression in America. This restructuring will solve the reality of the current systems of a white male-domi-nated hierarchy. Our only tool is the fire and the courage to assemble the po-litical power necessary to correct past wrongs.” So he wants a more expansive

and responsibility? Maybe the solution is not more but less government. This professor wishes to drop thoughts into my head without me questioning his opinions, but I am not a piggy bank. The fantasy of retribution through force, coercion and intimida-tion by the state is simply not how I roll. Individualism and the vehe-ment defense of property, of rights and of human life are social justice. It means judging a person:

By their ideas, not their colorBy their minds, not their classBy their talent, not their accentBy their creation of value, not their sexual orientationBy their enterprise, not what’s between their thighs

Its corollary, free-market capi-talism, establishes voluntary, decentral-ized and peaceful social cooperation. It rewards serving customers and pun-ishes prejudice. We do not live in a free society, nor we do not live in a socialist one. However, every violent, vicious and vo-racious breach of free will continues to empower those with privilege and fur-ther oppress the oppressed. We do not live in a free society, but I want to live in one. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a na-tion where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the con-tent of their character.” I heard a guy say that once.

government with more power to estab-lish “equality,” promote “fairness,” and adjudicate social justice? Do we trust the government who interned Japanese-Americans, es-tablished Jim Crow laws, drafted Civil War, World War I, World War II and Vietnam teenage soldiers, legitimized slavery, imposed dictatorships, embar-goed nations, deported people and tor-tured protestors with this power? Can we say that such mis-deeds are all in the past? Do we want to give such power to a government that establishes Arizona SB 1070, oper-ates Guantanamo Bay, incarcerates the highest proportion of its people of any government in the world, defines who can marry whom, invades our privacy, supports irresponsible banking and at-tempts to violate personal sovereignty

therefore — if dictated solely by biology and nature — nat-urally heterosexual. (For a complete discussion on marriage solely from the grounds of natural law, I encourage everyone to read Robert George’s article “What is Marriage?”, pub-lished last year in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.) Furthermore, the traditional view of marriage is not a civil law meant to support the interests of a minority. On the contrary, gay marriage would be a civil law that would support the interests of a minority. As is clear now, based upon the definition of civil rights and the merits of gay marriage, the movement for marriage equality does not qualify as civil rights. This does not mean that gay marriage should be illegal, and my inten-tion was never to debate whether or not states should pass

“marriage equality” laws. The point was to demonstrate the dangers of supporting some-thing as civil rights when it cer-tainly is not. What are the pitfalls of claiming that redefining gay marriage as a civil right? Re-

member that the American political system has come to recognize civil rights as unalienable rights, grounded in nat-ural law, which no government can deny its citizens. This is problematic, because if gay marriage ever becomes part of a civil rights bill, now Uncle Sam will have a duty to make sure that in no way and in no part of the country are any of his citizens denied these rights. It would become inconsis-tent to permit formal opposition to gay marriage or even to deny marrying a couple based upon sexual orientation. This could suddenly make criminals out of the over 40,000 Catholic priests and countless other Christian ministers who cannot in good conscience marry such couples. By de-fining gay marriage as a civil right, the gay movement has effectively isolated the entirety of the Catholic Church in America and attempts to make acting on its beliefs a crime, along with those of many other Christian, Jewish and Mus-lim Americans. Can you imagine a U.S. president sending the National Guard to a parish in Little Rock, Ark. to coerce the priest to marry a same-sex couple?

As the debate over redefining marriage heats up in this country, and with “marriage equality” bills be-ing voted on in state senates across America, many

gay rights activists have begun using a dangerous rhetoric for their arguments: civil rights. In American politics and culture, “civil rights” are the unalienable rights granted to each human being, based upon natural law, which no gov-ernment can rightfully deny any of its citizens. Of course, the term is deeply interwoven with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and whenever someone claims to advocate civil rights for one group, they most certainly are hoping to at-tach the imagery of that movement to their cause. It is also useful to separate the movement to rede-fine marriage from gay rights as a whole. Many of the goals of the gay rights movement certainly fall under civil rights — for example, laws against dis-crimination based upon sexual orientation for things such as employment and housing op-portunities. The fight to end homophobia and hate crimes are important parts of the general civil rights movement, as such practices offend the sanctity of human life and clearly violate natural law. The problem arises when the term “civil rights” enters the rhetoric of those urging the state to con-done marriage between couples of the same sex. Civil rights, and in particular the racial equalities fought for in the 1960s, are well grounded in natural law and and stand in opposition to civil laws that instead represented only the interests of a select minority (for example, wealthy Southern whites). The gay marriage movement, however, does neither. Gay marriage is not grounded in natural law. The institution of marriage is inherently sexual, and natu-ral law dictates that sex is heterosexual, since, by its nature, sex is designed for the procreation of the species, which can only be accomplished through heterosexual intercourse. This is not to say that people of the same sex cannot have intercourse, but they cannot fulfill nature’s full intention for sex: procreation. Since marriage is sexual, and sex by its full nature is inherently between man and woman, marriage is

RYAN FLEMING

gay marriage why it has no place in a civil rights movement

S opinion

By defining gay marriage as a civil right, the gay movement effectively isolates the

entirety of the Catholic Church inAmerica and attempts to make acting on

its beliefs a crime.

