Kenyon Observerthe

January 2012

Gabriel Rom|page 8

Who WasAnwar Al-Aulaqi?

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate political and cUltUral Magazine

Kenyon Observerthe

January 2012

Cover Art by Larry Miller (Creative Commons Liscense) Quotes from brainyquote.comAll Images Used Under Creative Commons Liscenses

The Kenyon ObserverJanuary 2012

From the Editors

Cover Storygabriel rom

Who Was Anwar Al-Aulaqi?

letters to the editors

Professor Mood Responds to “Faculty to Students: ‘Vote my way’” (December 2011) alexander variano Fed Up With Peirce? The Case for Liberalizing Kenyon’s Meal Plan

tess waggoner

A State of Denial Candidates, Consequences, and the Road to Peace

5

8

6

7

10

12

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 Jon Green (greenj@ken- yon.edu) or Gabriel Rom (romg@kenyon.edu).

jacob smith

Health Insurance Reform and YouStudents Stand to Benefit from Obamacare

14

Cover Art by Nick Nazmi Quotes from brainyquote.comAll Images Used Under Creative Commons Liscenses

Editors-in-Chief Jonathan Green and Gabriel Rom

Featured Contributors Jacob Smith, Alexander Variano

and Tess Waggoner

Contributors Yoni Wilkenfeld, Tommy Brown,

Richard Pera, Matt Hershey

Layout/Design Will Ahrens

Illustrator Nick Nazmi

Faculty Advisor Pamela K. Jensen

jon green An Independent Look at Hazing on Campus

“You can only be free if I am free.” Clarence Darrow

5

Dear Prospective Reader,

Following our first publication in over three years, The Kenyon Observer is pleased to give you our first issue of the new semester. Keeping with our mission to offer pan-ideological commentary on a variety of topics, this issue offers a variety of perspectives on the presidential campaign, domestic policy, foreign policy, and Kenyon’s own policies.

Looking outward in this issue Tess Waggoner outlines problems with the Republican presidential candi-dates’ portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jacob Smith explains what the passage of Health Insurance Reform means for college students, and Gabriel Rom comments on the assassination of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Looking inward to Kenyon’s campus in this issue, Alexander Variano offers an idea for reforming the meal plan and Jon Green assesses students’ reactions to the college’s hazing policy.

We invite our readers to agree, disagree, and engage with our contributors in this issue. It is our hope that the commentary provided here will provoke thought and conversation away from these pages. As always, we invite letters and full-length submissions either in response to content in this issue or on other topics of interest.

The Kenyon Observer also notes that this is our first publication since the tragic passing of Kathryn Cur-rier ’15. Our thoughts are with her friends and family.

Your Editors,

Gabriel Rom and Jonathan Green Editors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

FROM THE EDITORS

6

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” Upton Sinclair

To the Editors:

Richard Pera wrote a piece, “Faculty to Students: ‘Vote my way’” in the last Kenyon Observer. As a politi-cal scientist, I am pleased that a student is engaged in the issues of rights, free speech, campaigning, elections and voting. As the Treasurer of the Po-litical Action Committee in question, The Concerned MVCSD Citizens, I solicited involvement from the community using the voluntary online discussion and distribution lists, allemp and allstu. Mr. Pera ques-tions this use, and raises some interesting issues with regards to power and influence imbalances between faculty and students, broadening his concerns to in-clude a wide mix of pre-election faculty behavior he evaluated as problematic. While he and I may dis-agree in many ways, such student interest in commu-nity issues is welcome, particularly for such deserv-

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

Comments? Complaints? Differing Opinion?

Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to

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

ing and interesting topics. Perhaps the Center for the Study of American Democracy could be approached by interested students to help coordinate careful, bal-anced community consideration of such issues. With regards to Mr. Pera’s specific conclusion that my use of allstu was “unethical” and “egregious, if not an outright violation of school policy,” I would suggest that he contact LBIS with his concerns, as current guidelines permit such use.

Michelle S. MoodAssistant Professor, Political Science and Asian Studies

Hopefully you enjoyed some good food over winter break, whether in the comforts of your mother’s kitchen or at a local favorite with some friends. If you partook in the latter, maybe your friends from other colleges talked about the culi-nary options offered by their school or its location.

