On August 4th of this year, the world lost one of its great philosophers. G.A Cohen, referred to by friend and foe alike as Jerry, was one of the world’s leading voices on analytical Marxism, distributive justice, and political philosophy. Perhaps no one in our time has thought so enduringly about rescuing Marx’s hope for equality and egalitarianism.

Jerry Cohen was born into a Marxist Jewish family living in Montreal in 1941, and was raised on the hope of an egalitarian future through communism. He attended the Morris Winchevesky Yiddish School and was subsequently the leader of a branch of the National Federation of Labor Youth. He graduated from McGill University in 1961 with a B.A., and found himself deciding between the University of Oxford and Harvard University for graduate studies. Against the advice of his advisors, he chose Oxford, and graduated with a BPhil under one of the century’s great philosophy of mind theorists, Gilbert Ryle. Cohen taught at the University College London for the next twenty-two years before accepting the Chichele Professorship of Social And Political Theory at All Souls College, Oxford in 1985.

Cohen’s academic work, spanning four decades, is a testament to the breath of his concern and the plurality of his interests. His first major work, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense, is an attempt to use the tools of rational choice theory and modern economics to provide a basis for Marx’s conception of dialectical materialism. This book is sometimes considered the first in the movement now known as analytical Marxism, of which Cohen was considered a leader. The book was considered a huge success and won the Issac Duetscher memorial prize, which is given annually for an important contribution to Marxist thought.

However, having offered his view on Marx’s project, Cohen turned towards the subjects that would occupy him time and time again throughout his career: equality, justice, and egalitarianism. Over the last few decades, he produced a series of important books addressing issues that were important to him. In Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality, he produced a powerful appraisal of the work of Robert Nozick. The tract offers a critique of the general libertarian attack against the welfare state. Cohen points out that because our current distribution of property is not a “natural state of things,” property has already been distributed unfairly over the population in such a way that restricts fundamental liberty of opportunity.

Towards the end of his life, Cohen released two great books dealing with equality and egalitarianism. In 2000, he released If You’re Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich, which was adopted from his Gifford Lectures. This book addresses everything from his Marxist upbringing in Montreal to the difference between being egalitarian with respect to wealth and being egalitarian with respect to opportunity, of which Cohen considered himself the latter. In 2008 he published Rescuing Justice and Equality, which among other things, is a critique of the ideas of John Rawls. But it was also another chance for Cohen to again raise a question that had run through his life’s work: Quality of What? Cohen’s last book, Why Socialism? will be released this year.

Despite Cohen’s academic contributions, when one reads the memorials to Cohen that have popped up all over the internet over the last few months, one is struck by the many ways in which he is remembered as much more than a scholar. A number of prominent philosophers and political theorists have come forward expressing their remembrances of Cohen as a teacher, mentor, and friend. This list includes, but is not limited to: Michael Otsuka, Jonathan Wolff, Chris Bertram, John Gardner, and Harvard’s own Michael Rosen.

Luckily for those of us who never had the opportunity to meet Jerry, there are a number of opportunities to hear him speak online. “Philosophy Bites,” a website offering podcasts of philosophers, has a great short interview with him that addresses the differences between equality, egalitarianism of wealth, and egalitarianism of opportunity. There are also recordings of his recent vindicatory lecture titled “My Philosophical Development and Impressions of Philosophers I Met Along the Way.” Though this may sound like a lecture in which Cohen discusses how he felt about certain philosophers that he had met throughout his career, it was in fact a marvelous hour and a half of Cohen telling stories and literally impersonating philosophers ranging from Gilbert Ryle to A.J Ayer and W.O. Quine. Impression is a word with more then one meaning, especially when one has a sense of humor!

And finally, I would encourage anyone with an interest in justice, equality, egalitarianism, global justice, distributive justice, or Marxism to pick up one of Cohen’s books. They are marvelously written, and provide wonderful insight for anyone who has felt the urge to think about justice and equality. Jerry Cohen, you will be missed but not forgotten.

