Kenyon Observerthe

September 25, 2012

James Neimeister|page 6

Sodexo, a Story:

Kenyon Observerthe

September 25, 2012

Gabriel Rom | page 6

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate political and cUltUral Magazine

At What Cost?

Kenyon at a CrossroadsConrad Jacober | page 10

Kenyon Observerthe

September 25, 2012

The Kenyon ObserverSeptember 25, 2012

From the Editors

Cover Storiesgabriel rom

At What Cost?Balancing Kenyon’s Community Values and Fiscal Constraints

conrad jacober

Kenyon at a CrossroadsA Lost Sense of Community in the Case of Sodexo

fred hill

Panda WarsRising Tensions in Sino-JapaneseRelations

dylan markovic

The Case Against Voting in a Swing StateA Response to the ControversySurrounding Student Involvement in Ohio

harry glass

Upon Closer InvestigationWhy the Romney-Ryan Budget Plan Should Both Frighten and Inspire You

tommy brown

Your Guide to Voting on the Hill

5

6

10

12

14

16

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to- the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to Sarah Kahwash (kah-washs@kenyon.edu) or Gabriel Rom (romg@kenyon.edu).

Cover Art by Nick Nazmi Quotes Compiled by Megan Shaw

Editors-in-Chief Gabriel Rom and Sarah Kahwash

Managing EditorYoni Wilkenfeld

Featured Contributors Harry Glass, Fred Hill,

Conrad Jacober and Gabriel Rom

Content EditorsTommy Brown, Andrew Gabel,

Megan Shaw, Tess Waggoner and Jacob Weiner

Layout/Design Sofia Mandel

IllustrationsPeter Falls

Nick Nazmi

Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann

5

Dear Prospective Reader,

We are pleased to present this issue of the Kenyon Observer to you. Our second issue of the semester tackles one of the most contentious issues on campus: the future of Kenyon’s maintenance staff and its relation to Sodexo, analyzed from two different perspectives by Gabriel Rom and Conrad Jacober, respec-tively. The articles that follow include Dylan Markovic linking campus and community politics by taking a look at the upcoming presidential election from the perspective of a lifelong Ohioan, while on the global level, Fred Hill contemplates Chinese-Japanese geopolitical tensions through the prism of panda wars and Harry Glass trains his eye on the Romney-Ryan budget plan.

We invite our readers to learn about the political currents underlying our community, our nation, and our world; to consider the topics discussed and the views expressed here; and of course, to use that knowledge to form their own opinions on the matters they find most important. It is our hope that our contributors’ words will provoke further contemplation and conversation among peers, professors, and others alike. As always, we welcome letters and full-length submissions, both in response to content and on other topics of interest.

Gabriel Rom and Sarah KahwashEditors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

FROM THE EDITORS

6

GABRIEL ROM

Kenyon’s proposed partnership with an external corporation to manage building and grounds opera-tion demands our attention. Kenyon students are told to investigate and scrutinize the world from afar -- to be conscious citizens -- but how hollow does our edu-cation become if we cannot train our focus on what lies right in front of us? If an equitable solution to the Sodexo controversy is to be found, it will come from suspending judgment and empathizing with narratives not our own. This article will articulate arguments from both sides of the picket line.The Panel

In response to public outrage at the news that Kenyon would be outsourcing maintenance work to Sodexo, the administration formed the Maintenance Management Advisory Panel (MMAP). The panel, made up of Kenyon professors, administrators, trust-ees, students, and one representative of United Elec-trical Local 712, has been charged to “recommend to the administration a plan of action in the best interest of Kenyon.” All options are being discussed within the panel, from outsourcing (either with Sodexo or another entity), outsourcing through a system of phases, to not outsourcing at all. The panel has met with consulting experts, Sodexo officials, union rep-resentatives and others in an attempt to give a com-prehensive and transparent analysis on how Kenyon needs to move in the future.

A distinction must be made between the way in which Kenyon told its maintenance staff that they would no longer be employed by Kenyon, and the merits of the decision itself. It is unconscionable that the panel was only convened after public outrage in the face of a decision many felt strongly opposed to. When asked if the issue of communication failures would be addressed, Larry James Esq., a Kenyon trust-ee and member of the panel, told the Observer “that may not be within our charge...we have to sit down and try to be transparent and open.” When pushed Mr. James stated, “I can say emphatically: communi-cations could have been better handled” adding that there was a “mutuality of failure of communication, from my perspective.”