Even if they grumbled about the grub served in one college cafeteria, they likely enjoyed the option to eat in another dining hall or at an off-campus es-tablishment. Almost all college students in America today are empowered to choose where, when and what they eat, and enjoy high standards of qual-ity and variety as institutions of higher education devise inventive meal plans and nearby competitors offer compelling alternatives.

But Kenyon students lack comparable freedom because the school remains committed to an anti-quated meal plan that virtually eliminates individ-ual choice when it comes to dining options, and therefore the incentive to produce appealing food, too. Comprehensive meal plan reform would fast improve the quality, variety and value of dining op-tions for Kenyon students.

An unusual characteristic of the meal plan is the student body’s requirement to buy it. For 2011-2012, all students must pay a $2,755 board charge per semester (unless they can sufficiently demon-strate a gluten allergy). In addition to mandating over $5,500 in costs to students, the college is fur-ther restrictive in offering Peirce Servery as the only location to eat.

This makes Kenyon atypical of its peers: most schools do not require students to purchase the of-ficial meal plan, or perhaps if they do, they offer a variety of options that allow students more control over where, when and what they eat. For students living in apartments, it may be sensible to eschew a

meal plan and encourage their parents to pay them the equivalent value in cash, promising to buy gro-ceries to cook at home (though maybe in reality running up the tab at the nearest bar).

In other words, Kenyon is unique in forcing stu-dents to buy a meal plan for a single dining location that offers a lackluster selection. Even if you ap-preciate efforts to provide quality local granola and yogurt, or if the highlight of your week is the un-expected surprise of a burger blowout, Peirce food is seldom lauded for high quality. Unfortunate as this is, it is hardly surprising: with the food service provider secure in a multiyear contract (though renegotiation is currently pending for renewal of AVI Foodystems’ present contract) and the college awash in mandatory board fees, lack of competition for students’ food dollars is the obvious source of culinary malaise on this campus.

If Kenyon simply stopped mandating that stu-dents pay board fees to eat in Pierce, the school would make the first great step in the journey to-wards freer dining in Gambier. Students could de-posit cash on their KCards and simply swipe when they enter Peirce if they remain satisfied with the convenience and variety of AVI’s offerings; alter-natively, they could enjoy a quarter-pound chuck at the Deli, or shop for groceries at the Market to cook for themselves in their apartments. It’s possi-ble little would change if Kenyon students are truly happy with the current state of affairs, perhaps only marginally adjusting their behavior to indulge in an occasional ice latte at Middle Ground. But common sentiment about the quality of food on campus and simple consumer choice theory suggest that the freedom resulting from meal plan reform would only ameliorate the Kenyon dining experi-ence.

ALEXANDER VARIANO

7

“Everything the government touches turns to crap.” Ringo Starr

Fed Up With Peirce? THE CASE FOR LIBERALIZING KENYON’S MEAL PLAN

TKO

The killing of U.S. citizens by their government is always a very serious event. And when such a killing is done without the exercise of the victim’s constitutionally guaranteed legal rights, it is arguably the most extreme exercise of the powers delegated by the public to their elected officials.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen and purported al-Qaeda leader, was killed in a U.S. drone attack more than six months ago, yet the legality of his killing still remains a vexing question. While the once ferocious debate has now died down, and the media cycle has moved on to the presidential race, this issue deserves continued ex-amination. The central question in this debate is whether the President has the authority to kill an American citizen with-out due process, and whether Aulaqi represented an exception to this Constitutional right. In this article I will attempt to analyze both the arguments for and against the assassination of Aulaqi.

Who Anwar Al-Aulaqi really was, and what role, if any, he played in Al Qaeda remains a hotly debated topic. The Obama Administration asserts that he played an active role in planning and executing terrorist attacks against America and thus consti-tuted an ‘imminent threat’ that needed to be neutralized. Gov-ernment officials have claimed that “Aulaqi is no mere messen-ger, but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities.”

Yet, on the condition on anonymity, other officials within the Administration have expressed skepticism about their knowledge of Aulaqi’s role in Al Qaeda, admitting that “intel-ligence purporting to show Aulaqi’s hands-on role in plotting

attacks was patchy.” Many experts on Yemen, Al-Qaeda and international terrorism echo this skepticism. When probed, the Administration has used the State Secrets Privilege to justify its position that releasing evidence to strengthen the case against Aulaqi would put sources and civilian lives at risk, thereby ef-fectively excluding any legal adjudication on the attack.