The voids in America’s Senate and spirit left by Senator Edward Kennedy’s death are much larger than a single seat or vote. But because of the efforts of Massachusetts legislators, the seat, at least, will be filled for the next few months by former Democratic Party Chair Paul G. Kirk, Jr. Following a legislative change that authorized Governor Deval Patrick to name an interim senator, Paul Kirk was appointed late last month as a Senator from Massachusetts. Kirk, sworn in on September 25, will ensure Democratic control of that vital seat until Massachusetts elects a new senator in January. Governor Patrick had promised that any interim Senator will not run for the seat in the January 19 special election.
In the weeks before his death, Senator Kennedy was instrumental in pushing to change state law in order to allow for the appointment of a temporary successor. The controversial new law ensures Massachusetts’ representation in the Senate during the months between Kennedy’s death and the special election. More importantly, Kirk’s appointment allows the Senate Democrats to maintain control of the sixty votes needed for the filibuster-proof majority which may play a key role in the overhaul of the healthcare system.

Paul Kirk is a logical choice to fill the Liberal Lion’s seat, especially in light of the appointee’s impressive history of working for and with the Kennedy family. He worked on Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign, for Ted Kennedy from 1969-77 as an aide, and as the national political director of Ted Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign. He has also served as the chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation since 1992. Indeed, there are few individuals who can claim closer ties to the Kennedys than he. Kirk’s appointment is especially germane because of his potential to play a role in determining the future of health care in this country, a matter of great concern to Ted Kennedy, who first advocated universal health coverage in 1969.

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1964, Kirk worked as an assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. In 1966, he helped direct the gubernatorial campaign of John F. Kennedy’s former assistant Kenneth O’Donnell. Kirk moved to Washington in 1968 to work for Robert F. Kennedy. After Robert Kennedy’s assassination tragically ended the campaign, Kirk considered quitting politics. He instead went to work on Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff, where he remained for eight years as chief legislative and political strategist.

In 1977, Kirk left Kennedy’s staff to practice law, but came back in 1980 to help run Kennedy’s ill-timed and unsuccessful presidential run. Kirk played a strategic role in organizing the underdog effort against incumbent President Carter in the fight for the Democratic nomination. The ticket faced discouraging primary results early on, but fought back with surprisingly strong showings in key states, putting the campaign back in the running. Kennedy battled Carter all the way to the Democratic Convention, where Kirk’s negotiation helped determine the party platform, and where he used every trick in his book to try to finagle enough delegates to keep Kennedy’s chances alive. Kirk’s efforts fell short, and Kennedy bowed out of the race.

In 1985, Kirk beat out former North Carolina Governor and soon-to-be North Carolina Senator Terry Sanford, as well as a frustrated, mud-slinging Nancy Pelosi (who accused Kirk of being unqualified and too closely tied to Ted Kennedy) for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. Since Kennedy was weighing another run at the presidency at the time, Kirk needed to assert his objectivity. To prove his neutrality, Kirk sponsored a resolution barring the chairman from taking any action that would benefit a Democratic presidential candidate in 1988. Moreover, Kirk had a history of condemning biased party chairs: in 1980, Kirk unsuccessfully sought the ouster of then-chair John C. White for denouncing Ted Kennedy’s campaign early in the race.

Taking the reins of the Democratic Party in the middle of the Reagan era, Kirk called the ineffective party “more of a burden than an asset” for its constituents. However, he oversaw impressive Democratic gains in the 1986 elections, as the Democrats took control of the Senate and gained back five House seats (after losing sixteen in 1984). Despite Kirk’s best efforts to keep the party strong, 1988 saw another weak performance from the Democrats as the election of George H.W. Bush ushered in another four years of Republican control of the White House.