A full historical inquiry by the MMAP is unrealis-tic. The panel cannot be beholden to past analysis and be bogged down by recrimination. As Mr. James said, “you don’t chase ghosts.” But to ignore the historical context of this decision is to examine it with one eye shut. The committees’ insistence to only look forward comes across as an unwillingness to acknowledge the past; a fear that stones turned over will cause incur-able headaches.

In another MMAP exchange between Dennis Painter, a representative of Kenyon’s skilled trades union, and Mr. James, Mr. Painter claimed that “union members were not aware of problems that the admin-

“If there’s only one answer, then this must not be a very interesting topic.” Ron Jeffries

At What Cost?

BALANCING KENYON’S COMMUNITY VALUES AND FISCALCONSTRAINTS

7

istration may have had at that time, nor are they cur-rently aware of problems” Mr. James responded by asking how Mr. Painter might address the $300,000 Kenyon must pay in contracting services. Mr. Painter questioned the cause of the expenses, while Mr. James responded that based on prior data, “it seems to be that we don’t currently have the expertise needed.” Mr. Painter claimed that he has not yet seen evidence to support such a claim. It goes without saying that relevant evidence must be given to all, ensuring that there is no privileged information, and that the panel maintains its fairness and transparency. The Financial Rationale for Outsourcing

In the past, Kenyon management has dictated where and how maintenance will spend money while main-tenance has raised many objections, which, according to maintenance, have often gone unresolved. Can Ke-nyon save money by implementing a better workflow? Or, are there costs that Kenyon will incur no matter how efficient workflow is -- for example, projects that Kenyon must outsource because of core competency? By partnering with Sodexo, Kenyon would be able to pull most of these contracts under one umbrella, save money and reduce inefficiency.

As Kenyon continues to raise money through capi-tal projects and continues to build more technologi-cally advanced buildings (such as the KAC and Gund Gallery), Kenyon’s maintenance staff will be forced to update and revamp its workflow systems and tech-nologies. For example, the new North Campus Apart-ments utilize geothermal pumps that require extensive expertise to maintain.

According to Mark Kohlman, Kenyon will begin next year with an $800,000 deficit in operating ex-penses. Such a shortfall must be accounted for. In 2004 an outside consultant, Owen Pruden, conducted a Buildings and Grounds Operational Assessment for Kenyon. Mr. Pruden summarized his testimony to the panel saying, “there is no doubt Kenyon can continue with services being provided by our own departments, but we must be willing to invest extra resources.” In short, we can do it, but it’s going to take large amounts of time and capital. No cumulative costs of in-house training have yet been stated by the MMAP.

Outsourcing allows Kenyon to mitigate the costs of internal training as well as offering Kenyon ready-made management systems, expanded preventive capacity, a reduction in outsourcing costs (Kenyon currently spends upwards of $600,000 on single-time outsourcing jobs) and a host of other efficien-cy-boosting benefits. In addition, no current Kenyon employees will lose their jobs nor will their wages and benefits reduced, at least until the expiration of the

recently signed union-negotiating contract, a contract that Sodexo (or any other external entity) must hon-or for two years. When asked if Kenyon employees’ wages could be renegotiated, Mr. James responded saying, “maybe, but you usually don’t see a reduction in salaries.” He emphasized that such a discussion is “premature, premature, and premature.”

Where else do savings from outsourcing come from? Firstly, through Sodexo’s reach. Sodexo has ac-cess to discounts from outside vendors, and a rela-tionship with other schools. Secondly, a two-tier wage model will be implemented, meaning current Kenyon employees will have their wages maintained while new hires will receive less. Currently, GLCA tuition bene-fits will not be included for new hires either, although this is a budgetary issue that could be sorted out at a later date. Thirdly, jobs will be reduced. Sodexo has incorporated an attrition rate into their model for Ke-nyon -- meaning they expect some Kenyon employees to quit, and thus can consolidate job positions.

In a September 19th conversation between panel members Mark Kohlman and Professor Baumann, Mr. Kohlman stated that “Sodexo may have different processes which may not include certain positions”. In response, Professor Baumann asked if “this then shows that the whole burden of cost savings is on labor?” Mr. Kohlman responded by mentioning, “65% of Kenyon’s costs across the entire college are sal-ary and benefits.” Professor Baumann then rephrased, “this comes down to labor.” A Fork in the Road