The government claims that Aulaqi’s case is extraordinary and that legal precedent does not take into account the global nature of his influence nor his prior communication and in-

volvement with terrorist organi-zations. Defenders of the attack cite a number of cases in which Aulaqi’s teachings acted as the in-spiration for terrorists to plot and carry out attacks as well as evidence that paints Aulaqi as an operational figure in Al-Qaeda. They argue

that Aulaqi’s propaganda itself posed an imminent threat to the United States, in addition to his operational role.

Proponents of the attack also state that due process is not a constitutional guarantee: In scenarios where actors present a clear and imminent threat, force is permitted as a last resort. Ac-cording to terrorism scholar Benjamin Wittes, what is required of the government is “a strong preference for the capture...and the exhaustion of reasonable options for a conventional trial or for military detention with appropriate habeas review.” Is this scenario applicable to the Aulaqi case? Had all options been exhausted? Was his killing indeed a last resort? These questions hinge on what type of war the U.S. is engaged in against Al-Qa-eda. Are we facing a permanent threat of an imminent attack, or do we only have the right to attack when we can produce evi-

Who Was Anwar Al-Aulaqi?

GABRIEL ROM

8

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” Charles de Gaulle

the adMinistration has Used the state secrets privi-lege to jUstify its position

dence that Al-Qaeda, and specifically Anwar Aulaqi, are actively planning an operation?

Aulaqi inspired or communicated directly with more than ten separate individuals convicted on terrorism charges since July 2009. Notable among these are the Ford Hood Shooter Nidal Malik Hassan, The Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shazad, and numerous others. There is also evidence that Aulaqi gave his personal blessings to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Un-derpants Bomber, who if successful, would have blown up a packed Boeing 747. In May 2010, Roshonara Choudhry a for-mer student at King’s College, London stabbed British Labour MP Stephen Timms. In subsequent interviews she referred to Aulaqi as her ‘main inspiration’.

At the time that the White House released the information that Aulaqi was on the U.S. kill list there was evidence connect-ing Aulaqi with Abdulmutallab in the planning of a bomb plot. In emails between Abdulmutallab’s brother Karim and a figure named the ‘Prof ’, who is suspected of being Aulaqi, the two discussed the plot: ‘‘Our highest priority is the US. Anything there...So the question is: with the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?” There is no corroborating evidence that the Prof is Aulaqi, but this what the government claims. Besides this dubious email, there is no evidence in the public domain that Aulaqi was operational in Al Qaeda.

The government also asserts that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had pledged an oath of loyalty to AQAP emir Nasir al-Wahishi and had facilitated training camps in Yemen. The government has never provided credible evidence for this claim, nor has it ever made its case in court. While there are several strong arguments to support the government’s action against Aulaqi, its contin-ued refusal to release any evidence leads to a strong suspicion that their arguments are predicated on assumptions rather than facts. In a case as important as this, does the public not have a right to know how and why the American government killed one of its own citizens? While there is no doubt that Aulaqi was a threat, the central, unanswered question remains: Was he a mere propagandist or an active warrior?

This distinction is hugely important and the proper place for its resolution is a court of law. Yet in the Aulaqi case the Obama Administration has uniformly refused any adjudication of their actions by invoking the state secrets privilege that has effectively closed any and all public discussion on the legality of the Aulaqi assassination. Consequently, in view of the govern-ment’s continued refusal to release even redacted information to substantiate their action it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are either lying about his role in Al-Qaeda and killed him for his propagandizing, or they are truly sitting on a trove of damning evidence.

In response to the government’s claims Aulaqi’s defenders assert that as an American citizen, his speech, no matter how despicable and hateful it might be, is protected under the Con-stitution. If the government has no actual evidence of Aulaqi’s operational role in Al-Qaeda and killed him simply because of his propaganda then this raises serious first amendment issues. Voltaire’s famous quote in which he states ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’ is more than a pithy slogan, it is an American ideal that our nation is supposed to honor in both word and deed.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Bran-denburg v. Ohio overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader calling for the deaths of public officials. This case makes a strong legal argument that Aulaqi’s speech, while demagogic, is still protected. In another case, Clairborne v. NCCAP, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that those who give fi-ery speeches are not held liable for any criminal acts inspired by their speech. Is rhetorical support for terrorism protected speech? If so, is that only what Aulaqi was guilty of? Does Au-laqi’s case constitute an exception to this right?