Since leaving the chairmanship of the Democratic Party in 1989, Kirk has been co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates and has remained close with the Kennedy family, chairing the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. Massachusetts football fans appreciate Kirk for his role in keeping the New England Patriots in Foxboro, when they threatened to move to Connecticut in 1999.

When running for party chair in 1985, Kirk’s bugaboo was the accusation that he was too closely tied to Ted Kennedy to act as an impartial chairman: “Paul Kirk’s credentials are 15 years with Teddy Kennedy,” charged Pelosi in 1985. In a twist of fate, today, this affiliation (as well as his expected partisanship) is an asset.

While he may not be notable for his energy or excitement (said one associate of him in 1985, “Behind that quiet exterior is a quiet interior”), Paul Kirk should provide a sure Democratic vote in the Senate as he serves in Ted Kennedy’s seat, continuing his longtime friend and ally’s legacy.

-Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh responding to New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin.

“So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality–are believers in net neutrality” to “control content.”

-Glenn Beck on those who would advocate Net Neutrality, something many of the inventors of the Internet are calling for.

“This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have.”

-Rush Limbaugh, on why his (now failed) bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team is an issue of national importance.

“Go [through] the right door, fill out the right form, have some apple pie, hum a few bars of the Star Spangled Banner and get to work.”

-GOP Chairman Michael Steele on how Republicans believe Americans should act.

At the present, both the United States and the larger industrialized world find themselves in unstable financial times. In many parts of our country, the unemployment rate has climbed above ten percent, and many family’s individual budgets have never been so bleak. However, these concerns overshadow the larger danger of our global financial crises. What should really concern us is the sheer number of people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition around the world every single day, and how little we continue to do about it. The Borgen Project, a United States based global poverty organization, estimates that 25,000 people die every day across the world just from hunger. (Malnutrition and hunger are different statistics. Malnutrition deals with overall health, and hunger means that the body is not consuming enough food to survive.) 10.9 million children under the age of 5 die each year from malnutrition. Borgen also reports that as many as 684,000 of those children under the age of 5 could have been saved with proper access to Vitamin A and Zinc.

It does not take sophisticated moral pondering to come to the conclusion that people around the world are suffering and something should be done about it. But is it not a Herculean task? Well, yes and no. Yes, because it has so far been too difficult for anyone to accomplish. And no, because it is clearly within our means to accomplish. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that eliminating global hunger and malnutrition around the world would take $30 billion a year. Sound like a lot of money? Well again, it is and it isn’t. To put $30 billion a year in perspective, let me compare it to other costs. For instance, the United State’s Department of Defense budget for the fiscal year 2009 was $541 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were allocated $170 billion. (The 2009 budget designed under President Bush had yet to include the wars in the Middle East in the actual federal defense budget, something that will now be done under the current administration). So all together, the United States will spend at least $711 billion this year simply on national defense. That is to say, we currently spend almost 24 times the cost of feeding everyone in the world on national defense.

I compare the costs between these two budgets because they are undeniably linked. Studies have shown time and time again that poverty is tied with the spread of radical ideologies and terrorism. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have called for an increase in poverty aid for exactly that reason. It’s far easier to recruit potential terrorist or pirates when their children are dying at an unfathomable rate from starvation. The world would be a much safer place if everyone had enough to eat. But what is currently being done? Well, for a comparison in priorities, it currently costs the United States $4.4 billion to build two B-2 bombers for our Air Force. The entire annual budget for the World Food Program, the worlds’ largest aid program that serves 104 million people in 81 countries, is only $3.2 billion. I can’t help but think that 104 million fewer starving people in the world might make us more safe then two B-2 bombers.

