As many of you know Sodexo is the corporation which provides food services on Marquette’s campus. Before I go into detailing the massive problems with Sodexo as a corporation, I do want to point out that the cafeteria workers, and the managers at the cafeterias, work extremely hard and do the best that they can to provide the students with a pleasurable dining experience. This, however, does not prevent Sodexo from failing in every respect in providing a positive dining experience. The amount that students pay for their meal plans is not reflected in the food which is served to them. For example, students pay between $7 and $11 per swipe depending upon their meal plan, whereas someone coming off the street pays between $4.20 and $7.35 depending upon the meal which they consume, i.e. breakfast is cheaper than dinner. This reveals that the students are paying much more than needed, and that students are flat out getting ripped off when they pay $7 for breakfast, which for many consists of a bowl of cereal or a bagel. In the end, it makes financial sense for students to just buy the cheapest meal plan every semester, and then buy food, keep it in their rooms, and eat it there. This is particularly true for students who have food allergies, or who are vegetarian or vegan.

The cost of the meal plans cannot be blamed directly on Sodexo, particularly given that Marquette takes roughly 35% off the top from every meal plan. This means, quite obviously, that when a student pays $1540 for the block 125 plan, then Marquette gets $539 and Sodexo gets $1001. What exactly happens to the $1001, has never been revealed by Sodexo, and the Sodexo representatives at the Q&A session held on April 19, claimed that they did not know where the money went. This then means that it is likely that at least a portion of the money goes to Sodexo corporate, with the rest going to Sodexo Marquette. The money going to corporate helps to pay for the costs of running family friendly things like private prisons and detention centers for immigrants in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. The money which stays on campus is then split between paying for overhead, paying the wages of the employees (which average $12 on campus according to the head of Sodexo Marquette), and paying for the food which is served. One would think that the food would be the top priority and that Sodexo would do whatever it could to provide high quality food. This, however, is not the case, particularly given that the target per plate cost is under $2, meaning that if a student wants to get $11 worth of food, that student would have to eat six plates of food, which is clearly an extremely unhealthy thing to do every meal, regardless of the health content of the food being served. What is then created is a system where students rarely get anywhere close to their money’s worth in terms of food consumed. As such, the current system, as it is in place, is entirely flawed in regards to the cost of food served compared to the price to consume it.

As one can see, the money which Marquette students pay for their meal plans, does not create a product which is based upon a significant portion of that money, but rather comes from a small portion, while the rest is divided between on several levels. This then leads to the current situation where most students agree that the quality of product served is inferior to that which can be purchased for less money at local eating establishments. While Dan O’Shea, head of Sodexo Marquette, claims that the food is of equal, if not superior, quality, and that other places where students could purchase food have shorter hours of operation, which apparently impacts food quality and price, what he does not realize, is that he is in fact wrong on both points. First of all the majority of students do in fact prefer off campus dining locations, which is why the number of students eating in cafeterias, not including at the AMU, has declined in the past several years, and this is also the reason for the destination dining program, which is designed to replicate the most common eating establishments which students frequent, in order to convince them to eat on campus instead of eating off campus. In addition, the hours of operation for the majority of cafeterias are 7-6:30, and not all cafeterias are open on weekends either. The only cafeteria which is open 7-12:00 everyday is McCormick, and as such, the argument that Sodexo provides long hours of operation, is completely untrue.

One can thus see the faults of Sodexo on campus. Most of the money students pay does not go to paying for food. The food quality is generally considered to be inferior. Those who run Sodexo on campus create smokescreen statements in order to confuse students. As such, we as students must demand that Sodexo either reforms its ways or be removed from campus and replaced by a company which will actually work in the name of the students, and create a quality product at an affordable price.

by Jonathan Stepp
jonathan.stepp@mu.edu

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Civil War and the national stain of slavery continue to influence public life in the United States 145 years after General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House ended the war and the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. When Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell declared April to be Confederate History Month in his state, he received heavy criticism, especially for not including any mention of slavery in his proclamation. McDonnell initially told the media that he had not addressed slavery because slavery was not a “significant” issue for Virginia in the war, a point that many people including the descendants of the half million Virginian slaves counted in the 1860 census surely disagreed with. McDonnell later amended his proclamation to address slavery, calling it “an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights,” as he should have done from the start.

No doubt the history of the Civil War and the Confederacy has an important place in American society, and study of this brutal war and both its causes and effects should be encouraged, although I am always skeptical about official government proclamations telling us what parts of history we should commemorate. Despite all the arguments about states’ rights, slavery cannot be extracted from the story of the Civil War for scholars to somehow analyze it without considering the role of the South’s slave economy and race relations.