6

7Sopinion

to shut its doors and cease providing services to communities that they have long served. The Church chose the latter. Both Washing-ton, D.C. and Massachusetts were more than happy to take away a great service to their own citizens for the sake of “civil rights.” Even beyond the infringement upon religious freedom that gay rights activists en-force by equating gay marriage to civil rights, their own self-interest dictates that they should be cautious in using those words. In America, the term “civil rights” is so closely associated with the fight for racial equality that to many African-Americans, who well remember the

iconic struggles of their brethren in the deep South, using it can seem like a shameless at-tempt at pathos. Recently in Maryland, an attempt to pass a marriage equality bill was shot down by the state legislature in large part because it could not draw support from Af-rican-American congressmen, who are often very religious and who were turned off by the civil rights rhetoric of the bill’s supporters. As Maryland Democratic legislator Emmett Burns said, “Show me your Selma, Alabama… Those who want to ride on our coattails are historically incorrect.” In sum, gay marriage is not a civil right, and such a claim not only infringes

upon the true civil and natural right to freedom of religion but also alienates many of the same voters from whom gay marriage supporters wish to receive empathy. The term is a poor choice of rhetoric, both dangerously inaccurate and terribly offensive, and supporters of gay marriage ought im-mediately to cease using it.

Such an image may seem extreme and unlikely, but signs already point in that direction. In Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts, after passing laws condoning gay mar-riage, governments wanted to force Catholic charities to al-low gay couples to adopt children who resided within their adoption agencies. The Catholic Church was left with no choice but to openly violate its own teaching and faith or

We’re not entirely convinced SexPowerGod is a civil right, either.

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeUsing the term “civil rights” can

seem like a shameless attempt at pathos.

cians are not doing you any favors. What is unclear to me is whether these figures are truly as inane as they appear on television or if that is only the media persona that they adopt. While the media in general are often too harsh to-ward the aforementioned personalities, the vacuity of their rhetoric alone does not bode well for conservatism. They are either genuinely not that bright or are targeting the low-est common denominator, neither of which is a good thing. Instead, go with more thoughtful, cerebral, articulate and highly educated conservatives such as Charles Krautham-mer, Newt Gingrich, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Carol Swain or the brilliant Theodore Dalrymple.

Stop ridiculing educated peo-ple. Some popular conservative voices seem to enjoy blatantly insulting writers, commen-tators, intellectuals or anyone else if that individual happens

to hold an advanced degree (unless that person is on their side of the argument and is useful to them). Is that really the attitude you want to exude? I’ve seen Sean Hannity malign thinkers numerous times, but he also conveniently appeals to authority when the occasion calls. Many leftists are guilty of this method as well, but the loudest conser-vative pundits are not helping their cause. Then there are the highly educated conservatives, such as Monica Crowley and Newt Gingrich, who disingenuously play down their own education in a lame attempt at populism. Sure, college is not for everyone, and there are probably a lot more stu-dents enrolled in college than there should be, but the last thing the U.S. needs right now is more negative sentiment toward its educated population.

Learn how to use proper English. “Democrat party,” “grow the economy” and “increase jobs” are just some examples of horrible entries in the contemporary conservative lexi-con. Poor grammar is unfortunately a problem across the political spectrum, but it is especially unhelpful for those conservatives who struggle to look halfway intelligent while they are under constant media scrutiny.

Many critics of the right take great pleasure in con-descending to those who do not think, act or live like them, and far leftists never miss an opportu-

