Volume 9, Issue 2

ReviewT h e P u r d u e

A JOURNAL OF THOUGHT & OPINION

China’s Manipulation of the Yuan

Volume 9, Issue 2 | November, 2011




Congress began to investigate whether or not China has been manipulating its currency. What possible courses of action could the US take to deal with this problem?

Purdue Policies Suppress Free Speech | pg 9

Learn why Purdue received a red rating for restricting free speech

Billionaire Buffett has been quoted for stating that his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. We take a closer look at why Buffett can

make such an audacious claim about our tax code.

6NationalRead more on a paradigm shift and the impact of tele-vised debates during presi-denti al electi on campaigns pg 4

THE WARREN BUFFETT RULE

pg. 3

SportsA preview of Purdue’s up-coming basketball season and a predicted lineup pg 10

NationalThe “Fast and Furious” scan-dal: 1000 guns sold to drug cartels and the death of a US Border Patrol agent pg 16

2 November, 2011 The Purdue Review

Letter From The Editor

Join Us: The Purdue Review is looking for staff writers, columnists, pho-tographers, section editors, copy editors, layout editors, full time media specialists, graphic designers, and web designers.

If you’re interested in joining The Purdue Review, please contact the Editor-in-Chief, Morgan Ikerd, at [email protected].

All Majors Welcome.

Support Us: The Purdue Review is funded completely by dona-tions and advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University, the Repub-lican Party, or any political organization for that matter. Without the generous dona-tions from readers like you, The Purdue Review would not exist.

If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and our cause, please con-sider making a financial donation. Donations can be mailed or made online. Checks should be made out to The Purdue Review, Inc.. Mail subscriptions are free and can be ordered on our website or by contacting the Publisher.

[email protected]

The Purdue ReviewPO Box 931Lafayette, IN 47902

Morgan Ikerd, Editor-in-ChiefKristin Patras, Publisher

Tom Chew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Managing EditorAaron Anspaugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Features EditorAndrew Nguyen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout EditorDirk Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant PublisherBobby Egan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterAndrew Brunni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterMichael Keefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterIan Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterNeil Thakkar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterAndrew Lovitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterLindsay Devlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterSchuyler DeArmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff WriterJohn Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guest WriterMichael Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy Editor

Board of Directors: Nathan Arnold, ChairChase Slaughter, Adam Rusch, Jeff Schultz,

David Bridges, Jan Payne, Vicki Burch

[email protected]

Greetings,

Thank you for picking up the Purdue Review! The Purdue Review was founded in January 2006 with the goal of providing a more conservative and libertarian voice to both the Purdue campus and the Greater Lafayette community and we are very proud to be continuing that legacy today.

Our articles are composed by students who feel passionate about the issues affecting our lives, whether it occurs on our very own campus or on Capitol Hill. We strive to bring these matters to the forefront and get people thinking about and challenging what goes on in the political realm. The Purdue Review is more than just a newspaper; it is a journal that focuses on the deeper analysis of important issues rather than just spouting out the latest headlines.

We are the future of America and it doesn’t take being an elected government official to have the ability to make a change. Everyone has a voice and if you have something to say, we en-courage you to speak up and be heard. This is exactly what we strive to do at the Purdue Review and I hope that enjoy our publication!

Best,

Morgan IkerdEditor-in-Chief


www.purduereview.com

Mission Statement: The editorial staff at The Purdue Review will uti-lize the medium of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue University as well as the entire Greater Lafayette community.

Disclaimer: The views expressed within these pages are the views held express-ly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue University. This paper is not directly affiliated with Purdue University; however, the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue students. This paper is distributed by the University Conservative Action Network (U-CAN), a registered Student Organization. The first copy of this issue is free, at distribution sites. For additional copies, contact the Publisher, Kristin Patras, at [email protected].

In fact, the infamous 1% earns 17% of America’s income, but contrib-utes 37% of America’s tax revenue.

The Purdue Review 3The Purdue Review November, 2011

The Warren Buffett RuleBy toM ChEW

Billionaire Warren Buffett has been quoted repeatedly by President Obama for stating that his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. Those on the left find this

to be reason for the American people to go up in arms over the inequalities found in our tax system, specifically in the pro-tections set in place for the millionaires and billionaires in this country. Part of the anger towards the wealthier Americans is seen in the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, before we round up a group of our friends to run out and protest for a new law being proposed by President Obama as the “Warren Buffett Rule,” we should actually look at why it is Mr. Buf-fett can make such an audacious accusa-tion regarding our tax code.