According to the minutes from a September 19th MMAP meeting a member asked if “we have been ‘asleep at the wheel’, or are we addressing needs as they come up during an audit?” Such a concern was echoed by Professor Baumann, who said, “failure to invest in maintenance change has left us penny wise and pound foolish...it is our own short-sighted deci-sions that we need to correct.” Mr. James, upon hear-ing this statement, responded, “I can tell you [The Ob-server] that the foundation of [Professor Baumann’s] statement is not in the record...I would push back and say to look at the business model from the educational side of it.” When asked if he felt that there was a lack of proper prioritization in the past Mr. James stated that “there is always that fork in the road...it comes to that point where you say ‘okay, we’ve put the decision off as long as we can...we’ve got this window of op-portunity that we now have to move on.” Do we now trust our administration enough to believe they will allocate these resources in a legitimate and efficient manner? How deep does our mistrust of the admin-istration cut?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” Mark Twain

TKO

Is Kenyon a Business?The idea of Kenyon as a business seems repulsive

to some. We often imagine that business and higher education are antithetical to each other. Such an out-look might have some philosophical credence, but in pragmatic terms, the success of Kenyon’s business model is what allows the school to exist.

Kenyon is indeed a community, but we’re an as-tronomically exclusive and expensive one.

The average college tuition is $17,000, while Ke-nyon costs $53,000, without including room and board. To put this in perspective, the median in-come of an American family is $50,000.

There might soon be a day when Kenyon’s tu-ition costs $65,000. A four year education at Kenyon will cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars. As one Kenyon student currently on financial aid stated to the Observer “[Kenyon] students need to get off their high grass-roots political activism horses and realize that in this economy everyone has to make sacrifices...I’m not saying that I agree with the So-dexo corporation but people have seriously overre-acted.”

At what point does outsourcing become legiti-mate? Is there a price at which this idea works? Or on the other hand, was the correlation between high tuition and profligate labor costs, one made by Pres-ident Nugent, just a cynical ploy to deflect criticism and outrage from the community?

The recession has only increased the amount of financial aid requests in recent years. In conjunction, both state and federal aid grants are being reduced, putting more financial responsibility on educational institutions themselves. The savings from outsourc-ing, estimated between $200,000 and $500,000 a year -- in addition to a reduced maintenance budget, could offer increased need and merit based aid to dozens of students per year. Does this then present a false choice – that community members must be locked out in order for others to be let in?

The cost of higher education is an epidemic. The average student graduates with $20,000 in student loans. This is not an imagined scapegoat by the ad-ministration. That is not to say that cost cutting can excuse disrespect and a lack of dignity afforded to our maintenance staff. The way the college handled its initial decision was inexcusable. Are there other ways to cut down on college costs? Absolutely. Ac-cording to a 2009 report from The Chronicle of Higher Education, President Nugent is paid over $500,000. Shared sacrifice rings hollow when those at the top skirt responsibility. According to notes from a Sep-

tember 12 MMAP meeting, Mr. Smith stated “ he has no problem with sacrifices...and would like to think that the whole college would be willing to make sacrifices to keep one group from shouldering the burden.”A Living Fossil

What makes Kenyon a place where Amy Good-man and John Abrams can speak in consecutive years? Where Bill Kristol and E.J. Dionne can stand side by side and argue in front of a crowd of hun-dreds? There is a spirit on this campus that deeply embraces the free exchange of ideas. It is this spirit that gave birth to, and nurtured, the publication I am writing for now. It is this spirit that allows ideas which are wildly out of vogue beyond the Kenyon bubble to find expression in our hallowed halls. And while a partnership with an external corporation might seem to have little direct connection to such a spirit -- the introduction of outside influences add a level of distance between Kenyon and its communi-ty. The financial realities of cost cutting are not lost on me, but the spirit of our school cannot become a bargaining chip.

As one professor put it, Kenyon is a “living fos-sil”, and a delicate one at that. If we move the equi-librium too far in one direction, the fossil crumbles and Kenyon’s spirit becomes sanitized. ‘Open intel-lectual discourse’ becomes a pithy marketing ploy emblazoned on two-page brochures rather than a statement of truth.

It is too early for definitive answers, but the evi-dence thus far shows that Kenyon can meet future challenges without outsourcing. Yet there are also legitimate financial benefits that will be afforded to Kenyon by outsourcing. Both narratives are com-pelling and both must be taken seriously. UE712 will present a workflow plan at the September 29th MMAP meeting. This system, titled the I.A.M. High Performance Work Organizational Partnership, has been credited with solving efficiency problems at major institutions around the world, and economic analyses from MIT and The University of Chicago have shown its effectiveness. The MMAP should afford this plan the seriousness it deserves. Ulti-mately, I believe Larry James got it right when he said that some of the campus debates were simply ‘premature’. I urge all Kenyon community members to follow the MMAP minutes posted on the Ken-yon website, to talk with the maintenance members, and to attend any future public forums. The first of which is tentatively set for October 3rd. The con-versation is not over. TKO

8

“The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.” Linus Pauling

9

Comments? Complaints? Suggestions? Differing

Opinion?Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to

the Editors or full-length article to TKO@kenyon.edu

“Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.” Italian Proverb

On June 5, 2012 the Kenyon Administration an-nounced a decision that affected the entire institu-tion: “UE Local 712 Proposal: The College propos-es to contract out the work currently performed by the unit to Sodexo. Sodexo has assured the college that it will recognize the union should the College contract with Sodexo to perform the work.” This is the exact wording the College used with the heads of the Skilled Trades Union on the first day of contract negotiations.

