Peace prize surprise

[TAKE OUR ONLINE POLL]

Whether or not prize was deserved, we should be thankful

A big “Huh?” with a finger scratching the head pretty much sums up the typical reaction to the news that President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

In an attempt to explain the reasoning behind this year’s award, Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “The question we have to ask is: Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Well, for one thing, nominations for the prize began in February, when Obama had just begun his tenure.
The bigger issue is the not-so-small matter of achievement.

Traditionally, we view Nobel Peace laureates as icons like Mother Teresa, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. There were also the lesser known, but just as deserving awardees, like Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathi and Kim Dae Jung, all of whom have tirelessly pursued human rights in their respective countries.

Obama, as surprised as the rest of us, was also humble in addressing the honor: “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

So what placed Obama in this pantheon of winners? “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” is the official line.

When it comes to the matter of whether this was enough to deserve the award or not, the answers are mixed.
One can make the argument that he hasn’t achieved anything tangible for the award to show that it is not premature.

Then there are those like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who seem to take anything as an opportunity to bash the president and turn it into a fundraising bonanza. “The Democrats and their international, leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control, and truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”

Um… right.

Coming back to reality, one can also say that getting the ball rolling for peace is just as important as the actual achievement itself.

I say achievement can be a moot point with no right or wrong standard. It isn’t like the awards in the sciences – the process of selecting an awardee for the peace prize is highly subjective. Obama hasn’t achieved much in concrete terms to be able to confidently claim the prize. He hasn’t brokered peace treaties, persuaded Iran to end its nuclear ambitions or ended either of the two wars we are quagmired in.

However, efforts toward peace have been recognized in the past by the Nobel committee. And without a doubt, Obama has made great efforts at international diplomacy.

What he has done is help to radically change the tone of international diplomacy from where it was even a year ago.
It started before he won the election, with the speech in Berlin last summer where he left crowds dazzled with his promise of multilateralism. As president, there was his unprecedented speech in Cairo in an effort to reach out to the Muslim World.
Many in the international community credit Obama’s willingness to include them as partners in global matters and initiatives and to listen to their concerns.

As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon put it, “President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world’s biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges.”
Jagland reinforced that by saying, “All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension.”

He went on to say, “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”

Unlike the man before him.
Ah yes, another reprimand of the Bush administration. I would venture to say that this was a most satisfying part of awarding Obama: to stick it to his predecessor.

We all know there was no love lost between the international community and former President George W. Bush, who did his utmost to dismantle the concept of multilateralism and make clear his contempt for the opinions of others in international matters.
This award is surely another way to celebrate the end of Bush’s reign.
But Obama sure isn’t celebrating and I can’t really blame him.

Unfortunately for Obama, this award seems to set an already high bar of expectation even higher. With so many expectations for him to pull through on domestic issues, the international community has dumped an even bigger one on him.

The Nobel Peace Prize can be quite a politicized award and this one clearly conveys hope for Obama to take the mantle when it comes to issues of climate change, nuclear disarmament and ending two wars in a responsible fashion.
The world, unlike Steele and his ilk, is rooting for Obama.

This award, which went out of its way to praise effort and what could be, shows how much they want him to succeed.
The Nobel Peace Prize conveys faith that America can make this world a better and more peaceful place and for that reason I’m glad Obama won.

As an American, I take as much pride in the president winning it, as I do when our scientists win.
“[It] gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes,” a statesman for the State Department pointed out.

EDITORIAL: Senate should approve textbook program, evaluate future funding allotment

[TAKE OUR WEB POLL]

The CSUN Senate will hear a bill Monday that comes at the perfect time. Never before have more students needed financial support to be successful in college and student representatives would do well to reflect on the economic pressures many face and pass the legislation.

The bill would allot $5,500 to a new textbook assistance program that would lighten the financial load of many students taking general education courses. The program would allow students to use CSUN-owned texts for many common courses, making the economic struggle of beginning college or returning to school much more manageable.

With job prospects looking more bleak in Southern Nevada than almost anywhere in the country, UNLV has seen an increase in enrollment. At the start of this semester, 28,605 students were enrolled at UNLV – up 2.5 percent from the last two years.

We support any action that could help keep the growing number of people returning to school because of struggles in the job market from facing huge expenses at the outset of their education at UNLV.

Compared to the money students stand to save with this program, the amount CSUN would be spending is almost negligible. The undergraduate student government routinely spends two and three times the cost of starting the textbook assistance program on items that benefit fewer students than this endeavor. Certainly the Senate should see fit to designate a mere $5,500 to this noble cause.

Let’s consider this project in light of CSUN’s recent history of funding choices.
Many times student government has looked into using funds toward campus programs similar to this textbook program, that benefit students very directly, but sometimes they have decided the benefits are not worth the costs.