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on be-half of Aulaqi’s father attempted to address these thorny ques-tions. Yet the court rejected the lawsuit not based on any legal argument but on the fact that they did not have the authority to rule on the legality of the assassination. In an example of logic so circular that it could only be thought up by the government, the Obama Administration states that the lawsuit must be dis-missed because the evidence needed to make a case against it is and will remain classified.

Thus, in the final analysis, the relevant claims hinge on the public’s trust in the government. As citizens, many of whom are pleased that Aulaqi is gone, we ache to see evidence that can assuage our fears of a government seriously abusing its powers. Why such insistence on secrecy? Is there a political motive be-hind the Obama Administration’s repeated invocations of the state secrets privilege? Is it to boost his foreign policy creden-tials, legality and due process be damned? In the American legal system the onus of responsibility is put on the accuser not the accused. The case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi is a bastardization of the American legal process because there was never even the pretense of a process to begin with.

1 http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/revelations-from-the-underwear-bomber-trial/

2

3 http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/on-due-process-and-targeting-citizens/

4 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845982-labour-mp-knifer-inspired-by-al-qaeda-bomb-plot-cleric

5

9

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao Zedong

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/today-today_news/t/secret-panel-can-put-americans-kill-list/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8880903.Excerpts_from_Rajib_Karim_terror_plot_messages/?ref=rss

TKO

In an interview with The Jewish Channel last month, Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gin-grich described the Palestinian people as “invent-ed.” When questioned during a presidential debate a few days later, Gingrich continued to make mis-leading remarks, including “The word ‘Palestinian’ did not become a common term until after 1977,” in-sinuating that Palestinian schools foster terrorism.

These statements are untenable and reflect long-standing falsehoods propa-gated since the founding of the state of Israel. In the early twentieth century, approximately 93% of the land that makes up modern day Israel was inhab-ited by Palestinian Arabs. In fact, when a delegation of Viennese rabbis were sent to Palestine to inves-tigate the possibility of establishing a Jewish state there, they wrote back to Theodore Herzl, saying, “the bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.” Since then, the bride has been involved in a dangerous affair with the United States failing in their self-appointed role as marriage counselor.

The distinction between Palestinians and other Arabs of the Levant region is demonstrable through

several cultural mediums including food, dance, mu-sic, embroidery, jewelry, and more. The preservation and documentation of Palestinian identity, notably through photography collections, Traditional Pales-tinian Costume: Origins and Evolution by Hanan Karaman Munayyer, and the work of cultural or-

ganizations authenticate Palestinian claims to au-tonomy and identity. Legal documentation, including pre-Ottoman land deeds, further demonstrates this reality. The Balfour Dec-laration itself, a 1917 let-ter which paved the way for the formation of the modern-day state of Israel,

acknowledges “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” However, since the late 19th century there has been consistent and indefensible rhetoric suggesting otherwise.

Gingrich is not alone in providing a bevy of antagonistic comments on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The day before the Iowa caucuses, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum echoed Gin-grich, telling a young voter that “there is no ‘Pales-tinian,’” saying that the residents of the Occupied West Bank are in fact Israeli. Ironically, if this were

TESS WAGGONER

10

A State of Denial CANDIDATES, CONSEQUENCES, AND THE ROAD TO PEACE

these stateMents are Un-tenable and reflect long-standing falsehoods propa-gated since the foUnding of the state of israel.

“When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.” Friedrich Hayek

true, it would reflect what is known as the one-state solution, in which the Occupied Territories are ab-sorbed into the State of Israel and residents are given equal voting rights. Such an act would funda-mentally restructure the Israeli “democracy,” almost certainly not in the way Santorum envisions. Texas Governor Rick Perry and House Resolution 1006 have argued that Jerusalem should be the sole capital of Israel. Front-runner Mitt Romney has threatened to end aid to Palestinians if they pursue statehood via the United Nations, similar to House Resolu-tions 2457, 1501, 2261 and 1475. Before withdrawing from the race, candidates Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, made news for offensive comments about the Islamic faith, the legal status of Jerusalem, and right of return (or lack thereof) for Palestinians, respectively.