To begin, Mr. Buffett has arranged it so that he does not actually earn a salary from his company Berkshire Hathaway. He simply makes “money with money” by

investing in stocks. His earnings are clas-sified as “capital gains,” and he pays taxes at the capital gains tax rate of roughly 15%. So, unlike you or me who earn mon-

ey through a job and are taxed with a fed-eral income tax, Mr. Buffett and some of the mega-rich do not pay a federal income tax because they do not technically earn

an income. Now, is this necessarily “fair?” That

can be argued; after all, they did risk their money and can often lose some or all of an investment when the stock market goes down or a stock does not perform as they thought it would. If, however, Mr. Buffett feels so guilty about his vast for-tune and the way he earns it, he can sim-ply demand a salary from his company instead. There are no laws or rules pre-venting him from getting paid through a salary. In fact, if he feels so awful about his immense wealth, he can always pay more in taxes if he chooses to. Anybody who has filled out a tax form knows there is an option to pay more than you owe. Uncle Sam would not pass up a chance to

make some extra cash.Something else to consider with Berk-

shire Hathaway: they did not pay federal taxes in the years 2002 through 2004 and

2005 to 2009. Why, you ask? They are disputing the amount of money they owe. Some of the major companies our presi-dent is condemning for not paying taxes

are doing so because they do not agree with how much they owe. It is all a num-bers game, and Mr. Obama is using it to his advantage in inciting anger towards those at the top of the income bracket.

The millionaires and billionaires of this country do have some loopholes in the tax code, but so do the other “99%,” and who wants to give up the mortgage deduc-tion? What needs to be real-ized by those out in the streets protesting because the rich do not “pay their fair share” is the rich do pay taxes through capi-tal gains in some in-stances. The rate is lower, but it is the right of the company to set methods of payment for the CEOs as they please. People need to realize that the rich are not the enemy. Most of them do pay taxes, and they pay a de-cent percentage of the overall

revenue for the government . In fact, the infamous 1% earns 17% of America’s in-come, but contributes 37% of America’s tax revenue. Raising capital gains taxes will not spark economic growth, and it will actually reduce it. Those at the top would be less likely to invest. Those on the left do not believe raising capital gains taxes will create jobs; they just want things to be fair. It is all a question of fair-ness in their minds.

If Mr. Buffett wants things to be his ver-sion of fair, then he has every right as an American, just like you or me, to pay more in taxes if he feels so distraught with how much he makes. There is nothing stop-ping him or any other wealthy celebrity from doing just that.

Buffett’s earnings are classifi ed as “capital gains.” So, unlike you or me who pay federal income tax, he and some of the mega-rich do not pay a federal income tax because they do not technically earn income.

In fact, the infamous 1% earns 17% of America’s income, but contrib-utes 37% of America’s tax revenue.

his advantage in inciting anger towards those at the top of the income bracket.

The millionaires and billionaires of this country do have some loopholes in the tax code, but so do the other “99%,” and who wants to give up the mortgage deduc-tion? What needs to be real-ized by those out in the streets protesting because the rich do not “pay their fair share” is the rich do pay taxes through capi-tal gains in some in-


The Impact of the DebatesBy AAron AnspAugh

As Rick Perry continued to climb in the polls, people were certain that he was their candidate. Yeah, he was a little too much like Bush. Yeah, there have been rumors about some HPV vaccine thing. Yeah, he got in late. But he was to be the anti-Romney candidate, sweeping to the top and sealing the nomination…

Except that isn’t what happened. Given how large of a lead Rick Perry had in the polls before his first debate, one might have expected the momentum to contin-

ue until the primaries. Then Rick Perry had his first debate… then his second… then his third. Suddenly, he is at 3rd or 4th in the polls. The point of this article is not to attack Rick Perry, since I am certain he would be many times better as Presi-dent than Barack Obama. This article will be briefly discussing the powerful impact that the primary debates have had in this election year.

Debates have been important in elec-tions for as long as candidates cam-paigned for themselves. These debates were historically only in the state and

local elections, primarily because people would actually have to attend a debate to find out what happened. Aside from a couple of primary debates that occurred on the radio in the 40’s and 50’s, the first major Presidential debates happened on national TV in 1960. These debates were between John F. Kennedy and Rich-ard Nixon. It is widely accepted that JFK won the first debate because he looked cool and collected on TV. Nixon, however, had not applied makeup beforehand and

looked sickly to viewers. JFK ended up winning the election, but just barely.

From 1976 onward, there have been regular debates in both the primary and general cycles of each national election. There have been some memorable mo-ments, some misspoken words, and some ever-quotable lines, but in general, the effects of the debates were… well, debat-able. As the 2012 Republican Presidential debates have shown, however, candidates can no longer expect a minimal effect from a debate performance. This can be both a blessing and a curse depending on

the situation.Take Herman Cain for example. In the

early debates, he stood near the side of the stage (due to poor polling). His an-swers to questions, on the other hand, en-deared him to the audience, making him the “2nd choice” of many people. In other words, they would be glad to support him, but they didn’t think he could win. As soon as Rick Perry began his fall from the top of the polls, more and more peo-ple decided that Herman Cain could win after all, catapulting him up to the top tier of candidates. I have no doubt that this was due to his good performance in early debates. Now, Herman Cain has been the center of attack. At the most recent de-bate, each candidate got a chance to at-tack his plan. When an entire segment of the debate is devoted to everyone picking apart a single candidate’s plan, it usually is not good for that candidate’s image. Consequently, Cain has seen a slight drop in the polls since then.