Because of the Civil War and the Confederacy’s slavery, we have been taught not only to rightfully denounce the evils of holding another human as property but also to reject as inherently racist and bigoted the political means used by Southern politicians to defend their economic system from national government interference. Nullification refers to the right of states to reject and ignore unconstitutional federal laws. Secession refers the right to withdraw from a political entity, and specifically the state’s right to withdraw from the Union. Both “rights” have unsurprisingly not been recognized by the federal government, but neither presupposes a racist objective. They are merely means to an end, and what that end happens to be matters.

Tragically, because of our history, rhetoric about states’ rights and secession, nullification evokes images of slave owners, lynchings, and the 1960s screaming white mobs and police opposing equality for blacks. States’ rights concepts served as a shield for many racists who simply wanted to maintain their privileged positions in society, both in the decades leading up to the Civil War and during the civil rights movement. Yet states’ rights have a rich history in America long obscured by their use to defend slavery and discrimination. To accept that secession and nullification are never valid options means that, short of revolution, we must seek change through the federal legal and electoral processes while our local and state governments participate in enforcing an unjust law. When the federal government passes laws which not only seem disagreeable but also unconstitutional and in extreme violation of human rights, the state governments should stand against these injustices.

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of unjust, central authority, which is why the United States essentially came into being through the secession of the legally constituted British colonies. Later, the ruling Federalist Party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which expanded the federal government’s power to suppress criticism and deport dissenting non-citizens. Both Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively, which declared that Constitution did not give Congress the authority to pass such law and that the states had a duty to reject the laws. During the War of 1812 which devastated the New England economy, delegations from the five New England states attended a convention in Hartford, Connecticut, and seriously discussed secession. In both cases, opposing the violation of civil rights by the Alien and Sedition Acts and opposing war, racism had nothing to do with states’ rights.

However, an even more powerful example of states’ rights took place right here in Wisconsin and in direct opposition to the forces of slavery. The national Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required all law enforcement personnel to assist in efforts to recapture escaped slaves even if now residing in free states, instituted harsh punishments for anyone aiding runaway slaves, and gave accused runaway slaves no right to trial. In 1854, federal marshals apprehended runaway slave Joshua Glover in Racine and imprisoned him in Milwaukee. Before they could transport him back to Missouri , Sherman Booth and other brave Wisconsinites sprung Glover from jail and helped him escape to Canada, an event commemorated by the historical marker in Cathedral Square Park. Booth was later arrested, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional in Ableman vs. Booth on July 19, 1854, affirming an earlier decision releasing Booth.

So, instead of criticizing Governor McDonnell, let us do something constructive to remember our own history of using states’ rights for good. Join me in celebrating this July as Wisconsin Nullification Month and honoring this heroic use of nullification against slavery and oppression. We are blessed to attend college in a state that stood up to the federal government in defense of freedom, and it is time for us to say so.

by Andrew Marshall
andrew.marshall@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]

There’s no doubt many people living in the United States, much less Milwaukee, haven’t heard, read or seen the treatment that the media has recently given to the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church. By no means were either of the two major cases recent, but the press jumped on fresh circulation of information about the issue, and took advantage to exploit the issue to sensationalist levels. Proof of this is quite evident in the widely-read article by the New York Times published March 24th by Laurie Goodstein, in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger is bashed for “covering-up” the scandal of Father Lawrence Murphy. Goodstein bases her strongly anti-Catholic article on two sources, both having a conflict of interest in the circumstances of the article. Her primary source was lawyers, including Jeffrey Anderson, who have cases against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee as well as the Holy See, and have financial agendas in the matter. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee, was the second source. Weakland is quite discredited, as he is publicly known for using large funds (approximately $450,000) from the archdiocese to pay hush money to a former homosexual partner, as well as poor handling (or lack thereof) of other sexual abuse occurring in schools. The above mentioned were certainly not unbiased sources, and which can only result in biased reporting.

The sexual abuse that Murphy was responsible for occurred from July 1, 1963 to May 18, 1974 at St. John’s School for the Deaf in St. Francis, Wisconsin. In the 1970s, a few victims came forward to report the abuse to civil authorities. The matter was investigated by Milwaukee police, then St. Francis local authorities, and no resulting charges were filed. Around the same time, the abuse was reported to Archbishop of Milwaukee William Cousins, Murphy was removed from St. John’s School in May, and by September had moved to the Diocese of Superior. It wasn’t until 1995 that successor Archbishop Weakland received letters of accusation, and brought the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which Ratzinger headed. The CDF was informed since the accusations involved a breach of trust in the confessional, as soliciting in the confessional is against canon law, and spoken about in the Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis (1962).The document never prohibited reporting abuse crimes.

