Equality under the law has been a fundamental tenet of American governance since this nation’s inception. A Civil War was fought to advance this ideal and thousands took to the streets to demand it. Reformers used this notion to justify their causes to the American public, knowing it would resonate. Today we still strive to ensure that all citizens are treated equally by their government. The Constitution enshrines this goal: Congress must impose uniform taxes, the First Amendment protects free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment protects equality under the law, and the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments uphold the right to vote regardless of race or gender. Equality under the law is paramount to the United States and, since 2010, the Internal Revenue Service has used its substantial authority to thrash this principle.

On Tuesday, May 14th, the Treasury Department Inspector General reported that the IRS, in violation of its mandate to apply tax law fairly, disproportionately flagged groups with “Tea Party” in their names, groups that addressed government spending, and groups that had statements that “criticize how the country is run” for review. These organizations’ requests for tax-exempt status were often significantly delayed with additional questions that extended far beyond the IRS’s purview.

Many conservatives claim that the Obama Administration encouraged the IRS to target conservative groups. Recent evidence has surfaced illustrating that senior White House staffers knew of the IRS’s practices earlier than they previously stated.  Others defend the IRS, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling on political activity forced the IRS to cope with increased applications and overworked personnel by screening for conservative groups. After all, most new applications were from right-leaning groups.. A mistake, yes, but not diabolical. Both sides have valid interpretations but they miss the point. The fact that some in the one of the government’s most powerful agencies disregarded one of America’s most sacrosanct principles, whether for political reasons or efficiency, should create outrage regardless of why it happened. The true media firestorm should be there, not in a political game of scandal and response.

The IRS is the sole body that can transfer wealth generated in the marketplace by hardworking individuals, whether CEOs or factory workers, to the government. The agency has the authority to shutter any business, bankrupt any political group, damage any charity. It is absolutely vital that an organization with such power promote uniform treatment. There is a reason that the IRS is designed to be as independent as possible: Americans may disagree about many things including taxation but those issues are resolved through the political sphere. The IRS is charged with enforcing the law, not creating it or interpreting it. This incident undermines the critical belief that, despite differences over a law’s creation, its application will be uniform. If the Obama Administration is found to have interfered in the IRS’s review process, then the consequences should be severe. If, on the other hand, the IRS resorted to such inappropriate tactics to cope with limited staff, then Congress should promptly allocate more funds to the IRS rendering specific timesaving targeting unnecessary.

The IRS scandal explains why it is so important to limit government power and, when government is necessary, to subject it to rigorous checks and balances. The philosopher David Hume wrote how, when designing government, “every man ought to be supposed a knave.” Our political institutions are not designed based on trust, they are built upon inherent mistrust. A government agency that grows too powerful such as the IRS is not subjected to forces that would prevent abuses such as the current scandal. How can the IRS be trusted to implement the Affordable Care Act in a manner consistent with equality under the law when it cannot even do so with its present mandate? Whether the targeting was politically motivated or not, the IRS scandal illustrates the importance of preserving the belief that the government applies law uniformly. Only a limited government with strong checks and balances can prevent agencies such as the IRS from having the power to target certain groups, political or otherwise. The IRS’s recent behavior should not divide us; it should unite us in outrage because our belief that we should all be treated equally under the law was threatened.

Both controversial and almost universally recognized as necessary, prison reform has been creeping up from a longstanding issue in California and other states to the national stage. Grover Norquist, a conservative tax reform advocate and member of the NRA board, believes that conservatives will lead this traditionally left-wing reform area. Speaking at the Law School this afternoon, he explained the historical problem that liberals face with reforming the justice system: beginning with Dukakis’ failed 1988 Presidential campaign that hinged in part on a prison furlough program Dukakis promoted. After a prisoner on furlough raped a woman and assaulted her fiancé, both his primary opponent Al Gore and Presidential race opponent George. H. W. Bush attacked Dukakis’ softness on crime. Ever since then, Norquist explained, liberal candidates have been forced to worry that if they pass any prison reform legislation, they’ll take the blame if any former convicts commit repeat crimes.

When an audience member questioned why a conservative candidate wouldn’t face the same criticism from the right in his or her primary, Norquist claimed “We have enough conservative names [behind prison reform] to help defend from attacks on the right.” And indeed, many conservative states including Texas have been implementing prison reform. Headlined by increased drug rehab programs and limiting incarceration for non-dangerous criminals, Texas’s new legislation has cut its incarceration rate by 10% this decade and according to Norquist, has saved $2 billion by not building two new planned prisons and decommissioning others.