The alignment of many current GOP candidates with such revisionist his-tory dangerously damages perceptions of America abroad and inhibits its ability to negotiate for Middle East peace. Many in the international community already disregard the United States as an impartial arbiter of the conflict, and the 23 standing ovations Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received during an address to the U.S. Congress last May leave little doubt as to why. In an “Arab Attitudes” poll conducted by the Arab American Institute in 2011, Arabs in Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Lebanon ranked “occupation of Palestinian lands” as one of their top two obstacles when asked to identify “the greatest [one] to peace and stability in the Middle East.” The Obama Administration’s cow-towing to Israeli demands likely contributed to overwhelming Arab dissatisfaction with their “handling of the Pal-estinian issue,” yet it ranked as the most important issue through which Americans could improve their relations with the Arab World. Continuous denial of Palestinian agency, as reflected in recent cam-paign remarks, damages the United States image and role in the international community, affecting

our security and stability as a nation. The effects of xenophobic, anti-Islamic, and blind

pro-Israeli campaign messaging and legislation are felt domestically as well. In a December 16 Boston Globe editorial, former Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) described Gingrich’s remarks: “His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slan-der, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.” This theme is reflected in public outcry over the Park 51 project in Manhattan, (known in

the media as “the Ground Zero mosque”) and more recently was demonstrated through major companies pulling their advertising, en masse, from TLC’s reality show “All American Mus-lim” in response to pressure from hate groups. To me, the most troubling conclu-sion one may draw from the flurry of misinformation propagated by politicians is this: the comments not a reflection of candidates’

individual views, but rather are deliberate attempts to connect with voters. Pandering to constituencies is inevitable, but it is irresponsible when it coordi-nated bigotry of this ilk contributes to a climate of fear and suspicion of American citizens. Just last month, a University of Illinois law professor of Sri Lankan descent was brutally attacked in a bus station. His attacker mistakenly believed his victim was “Middle Eastern,” reportedly yelling, “this is my country” before jumping the victim and slashing his throat.

In a land built on religious freedom, tolerance, and plurality, GOP presidential candidates seem instead to be adopting a deeply un-American cam-paign strategy: discrimination and fear-mongering. Such a tactic will not lead to peace and security at home or in the Holy Land. Instead of embracing the status quo and digging heels into a process that continuously falters, GOP candidates and lawmak-ers alike should consider a wholly new approach: one that favors tolerance, relies on historical fact, and seeks to build trust, rather than sow fear.

11

Any president that lies to the American people should have to resign. – Bill Clinton

the alignMent of Many cUrrent gop candidates with sUch revisionist his-tory dangeroUsly daMag-es perceptions of aMerica abroad and inhibits its abil-ity to negotiate for Mid-dle east peace.

TKO

The discussion of hazing at Kenyon has broken down into two camps: students who pine for the Col-lege to treat them like adults by respecting their free-dom to do as they please within their organization and administrators who prioritize students’ safety and the College’s protection from liability over such concerns. The result is an official zero-tolerance policy that is for the most part ignored by student organizations “because, I mean, come ON bro, seri-ously?” If the students were willing to admit that their first-years did not knowingly sign up for some of the more dangerous “value-imparting activities” that they are pressured into taking part in, then the administrators may be able to admit that banning capes and haircuts does not make us any safer.

Before this discussion can go any further we stu-dents must realize that “being an adult” does not mean having free reign to make dangerously stupid or negligent decisions; it means having the common sense to not make those stupid or negligent deci-sions in the first place. Moreover, when adults make similar stupid decisions they are blamed for “acting like children.” In this regard, it is unreasonable to expect the College to sit back and watch as pledges are pressured into binge drinking or forced to walk on broken glass. By the same token, administrators must realize that by defining everything as hazing

they are defining nothing as hazing. If wearing capes is equated to forced binge drinking then how can anyone expect an organization to cease doing either? To rephrase, what does not qualify as hazing? Ev-ery time the administration punishes an organization for making their pledges wear yellow suits or dance in the Great Hall they are diminishing their policy’s legitimacy and discouraging students from reporting the hazing that can actually result in serious harm being inflicted upon a student.