nity to quip about the stupidity of conservatives. While they are wrong to do this, one must acknowledge that there are many current conservative personalities and positions that do not help the image of conservatism. Consequently, they do an injustice to the legacy of respectable conservative fig-ures such as William F. Buckley Jr. The anti-intellectualism of some conservative factions makes me wonder if liberals may, in fact, have some legitimate criticisms. One way that such liberals undoubtedly surmised the stupidity of conservatives is through contemporary conser-vative media and its frequently brash style. News Corporation is one of the most powerful media companies in the world, and it expresses its conservative views through many venues, with Fox News probably being its largest outlet in the United States. And since television is still the most powerful medium, Fox News is crucial to per-petuating a conservative voice. While Fox has some quality shows, at times it just makes me cringe. Fox News especially projects some negative images of conservatives and contem-porary conservatism, and perhaps the biggest reason for this is the rampant anti-intellectualism I see from many of its personalities. This saddens and perturbs me, not to men-tion that it reflects quite poorly on behalf of Fox News and conservatism in general, Fox being a leading resource for conservatives and the Republican Party. The accusation of anti-intellectualism in conser-vatism is not a new topic, but I rarely see anybody suggest ways to remedy this perpetual, serious problem. As a con-cerned citizen, then, I offer some constructive criticisms to conservative leaders to reduce the anti-intellectualism that I believe is perhaps the biggest pitfall of contemporary con-servatism. For starters:

Find some new spokespeople. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many sitting politi-

DR. CHARLES H. WADE

anti-intellectualism modern conservatism’s biggest pitfall

8 S education

Find some new spokespeople.Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and many sitting politicians are

not doing Conservatives any favors.

9Seducation

not mean that if someone follows a particular position against the party line (such as a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat), he or she is a “traitor.” One is not required to subscribe to every view that is typically as-sociated with a political party, and people have a right to change their minds or make decisions based on individual cases. Are you a person or a sheep?

Stop exploiting Christianity. I cannot read your mind, so I do not know how religious you are. You have every right to worship and believe as you choose, but many conser-vatives use religion, especially Christianity, to pander to people — sometimes the wrong people. Sadly, many of these ostensible “Christians” are blatantly ignorant of their own professed religion. Fundamentalism and blind faith are dangerous no matter what religion you subscribe to. Secularism and agnosticism are not the same as atheism.

Recognize that business and free markets are NOT the answer to absolutely everything. Complete deregulation is not a good idea given the rampant corruption and illegal activity in the financial world when we have the restrictions that are already in place. Stop indiscriminately lambast-ing the government and the public sector. Sure, business is important and capitalism is good overall, but univer-sities, museums, libraries, many government agencies and non-profit organizations generally do good work and serve worthwhile purposes. Perhaps you should actually be a lit-tle more fastidious with the industries that you tirelessly defend, such as oil and tobacco, or stop being friendly with those sociopaths on Wall Street. Most churches do not make money, so should we privatize them, too?

Accept that party affiliation obliges no one to think or vote a certain way. Party loyalty is admirable, but it does

The next face of the Republican party? Sure. The next voice of the Republican party? Let’s keep looking.

a crucial issue? Unfortunately, some major Republicans are notorious for cutting funding for education, a move that hurts everybody. Sending the message that education is not a priority does not help others make it a priority in their own lives, and the negative consequences are multifaceted and widespread. The anti-intellectual attitudes of many conservatives in particular clearly contribute to this prob-lem. As we are already in the midst of a contentious and toxic political environment, and as we approach a cru-cial election next year, it is in the best interest of conser-

vatives to cease the pervasive anti-intellectualism that seems to dominate the Right today. Willful ignorance and the “books are for queers” mental-ity that clearly not all, but way too many, conservatives project

is not exactly a productive counterposition to combat the many fallacies championed by leftist ideologies. It is bad for your image, it is even worse for policy, and it only holds us all back.

The belief in evolution does not preclude the belief in God. Then there are the seemingly irresolvable, polar-izing issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, gun control, poverty, immigration, defense spending, the envi-ronment, the death penalty, drug legalization, health care and abortion. As much as some people don’t want to hear it, we must find some sense of compromise on these issues in terms of public policy. This will require action to get any-where, and rhetorical wars and intransigence on behalf of any political party are unhelp-ful, only prolong the debate and further stagnate policy-making. Many people lament the mass incompetence of our children, students, and labor force; that the United States appears to be falling behind the rest of the world; and that America is becoming seemingly more … well, trashy. Some conservatives, including anti-intellectual politicians, pundits and regular citizens, are enabling this to happen through their own rhetoric and actions. By lowering the bar for themselves, they are creating ex-cuses for the American public to keep the bar low in society and in their own lives. I believe that education (or the lack thereof) and our attitude toward it is one of the principal causes of our country’s serious problems with regard to how human capital is utilized and that a new look at education will be one of the principle components of their resolution. Everyone knows that education is a key issue for Democrats and liberals. But aren’t they right to support such

10 S adver tisement

Highly educated conservatives, such as Monica Crowley and Newt Gingrich, disingenuously play down their own

education in a lame attempt at populism.