Consider the difference in treatment of potentially valuable assets like the regularly distributed emergency scholarships and the recently voted-down Health Assistance Grant, which would have allowed students up to $1,500 to cover the costs of examinations and procedures done within the Wellness Center or medical clinics.

CSUN has provided funds toward events that bring speakers and entertainers to campus – this semester, we’ve seen PostSecret’s Frank Warren and comedian Eric O’Shea, for example. Last semester, CSUN helped fund a psychology event that brought famed psychology researcher Philip Zimbardo to UNLV. Speakers like Zimbardo are a dual benefit to students, as they also promote the academic atmosphere of the university.

Other events are more geared toward entertaining the campus community, also a much-needed service. Funding events like this is important as well, as they certainly grow the culture around campus and provide a much-needed rounding out of the college for many students.

Last semester, CSUN funded the installation of safer crosswalk signs on Maryland Parkway.

Should CSUN emphasize funding more toward one area than the other? Is there even an imbalance between the allotment of these funds or are the student government’s priorities just right?

You already know that we favor the proposed textbook program – how would you like to see your fees used?

WEB POLL

How do you feel about CSUN’s allotment of student fees?

• CSUN’s current funding priorities are just right.
• CSUN should focus more on funding academic-oriented programs such as the textbook proposal.
• CSUN should focus on funding non-academic speakers and entertainers.
• CSUN should focus on funding academic speakers.
• CSUN should apply funds toward other areas (comment below).

View Results

 Loading ...

Establishment clause versus the free exercise clause

[TAKE OUR WEB POLL]

Constitutional vagueness leads to arbitrary decisions

Time and time again, mankind has argued over the meaning of a few words to determine the fate of millions who will be affected by the interpretation.
Religious texts are one such source of contention. In the U.S., an entire branch of government was created to resolve conflicts over the interpretation of words: the judicial branch.

Courts have been able to define and refine laws for centuries to clarify and extend those that were initially expressly included in the U.S. Constitution.
But one amendment has far outdone the others in the amount of heated discourse it has caused: the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution starts off with some words, which at first seem to imply a clear meaning: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The writers of our constitution chose the issue of religion to address first, which hints at the seriousness of religion-related issues in their society.
The importance of the role of faith hasn’t diminished more than 200 years later – debate over what is allowed and what is not continues on.
What academics and constitutional scholars know but many others don’t understand, is that often the establishment clause and free exercise clause contend.

This conflict results in arbitrary rulings that often seem contradictory.
Take this scenario recently brought up in England as an example: A nurse wears a necklace with a crucifix to work. She identifies with the Christian faith and claims that she has been wearing the necklace for 30 years.
The hospital trust claims that wearing any kind of necklace is prohibited for the purpose of safety. The nurse claims in return that many on staff have violated the “no-necklace” policy for years without reprimand.

Would the hospital be establishing a religion if it allowed her to wear a crucifix even though it is against dress code? Or would the hospital be infringing upon her freedom to practice Christianity if it decided to fire her on those grounds?

Most cases are analyzed on an individual basis. The courts have to determine which clause to uphold when they are in conflict – the establishment clause or the free exercise clause – by analyzing each situation separately.

Many times, courts will decide differently on cases that might look almost exactly the same, for technical reasons or a slight differentiation. This is why these cases can take years to solve and many times they end up in the Supreme Court.

But the courts’ decisions on many cases seem to be subjective: Many cases have troublingly arbitrary and unpredicted outcomes. The founding fathers have left us in a state of confusion, even though their intent was clear.

This issue is nowhere near universal consent and we must continue to challenge the establishment because for all we know the most facially neutral law could be ruled unconstitutional, or vice-versa.

Last month this issue was again brought to light nationally when some high school football students were baptized at a voluntary school trip to a church service in Kentucky.

A high school football coach “took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them… were baptized.” Apparently, the school district’s superintendent was there and did not object. The coach claimed that being baptized would bring the team together.

None of the students were given permission forms to have their parents sign and many of them were baptized without the knowledge of their parents, even though the church’s pastor “said that he requires minors to obtain their parents’ consent to be baptized.”

Even though the pastor knew that the kids belonged to a high school football team, in his defense he claimed: “Sometimes 16-year-olds look like 18 years. We did the best we could.”

But how can anyone assume that every high school student is 18 years old? Most students don’t turn 18 until their senior year of high school or later. It’s like assuming anyone in college is at least 22 years old.

Of course, the real issue of concern is not why the pastor baptized these students. The issue is whether or not the school district was establishing a religion by using a school bus and a school event as an opportunity to baptize students.

The necklace case seems harmless enough: if the hospital allowed other staffers to wear necklaces in the past, then the crucifix necklace should be allowed.

But some cases are easier to judge than others: It seems to me that the coach and pastor were both pushing their religion on the students.

WEB POLL

Beware: Big Brother is watching you

Excessive employee monitoring oversteps ethical boundaries Read more