It is often argued that this vision of a progressive future is misguided in its design and philosophy. Critics point to past failures of international aid programs and foreign intervention. And it would be wrong to brush these concerns aside as baseless or meaningless. There are indeed legitimate criticisms to be made of the efficiency of different types of foreign aid and international intervention. But these worries should be taken as helpful guidelines for directing foreign aid, and not a reason to avoid action. All too often critics use the difficulty of aid as an excuse to do nothing and turn a blind eye to suffering and inequality in others parts of the world. It would be a mistake to fall victim to such arguments. We should instead reaffirm our commitment to providing aid for those suffering all across the globe, and at the same time commit to doing so responsibly and with care. But something should be done, and we have more then the means to do it.

I was feeling fairly optimistic about my trip to Beijing. At least until the plane suddenly landed with a loud thud. Weren’t we still flying amidst the clouds, thousands of feet in the air? I quickly scolded myself for my naïveté. Those “clouds” were thick billows of disgusting white haze. I had hoped that reduced coal usage, a new subway system, and the permanent implementation of some Olympic environmental policies would mean a greener China. Chinese citizens enjoyed clean air so much during the Olympics they demanded the continuation of several policies, including closing many factories and allowing cars on the road a limited number of days per week. Are there constant blue skies? For now, no such luck—and pollution is not the only thing making China’s shifting policy a little dirty.

But my optimism did not just concern pollution. After all, environmental improvements were just one promise China made during its Olympic bid. They also vowed to improve human rights.

Eight months after the Olympics, where does China fall on a scale of human rights? After facing international criticism during the violent Tibetan protests of 2008, China stubbornly refused to budge their stance on Darfur. The government failed to cut off relations with Khartoum, and the “genocide Olympics” indeed became more of a reality than slogan. Activists were repressed during the Olympics, and censorship was high.

Recent headlines have revealed China’s consistent willpower and capability to carry out threats against those fighting for discourse. Last December, China cancelled an EU-China summit in protest of French President Nicolas Sarkozy meeting the Dalai Lama during a reunion of Nobel Peace Prize winners in Poland. Censorship has not abated. During spring break, I tried to access YouTube from my house in Beijing and received this message: “Network Timeout. The server at youtube.com is taking too long to respond.” YouTube was blocked for over two weeks, and the government refused to give a reason why. Many believe that the move responded to a YouTube video of Chinese Police Officers beating up Tibetans.

This March, the story of the ‘grass-mud horse’ became a favorite online New York Times article. A Chinese song about the mythical grass-mud horse became a YouTube phenomenon, logging over 1.5 million views and receiving international attention. A documentary about its life and habitat gained nearly 200,000 views, and industry emerged for grass-mud horse dolls. Why the sudden craze? In Chinese, the name for ‘grass-mud horse’ sounds like an obscenity, so this mythical creature ridicules and challenges government censorship. If the government didn’t censor the horse, they would allow obscenities to pervade across the media. By censoring the horse, they are combating the benign protest movement with an iron fist. For the government, it is a lose-lose situation.

As far as I could tell, only images of Mao could override Beijing’s far-reaching censorship. One morning, on an excursion an hour and a half outside the city, we struggled with a frustrated taxi driver and poor directions to locate a small artists’ village. A few miles down a dirt road we found an inconspicuous grey complex, which opened up into a beautiful courtyard with two art galleries. The place was a ghost town, which the owner attributed to the global economic crisis. Yet this rural gallery, along with roadside art stands and District 798, the hotspot of Beijing modern art, held countless satirical, comical, and politically bold images of Mao. Paintings of a gangster Mao. Mao in a Hawaiian shirt. Mao examining Duchamp’s “Fountain.” Mao’s portrait in the style of Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe. Why is this tolerated while the mythical grass-mud horse is not? The owner explained that Mao is a man of the past, posing no threat to the Chinese government. Granting artistic freedom makes the government appear more tolerable of self-expression, while in reality, the government saves its energy to control more contemporary political threats, including the Dalai Lama and political blogging.