education

continued | anti-intellectualism: modern conservatism’s biggest pitfall

11Sopinion

true welfare the unique benefits of private charity

When a woman and her three children came to my register at Staples with six

carts’ worth of school supplies, I could not believe how unlucky I was to be the cashier for such a large purchase. My face must have given me away be-cause the woman met my bemused expression with an explanation: “this is for charity.” She further explained that she was working with the United Jewish Appeal, a philanthropic organization, to prepare backpacks filled with school supplies for students in need. As she said to me, “it’s sad that some fami-lies have to choose between food and school supplies.” She paid entirely out of her own pocket. UJA did not give her money to pay for the school supplies — she used a few gift cards and her own credit card to pay the bill, which ultimately totaled close to $1000. Her action of philanthropy was purely voluntary. She made the decision to join UJA. She made the decision to take part in their service. She made the decision to pay with her own money. Why aren’t there more peo-ple like that woman, proactively joining philanthropic organizations and donating to those less fortunate instead of pushing for ineffective governmental programs? Unfor-tunately, our government does not leave it up to us to decide how we should help those less fortunate. The government taxes us to fund its in-efficient welfare programs, though

we have no say in what they do, to whom they give, or how much we give to them. By virtue of living in the United States, we are obligated to let the government wrest the money we have made from us and give it to others. On the other hand, private charity is entirely chosen. We can decide to join an organization of our own accord. We can use our own money to fund projects that we per-

sonally deem important. We can in-vestigate the charities to which we want to donate in order to ensure that they deliver the most bang for our buck. If we do not like how a particu-lar charity uses its money, we do not have to donate to that charity. The laws of economic competition ensure that private charities, which have to compete against each other for do-nations, strive to use their money as effectively as possible. To encourage people to in-volve themselves in private charities, the right incentives need to be put into place. First, a reduction in taxes would leave everyone with more money in their pockets. People who are well-off to begin with would have more money

for discretionary spending, which in-cludes he money they choose to give to charity. The decline in tax revenues would lead to a reduction in welfare spending. The poor would not be left on their own: they would have an eco-nomic incentive to work, they would have more money in their own pock-ets, and the people with more money for discretionary spending would, with the right incentives, use that money voluntarily to help out their fellow Americans. Of course, it would be neces-sary to place an emphasis on joining philanthropic organizations. Once some people get involved in charities, they tell their friends about the work they do, and those friends will be in-cited to get involved as well. In the end, if many people take up charitable causes, then the welfare system will essentially have been privatized. In Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, sums up the power of private charities: “suppose you won $100,000 in a lottery. But there’s a catch. You have to spend it to help the poor. Would you give it to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your state human services agency, or a private charity? Most people would not hesitate to choose a private charity.” As Boaz and the woman at Staples understand, private charities simply spend money more efficiently than bloated, monopolistic, and bu-reaucratic government.

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeWhy aren’t there more people

proactively joiningphilanthropic organizations and donating to those less

fortunate instead of pushing for ineffective governmental

programs?

OLIVIA CONETTA

perhaps giving us temptation to ignore it. As the old adage goes, though, if you find yourself traveling down the wrong path, the sooner you turn around the better. Disproportionate graduate and medical school expansion is only part of the story. Further diluting the resources directed to undergraduates is the University’s extravagant spending on construction. Certainly, the main-tenance of academic buildings is a necessary expenditure. Brown, however, seems to have stretched the definition of necessary. A state-of-the-art aquatics center, likely to be used by the few dozen members of the swim team, a dozen more casual swimmers and the half-dozen swim team fans is the latest of the University’s construction adventures. Recent construction also included the Stephen Robert ’62

Campus Center, the home of Brown’s pool tables and a cam-pus café, and Pembroke Hall, an academic building I have never seen anyone go into. The one prominent academic building recently renovated amounted to

the moving of the structure from one street corner to an-other a block away. Again, there is nothing wrong with con-struction in itself, but profligate spending on construction unrelated to undergraduate, or indeed any, education from aquatic centers to campus cafés denies the undergraduate program improvement it would have achieved had the Uni-versity aligned its spending priorities with its mission. A rising neglect of undergraduate programs is not particular to Brown. Across the nation, universities of Brown’s size have become increasingly bloated with gradu-ate programs and ambitious expansion projects. No statistic makes this clearer than the cost of college compared to the inflation rate: according to the National Center for Educa-tion Statistics, the price of a degree at a four-year private college has outpaced inflation in the last 30 years by 234 percent. Under competitive market conditions, universities would not be able to hike tuition to finance spending not directly beneficial to undergraduates without suffering a sig-nificant drop in demand. But the education market is under the spell of a psychological distortion. From the time a child