Norquist was quick to clarify, however, that he was not simply advocating Texas’s approach, but rather using it as evidence that individual states can make progress on the issue. The best strategy, he believes, is federalism. “You’ve got 50 states competing to provide the best government at the lowest cost,” he said. He countered arguments that the federal government should legislate prison reform, explaining “If it’s the same everywhere, you can’t differentiate what’s working and not working.” He also rejected the substitute idea of comparing the US to other countries, saying “I’m much more comfortable comparing Illinois and Indiana than saying ‘Why can’t we be like Zambia?’” His end goal of maintaining or decreasing crime rates while cutting costs is already working in not only Texas, but South Dakota, where 51% of incarcerations stem from drugs and alcohol related crmies that pose no immediate danger to the public.

When asked by an audience member about the risk of rising crime after limiting jail sentences, Norquist took multiple minutes to specify his stance: “Step 1 is you’ve got to ensure people that crime will go down, not up.” “You can’t sell this if crime goes up,” he laughed. He backed up his belief in the feasibility of this strategy though, again citing Texas. “By all measures, Texas… can say ‘things have gotten better for citizens and we’re saving money’”.

On a final note, he encouraged “baby steps” in all legislation. “Even if you believe in this 100%, don’t risk failing because you went just a little too far,” he says, warning against losing credibility for your idea if you move too quickly and things go wrong. “Baby steps” he repeated, “and it’ll work.”

Recently Public Discourse, an online journal published by the Witherspoon Institute exploring morality in society, published a series seeking to illuminate the philosophic foundations of our government, written by professors at Hillsdale and Notre Dame. The Review believes it might be of interest to our readers.

“Natural Law Liberalism Beyond Romanticism,” by Nathan Schlueter: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/7511/

“Sustaining American Liberalism in Principle and Practice,” by Phillip Muñoz: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/7857/

“Liberalism’s Logic and America’s Challenge: A Reply to Schlueter and Muñoz,” by Patrick Deneen: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9458/

Post your responses in the comments below.

Academic Affairs held a meeting with Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Harry Elam for students to voice their opinions about the recent proposal for schedule changes next year. Among other things, Elam dispelled many inaccuracies stated in the article published in the Daily February 27^th, “Registrar proposes 8:30 a.m. starts, banning double-booked schedules.”

Firstly, Elam hastens to point out that double-booking will not become completely forbidden, it will just require permission, similar to taking over 20 units. This is a measure done to ensure that students are not simply missing half of their classes and can take the time to invest the care necessary for a good education. Classes that are available through video lectures, like most CS classes, will likely be easy to get this kind of permission for. Students who need certain classes to graduate will also likely receive leniency. But this will be the exception rather than the rule.

Secondly, the problem of classes that overlap by fifteen minutes is being eliminated by the new scheduling system, which hopes to eliminate the archaic and ridiculous system now that uses several different methods for class times. Currently, it’s estimated that about 1,000 students have overlapped classes. The new measure is intended to eliminate this by offering far more flexibility in class times.

Also, Elam and Registrar Tom Black are not able to dictate class times. That’s entirely up to the department, and ultimately up to individual professors. Black plans on going to each department, showing them the new scheduling system, and encouraging them to not plan classes that conflict with major classes of interest like CS 106A, Chem 31, etc. But each department will make the rules. It’s up to them whether or not they will take advantage of the 8:30 time slot. Black is also encouraging other changes, like moving classes later in the day or taking advantage of the noontime slot, which is currently relatively empty. 90% of classes currently are between 11 and 2, especially humanities classes, which are hurt as they get passed by in favor of core classes.

The HumBio core and language classes, contrary to what was reported in the Daily, are encouraged to start at 9:30, not 8:30. Still, this is up to the teachers themselves. While Black did say he wants to use major required classes to lead this movement, departments know the effects that this will have on students and on the likelihood that classes will be both present and dynamic. The issue really comes down to choice: Departments must choose if they should offer more flexible class times or stick to those in peak hours, and students must choose if they’re willing to show up to these morning classes or refuse to attend so as to have their voices (un)heard.

Many are outraged about this because it seems to favor athletes and negatively impact those in the arts who have rehearsals, meetings, etc. But the new measures are intended to give more options at all times, including later in the day. The goal is to encourage departments to think differently about the way they schedule and open up opportunities for students to take the classes they want to take, not just ones they can take.

Dr. Dement, the Stanford fixture and professor of the always popular Sleep and Dreams class, was in attendance, and voiced concern that early start times coupled with a student body that’s already near 100% sleep deprivation will only hurt student performance. Elam responded saying he is well-aware of this, and that departments are aware too. Most teachers can tell when their students are too sleepy to learn, and this will be reflected in their decisions on class times. Some might force students to make the call between being well-rested and taking the classes they want to, but with enough student voices this might not have to be the case.