Prior to this decision, no announcement was made to Kenyon’s faculty, stu-dents, or staff. No member of the Kenyon community was told of a decision to outsource through email, bulletin, or forum. No an-nouncement was made that the college was in financial trouble and needed to cut costs imminently. No member of maintenance was asked where he or she thought money could be saved in the daily opera-tions of maintenance. The administration made no

effort to include the community of this college in a decision that would affect its members. In some institutions, this is normal procedure. Kenyon is not one of those institutions.

To be clear, I am sure the administration was try-ing to act in the best interest of the College when it moved to outsource the Skilled Trades Union and eventually all of maintenance to Sodexo; it was a

decision made in line with these administrators’ vi-sion for Kenyon. But what is their vision for our col-lege and our community? Are we an institution that outsources in the face of a multitude of alternatives? Do we exclude from dis-cussion those who root our institution to the surround-ing area, namely the staff, and in this case, mainte-

nance? Do we only announce significant decisions once students leave campus? Do we aspire to be thriving educational environment for our students, or to rank higher than competing institutions? And

Kenyon at a Crossroads

CONRAD JACOBER

10

“When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.” Abraham Lincoln

A LOST SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN THE CASE OF SODEXO

We vieW oUr WorK not jUst as a job for Which We are paid, bUt as a living rela-tionship to a broader faM-ily of friends, stUdents, staff, and facUlty.

11

does our current model fit our goal, or do we need to tweak it? These are questions we must ask, and we all have the right to take part in answering them It cannot be accepted that the larger community is not involved in decisions of this magnitude, deci-sions that decide the kind of path we are choosing to follow.

Most maintenance workers at Kenyon can list, extensively, ways to save money and improve ser-vices. One member of the Skilled Trades Union who wished to remain anonymous gave me an entire packet, a compilation of the time-wasting activities he had observed and recorded over time. If the ad-ministration had consulted maintenance, the College could have saved a great deal of money and simul-taneously strengthened the bond of the community, rather than create feelings of doubt and insecurity among its members.

Just weeks after the administration’s announce-ment, the leaders of the Trades Union proposed not only new work order system, but an entirely new way to organize staff and management in mainte-nance. The proposal is structured such that the staff and the management would be more integrated, ex-tensive communication and decision-making would be regular practices, and, ultimately, the processes would be performed with greater efficiency and bet-ter service.

The sophistication of these proposals are proof that these people are invested in their work and the community. The members of maintenance care, as stated in the Trades Union’s Middle Path Proposal, “We view our work not just as a job for which we are paid, but as a living relationship to a broader family of friends, students, staff, and faculty.”

Why then was there no conversation with main-tenance or with the community at large? It is not a fluke though; it’s something maintenance has been seeing more of recently, as they stated in their pro-posal: “The union membership has been frustrated by the lack of respect shown to us by management over the past few years. The current poor relation-ship between management and union did not hap-pen in a short period of time. It has been growing and festering for decades.” This gap in communica-tion and deteriorating faith is not the fault of main-tenance, but a problem with the current administra-tion, one that should be addressed immediately.

Upon talking to Professors McCarthy, Urban, and Schortman, as well as many of the members of the union, my impression of deep divide between the

administration and the staff was solidified. I learned that after the first contract negotiation, the Skilled Trades Union felt it was necessary to bring in an outside observer, something rather unprecedented but necessary given the character of the first meet-ing. Professor McCarthy noted the same atmosphere the union members had felt in the first negotiation: an utter lack of camaraderie. On paper, the admin-

istration and maintenance are partners in a common goal: the success of Kenyon College and the achieve-ment of its goals, but this feeling was absent from the aforementioned negotiations. All three profes-sors who attended noted that the maintenance-administration relationship was cold; there was no small talk, no handshakes, nothing of the like. Even the Trades Union felt the divide had sharpened.