Other candidacies have been hurt and helped by these debates. Many people thought Newt Gingrich was done for when his entire senior staff resigned sev-eral months ago. His strong performance in the debates, especially his refusal to attack other candidates or answer “got-cha” questions, has allowed him to slowly crawl to as a high as 3rd in some national polls. Tim Pawlenty was in the race at one point (remember?), but after one very poor debate (where he picked on Michele

Bachmann), followed by a disappoint-ment at a straw poll in Iowa, Pawlenty saw the writing on the wall and dropped out.

Who will be marred or assisted next by the debates? It is unclear. It would appear Mitt Romney has not really been affected too much by debate performances. This could be a “skill” of some sort that allows him to not say anything memorable, good or bad, but that also keeps him from being catapulted up or down based on one sin-gle debate. What is clear from all of this is that the standard for becoming a nominee has changed from just 4 years ago.

It is not enough just to show up, par-ticipate, and go home. Candidates now are expected to be able to face all of their harshest criticisms by answering in just thirty seconds. Mistakes from years ago are not just covered in a news article; they are now being thrown in a candi-date’s face with the expectation that the candidate’s reaction will increase ratings for the debate. Given that FoxNews has also been guilty of promoting this style of debate, I do not think it is purely political. I simply think the paradigm for selecting Presidential candidates has changed, and now the candidates will have to adapt to keep in step. We will have to wait and see what these alterations bring to the up-coming general election, but the real im-pact may not be felt until future election cycles.

Candidates now are expected to be able to face all of their harshest criticisms by answering in just thirty seconds.


The Impact of the Debates Solyndra: A Taxpayer NightmareBy BoBBy EgAn

On May 26th, 2010, President Obama flew into the San Francisco Bay Area and proudly touted his administration’s green

jobs initiative at a solar panel manufac-turer in Fremont, California. The golden goose of the day was a company by the name of Solyndra, a solar energy firm that owned the Fremont plant. It was a proud moment for the President, who stated, “The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.”

Fast forward to September 8th, 2011.The FBI raided the company’s Fremont, California headquarters and executives’ homes. After the company filed for bank-ruptcy and laid off over 1,000 workers, news broke of what would become a stain on the President’s scandal-free record. As the reports of the company’s situation quickly surfaced, it became known that Solyndra had received a $535 million fed-eral loan guarantee. Immediately, journal-

ists, politicians, and taxpayers wanted to know the full story. Who knew what, and when? Already, Solyndra executives Bill

Stover and Brian Harrison pleaded the fifth, protecting them against self-incrim-ination. But what about this solar firm

attracted so much press, besides the fact that over a half a billion in taxpayer mon-ey had been dumped into the project?

While the administration claims that

technology start-ups are risky, several as-pects of this project do not add up. First of all, the plant, taking up the space of five football fields, was very well-equipped. A

clear example? According to Bloomberg, “It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal dis-

plays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.” ”The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” a facilities manager stated. Additionally, the gigan-tic facility was constructed in not only one of the country’s most expensive real estate markets but also one of the most hostile business environments regarding regulation and taxation. Alternative real estate options existed in Fremont alone. Bob Wasserman, Fremont’s mayor stated, “There was available space that we talked to them about. It was their decision that they needed a new building. Was that a good decision? It didn’t turn out to be.”

The current President will argue that the Bush administration “had supported Solyndra’s loan guarantee application.” The problem with that argument is that

the Bush Department of Energy (DOE) credit committee voted against the Solyn-dra loan guarantee in the final month of the administration.

President Obama has always been steadfast and insistent in securing more “green” jobs and other jobs in the alter-native energy sectors. However, many congressional members are skeptical that the administration was unknowing of the impending collapse of the firm. In August 2009, several email chains between staff in the DOE claimed that a credit-rating agency had recently predicted the firm would run out of money a year later. Though the timing wasn’t exact, the firm closed its doors on August 31st, 2011.

Recent investigations from the House

Energy and Commerce Committee that examined further email trails from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the DOE “lacked appro-priate tools for assessing the progress” of the loans that it gave out. Additionally, the applicants were treated unfairly and inconsistently, “favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” Further scru-tinizing revealed that two key Obama fun-draiser figures, Steve Spinner and George Kaiser, deeply benefited from the federal investment. Spinner’s wife’s law firm earned $2.4 million in federal funds re-lated to Solyndra. Kaiser’s venture capital funds held the largest shares of Solyndra, and will be able cut in front of taxpayers when it comes to recovering lost money. Specifically, the first $75 million will go to

two Solyndra investors, one of them being Kai-ser. More details on the asset recovery will arise as the investigations continue, but taxpayers seem to have gotten the short end of the stick. The administration elected to restructure the loan within the past

year, which will diminish the probability that the federal funds will be recouped.