It must be something in the air. We all sense that Brown is in a time of transition. This academic year alone has marked the installation of a new provost and the an-

nouncement of the resignation of our beloved president. However, it is a transition long gone unnoticed that de-serves our utmost attention. Brown, like most of its fellow colleges and small universities across the United States, is slowly but steadily morphing into an institution of every-thing-under-the-sun education, spreading its resources among everything from expanded graduate departments to lavish new athletic facilities. The consequence of this indis-criminate approach to higher education is the shortchang-ing of undergraduate education. Brown can and should boast about a strong under-graduate program. The univer-sity consistently ranks highly in undergraduate teaching, likely the best indicator of a robust undergraduate education. Yet recent trends suggest that this high caliber may be difficult to maintain. According to the Office of Institutional Research, Brown’s in-house university statistics team, in the last 10 years graduate enrollment has increased by 479 students and undergraduate by 369. The Alpert Medical School just in-creased the size of its entering class by 20 students upon the completion of its new facility this past summer. However, despite the uptick in student enrollment at all levels (with greater growth at the graduate level), in the last six years the total number of full-time instructional faculty has increased by only 32. These statistics underscore the University’s in-tention to dedicate much of its new resources to graduate and medical students. While there is nothing objectionable about this in itself, nothing comes without trade-offs. The ratio of undergraduate students to instructional faculty in the last six years has risen by roughly a tenth. Brown could have significantly reduced that ratio, bolstering its core strength: the quality of undergraduate teaching. Instead, we have accepted a general model of education that leaves little room for cultivating a specialized core strength. The harm to the undergraduate program seems marginal now,

OLIVER HUDSON

bloated universities bad education, bad economics

12 S education

We have accepted a general model of everything-under-the-sun education that

leaves little room for cultivating a specialized core strength.

13Seducation

mum return to the undergraduate student for the lowest cost. That will mean an undergraduate education focused on the essentials. Like any business, universities ought to prepare for future market conditions. I hope colleges adjust for this coming reality, if not for the sake of undergraduates then out of economic rationale. While the whole higher education system pro-

vides cause for worry, as a proud Brown student, I hope that our school in particular adjusts its recently wayward course. Brown, like any market participant, should produce what suits its comparative ad-vantage. Therefore, forget the

overblown emphasis on research and graduate instruction and at the other extreme a pure liberal arts education. These are best suited to much bigger or much smaller institutions. Let us seriously embrace the notion of the university-col-lege — that is, a place of great undergraduate education with research opportunities afforded by a set of limited graduate programs. Let us not lose sight of the word that made Brown great: the word that follows the hyphen.

is conscious of a thing called a college, he or she is inun-dated with sayings about college being the road to opportu-nity. Whether true or false, this hype artificially maintains a high demand for degrees. Our culture also has come to regard college attendance as a signal of ability, rather than as a place where ability is developed. To paraphrase: getting in counts for more than what you learn while you are there. Taken together, a guaranteed high demand and the custom-er’s (student’s) attitude of less emphasis on the content of an undergraduate curriculum gives colleges no incentive to ensure each student the most bang for his or her buck. Instead, admin-istrators have been able to fund their pet projects with the tuition of unknowing families and students distracted by the allure of owning a degree. As with any bubble, however, there comes a point when people get savvy and sell. Particularly in hard eco-nomic times that do not appear to be vanishing anytime soon, the accelerating cost of college will eventually drive families to become cost-conscious and demand the maxi-

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the price of a degree

at a four-year private college has outpaced inflation in the last 30 years

by 35 percent.

Instead of revonating Pembroke Hall to create an “interdisciplinary research center for the humanities,” should Brown have focused its investment on a particular field?

loan at a “lower” interest rate. Their offer may lower monthly payments slightly, but it also restarts the entire 30-year mortgage process, with the borrower beginning once again by paying the full amount of the interest before any signifi-cant principal is paid. Trapped in this cycle, the homeowner will probably never have sufficient equity in the property that would give him an incentive to stay in the house. Addi-tionally, the four or five percent “low” interest rates are cal-culated on the unpaid balance of the loan per year paid on a monthly basis, and if a borrower fulfills an entire 30-year mortgage contract, he will usually pay twice the sales price to the lender for the home. If you want to solve the problem, especially when you consider that an economic turnaround is probably still

some time off, you certainly are not going to improve the situation by maintaining the “business as usual” approach that has been, in some part, its cause. The existing mortgage paradigm — at least in the case of foreclosed and abandoned

homes — must be changed. First, let us ask why a person would saddle himself with a 30-year mortgage in the first place. The premise at one time was that as home values appreciated, the borrower would make money on that appreciation, even though he would not pay down a significant portion of the loan prin-cipal while he occupied the home. The average five percent yearly increase in home values (from 1980 to 2000) was the norm until housing prices became overinflated, borrowing was overextended and the subsequent crash occurred. So now what? One idea to consider is a flat-rate in-terest program that would incentivize potential buyers to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes. It would work like this: let us say you have a bank-owned home that has an (independently) appraised value of $100,000. Suppose you could get a loan on this property with a flat 30 percent added to the loan for the lending institution on a 15-year term, for a total cost of $130,000. The homeowner could also keep the standard mortgage deduction on the $2,000 paid every year