Abuses against Tibetans, minorities like Mongols and Christians, and activists also raise questions about China’s record. According to Amnesty International, approximately 500,000 people are currently serving time without charge or trial. The legal system is inaccessible and unfair. My own parents, economists working on environmental issues at the World Bank, are wary about surveillance. We assume our phones are tapped and know the government can access all of our emails and Internet searches. More significantly, harassment, house arrest, and imprisonment are constant threats for human rights defenders nationwide. Although the Supreme People’s Court is now reviewing death penalty cases, China still has the highest rate of capital punishment worldwide.

On paper, however, China is changing. On April 13, the government released the National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010), a 54-page document revealing proposed human rights advances for the next two years. The Plan aims to provide fair trials, discourage torture, ban abuses of detainees, and protect civil liberties, especially those of women, children, elderly, and minorities.

However, on many different levels the Plan doesn’t reach par. First, it does not suggest reforms of the country’s single-party system, rather it focuses on promoting tolerance and human rights within existing government agencies. Second, it fails to propose an overhaul of the administrative detention system. This system provides local law enforcement officials with extensive powers to convict people without a trial. Third, there is no guarantee to close unregistered jails that local governments across the country are currently operating.

The National Human Rights Action Plan is undoubtedly a big step in the right direction. Yet far greater steps are needed to ensure that the Plan becomes a reality. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told China that “the US considers human rights concerns secondary to economic survival,” Now more than ever, we can’t let China off the hook. While applauding the Human Rights Action Plan, the international community must pressure China to stay true to its words. And just as the Chinese pressured the government to combat air pollution, they too must continue to fight for freedom of expression. May the legacy of the grass-mud horse live on.

There are few worse insults in American politics than being deemed a “socialist.” Indeed, McCain’s supporters used it during the election campaign to paint Barack Obama as a dangerous radical leftist. And yet, in the American political lexicon, there exists a superlative to this term: a “European socialist.” For years, Europe has entertained a reputation as the standard bearer of leftist politics in the American imaginary. A quick review of world leaders today, however, draws a stunningly contradictory picture.

Indeed, if leftists around the world are looking anywhere for guidance, it is to America. Over the past five years, right wing governments have progressively taken hold of Western Europe. Today they control the European Union and every major Western European nation with the exception of the United Kingdom and Spain. Even then, conservatives threaten to take back power in the UK, leaving Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero Rodriguez as the lone European socialist in power. Is there an end in sight to this rising European conservatism? Unfortunately, that seems highly doubtful at the moment.

The new global dynamics grew evident during the recent debates over the global response to the economic crises. While the United States, with the support of Britain, has supported a strong calling on states to raise their stimulus budgets, European governments led by France and Germany have called for caution, preferring a more restrained approach. In a seemingly complete reversal of circumstances, it has been Europeans who have criticized the American and British irresponsible budget spending.

The European criticisms of Obama’s economic policies have shocked numerous commentators in the American press. At a recent news conference on the bank bailouts, one reporter asked the president if he was at all concerned that the traditionally leftist European governments had expressed reservation in the face of the astronomical figures of the American stimulus measures. Such questions, however, reveal an important misunderstanding of the current global political climate. While Europeans states continue to have more developed social welfare programs than the United States, the new European conservative governments are strongly averse to increasing state spending on such programs.

The new European conservatism has defined itself by co-opting the far right’s rhetoric on immigration and insecurity while calling for reduced tax burdens and state expenditures. Its emblematic figures are in a sense, Europe’s responses to George W. Bush: Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi. Both politicians have built their base on their charismatic characters and frank manners. However, they have elicited the ire of those on the left for their opulent lifestyles and outrageous statements. Berlusconi has caught the attention of the international press for his bizarre behavior towards the new American president, including a series of comments on Obama’s “tan.” Not to be outdone, Sarkozy was recently derided for insulting major world leaders, with the exception of Berlusconi of course, during a dinner with MPs. His targets included a “not very intelligent” Zapatero and an “inexperienced” Obama. Despite these gaffes, Sarkozy and Berlusconi’s opponents have failed to really invigorate the opposition, even in the face of the economic crisis. Indeed, both leaders have built their reputations as men of action, willing to reform their countries in order to break cycles of unemployment and slow economic growth. In these difficult times, European socialists could spare to learn a few lessons from their American counterparts.