In this example, the government should have stayed out of playing bets and venture capitalist games with taxpay-er money, and picking winners and losers in the US economy. For a man that prom-ised transparency and an end to politics as usual, this sure seems to reflect a typi-cal underhanded Washington dealing.

As the reports of Solyndra’s situation quickly surfaced, it became known that Solyn-dra had received a $535 mil-lion federal loan guarantee.

However, many congressional mem-bers are skeptical that the Obama administration was unknowing of the impending collapse of the firm.

In this example, the government should have stayed out of play-ing bets and venture capital-ist games with taxpayer money.


China’s Manipulation of the YuanBy John noBlE

This September, the US Congress be-gan debating a bill that would require the US Treasury Department to determine if

the People’s Republic of China is manipu-lating its currency, the Yuan (also known as the Renminbi). This bill would allow the Commerce Department to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods. The determination section of the bill would be, without a doubt, a mere formality because most economists agree that the Yuan is undervalued by somewhere be-tween 25-40% compared to the US Dol-lar. This means that the bill would only be an excuse to impose tariffs on Chinese goods. Because of the importance of US economic ties with China, this article will examine how Chinese monetary policy has affected the US and then look at what options the US has to deal with its current trade problems.

At first glance, it may seem hard to draw a conclusion from the widely ac-

cepted fact that the Yuan is undervalued. On one hand, the Chinese currency being undervalued may seem intuitively bad

while the corollary to this observation, the fact that the dollar is strong and hence not weak compared to the Renminbi, seems intuitively positive. In truth, the implications do not fall exclusively within one category or the other.

The People’s Republic of China main-tained a fixed exchange rate with the dol-lar until July 21, 2005, when combined US and European pressure forced China to move to a floating exchange rate. Af-terward, the Yuan was traded much like a stock on the open market. However, even after moving to a floating exchange rate, China continued a policy of unoffi-cially pegging, or controlling the price of the Yuan with respect to the Dollar. Since floating exchange rates fluctuate based on supply and demand for a given currency, all the PRC had to do to stabilize the Ren-

minbi was simply buy more dollars on the open market. The added demand would push the demand for dollars higher, and consequently the price of US Dollars with respect to the Yuan would move higher as well. In this way, China has kept their currency relatively stable for the last six years by slowly accumulating more and more dollar-denominated assets, which partly explains the vast scale of China’s foreign exchange reserves. During the 2009 financial crisis, the PRC temporarily reinstituted a peg of the Yuan to the dollar before lifting that peg nearly a year ago and once more allowing the Yuan to ap-preciate with respect to the dollar. But go-ing back to the earlier statement that the

Yuan is undervalued, there is still a broad consensus among economists that this appreciation has not been fast enough.

The nefarious implications of an un-dervalued Chinese Yuan stem from a sur-prisingly simple culprit: workers’ wages. In China, workers are paid in Yuan and in the US, workers are paid in Dollars. In the same way, goods sold in the PRC are priced in Yuan while those sold in the US are priced in Dollars. Now when toys are produced in China and sold in the US, the workers who make the toys are paid in Yuan while the toy is sold in Dollars. When those dollars go from your neigh-borhood Wal-Mart back to China some-thing interesting happens. Because the Yuan is undervalued compared to the dol-lar, the company that is making the toys

effectively gets a discount when paying their workers - specifically a 25-40% dis-count. In short, the cheapness of the Yuan

makes Chinese goods appear cheaper than they really are due to the discount offered by the exchange rate, while Amer-ican goods sold in China are conversely more expensive than they ought to be. As one can imagine, a 25% discount of-fers Chinese firms a very real advantage over American firms in terms of pricing. It very directly makes American manufac-tured goods less competitive in the global marketplace.

To be fair, the influx of cheap Chinese goods kept cheap by an undervalued Yuan has been very good for the American con-sumer. Stores like Wal-Mart have taken advantage of cheap Chinese goods to cre-ate a business model that sells Americans

The proposed bill would allow the Commerce Department to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods.

See “Yuan...” on Pg. 7

To be fair, the influx of cheap Chi-nese goods kept cheap by an un-dervalued Yuan has been very good for the American consumer.


China’s Manipulation of the Yuan

See “Yuan...” on Pg. 7

To be fair, the influx of cheap Chi-nese goods kept cheap by an un-dervalued Yuan has been very good for the American consumer.

all the low priced things they could ever desire. Were it not for the skewed ex-change rate, many Americans would be paying significantly more for a number of basic goods ranging from toilet paper to clothing. In that regard, an undervalued Yuan, although few people realize it, has helped to keep the American consumer-based economy going by keeping prices low.