One of the biggest problems most students have with this is what seems to be a top-down approach which fails to take student thoughts into consideration, and which has gotten too far without any voice from the students. The measure will not be passed until next week at the Faculty Senate meeting, where a delegation will read student complaints. And Elam says that though he sends out emails at the beginning of the year outlining desired changes in each school year, he has very low student response. He is working to correct this though, and he seemed open to implementing suggestions raised at the meeting including a listserve and one-click voting on issues.

A petition circulated recently gathered almost 1,300 votes by the time of this writing against the measures proposed. However, many of these students were misinformed. Doublebooking is not completely abolished; the measure has not been passed, merely proposed; classes, especially important ones, would not have to start at 8:30; these decisions are made on a departmental level with only insight from the Vice Provost and Registrar; scheduling will be simplified to eliminate confusion and contradictions; student voices are first and foremost, because students ultimately decide which classes they take. No one is forcing you to take early morning classes. The goal is simply to provide more options for the students who would have interest in opening up their schedules.

If you still feel strongly about this, vote with your feet and don’t attend these classes. And make sure your voice is heard by the Faculty Senate and by your teachers. Representatives of the ASSU will read student petitions and the views expressed already at the meeting, so either sign existing ones or create your own. Student opinions are the only ones that the departments care about, and widespread, informed discontent can help make a system that’s flexible and optimal for all parties. 

The ASSU representative is Shahab Fadavi, who can be reached at sfadavi@stanford.edu if you have specific concerns to be addressed.

I know that Chris Dorner is not officially deceased, but I am going to write this article assuming he is, considering the man who died in the fire/shootout at Big Bear Lake recently matched his physical description and Chris Dorner’s wallet with his driver’s license was later found in the fire rubble.

First, perhaps I have just caught a few rogue opinions, but it seems to me that more people than expected are upset about the way in which the San Bernardino Police Department killed Dorner. There is still conflict as to how the fire started. Some suggest that the heat emitted from the tear gas caused the cabin to go up in flames, while some recordings of the officers at the scene suggest that the burn was intentional. Even if the burn was 100% intentional, I have no problem with this. Dorner was a deluded killer, bent on murdering more innocent people in light of his twisted and perverse ideas of “justice”. I feel that the actions by the police to burn Dorner alive do not conflict with the conservative/libertarian ideas of justice and individual rights. I feel that these actions are justifiable under Nozick’s “Night-Watchman state”. Dorner was a serious threat to the well-being of other individuals of society. The moment that Dorner declares war on innocent citizens and then kills innocent people, he then becomes an immediate threat to society, thus being a legitimate target for the government to “coerce” in a manner to protect its citizenry. The government (the police force in this instant) are not abusing their power. It’s actually quite the opposite: Dorner sacrificed his rights to legitimize himself as a serious threat. As someone who is usually highly skeptical of the effectiveness of the government, I side with them on this one. This was a legitimate procedure to protect people. I’ve already heard the excuse that “What if it wasn’t Dorner?” Please tell me what person other than Dorner would hold themselves up in a cabin and murder a deputy? No one. If someone did, they then fall under the same disposition that Dorner did, which was the sacrificial state of becoming a coercible threat.

Secondly, I cannot take anyone serious if they want to claim that Dorner was some sort of hero. Yes, I sat down and read his incoherent and bizarre manifesto. I honestly don’t care that someone called Dorner the N-word in first grade. Even if you faced substantial racial discrimination your entire life, that never justifies murdering innocent people. Frank Serpico testified against corruption in the NYPD in the early 1970’s and was largely hailed as a hero and constructive figure in terms of promoting transparency. There are so many other paths Dorner could have taken. I understand Dorner did go through a large ordeal concerning the initial dispute, which was centered around excessive force being used by a fellow officer against a mentally unstable man, but again, nothing warrants multiple murders against innocent people. Dorner claimed he was going to reclaim his image of some sort. The only image he can have now is that of a relentless psychopath. If you supposedly have so much dirt on the LAPD, and they are so unjust, why not write a book? Take it to the media? There are so many other options.

Lastly, I read in Dorner’s rant that he wanted his brain to be observed to see if “something” was causing his wild behavior. I don’t want to get into too morbid of a discussion here, but I am not sure if his brain is still in an observable state to examine, but either way, I am always skeptical of this route. As a reader mentioned in one of my previous pieces, Charles Whitman, the infamous Texas sniper from the 1966 shootings in Austin, requested that his brain be examined after he died. Doctors did find a large tumor in Whitman’s brain, but it was largely a medical consensus that the tumor did not affect Whitman’s decision making given its location.