While European leftists have grown weary of the notorious centrism of American leftists, the rightist criticism of the Obama administration indicate that the Democratic Party remains firmly anchored in progressive ideology. Unlike the Clinton administration’s strict adherence to free-market policies, President Obama has proved himself more willing to challenge conservative economic orthodoxy. In fact, Obama and Gordon Brown’s economic policies could offer interesting ideas to European socialists who have largely abandoned all economic questions to the right. Although the financial crisis has encouraged some progressive leaders to attack the meager responses of conservative governments, they have failed to offer coherent plans to address the crisis. Furthermore, Obama’s success should temper fears that alliances with centrists necessarily dilute the progressive message. While all coalitions require some amount of compromise, charismatic leadership can ensure that the leftist fundamentals of party platforms remain.

Of course there are some things that the American Democratic Party cannot offer to European left-wing parties. Europe’s debates over immigration and the ideological divides of leftist parties have to analog this side of the Atlantic. However, as with the economy, European progressives must propose a serious alternative to the right in matters of immigration and crime. Such responses must argue for an emphasis on reinvestment in social infrastructure rather than expansion of police powers. Nonetheless, if Europeans hope to put an end to the tiring antics of Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and the like, they must shed their pretensions to leftist orthodoxy and spare a look to the United States. It may have seemed unlikely even a few years ago but, America may just be the new progressive haven.

Let’s face it: the Senate sucks. And not just this Senate in particular—there is an intrinsic, institutional suckiness that pervades the upper house of Congress. It’s uneven in its democratic representation of constituents. Wyoming and California have 0.175 percent and 12.1 percent of the U.S. population respectively, but each gets an equal 2 percent of the Senate. As the last year has made clear, its internal structure is still more undemocratic and arbitrary. Mechanisms like the filibuster and PAYGO restrictions lead to a bizarre system in which personal whims of Ben Nelson can deprive the states of $25 billion in education funding, or the reelection concerns of Arlen Specter can seemingly sink the Employee Free Choice Act, even when 51 other Senators (or more) disagree.

Some of these problems could be solved by internal procedural reforms, such as repealing PAYGO rules (PDF) or abolishing the filibuster. But those reforms could be reversed by a future Senate, and the problem of disproportionate representation would remain. Fundamentally, a unicameral legislature, consisting solely of the House of Representatives, would be less prone to gridlock and more democratic than the current system. The remedy is clear: we need to abolish the Senate.

Given that it is established in Article I of the Constitution, how would one go about getting rid of the world’s greatest deliberative body? A constitutional amendment would be in order, naturally. But the hang-up depends on how you interpret Article V, which governs the amendment process, and specifies that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Sanford Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas law school and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution, thinks a Senate-abolishing amendment would not violate Article V. “The lack of any suffrage at all for any state would meet the formal requirements of “equal suffrage” (i.e., none for anyone),” he said. Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley, agrees, and argues that equal representation may not even be required. “One of my former colleagues once suggested to me that the Senate to which the equal representation cause refers no longer exists because of the 17th Amendment, providing for direct representation of Senators,” he recounts.

Opinions are not unanimous, however. Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School thinks Article V rules out this means of abolishing the Senate. “My view is that this would indeed require unanimity,” he explains. However, even if Article V precludes such an amendment, this raises another question. What if, before passing an amendment abolishing the Senate, another amendment passed removing the “equal suffrage” clause from Article V? Such a change would remove any impediment to abolishing the Senate, but the question remains of whether it would be legitimate.