Consumer-based economies, however, are premised on the existence of people who have disposable income and who want to spend it on things. While Wal-Mart continues to have low prices, the hidden cost is that many opportunities to manufacture goods here in the US are dry-ing up due to alternatives that can be pro-duced far cheaper in the PRC than in the US. Now to be fair, many of the jobs that are supposedly “taken” by Chinese work-ers are jobs that it is hard to envy. One ex-ample of such a job would be for Foxconn, an electronics supplier for Apple, where a series of job related suicides in 2010 prompted the company to install netting to catch people jumping off tall buildings and to force workers to sign binding le-gal documents saying that they would not commit suicide. Despite these exceptions, most economists estimate that a 25% ap-

preciation of the Yuan would generate about 2 million jobs in the United States, many in manufacturing industries, which would represent a significant stimulus to

the US economy.With two million jobs on the table, a

bill meant to correct for an undervalued Yuan by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods

seems like a tantalizing proposition. How-ever, opposition to the bill has come from President Obama as well as House Major-ity Leader John Boehner, both of whom have refused to support such an act. Their refusal is particularly odd in light of the fact that Illinois and Ohio (where the two are from) have both suffered severe job losses due to outsourcing associated with an undervalued Yuan. Their argument is that tariffs on Chinese goods would spark a trade war between the two nations.

This, however, is a remote concern. The threat that China might impose counter

tariffs on US goods is real, but inconse-quential. Tariffs on both sides of the Pacif-ic would simply slow down trade between the two nations, and since China currently

Furthermore, a much larger percentage of Chi-na’s economy is devoted to trade with Amer-ica, meaning that the PRC has much more to lose in a trade war than American does.

runs a trade surplus with the US, a series of tariffs would hurt the PRC more than the US. Furthermore, a much larger per-centage of China’s economy is devoted to

trade with America, meaning that the PRC has much more to lose in a trade war than America does.

The other major concern is that the PRC would sell all of its US debt totaling an esti-mated $1.3 trillion. Such a sale would dra-matically lower the value of the dollar and increase interest rates. But once again, the potency of such a weapon is less than one would imagine. To begin with, since 1.3 trillion in assets cannot be sold instantly, China could potentially take fifty to a hun-dred billion in losses just in the process of selling treasury bonds en masse; even

worse, the cor-responding huge demand for the Yuan would sky-rocket the value of the currency, making Chinese exports vastly more expensive and inadver-tently doing the exact thing the

US wanted. Simultaneously, the market for US Treasury Bills would fluctuate dra-matically, but it would not collapse. The US has issued around 14 trillion in debt

Yuan...From page 6

and selling a mere 10% of that would not be enough to cause anything more than a short term panic, if that. Meanwhile, Chi-na would be left billions of dollars in the

hole with an ex-pensive curren-cy that would cripple their economy. Hence fears that tariffs might engen-der a trade war would seem un-founded. China might be able to hurt the US economy, but at

the cost of crippling their own. Further-more, the US has much more to lose than China by averting a confrontation.

Currently, an undervalued Yuan has tilted the playing field heavily in China’s favor, resulting in a $300 billion trade deficit with China in 2010. Such a trend is unsustainable in the long run and dif-ficult to reverse in the absence of a fairly valued currency. Normally, a floating cur-rency helps even out trade imbalances. If Americans buy more Chinese goods, then the value of the Yuan goes up and makes those goods more expensive, causing Americans to buy fewer of them. But with an undervalued Yuan and a Chinese Gov-ernment that has ignored repeated calls to fairly value its currency, the options that the US has to defend its own econo-my grow thin. If that trend continues, then imposing tariffs on Chinese goods may be one of the only recourses left to the Unit-ed States.

China has kept their currency relative-ly stable for the last six years by slowly ac-cumulating more and more dollar-denom-inated assets, which partly explains the vast scale of China’s foreign exchanges reserves.


Arguably the most outrageous policy on the books creates a Free Speech Zone here on campus.

No Risk, No Compliance: Purdue’s Irrelevant “Smoking Ban” By MorgAn iKErD

We’ve all seen them, the smokers who rush straight out of class, bust through the door and quickly light up a cigarette in their desperate, nicotine-deprived state. Or perhaps you have seen the beautiful array of ciga-rette butts on the sidewalks and bus stops. Isn’t there a “smoking ban” at Purdue, one might ask? Smokers, according to statute, are required to stand in a “designated smoking” area, separated from society in all of their tobacco-loving glory. The des-ignated areas are a significant distance away from the surrounding buildings and usually where there is limited student traffic. But let’s be real, when was the last time you wit-nessed someone receive so much as a slap on the wrist for sneak-ing a cigarette on the walk to class or blatantly smoking within arm’s reach of an academic building?