If you think Dorner died unlawfully I want to hear your opinion. If your relatives lived in Big Bear where he was camped out during this ordeal, would you still have the same opinion?

This Wednesday, Hillel at Stanford is hosting the talk Is Peace Possible Between the Israelis and Palestinians? at 7:30 while a panel of scholars discusses The US and Iran: War or Diplomacy at 7:00.

Both panels feature experience in both academia and policy and come at a time when the politics of the Middle East has been an increasingly divisive issue on campus. Join the Review in learning from these knowledgeable voices on the issue.

Last week as I was watching the national title game, I was beginning to wonder if Manti Te’o even existed, considering the way that the Alabama offense ran the ball at will with Lacy and Yeldon, but now our focus is shifted, considerably. With the feeding frenzy ensuing from the girlfriend hoax and lengthy Deadspin article that surfaced today (1-16), I still don’t fully understand what is going on, but let’s give it a shot anyway….I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist. I am just posing serious questions I have concerning the material that has been presented thus far by sports journalists and popular media. Whatever is going on, this is an incredibly bizarre turn of events. I didn’t think the elite tier of college football this postseason could have more bizarre moments, considering Johnny Football’s idiotic and careless use of social media and Musberger’s comical infatuation with A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend (who I am pretty sure is real). Jokes aside, here are some thoughts:

1.       The Two Options for Te’o

As much as I respected Te’o’s play these past few years at Notre Dame, his remaining options for his image are grim. If this indeed was a true hoax, then I am sorry to say that Te’o is completely incompetent. The guy seems with it, and is a successful/savvy football player at a prestigious university in Notre Dame. If you told me that the not-so-bright, dumb jock linebacker at your high school fell for this hoax, I might believe you. But Te’o seems fairly competent to me at least. He doesn’t seem like a dumb jock. Our other option, of course, is much worse. If Te’o somehow knew about this hoax, then this is major damage to his character and public image. So he is either labeled (I can leave you to be the judge to which is fitting or fair, or if either of them are!) extraordinarily naïve or a twisted individual. I am praying for the former.

2.       Matt Masifilo’s tweet

Earlier today, former Stanford football player Matt Masifilo tweeted concerning the matter:

“Got to believe Te’o was the victim here. He would always ask us if we knew his mystery girl after we’d “play them….”

Not to be too judgmental, but really? You’re telling me that Te’o eventually got into a relationship that he called “the love of his life” (3:50 in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF21-7PdqO8) yet asked players from another team repeatedly if they even KNEW his to-be girlfriend? This does not seem logically coherent to me in the least bit. But then again, if Te’o is an “innocent” victim due to his naiveté here, I guess it doesn’t have to make sense to me, does it? In order for this to be a hoax against Te’o, a remarkable amount of naiveté is required on his part…

3.       Skype

In this day and age, tons of people, especially young people, use skype/webcams for communication. ESPECIALLY couples in long distance relationships. Are you telling me that neither Te’o nor his girlfriend had access to a webcam or knew about Skype? Did Te’o just receive pictures of (what seems to be a somewhat random woman from Torrance, CA) and talk on the phone to a girl and think it was legit? I just don’t get it. If this was a true hoax, you have to think at some point Te’o would have asked this girl to have a conversation over webcam.

4.       Te’o Claimed to have met Lennay Kekua in Person

Don’t jump the gun too fast here. Just because Te’o said he met the girl doesn’t make him “in on it”, but it is certainly an added question to the chaos. Perhaps Te’o said he had met her in person out of saving himself embarrassment over the fact that his relationship was a purely digital one? Even with the growing popularity of online dating and such, there certainly is still a stigma towards online relationships, especially for a Heisman contender…

All in all, I really hope Te’o is just naïve and the victim of a tasteless hoax by some very bored individuals that need to get a life. Again, the questions I have above are not to convince readers to think Te’o was behind this hoax or a pure victim, but rather just raise awareness to the specific questions that I (among many others) have concerning these events, which will hopefully be addressed in the days to come. There is one absolute truth to take away from this developing story, however: question everything. In the day and age that we live with the rapidity and veracity of the internet, so many opinions can spring up at an instant. Cynicism is not always appropriate, but sometimes it can certainly serve you well.