Dorf doubts that it would be, and thinks the unanimous consent of the states would be needed, just as with abolishing the Senate through a single amendment. Levinson thinks the question is ultimately one of politics and not Constitutional interpretation. “My own view is that if the country were ever sufficiently outraged by the Senate to support an Article V amendment that was able to gain 2/3 support in Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states, no court would (or should) dare to block it on constitutional grounds,” he says. Larry Kramer, a constitutional law expert at Stanford Law School, agrees, but is not as confident in his prediction as Levinson. “It’s just not a question as to which there is a ‘right’ legal answer. There are legal arguments on both sides,” he explains, “But as with many or most constitutional issues, law and politics are inseparable and it would be a political resolution, with legal arguments as part of the rhetoric.”

For their part, the Constitutional scholars I talked to vary widely in what they think should happen to the Senate. Kramer thinks the institution is worth preserving despite its flaws. “Personally, I do think that abolishing the Senate would be a very stupid move, even with its malapportionment,” he says. Farber suggests a compromise. “How about a pragmatic solution: All of the states retain equal representation in the Senate, but add ten members elected ‘at large’,” he proposes. “That would increase the Senate’s democratic legitimacy but each state would continue to have the same number of Senators as every other state.”

Interestingly, Dorf’s personal beliefs run up against his constitutional interpretation. He’s disappointed that the Constitution, in his view, does not give the people the right to abolish the Senate. “I think this is quite an unfortunate feature of our constitutional system and undermines its legitimacy as a matter of first-order political theory,” he laments.

Meanwhile, Richard Epstein, a noted libertarian legal scholar at the University of Chicago, is offended by the very notion that one would try to eliminate the Senate without consent of the states, even given the body’s shortcomings. “The imbalances in the senate are much more costly now than ever before,” he asserts. “And second, the effort to undo it without consent of the states reflects all the misguided ingenuity of too much modern constitutional interpretation.”

To be fair, this exercise is almost entirely academic. Even if a Senate-abolishing constitutional amendment were possible, it would have to go through the ratification. That, of course, involves such an amendment getting 67 votes in the Senate, which will clearly never happen. But the interpretations of scholars like Levinson and Farber give us hope that someday, a particularly self-loathing instantiation of the greatest deliberative body on earth will have the common decency to vote themselves out of power.

Note: This piece originally appeared at CampusProgress.org.

The Great Equalizer

“It’s always a kick to see trust fund babies deal with sharing a room half the size of my single,” a friend once noted.

I first noticed the breadth of Harvard’s financial aid initiative through the housing lottery. Legacies end up bunking with first-generation college students, and globetrotting internationals with students from rural America. In the eyes of the the powers that be charge of sorting out rooming assignments, we are all one and the same. Dorm assignments constitute some of the first steps to accomplishing what I believe to be the real mission of Harvard—to take a group of promising kids from the full spectrum of backgrounds and in four years equip them all with the skills of any Harvard graduate.

As for our Puritan Heritage

Old John Harvard would roll in his grave if he heard of Debauchery, Mather Lather, or Sweet and Nasty. Harvard students make it a point to epitomize the term “Work Hard, Play Hard.” Before coming to Harvard, I expected the ingredients of a “good” Friday night for most Harvardians to involve finishing a math problem set three days early. In fact, I have found that the real ingredients are a decent iTunes mix amplified with a killer bass, plenty of eager freshmen in sketchy unlit rooms, and an ironic “You Must be 21 to Drink” sign hung in a lonely corner.

Contempt for our Puritan heritage was exactly the type of behavior that caused former Harvard President Increase Mather to leave us and aid in establishing Yale. Good riddance.

Life Beyond Ec10 and LifeSci

Yes, there’s more to life after Harvard than just Medical School and I-Banking. But explain that to 95% of the people who shake their heads in disbelief when I tell them that I am in neither LifeSci or Ec10. The confident 95% are sure that I’m completely wasting a Harvard education since I’m not headed in those two career tracks. For my part, I’m convinced the real tragedy is the guy in Annenberg who rattles off a well-meditated list of firms he intends on working for after graduation. Having endured an average thirteen years of schooling to get here, I would hope that you have some originality and potential in you. Why limit yourself to Wall Street when you can be anywhere else in the world?