The Indiana House of Repre-sentatives passed a bill in February 2011 that would ban smoking in many busi-nesses and institutions. Pur-due followed suit with its attempt to make campus a “smoke free zone” and save the non-smoking student population from choking on the secondhand smoke of their colleagues. As courteous as that thought might have been, it would have required strict enforcement and conse-quences that might actually deter one

from smoking wherever they wished. Also, it is very difficult to quarantine the secondhand smoke to a specific area, so even with proper enforcement, the cur-

rent regulations are ineffective at achiev-ing the stated goal.

The smoking ban’s Statement of Pur-pose says:

Smoking is prohibited on the West Lafayette Campus, except in designated smoking areas. When a university em-

ployee, student, or visitor en-ters the West Lafayette

Campus, any Smoking Material shall be

extinguished and disposed of in

an appropri-ate receptacle at the perim-eter of the West Lafay-ette Campus.

S e e m s p r e t t y

s t r a i g h t f o r -ward, right?

However, the meth-ods used to actually

enforce the policy are inadequate and do not achieve

any significant progress towards provid-ing a predominantly smoke-free environ-ment. The responsibility lies solely on the students, faculty, and staff of Purdue Uni-versity and the citizens of West Lafayette to “observe the provisions of this policy and share responsibility for compliance.”

In other words, unless the disapproving glares from the rule-abiding students are too much to bear, smoke away! So, if the only means of enforcing the policy is

a method that e s s e n t i a l l y amounts to peer pressure, why bother to legislate a pol-icy in the first place?

Why does this policy lack

effective enforcement? Other policies on Purdue’s campus, such as parking, are

greatly enforced. Two minutes late in a two hour parking zone and you’re slapped with a thirty-five dollar fine. The discrep-ancies between enforcement of policies make those that fall below the radar com-pletely irrelevant and pointless. The poli-cy rhetoric created very strong opinions about the matter but, having the smoking ban in place has only divided the campus on the issue without putting an end to it. Some advice to the Purdue administra-tion: If you’re going to ban smoking… then ban smoking.

Smokers, according to statute, are required to stand in a “designated smoking” area, separated from soci-ety in all of their tobacco-loving glory.

was the last time you wit-nessed someone receive so much as a slap on the wrist for sneak-

a bill in February 2011 that would ban smoking in many busi-

ters the West Lafayette Campus, any Smoking

Material shall be extinguished and

ward, right? However, the meth-

ods used to actually


Purdue Policies Suppress Free SpeechBy Kristin pAtrAs

As Americans, we tend to have the at-titude “I can say whatever I want when-ever I want because this is Amurrrica.” However, as Purdue students our First Amendment right of freedom of speech is not entirely protected on campus. Rather, the university endorses several policies which allow for students’ right of free speech to be arbitrarily obliterated. In fact, Purdue’s speech code is so atrocious that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) gave the university a code rating of red, meaning that the uni-versity has at least one policy that signifi-cantly restricts freedom of speech.

Arguably the most outrageous policy on the books creates a Free Speech Zone here on campus. The Office of the Dean of Students website states “The area south of the flagpole on Purdue Memorial Mall

has been designated as a public forum due to it being a highly visible area, eas-ily accessible, and the place least likely to disrupt or obstruct University activi-ties and functions.” While this may seem like an innocent attempt to keep order, by creating a zone in which students are allowed to express themselves freely the university grants itself the power to con-trol where students exercise their First Amendment rights. Contrastingly, the First Amendment states that there shall be no law which minimizes one’s right to free speech.

Furthermore, even students who are on Memorial Mall are not guaranteed full access to their First Amendment rights. Student conduct policy states that stu-dents who partake in “lewd, indecent, or obscene conduct or expression on Uni-

versity property” may be subject to a ba-sic rebuke or a more serious punishment such as expulsion, suspension, probated

suspension, disciplinary probations, and/or educational sanctions. This leaves room for a great deal of interpretation on what behavior is and is not acceptable in the Free Speech Zone. What may be con-sidered lewd or offensive to one individu-

al may not be to another. Moreover, who gets to make the final call on whether or not a student is permitted to utilize their constitutionally guaranteed rights with-out being reprimanded by the University?

In April 2009, then-Associate Dean Pablo Malavenda was making the calls,

and boy were they a slap in the face to the First Amendment. The Conservative Co-alition for American Values (CCAV), a stu-dent organization on campus, was hand-ing out flyers in the Free Speech Zone

in order to promote an event they were hosting which featured Nonie Darwish, an anti-Islamofascism speaker. Like the

university requests, the group reserved a space in the Free Speech Zone – 3 months in advance.