This is not the kind of relationship that anyone wants to see at Kenyon. The administration has lost the trust of maintenance workers and many others in the community. It has acted ignorantly and na-ïvely at best, dubious at worst. But it still has the power to turn around and work with the community, with every member of the college to achieve a com-mon vision and greater success. We can open dia-logue—which we have already begun to do as a stu-dent body through mediums like all-student emails and the Thrill—and include every member of the community, practicing the same tenets of democ-racy that we preach in the classroom. These wounds are not permanent, but they do run deep.

It is time that the administration, for its own sake and that of the community at large, to prove its commitment to the entire College. Let’s start talk-ing. Let’s forge stronger relationships. Let’s listen to one another and treat everyone with dignity. Let’s keep Kenyon, Kenyon—a better place for every one of its members. Let’s remember that we are one community.

“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton

TKO

it is tiMe that the adMin-istration, for its oWn saKe and that of the coMMUnity at large, to prove its coM-MitMent to the entire col-lege.

12

FRED HILL

A newborn panda is not an adorable thing, but Chi-na Daily was doing its best when it ran a photo of a Tokyo zoo’s newest addition this past summer. Pandas grow their distinctive black-and-white fur about two weeks after birth. Before then, they are pink, blind and toothless, about as cute and sentient as a sea-cucum-ber.

The panda was two days old when the photo was taken, and had succumbed to pneumonia in Tokyo’s Ueno Zoo, its death inciting friction in Chinese-Japanese relations. The reasons for its passing were couched in no uncertain terms by the strong editorial voice of China Daily: “Chinese zoologists have spent dozens of years developing related technology and skills,” the article ends, quoting an expert in giant pan-das, Wu Kongju. “Our foreign peers should try hard to learn as well in order to raise the survival rate of giant pandas abroad.”

The commentary from Chinese on the web seethes with outrage at the perceived mistreatment of the pan-da, blaming the Japanese for the death of a nationally revered animal. The accusations leveled at Japan range in severity from negligence to murderous spite. One commenter constructed a four-part condemnation of the Japanese, citing their illegal whale-hunting, their aggression towards environmental activists, and the recent death of another Chinese panda in a Japanese zoo. Their final piece of evidence was a somewhat jarring recollection of the “brutalities and atrocities

in WWII…rap[ing] and murder[ing] many innocent Asian women…their whitewashing and denying.” The argument triumphantly concludes that the Japanese “are cruel with deliberative to destroy any offspring born in that nation! China, don’t waste your treasures!”

Clearly, the repercussions of this panda’s death extend beyond comparative standards of zoological care. In this case, the stridency of the comments can be somewhat justified by the mischievous suggestion from Tokyo’s hyper-nationalistic governor Shintaro Ishihara that the baby be named after the Senkaku Is-lands, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea whose disputed ownership has become central to broader Si-no-Japanese geopolitical tensions. The Senkaku, called the Diaoyu in China, are claimed by both China and Japan on the basis of geography and politics. Japan as-serts that the islands were incorporated into their ter-ritory after the 1895 Sino-Japanese war. China cites its long history of fishing nearby the islands as well as the islands being within China’s 200 mile exclusive eco-nomic zone, if you account for the continental shelf.

In the 1970s, the Japanese government, unable to find humans willing to live on the islands, released a herd of goats. The goats have thrived, becoming an enormous feral herd. Nationalist agitators have found the island equally fertile. In 2010, the collision of a Japanese Coast Guard vessel and a Chinese fishing boat caused a wave of anti-Japanese protests across China. The current situation is even more extreme.

“Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.” Wendell Johnson

Panda WarsRISING TENSIONS IN SINO-JAPANESE RELATIONS

13

Recently, the Japanese government purchased and nationalized three of the islands, apparently in order to block private development. Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, calls this purchase “a serious in-fringement of China’s territorial rights, an affront to the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese, and a serious abuse of both historical fact and international law.”

Within China, widespread support was expressed for an ad proclaiming the Chinese rights to the Diaoyu, put in the New York Times by eccentric entrepreneur Chen Guangbiao. “Boss Chen,” known for selling canned air, became an internet hero having “fulfilled his duty as a patriotic entrepreneur, and playing an important role in the fight against Japanese invasion/plunder [of the Diaoyu Islands].”

Taiwan’s further claim on the island complicates the matter and cannot be untangled from the question of its independence. In an odd echo of this panda-nam-ing debacle 2006, China revved up internal publicity for its offer of two pandas to Taiwan by holding a contest to name them. The names chosen were Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan, riffing off the Chinese word for “unity,” a word they wish Taiwan would embrace. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian countered with names that translated as “independence” and “nation-building” and tried to reject what he called “Trojan pandas.” The political implications were significant, as China has declared giving pandas internationally is il-legal, and Taiwan’s accepting the gift would reinforce its status as a Chinese territory.