Call me naive, stupid, or whatever you want, I just don’t get it plain
and simple. Why do so many people dislike Tim Tebow? A common response
I’ll hear from a lot of people usually goes along the lines of “Well,
everyone just makes him out to be God or something, like he’s perfect,
and I’m just tired of hearing it”. Okay, cool. You’re tired of people
and media pundits talking about Tebow, so why do you take it out on
HIM? To me, the guy doesn’t crave attention. To be honest, I really
find it disturbing that we as a whole are so crucial and increasingly
negative towards Tebow while attention-mongers we’ve seen over the
years such as T.O., Chad what ever his last name is nowadays, and Ron
Artest (yes I refuse to call him Metta World Peace because if one
player in professional sports demonstrates anti-peace behavior by
getting in fights often and having a short temper, it is definitely
Artest, the exact opposite of his supposed name). But alas, we
generally accept these (in my opinion) attention-mongering superstars
and their actions, but the moment Tebow does anything or an excessive
amount of coverage is surrounding him, we take it out on the guy.
Please, America, that is not only illogical, but hurtful. I’m not
trying to convert people to like Tebow. You don’t have to like the guy
(although honestly I don’t see how anyone couldn’t), but the reasons
presented popularly in social media and by amateur sports pundits are
laughable at best.

In case you haven’t figured out, I am a huge Tebow fan. Do I think
he’s the best player ever? Of course not. Is he a perfect human? Far
from it. In short, I like the guy, and I just flat out don’t see any
legitimate reason for sports fans to dislike him one bit. If you’re
upset about his image in popular media, get mad at ESPN, Sports
Illustrated, or whoever, but don’t take it out on him. He doesn’t fit
the “attention-monger” archetype to me, just a hardcore football
player who isn’t afraid to express what he truly believes in

I am not a pessimist, but pure evil can never be addressed politically or socially in this lifetime and consciousness. It exists, and will continue to exist as long as mankind walks the earth. Obama can not solve anything. Romney, McCain, or Paul couldn’t if they were President, either. Certain issues can certainly be addressed through laws, but taking the mindset that thinks we can solve a huge issue that encompasses so many components through pure legislation is simply unrealistic and downright naive. For me, it is not about the debate of gun control versus 2nd amendment rights, but rather the acknowledgement that evil does exist in the world, and that it shows it blunt, ugly face in a variety of fashions, whether it be in a Jewish ghetto in Poland, Cambodia, Columbine High School, or today’s events. Can some gun control measures prevent some crimes? I think so, but I still think the conversation should be had to compare the elements of gun control: deterrence, gun availability, and so forth. When dealing with pure evil, lawmaking almost seems naive and laughable. Evil is something so much more deep, powerful, and influential than social policy.

I do not want to dive into the motives and causes of this crime, considering we don’t know a ton about the killer and the circumstances surrounding why he did what he did, but in my honest, blunt opinion, I think our society is growing weak. I think that the higher standards of living in our country, developments in technology, and more comfortable lifestyle has blinded us. People snap more easily. We are more spoiled. People get offended more easily, and find reasons to do evil things more easily on a whim. This is the underlying reason why I think that free-form, human evil is evasive in nature. It’s hard to address, and sniff out. It evolves along with society, and constantly presents us with a challenge. Don’t call it an illness. I know many crazy criminals have “mental problems” and whatnot, but we cannot just dismiss this as that. We must recognize evil, and how our societal construct affects it.

Whether you are a Christian or not, I think this excerpt from our friend C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) is a powerful one, especially in times of tragedy such as this:

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can’t. If a thing is free to be good it’s also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (…) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.”

Many point to the 2012 election as the cataclysmic coalition-shifting event that will forever mark the end of the GOP, lest it transform itself.

But Sean Trende has pointed out data showing that the party may not be too far from a winning coalition. He looks at the percentage of the electorate made up of various ethnic groups. Minority voters slightly increased their percentage of the electorate, but according to Trende, this many not be what it seems:

The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.

Trende predicts a 6-7 million person drop-off in white voters from 2008. He highlights Ohio as a place where this probably hurt Romney.

Importantly, the Democrats didn’t add these white non-voters to their coalition. This means that there are registered white voters out there waiting to be persuaded, many of whom may have belonged to a Republican coalition in the past. If these voters can be activated in 2016 (which will obviously require some changes in the approach), then the electorate may look more like the GOP’s winning coalition from 2004. Of course, the GOP may still try to change its coalition by appealing to other demographic groups.

Exit polls and pundits will flesh out the relevant data for weeks to come. But be wary of those suggesting the GOP needs a complete overhaul to ever win another election. As Trende mentions, people suggested a Democratic Party overhaul after 2004. If anything, it’s still as liberal as it was then, just with a few upgrades (better candidate, better technology).