The administration is faced with a difficult task when it is charged with regulating hazing; the activi-ties that actually need to be regulated occur in secret and the activities that occur in the open are not all that dangerous. The administration relies on a sys-tem of reporting to be able police organizations that are hazing outside the administration’s monitoring jurisdiction. To this point, the administration must be able to create a policy conducive to student re-porting if it hopes to be able to regulate hazing that does not occur out in the open. Currently, very little student reporting takes place, and it is not so hard to imagine why.

The broader a definition the administration takes with regards to hazing, the more difficult it becomes for students to discern where exactly the lines are. Just about anything can be called hazing if it is de-

An Independent Look at Hazing on Campus

JON GREEN

12

“I never hurt nobody but myself and that’s nobody’s business but my own.” Billie Holiday

fined as “any action or situation, regardless of in-tent, that results in or has the potential of resulting in physical, mental, or emotional harm, discomfort, or distress to a group’s members or prospective members,” (Student Handbook, pg. 9). Sitting too long in one place has the potential to give me dis-comfort, but am I being hazed when I take my fi-nals? Of course not. The danger in this is that when students are so readily able to reject the College’s definition of hazing they are left with no established or objective standard that they can rely on. When we do not know for sure what hazing is not then we will have a harder time determining what hazing is. If the administration is serious about creating an environ-ment in which students feel comfortable reporting incidents in which they or others were put in harm’s way then it needs to whittle its definition of hazing down to something that does not include nearly all of the events in Freshman Orientation.

I struggle with this issue because while on the one hand when someone signs up for a pledging process it is reasonable to expect that they have some idea of what they are getting themselves into, 20-some-things (myself included) generally have a distorted perception of hazard. We drive fast, we jump off

of tall things, we forget to get our flu shots, and when something goes wrong we are generally pretty good at realizing that we had it coming and accept-ing the consequences. However, just because we are willing to say, “whoops, I was wrong” does not mean that the administration can morally or legally abdi-cate their responsibility to attempt to prevent these hazards from occurring. This is especially true when our actions affect not only our classmates, but also the school as a whole. It is unreasonable to assume that students have no control over their situations in the pledging process, but it is also unreasonable to assume that they are fully competent evaluators of both their own and others’ risk and should be left free of administrative oversight.

Until both students and administrators concede that their current stances are establishing black and white arguments regarding an issue that is undoubt-edly gray this campus will continue to struggle with hazing. Reaching a coherent solution is going to be difficult, but easier than students attempting to con-vince administrators to leave them alone and much easier than the administration attempting to con-vince the student body that their all-encompassing definition of hazing is correct.

13

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

Nite Bites Café

Don’t Study on an Empty Stomach!Smoothies! Coffee! Paninis!

Nothing more expensive than $3.50!

TKO

The 2012 election will deeply affect the ability of every Kenyon student (and indeed every American) to have access to quality, affordable health care. From rules allowing young people to stay on the parents insur-ance, to the future of covering preexisting conditions, nearly every issue related to health care is at stake in this election. Therefore, it is the responsibil-ity of every Kenyon student to understand this issue and ex-amine the real-life impact of the health care plan (or lack thereof) of both parties. It is apparent that the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) presents the best and only real alternative to the problems of the current health system.

Before the passage of the ACA, employers differed greatly in how long young people were allowed to stay on their parents’ plans. While some plans allowed students to remain covered for several years after turning 18,

many of these required that students remain in school in order to be covered. Any lapse in full-time college attendance (even due to sickness) would be shortly fol-lowed by a termination of health insurance. The ACA

allows young people to have the peace of mind that they will keep health insurance until age 26, assuming their parents remain employed. Indeed, students can now focus on achieving long-term goals after graduation that may not come with im-mediate employer-provided health insurance without the worry that they will lose their health insurance upon graduation should they not

find work or not continue with their schooling.Perhaps the best measure of the success of this reg-

ulation is the increase in the number of young people ages 18-25 who have health insurance. According to a recent report, 2.5 million additional young people in this

Health Insurance Reform and You

JACOB SMITH

14

“What does an actor know about politics?” Ronald Reagan

STUDENTS STAND TO BENEFIT FROM OBAMACARE

it is the responsibility of every Kenyon stUdent to Understand this issUe and exaMine the real-life iM-pact of the health care plan (or lacK thereof) of both parties.

age bracket gained health insurance as a result of this rule. This is not just good for young people, however, as it prevents greater health costs in the long run. Many of these young people would ei-ther choose not to purchase health insur-ance or be unable to afford health insurance without this rule. As a result, many of them would only show up in emergency rooms after they get really sick, passing costs on to everyone else in the form of higher premi-ums because they are unable to afford the out-of-pocket cost of these surgeries.