But Chen’s successor, President Ma Ying-jeou, took the pandas in 2008. His panda compromise indicates a flexibility that Chinese and Japanese politicians lack. Ma’s recent proposal for an East China Sea Peace Ini-tiative would leave behind the question of territorial claims and focus on the possibility of mutually benefi-cial development. The energy potential is insignificant compared to the contested areas in the South China Sea. The two countries’ objectives are distinct, though: China is attracted to the area’s strategic location near several cities with high energy demand, while Japan, with few resources of its own, is willing to take any-thing. Furthermore, the way energy development is-sues are resolved may indicate the turn of events else-where.

In 2008, Japan and China put a “principled con-sensus” into place, outlining plans for a joint develop-ment zone and tentative negotiations toward a treaty. But the consensus was essentially a gentleman’s agree-ment, reliant on the two nations’ goodwill. Since that time, with the 2010 collision of a Chinese fishing boat

with a Japanese coast guard and the current island pur-chases, relations have moved from sulky courtesy to open hostility. It’s unlikely that Japan and China will cooperate in developing this zone, but there are more troubling implications. Antagonistic nationalism has seized both countries, and in China, it seems like a manifestation of a coherent and deeply-rooted enmity rather than the result of recent events.

Popular Chinese indignation at the aggression of the “cruel, barbaric” Japanese people is also directed internally, at the passivity of the Chinese government. Some have speculated anti-Japanese sentiments have been exacerbated by the Chinese government as dis-traction from more valid economic and political issues. They may have created a monster outside of their con-trol, as their state police force clashes with protesters. If, on the other hand, this is the public’s spontaneous reaction, the state, at this transitional moment, must

decide whether to pander to it or not. The Internet unrest stemming from a baby panda’s

late-summer death has spilled out into an autumn of real-world anti-Japanese riots, protests and boy-cotts. In 1972, a gift of two giant pandas from China to America signified China’s new receptivity to eco-nomic cooperation with the West. The death of this baby panda could invert the symbol: China allowing nationalistic resentment to sabotage economic growth and access to new energy sources. The Internet com-mentary on the picture featured by China Daily warns of the enduring power of an image of Chinese victim-hood.

“In archaeology you uncover the unknown. In diplomacy you cover the known.” Thomas Pickering

TKO

Please indulge me over the next few paragraphs as I lay out an argument that will make me popular with very few people and will convince almost no one to change their minds: I do not believe you should vote in my state. Before I begin, let me clarify: this argument is directed primarily at Ke-nyon students who leave their home states to come to Ohio and attend col-lege, and while there, feel entitled to vote as an Ohio citizen.

Most everyday of the year, I wake up in the state of Ohio. Parts of my family have lived here for over 100 years. I took my first steps in Ohio, and when I was a year old, I put my face through my birthday cake in Ohio. My brother attends the same Ohio public schools that I graduated from. This

state is where my roots lie, which is not to say that I am more qualified than other Ohioans to vote be-cause I was born and raised here, only that I think I have legitimate standing in the case that has been

brewing in the Kenyon Collegian (more specifi-cally, in the article by Janie Simonton ’15), all-student emails, and other forums lately with regard to voting in this state.

I will not mince words: if you do not live in Ohio,

I do not feel that you have the right to vote here. Furthermore, I am not sure it is even responsible for you to do so. Many will object that as students who inhabit the state for six or seven months per year, they do live in Ohio, and that is well and good. I wonder, though, even if you reside here most of the year, do you really live in Ohio? When you meet

Why You Should Not Vote in Ohio

DYLAN MARKOVIC

14

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” George Bernard Shaw

A RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN OHIO

i Will not Mince Words: if yoU do not live in ohio, i do not feel that yoU have the right to vote here.

“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion thatmore than half of the people are right more than half of the time.” E. B. White

someone new, where do you say you come from? Are you from Boston? New York? Los Angeles? Or, faithful citizen of Ohio that you are, do you say “I am from Gambier”? The parents that likely pay some or all of your tuition, clothe you, and feed you: do they live in Ohio? It seems to me that anyone who still claims status as a dependent for tax purposes would have a difficult time justifying the claim that they are a citizen of a different state than their parents.

You may argue Kenyon students pay taxes, both through their paychecks and on their purchases, and this is not without merit. But should the right to vote be predicated solely on the payment of tax-es? If that is the case, here is a proposition for you: bring me a stamped envelope addressed to your state treasurer’s office, and I will send them a check so that I can vote where you live, just like you can vote where I live. In my vast experience working minimum wage jobs in Ohio, I can personally at-test that the state takes very little of my paycheck anyway, and that many of the taxes you pay as a student employee are federal taxes (with the excep-tion of federal work-study participants).