Atour of the neighborhoods in almost any city or suburb in the country will turn up a house or two where the lawn is unkept, the rain gutters are hang-

ing loose and spiderwebs are being spun in the corners. These are the abandoned and foreclosed homes. Abandoned and foreclosed houses bring down property values in the neighborhoods where they are lo-cated, and since the lack of maintenance and upkeep makes them ever harder to sell, the properties remain perpetually uninhabited. Most people understand how this cycle began: in the early years of the last decade, lending institutions engaged in such poor practices as 100 percent mortgages, lax underwriting procedures and interest-only loans out of a misguided belief that housing prices would inevitably continue to appreciate. Their policies fueled a continuous cy-cle of mortgage financing, refi-nancing, second mortgages and equity lines of credit on inflated home values until, in 2008, the “bottom fell out” and owners began to walk away. Often, the end result is a homeowner who is “upside down” on his mortgage — that is, whose loan payoff amount is higher than the current value of his house. Additionally, even when the homeowner pays on the loan, he does not see a significant reduction in the loan principal for many years and so cannot “get ahead” of this loss of value. In the “inter-est first” structuring of the common 30-year mortgage loan, the principal portion of the monthly payment does not ex-ceed the interest (where it becomes greater than 50 percent of the total payment) until over 16 years into the loan. Under these circumstances, even the most consci-entious and fiscally responsible people will begin to wonder why they are trying to make a mortgage payment. Especially when faced with the added stress of loss of employment, the possible loss of employment or underemployment, they be-gin to perceive — accurately or not — that “the game” is simply rigged against them. So where is the solution? Do not look to mortgage lenders and banks, who simply offer the homeowner a new

PHILIP SHEPHERD

a fix for the housingforeclosure problem

S opinion

A flat-rate interest program wouldincentivize potential buyers to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes and

homeowners to remain in their otherwise “upside-down” houses.

14

15Sopinion

incentive to remain in the house and pay down the loan, knowing that each payment increases his equity in the house. Compare this to the existing mortgage structure, in which a person who has paid on a $100,000 mortgage for five years still owes over $90,000 to the lender because only a small percentage of the payment has been applied to-ward the principal. This cir-cumstance invites an owner to simply tell the lending in-

stitution to take it back and walk away. In the five years that the homeowner has been paying the lender, the lender has made almost pure profit in the form of the interest paid up front, and the homeowner has gained very little. The plan outlined here would surely not be popu-lar with banks and mortgage lenders, and lobbyists for the mortgage industry would have to be worked around before an idea like this could gain traction in Congress. There is also the question of whether the Federal Housing Admin-istration could (or should) be trusted to oversee a program that would actually benefit the buyer instead of the lender. But one thing is certain: given the current quantity of unsold new homes on the market and the uncertainty about future economic conditions, there is very little incentive to buy an abandoned or foreclosed home with only status-quo financ-ing options available. Banks have shown that they will not commit the capital to rehabilitate the abandoned homes on their books in order to make them marketable, and unless the financing system changes to one that benefits the buyer of an abandoned or foreclosed property, these homes will continue to deteriorate and become greater problems for the communities where they are found, bringing down the val-ues of new homes as well.

Philip Shepherd is an outside contributor based in the Seattle area.

to the lender ($30,000 divided by 15 years, or $2,000 per year) for a further incentive to buy a foreclosed home. Thirty percent may sound like a lot of money, but let us see how the numbers work out. A 15-year loan is a 180-month term, and the borrowed amount is $130,000 ($100,000 with $30,000 added for the lender). Divid-ing $130,000 by 180 months yields a monthly payment of $722.22. Using this method, both the monthly payment and the total interest paid would be lower than using the stan-dard 15-year mortgage model when borrowing $100,000 at 5 percent ($790.79, and $42,342.85, respectively), and the borrower would see $555.39 applied to the principal from the first payment on the loan. The buyer would accrue eq-uity more quickly, and after five years of paying on the 15-year loan, he would have 33 percent ($33,000) equity in the home. Now let us suppose, as is the case in the current housing market, that the value of the property did not ap-preciate (or even slightly depreciated) over several years. The owner would likely not be in a circumstance where he would owe more on the home than it was worth, as in five years he would have a payoff amount of $67,000. Even if he could only sell the property for $90,000 ($10,000 less than the original purchase price), he would have accrued $24,000 equity. Even in a down market, he would have a greater