Also at stake in the next election is how preexisting conditions are handled. Under the ACA, pre-existing conditions must be covered for all adults starting in the year 2014. Pre-existing conditions must already be cov-ered for all children and adults with these can get current-ly obtain coverage through state-based high risk pools. Pre-existing conditions may not be on the mind of most Americans, but chances are pretty good that either you or someone you know has one. Indeed, a recent report sug-gests that half of all Americans have pre-existing condi-tions, including 129 million people under the age of 65. If the health care law were to be repealed, millions of Americans with conditions ranging from asthma to can-cer could be denied or dropped from health i n s u r a n c e right when they need it most.

Some ar-gue that the free market will natu-rally solve all problems related to health care, but this is simply not the case. The free market can potentially re-duce some health costs by introducing efficiency, but this effect is limited due to the unique nature of health insur-ance. For example, competition is good in most areas of the economy and helps reduce costs. In health care, however, the more insurers there are the smaller each company’s pool of insured persons will be; in health care the size of the insurance pool is negatively correlated with cost. While increased competition may reduce costs

up to a point, costs increase after the number of insur-ers grows too large due to the diminished size of each

company’s pool. The free market also makes it difficult to in-sure those who need insurance most: the sick. The free market operates on the idea that there

will be “winners” and losers,” which is more acceptable in other areas of the economy. For example, one who cannot afford an expensive new car can buy a used car or use a different, substitute mode of transportation. But what substitute exists for a heart or a liver? Quite simply, leaving health insurance to the free market alone guaran-tees that some people will not have access to health care.

While some might not be convinced by this plea to justice, perhaps the monetary costs of health care speak louder. With health premiums rising every year, the ACA finally tackled the issue of cost. Repealing the law, ac-cording to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Of-fice, would increase the national debt by 210 billion

dollars over the decade. No other plan comes close in either increasing coverage or reducing costs.

As it is the only real reform effort on the ta-ble, the ACA must be defended and fully imple-mented. It is clear that millions of Americans, including most if not all Kenyon students, will see significant benefits from this law. Republi-cans in Congress claimed that they would “re-place” the ACA with something better, should they repeal the law. Americans should question whether this will actually happen, however, as

no plan has been offered since every House Republican voted for repeal one year ago. In the face of decades of inaction, the ACA offers hope to millions of Americans and will improve American health care.

15

“One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.” Robert Kennedy

1 http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1215/Health-insurance-2.5-million-young-people-added-to-rolls2 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health_Care/health-care-millions-americans-pre-existing-health-conditions/story?id=126389103 http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/06/news/economy/health_care_repeal_cost/index.htm4 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/health/policy/20cong.html

leaving health insUrance to the free MarKet alone gUarantees that soMe peo-ple will not have access to health care.

Millions of aMericans with conditions ranging froM asthMa to cancer coUld be denied or dropped froM health insUrance right when they need it Most.

TKO

Twelve Bold Predictions for

2012As the new year kicks off we peer inside the Kenyon Observer’s

crystal ball and tell the reader which unexpected events to expect in the coming twelve months.

TKO’s

januaryMitt Romney secures a win in the South Carolina Primary by assert-ing that corporations should be considered 3/5ths of a person.

FebruaryRick Perry decides to end his presi-

dential campaign but forgets to announce it.

may

Carl Paladino smiles.

juneMarco Rubio intentionally commits a major gaffe so as to avoid being asked to run for Vice President.

augustDonald Trump ends his presiden-tial campaign, keeps his reality TV

show.

septemberIranian scientists develop cold

fusion technology and win Nobel Prize.

octoberThe Chicago Cubs win the World

Series.*

novemberJimmy McMillan’s Rent is Too

Damn High Party gets ten percent of the national popular vote.

decemberThe Rapture occurs on the 21st.

marchNorth Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un bowls four 300 games in a

row the day before guiding the coun-try’s soccer team to a resounding 12-0

exhibition win over Brazil.

aprilCiting frustration with the current

slate of candidates, Sarah Palin announces that she will run for

the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.

julyDonald Trump announces that

he is running for President as an Independent and documenting

his campaign in a new reality TV show.