When CCAV members arrived at the Free Speech Zone, they were greeted by a memorial for Palestinians who died fight-ing along the Gaza strip who were rep-resented by black flags. Around the flags were signs with quotations supporting Hamas. Despite the memorial, CCAV went forward with handing out their fliers. Af-ter all, they were in the free speech zone and they had given the university a three month warning that they were going to exercise their First Amendment rights.

However, the Students for Justice in Palestine who were responsible for the memorial complained to Malavenda that the presence of CCAV members was disruptive. Thus, Malavenda promptly showed up at the Free Speech Zone and

told CCAV members that they could no longer hand out fliers and that they need-ed to leave Memorial Mall.

CCAV members confirmed that they had provided the university with advance

notice and thus decided to continue hand-ing out fliers. Malavenda returned to the Free Speech Zone and instructed CCAV to leave. CCAV responded by holding Anti-Hamas signs in the Free Speech Zone, de-claring their right to freely express them-selves on campus. Malavenda returned a third time and claimed there was a mis-take with CCAV’s reservation of the Free Speech Zone. Even after CCAV members showed him a copy of their reservation from Space Management, Malavenda con-tinued to insist they leave the premises.

After Malavenda came to terms with the fact that CCAV members were not going to hand over their constitutionally protected rights, he attempted to persuade CCAV to allow the Students for Justice in Palestine to distribute pro-Palestine materials be-fore their event. Malavenda even had the audacity to stand in the back of the room at CCAV’s event and watch as members of the Students for Justice in Palestine shouted down and degraded CCAV’s guest speaker, Nonie Darwish.

Why did Students for Justice in Pales-tine receive preferential treatment by the university? Were CCAV members’ conduct lewd, indecent or obscene? Were they causing such a massive disturbance that the university could no longer properly function? Were they preventing members of Students for Justice in Palestine from freely expressing themselves in the Free Speech Zone?

Because Purdue’s student conduct code caters to the personal opinions of the administrator involved, students’ speech can be arbitrarily censored by the university. Until the university revises this code, students’ rights will continue to be infringed upon like CCAV members’ rights were back in 2009. Furthermore, as long as the university endorses a Free Speech Zone, students can expect the adminis-tration to disregard their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Arguably the most outrageous policy on the books creates a Free Speech Zone here on campus.

Because Purdue’s student con-duct code caters to the personal opinions of the administrator in-volved, students’ speech can be ar-bitrarily censored by the university.

The Foundation for Individu-al Rights in Education gave the university a code rating of red.

No Risk, No Compliance: Purdue’s Irrelevant “Smoking Ban”


Purdue Basketball PreviewBy AAron AnspAugh

When E’Twaun Moore and JaJuan Johnson were both drafted the Boston Celtics, I was absolutely thrilled. I mean, how often do teammates in college get to play together in the NBA? Especially in their rookie season! My mind was swim-ming with the possibilities of a new Celt-ics dynasty with Garnett training JJ and Ray Allen training E’Twaun. Then, in yet another situation caused by a union, the NBA lockout began. As of right now, there is no deal, the first month of games has been cancelled, and there is a decent like-lihood that there will be no NBA this sea-son. In this environment, basketball fans of all stripes are anticipating this upcom-ing NCAA basketball season even more than usual. Should Purdue fans also be ex-cited knowing that their team is without the two stars of last season?

Pre-season predictions have Ohio State at the top of the Big Ten right now, with Purdue coming somewhere around 5th or 6th. Purdue is not even ranked in the most recent poll. The obvious fact about Purdue is that they are not going to have JaJuan Johnson or E’Twuan Moore this year - or Patrick Bade since he made the

jump to football, but Bade’s absence will likely not change anything (other than Purdue committing fewer fouls). Pur-due does have Robbie Hummel, the third member of the original crew that was expect-ed to graduate last year, as well as all the key players from last season. This is apparently not enough for the “experts” to pre-dict that Purdue will be anything other than mediocre. Purdue, however, tends to thrive upon such underestima-tions.

Who is the foundation? – The primary focus of the Purdue team this year will be Robbie Hummel. His ability to both shoot the 3-ball as well as fight for points inside has been overshadowed in the past by the presence of other powerful scorers. Now that those other scorers are gone, Hum-mel will need to step up and fill in some of

that gap. Hummel cannot score 50 points a game though, so other mature players are also going to need to play their best. Lewis Jackson showed sparks of offen-

sive genius last season, and I hope he can convert those into a steady 10-15 points per game. Ryne Smith will hopefully be a more consis-tent scorer than last season as well, since his

3-point shot has been proven in the past.Who will need to step up? – The big-

gest deficit that Purdue faces now is an absence of big men. JaJuan Johnson was actually not that big, but played bigger than he was. As of right now, the best hope for a solid inside defense and of-fense is Travis Carroll; he has the most experience on the inside. He didn’t always play well last season, but at times he was crucial to the team’s success. DJ Byrd has been amazing defensively, evolving from a skinny sharpshooter his freshman year to a tough guard/forward who is not afraid of anything. I expect his growth to contin-ue. Terone Johnson is someone who has an incredible amount of potential. When he has been good, he reminds me a lot of E’Twaun Moore. Kelsey Barlow (fresh off of a suspension) is hopefully going to fo-cus his emotion and energy toward being careful with the ball. If he can do that well, he will be both a backup for LewJack as well as a dangerous scorer in the 2-guard position.