Abandoned homes can ruin neighborhoods. Would you want to live next to this?

simple a preschooler can understand it? Is this an argument about sharing? No, it is an argument about defending eco-nomic liberties for every American. This is why we need to consider restructuring the tax system. Do not be mistaken

— I do not deny that there are greedy people out there, but I am all for wealthy individuals giving to charities and those in need by means of free will and genuine generosity. This is not an argument about welfare; this

is an argument about economic liberties and being able to decide what you want to do with your income. But let us return to the title of this article: do the rich pay their fair share? It all depends on how you define “fair.” Fair simply means equal. Some would say we could have a

But what is fair? The absurdity of the above statement is not evident to enough people, and it is often re-peated by our “brilliant intellectuals.” I cannot tune

into the mainstream media without hearing some expert tell me that the rich have money, that the poor do not, and that therefore we should take more money from the rich. Gosh! That is wonderful analysis. I think I learned sharing in pre-school, too. But is that the cor-rect way to tax the American people? Democrats love the personal liberties of speech, press, assembly, etc., but when it comes to economic liberties, it seems some people are rather selective. Is an argument about taxation worthwhile, or is it so

TOM MARCH

16 S adver tisement

Democrats love the personal liberties of speech, press, assembly, etc., but when it

comes to economic liberties, it seems some people are rather selective.

the rich should pay their fair share

17Sopinion

fair system by making sure the rich, after taxes, earn just as much as the poor, but I hope most of us have already real-ized that socialism is not the answer. We could tax the rich significantly more to make things “fairer.” But this would inevitably require treating people differently, so what’s the definition of “fair,” again? Fairness is achieved when every American is granted the same economic liberties. A man who has a better com-mand of the English language is not limited in his freedom of speech so that an underprivileged speaker has equal op-portunity in this country. A man who is a better writer is not limited in his freedom of press so that bad writers have better odds of getting published. Every American shares the same level of freedom. Likewise, a man who is wealthy should not have the government take more from him and continue to take more from him as he earns more just be-cause he is wealthy. He should not be punished for his ability to earn income — whether or not he was born into wealth. He should be free to earn without the government catego-rizing him as rich or poor. Economic liberty is knowing that the harder he works, the less he is going to be penalized for his hard work. The problem of a progressive income tax is that it diminishes the incentive to progress! Yes, a person can always “earn” more if he works more, but the personal value of additional work is diminished. There comes a time when he will value leisure over additional work, and that is human — but if he is constantly aware that the returns he gets diminish as he does more, then he is going to be wasting time a lot sooner. On the other hand, an incentive to prog-ress shared equally by all Americans is economic liberty. Americans should not be categorized, but we are obsessed with the notion that the rich do not deserve their

$379,150+

UNTAXED INCOME

TAXED INCOME

“progressivity” in the federal tax code: marginal income tax rates on single Americans

retrieved from The Christian Science Monitor onlineretrieved from The New York Daily News online

income. As Ronald Reagan once said, “many people can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.” Should we prevent our great writers from writing more books because they have already written too many and the less accomplished need to write more? Absurd as this may sound, it is an accurate analogy. We can grant collect tax revenue while maintaining economic liberty only by defining a percentage of income that every American, rich or poor, pays in taxes. Only what is called a “flat tax,” in other words, would literally be fair. The flat tax does not take into consideration how much more one earns than another — it only consid-ers what one actually does earn. It is a set percentage taken from one’s income regardless of how much one makes. A 10 percent flat tax on a salary of $100,000 a year is $10,000, and that on a salary of $30,000 is $3,000. This system re-wards greater productivity because both individuals, not being taxed based on each additional income bracket, have a greater incentive to climb the income ladder. More impor-tantly, however, both here enjoy equal equal economic lib-erties. Both are taxed the same percentage; they are treated with equality. Republicans have fought to end over-encumbering, “progressive” taxes again and again. They haven’t fought this fight because they’re logical or fair, though, but because they’re heartlessly greedy. After all, we know what a Repub-lican looks like: he is always super rich, takes advantage of the weaker man, and sends his children to the Ivy League. If the students on our campus were overwhelmingly liberal, you see, I might be tempted to think that fiscal conservatives were just ordinary, rational people with a point.

35%

People across the political spectrum hope to

reform the tax code in the name of fairness.

Occupy Wall Street protestors (left) would

apparently consider it “economic justice” to

increase the progressivity of the tax code. In the

other direction, leading Republican candidates

for president, such as Herman Cain (right) and

Rick Perry, have proposed flat taxes relatively

free of progressivity and special-interest

loopholes. At the heart of this discord is a value

debate: does fairness mean equality of

opportunity and treatment before the law or

inequality thereof for the sake of a preferred

outcome?