Ohio is a fundamentally different place than where many Kenyon students come from, and, at the risk of inciting class-warfare, I have to say that many, but certainly not all, Kenyon students come from backgrounds which make it difficult to sym-pathize, not empathize, with the blue-collar charac-ter of Ohio. That does not preclude someone from having good intentions, but it surely makes it dif-ficult for him or her to understand the state and its people. I live in the Midwest, the heartland, the breadbasket, which, with all due respect, is not any-where near either of the coasts. As much as we as Americans should have a spirit of unity and togeth-erness, the fact remains that the 50 states are often worlds apart. Even intrastate differences can often be stark: Gambier is much different than Cleve-land, than Akron, than Orrville.

I resent that many non-native Ohioans feel that they have the right to choose the state represen-tatives, representatives, judges, executives, gover-nors, and other officials that govern my state, my family, my neighbors, and my friends, when they are not subject to their governance in the same re-spects. A student who votes for an Ohio senator

this year will be long gone from Kenyon before his or her term is complete, unless they decide to settle here. Frankly, I do not think you understand what it means to live here, but why should you? What does the closing of the Hoover plant in North Can-

ton mean to you? What is your opinion of the way Ohio funds its public education system? How did you feel when Lerner moved the Browns to Balti-more in 1995 (an issue which was very political for the city of Cleveland, rest assured)?

Esteemed liberal professors, staff, and students who take to the various debate forums: please do not assert an out-of-state voter’s right to vote in Ohio on principle, as though you are seeking to advance some sort of bi-partisan, get-out-the-vote effort. Even as a friend of most liberal causes, it seems to me very disingenuous for you to encour-age students to vote, as though the same could be expected if the student body were differently in-clined.

Now that I have surely offended most of you, let me impart a secret: while I do not think it is the right thing to do, I am glad you vote in my state. Everyone knows Ohio is a crucial state in the presi-dential election, and of course I support the Mount Vernon levy, just two issues which face Ohioans at the polls this November. This is a very consequen-tial view of things, however, and I am not entirely sure that the means of voting as a non-Ohio citizen are justified by the ends of getting the policies and candidates I want.

Whereas so many others seem to want to sup-press your vote this election season, I feel the op-posite way: I exhort you to vote. I only hope that you to do it in a meaningful way. “Home is where the heart is,” the saying goes. For me, home has always been Ohio. Where is yours?

15

TKO

as MUch as We as aMericans shoUld have a spirit of Unity and togetherness, the fact reMains that the 50 states are often Worlds apart.

When Governor Mitt Romney selected Congress-man Paul Ryan as his running mate, both parties saw an opportunity to have a substantive conversa-tion on their respective ideas about an economic road-map and role of government. Still, as of yet, neither seems particularly intent on outlining spe-cifics of their plans, prob-ably because—as Romney discovered earlier in the campaign—white boards, felt tip markers, and wonki-ness do not resonate with voters. This article will take a closer look at some of the specifics of the Romney-Ryan budget.

The Romney-Ryan plan proposes to cut spending by 5 trillion dollars, sim-plify the tax code by reducing loopholes and ex-emptions, reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, cut taxes across the board, bring down the size of the government, increase defense spending, and repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This should seem reasonable—except, of course,

to supporters of the ACA.But perhaps the more important problem with

the budget plan is that it remains vague on some rather key points, leaving it unclear what exactly Romney-Ryan budget plan proposes to do all of the above at once. What exactly this simplified, min-

imal-loophole tax code will look like?

One way to achieve the plan’s debt reduction while simultaneously cutting tax rates would be to close cer-tain tax deductions; this would, however, raise some Americans’ taxes substan-tially.

Alternatively, the cost of lowering tax rates could be passed on to the govern-ment—in other words, it could be paid for by deci-mating spending. Infrastructure, education, nation-al parks, assistance for veterans, assistance for the poor, assistance for the hungry, foreign aid, defense spending, investments in technological and medical research—all of these programs would have to be

Upon Closer Investigation

HARRY GLASS

16

“Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.” Jerry Seinfeld

WHY THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET PLAN SHOULD BOTH FRIGHTEN AND INTRIGUE YOU

cUtting relief for the poor does not save Money; contrary to popUlar be-lief, sUch practices cost Money.

WHY THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET PLAN SHOULD BOTH FRIGHTEN AND INTRIGUE YOU

cut substantially. Government health care for the poor would be halved by 2050.