For those of you that dare to defy expectations, I salute you. Stand strong in defending the practical applications of a History and Literature or Visual and Environmental Studies degree in the real world to anyone and everyone.

The Weight of the H-Bomb

Come on, admit it, we’ve all tried using it to see the effect. But it’s not just about the name of the institution. It’s also the people that make up the name. It’s a well established fact that using the H-Bomb itself is pretentious and makes you look like an arrogant prick. Instead, students will use the diluted derivatives of it which may be equally or even more pretentious, dropping lines like “I played on the same B-ball court as Obama” or “Thoreau lived in my building before he moved to his pond”. That said, walking through the Yard on a rare sunny day, it’s those same lines that remind me of how blessed I am to be here and inspire me to keep typing at 4am in Lamont try to live up to the legacies of fellow Harvardians.

So long as I survive the next three years.

“One second,” Rose Styron tells me. “I just have to call Carlos Fuentes.” Telephone conversations with the world’s most famous writers are nothing new for Styron, a fellow at the IOP this spring. As a founding member of Amnesty International USA, the human rights activist and poet has spent the past forty years campaigning with fellow artists to help fellow humans. The list of her friends and familiar colleagues reads like a roster of the century’s most famous artistic personalities: Philip Roth, Mia Farrow, Frank McCourt. “Sting,” she says, is a good friend.”

The activist’s artistic posse is no coincidence—for Styron, art should be political. Art, she believes, has the power to elucidate social and political situations, both in their work itself and in their daily life. “Artists,” she says, “have an obligation to society to use their empathy, talent, and ingenuity in any way they can to protect citizen integrity.”

Styron’s own work follows such a model. Styron spent the first part of her career as a poet, immersed in American literary circles alongside her late husband William Styron, author of the novels Sophie’s Choice and The Confessions of Nat Turner. While Rose Styron had been active in politics and aided several presidential campaigns, her focus had been on her writing. “I was a poet,” she says.

But this focus began to shift at a writer’s conference in Russia in the late sixties. “There, I met a number of citizens… who had been exiled and tortured,” says Styron. “They told me their stories and they gave me manuscripts to bring back. But when I went to Washington, no one was a bit interested.” Determined to get the stories out, Styron joined the incipient American branch of Amnesty. “I devoted the next 20 years doing human rights,” says Styron.

Styron traveled the world on Amnesty’s behalf. Sent to Chile after Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet’s coup to find supporters of ousted president Salvador Allende who had “disappeared” under the new regime, Styron feigned a family vacation and scoured the country. “We played cat and mouse with the police trying to get information,” she says.

The trip, as Styron describes it, was an adventure worthy of a spy thriller. In order to obtain reports from wives of missing husbands, Styron set-up an elaborate game of catch. “We were in a swimming pool, playing with a red beach ball. [The women] knew us that way. When they were close to me in the pool they would give information.”

To be sure, artists do not need to go on missions make an impact. “My artist friends, whether they are writers or painters or photographers or musicians have depth and insight into the human condition.
I think they have the talent to persuade through the senses,” she says. “Although they may not go into government where they would act more directly, they can sway government leaders through their writing or visual art.”

Art as advocacy can take several forms. “It doesn’t have to be strictly political,” Styron says. She points to the ways that the guests in her study group, “Art and Politics,” have each created for a cause. “In his novels, Ward Just reveals or comments on politics through character… [poet] Jorie Graham talks about climate change both subtly through poetry and publicly in speeches,” Styron says.

But no matter the method, Styron believes that the arts and politics must be linked in order to effect change. “If [artists] can bring their talents to bear on a society where tyranny or suppression or lack of freedom is rampant I think it is their duty to do it,” she says.