Who might surprise us? – I was not particularly impressed last season with Sandi Marcius, but according to sev-eral reports, he is looking much better. I would love to see him grow into the mold of Nemanja Calasan, another European big-man who filled an important role at

Purdue. We do have a redshirt-freshman, Anthony Johnson, coming on this year, as well as two freshmen, Jacob Lawson and Donnie Hale. Anthony Johnson is small, but hopefully the extra year of training has given him the ability to use his size wisely. Matt Painter has floated the idea of redshirting one of the freshmen, which would put more pressure on the other players but give one player an extra sea-son to develop. I personally think that both players should be on the team this season, mostly because there is a chance that injuries in some form will force the team to adapt.

The most obvious player who has had injuries in the past is Robbie Hummel. His sophomore year it was his back, his junior year it was an ACL tear, and what should have been his senior year it was his ACL yet again. If Robbie Hummel is able to make it through the season uninjured, Purdue will likely be ranked and Hummel could go to the NBA. Lewis Jackson also has both foot and ankle injuries currently, but this supposedly won’t stop him from playing. Let’s hope his speed isn’t affect-ed. Aside from the starters, John Hart is still out with a foot injury, and Anthony Johnson is battling a minor hip injury as well.

While this season may not be as good as last season, and definitely not as good as last season would have been with a non-injured Robbie Hummel, I think this season presents some unique opportuni-ties for Purdue. We have a great recruit-ing class coming in next year and the year after that, so some see this season as “let’s just hold on for one bad year until we get reinforcements”. But with Robbie Hum-mel leading the team’s offense, as well as an entire cast of players growing together as a team, I don’t think this season will be bad for Purdue. Purdue will continue to do what it has done in the past: defy low expectations, play well as a team, and take good players and make them great.

Predicted Starting Lineup:

Lewis JacksonRyne SmithDJ ByrdRobbie HummelTravis Carroll


Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley

Kakuro instructions: The object is to fi ll all empty squares using numbers 1 to 9 so the sum of each horizontal block equals the clue on its left, and the sum of each vertical block equals the clue on its top. In addition, no number may be used in the same block more than once .

Curtis by Ray Billingsley

Campus Diversions

SudokuEasy

Challenging

from htt p://w

ww

.veryfreesudoku.com


The “Fast and Furious” Scandal: What Actually HappenedBy BoBBy EgAn

In a stunning feat that seems to be a rare case in today’s political environment, the US Senate voted unanimously on an amendment pertaining to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The measure zapped the budget for any programs that attempt to give firearms to drug cartels without constant surveil-lance from authorities. Sounds like common sense, right?

If so, it seems like the DOJ is lacking in that category.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, often shortened to the ATF, was involved in a botched “gun-running” program that sur-faced after an ATF weapon was found at the scene of a murdered Border Patrol Agent. Not to be confused with the super-car movie series, “Fast and Furious” was the given code name to this program, which involved the ATF secretly sending thousands of US firearms over the Mexican border intended to track and snag drug cartel crim-inals. The program was so covert that the Mexican Authorities were not made aware of the transfers.

The majority of the firearms were sold by Arizona gun store owners, who were told by the US government to illegally sell the weapons to suspected criminals. Thirty-four of the weapons were .50 caliber sniper rifles that have a range of up to 2,000 meters, while approximately 650 of the weap-ons were modified AK-47’s.The program’s purpose, according to a report from the US House Over-sight and Government Reform

Committee, “… was to wait and watch, in hope that law enforce-ment could identify other mem-bers of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case.” Unfortunately, the ATF had no way of physically tracking the weapons, and once purchased, the guns were lost in the network of Mexico’s drug cartels.

So who was responsible for authorizing and overseeing this operation? The details are slowly surfacing, but many emails and documents point to the office of the US Attorney General. When asked about the operation, Presi-dent Obama stated that he knew nothing about Fast and Furious. However, in the 2009 stimulus package, he set aside $10 million for “gun tracing” and “gun enforce-ment programs” and freely dis-cussed this in his joint press con-ference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in February of that year. President Obama’s adminis-tration has been failing to answer questions in a precise manner. As House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Dar-rell Issa stated, “President Obama has been keen to talk about who didn’t authorize the program, and who didn’t authorize it. These an-swers will not suffice. The Ameri-can People have a right to know, once and for all, who did authorize it and who did know about it.”

NOW SHOWING

Volume 9, Issue 2

Documents