In light of this laundry list of victims, the Rom-ney-Ryan plan does not seem as attractive. Especial-ly today, when the most lucrative jobs are reserved for those with undergraduate or graduate degrees, America should be investing as much as possible in education.

In addition, cutting relief for the poor does not save money; contrary to popular belief, such prac-tices cost money. As noted in the Washington Post by Dennis Culhane, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice and director of research for the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, homelessness works on a power-law distribution curve. This means that, despite our assumptions about how many people are chronically homeless, most home-less people are only homeless for one day. The next most common duration of homelessness: two days. It is only a small majority of the homeless, the poor, and others who who are chronically destitute. And chronically homeless people are less likely to be able to afford their medical costs, which are usu-ally several times higher than an average person’s. All of their medical burdens get pushed onto the taxpayers.

After crunching the numbers, Professor Culhane and Philip Mangano, the Bush-appointed executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Home-lessness, have both found that it is cheaper to pro-vide the chronically destitute with their own homes and basic care and to monitor them thereafter, than to create a revolving-door system of medical cov-erage. Reducing relief for the poor and homeless while also eliminating the more expansive health care plan would not only be morally questionable, but also a financially disastrous.

Beyond that, the Romney-Ryan budget proposal makes the claim that by “voucherizing” Medicare and passing it off to private insurance companies, their plan would give patients more control and thus drive cost down through competition. But this simplified theory of capitalism has been proven in-applicable to health care. Unlike other markets that bring together consumers (in this case the patient) and producers (the insurance company), the insur-

ance company does more than sell a product; it acts as a personal financial advocate and risk assessment agency. This fact seriously complicates the “more competition is good” style of thinking. This is pre-cisely why the United States have the most priva-tized health care system in the modern Western world, and yet spend the most on health care out of any industrialized nation.

Henry Aaron, one of the forefathers for the phi-losophy behind the Romney-Ryan’s proposed sys-tem of voucher care (sometimes better known as “premium support”) insists that this type of medi-cal coverage would require an informed consumer and a well-regulated system. The first of Aaron’s assumptions calls into question the adaptability of this system to those perhaps most susceptible to cognitive problems - senior citizens. The second forces us to consider whether this system should be implemented by this Congress, since the Repub-lican legislators seem opposed to any regulation whatsoever. Aaron now cites the failure of both as-sumptions as his reason for advocating against the voucher system.

Upon closer inspection, the still loosely defined Romney-Ryan budget is not only morally unsound for America—with its gross spending cuts to neces-sary government programs and its ill-informed revi-sion of Medicare—but it is bad economic policy to boot. Nevertheless, its opponents should not dis-miss it altogether. Medicare will inevitably go bank-rupt. Simply putting this issue off and finding new ways to extend the program by 5 or 8 years at a time will not suffice. In addition, the tax code needs sim-plifying as its complexity is only hurting American business. There are too many tax exemptions, give-aways, loopholes and rebates. Marginal tax rates for businesses across the board are some of the highest in the world, adversely affecting U.S. competitive-ness in a global economy.

For all its faults, the Romney-Ryan budget does acknowledge several issues that are too often being dodged, and remain unanswered in today’s society. Although it attempts to address several problems that have been avoided by both sides, namely en-titlements, the Romney-Ryan solution is imperfect, and the importance of these issues merits a contin-ued search for an improved plan.

17

TKO

“The end of the law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” John Locke

TOMMY BROWN

How to Register:• Google “Ohio voter registration form”

– the first link is the Secretary of State’s form to register.

• To find your dorm’s address, go to http://tinyurl.com/4fmm3k6 and put this under “House Number and Street” on the form.

• Put your PO Box in the “Additional Mailing Address.”

• Mail to: Knox County Board of Elec-tions, 117 E. High St., Suite 210, Mt. Vernon, OH 43050 OR give it to a stu-dent organization or campaign running voter registration drives to turn it in.

Things to know:• You must update your registration every

year, and be registered 30 days prior to the election—you cannot register at the polls.

• You are eligible to vote in Ohio even if you’re already registered elsewhere.

• Early voting is the easiest, fastest and safest way to vote. In order to vote early:

• Bring your photo ID and the last four digits of your Social Security Number to the Knox County Board of Elections (117 E. High St., Suite 210 in Mt. Ver-non) on or after Oct 2.

• Hours: M-F, Oct. 2-19,8:00am-5:00pm, Oct. 22-Nov. 2, 8:00am-7:00pm.

Until the election, the Observer will continue to provide information about voter registration.

Your Guide to Voting in Ohio

Illustration by Peter FallsRomney 2012: A Self-Defeating Campaign