RYAN FLEMING

18 S ar ts & style

Last Thursday, an international conservation committee com-prised of several of the world’s

leading environmentalists issued a dire warning: The H1N1 virus is almost ex-tinct. The International Commis-sion for the Conservation of Bacteria and Viruses said in a letter released to the public that at the current rate, the last strain of the H1N1 virus could be extinct by 2015. Not surprisingly, the committee pointed to human activity as the main cause for the declining H1N1 population, which is now at a danger-ously low level. The H1N1 virus, or swine flu, population peaked in the spring of 2010, but since then numerous gov-ernment-supported policies, including nationwide vaccination, have seriously threatened the existence of the virus. The ICCBV warns that losing the virus would be disastrous for the planet and local ecosystems.

Viruses and bacteria are vital parts of any ecosystem, and they are especially necessary in controlling the overpopulation of numerous other species, including humans. As the IC-CBV wrote, “Right now the world is already facing a crisis of human over-population that is putting an incredi-

ble strain on Earth’s natural resources. Viruses such as the swine flu help con-tain the human population, in turn reducing the consumption of natural resources.” Unfortunately, many mis-guided government policies like vac-cination and quarantining have only exacerbated the problem. Beyond gov-ernmental policies, simply careless ac-tions by individuals such as hand wash-ing can harm the reproduction cycle for the swine flu virus. The ICCBV recommends that these policies be immediately reversed and that nations allow the virus to take refuge in the bodies of some of their

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeViruses and bacteria are especially necessary in

controlling the overpopulation of numerous other species,

including humans.

citizens. The H1N1 virus does not have to go the way of the Spanish flu or bu-bonic plague; there is still time to save this valuable part of the ecosystem. John Smith, head of the ICCBV, said in a heartfelt message, “If humans don’t reverse their actions, our children may grow up in a world where they will never be able to hear the coughs of someone stricken with swine flu. As scary as that sounds, that’s the world we’re heading for unless humans and our governments can take environ-mentalism seriously.”

This article is purely fictional and just for fun. All names have been made up.

A world where your children may never see the beauty of the H1N1 virus is fast approaching.

H1N1 virus nears extinction, environmentalists warn

19Sar ts & style

MACLAIN CHRISTIE

I absolutely love this album. Will Wiesenfeld, the artist behind Baths, brings an ingenious new flavor to the

indie electronic music listener’s palette. Baths incorporates a ton of novel sounds and the ingenious use of beat repeats and vocal collage. Not only does the music drive a beat into your soul, it makes you treat each piece as an object of admiration. The sound is dramatic and atmospheric with lots of chopped vocals, syncopated rhythms and manipulated beats. The genre is truly one of a kind: Baths explores a new combi-nation of chillwave, indie pop and IDM. If you like what you hear, also be sure to check out Bibio, Jogger, and Warm Waves.

RATING

Left Cerulean album artwork

Below artist Will Wiesenfeld

Music Review: Cerulean

ALBUM TITLE

ARTIST

LABEL

GENRE

Cerulean

Baths

Anticon

Electronic Pop

LAU

GH

N

OW

cry

late

rca

rtoo

ns p

rovi

ded

by u

sbic

ef

20 S ar ts & style

21Sar ts & style

MUNCHCARD THE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT

winners & losers

This month’s winner is a welcome ad-dition to College Hill: MunchCard.

MunchCard is a wonderful new company founded by Brown students that allows their peers to get dis-counts from many eateries around campus, includ-ing popular eater-ies like Antonio’s, Nice Slice, East

Side Pockets, Froyoworld, and many others. While it isn’t exactly an alter-native to a meal plan, it certainly helps those students who have decided to leave the refuge of the Ratty and ven-ture out into the real world of provid-ing for their own meals. MunchCard is another beautiful example of capitalism at its finest. The creators saw an incred-ibly inefficient system that had a stran-glehold over a large potential customer base, and they began to sell a better product.

The number of students pursuing an eco-nomics degree has increased due to the economy’s poor state. Quite ironically, however, the economics department has not taken this into consideration. Class sizes have been increasing astronomically in the past couple of years (an increase in demand), and instead of hiring a larger number staff (increasing supply), the eco-nomics department has resorted to class caps. Some blame lies with the administra-tion, of course, for failing to shift resources from departments declining in popularity; as any decent economics student could tell you, however, capping is not a solution to scarcity but a recipe for disaster. During these trying eco-nomic times, ideas are essential to the future of global economy. Econo-mists are vital, and this is the time for our economics de-partment to rise to the challenge. By capping classes, Brown is also ef-fectively limiting the freedom of the New Curriculum, and students are left to create their own black market for spaces in some of the most in- demand classes.