In the Murphy case, it is important to note that the canonical trial was not begun due to circumstances. The case was reported nearly two decades after the abuse had occurred, and at the time Weakland contacted the CDF regarding the matter, Murphy was in poor health and died. In the time before his death, Murphy asked for exemption from the case being heard, and was denied. This evidence in no way suggests that Cardinal Ratzinger was “trying to hide” the abuse.

Although the goal is to minimize the possibility of future sexual abuse, the risk can never be totally eliminated. The Church, like many other organizations, is made of human members. Pope Benedict, Archbishop Listecki, Archbishop Dolan, and many, many other priests and bishops have expressed their heartfelt condolences and support to the victims of this grave crime of sexual abuse. It is no surprise that the infidelity of other priests embarrasses and scandalizes those priests who are faithful to their vocation, as well as lay Catholics. These events are by no means taken lightly by the clergy of the Catholic Church. Just the other day, Pope Benedict met with victims of abuse in Malta. One of the survivors remarked that he “admired the pope for his courage in meeting us. He was embarrassed by the failings of others.” As a result, many precautions have been taken and preventative measures put in place for those who work with the youth in conjunction with the Catholic Church.

As our own Archbishop Listecki said during the Chrism Mass, “The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions. I believe, and history will confirm, that his actions in responding to this crisiscame swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves.” Instead of being a supposed ‘enabler’ and turning a blind eye to abuse within the Church, our Holy Father has been an instrument leading the Church out of crisis. And regardless of the media, he will continue to do so.

by Joanna Parkes
joanna.parkes@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Caring about something is hard work. A lot of hard work. If it’s one thing I’ve learned and grown to appreciate during my time at Marquette and my tenure at The Warrior, it’s that dedication, in any remarkable sense of the word, exists only because of people who care—care enough to take the criticism, care enough to keep going when everything goes wrong, and care enough about a mission to see it realized.

If hard work is needed for caring,courage is equally necessary. It takes a certain amount of courage to care. Maybe not Joan-of-Arccourage, maybe not Little-Rock- Nine-courage, but it takes some sense of bravery to put one’s name on a project or endeavor and take responsibility for it.

This virtue—the importance of caring and the value it creates in the midst of challenge—is indispensable. It is by far the most significant virtue I’ve learned at Marquette. Whether it’s caring about journalism, social justice, engineering, healthcare or finance, the existence of people who are caring and passionate is essential.

The Warrior is disliked and delegitimized by many. It is often excluded from serious discussion and consideration at Marquette—and that, in my opinion, is a shame and a disappointment. Obviously, I’m biased. I’m biased because clearly I care—I care a hell of a lot. But despite my personal investment in this broadsheet and the organization behind it, I believe The Warrior represents more than any type of ideological view, or renegade news source—it represents a student dedication to a free, truly uncensored, and financially independent forum for student voices. It the demonstration of students’ caring. It is the personification of a commitment to holding our administration accountable, celebrating meritocracy—all with the aim of projecting a vision of a great Marquette. The university doesn’t control us, can’t monitor us, can’t regulate us, and it drives them nuts. We are not an Office of Student Development-sanctioned student organization; we are not beholden to Marquette. We cherish our independence, but we want to be a part of the discussion. We shouldn’t have to be dependent in order to be invited to take part.

With this last issue, I depart from The Warrior. I still have some time to burn up the dance floor at Murphy’s (thank God), but my collegiate journalism career has come to an end. I think my work on this paper speaks for itself, and I hope that in some way, I have encouraged someone to care, because often, that’s all we have to offer, and incidentally, that’s all that really matters.

“One person can make a difference, and everybody should try.”-JFK

The Warrior Editor-in-chief Katelyn Ferral does righteous fist pump, releasing her inner Warrior and celebrating the triumphant completion of her reign. She was not on “performance enhancers” at the time of this photo. (Photo by Matt Dixon)

Popularity: 1% [?]

Julie Knyszek was chosen out of 3,500 student employees as the 2010 Student Employee of the Year this month for her work as a Cold Case Homicide Unit Analyst in the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) as a representative of the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.

A senior in the College of Arts & Sciences, besides telling her fellow employees and friends there will be free cake at the award presentation Knyszek has also found the best thing about her award so far has been making her unit proud.

“The best part has been seeing how proud it makes all the investigators and detectives I work with that I was chosen, that someone from their unit was chosen to be the Student Employee of the Year,” said Knyszek. “It’s not only an honor to me but they also take it as an honor and it’s been really nice to share that with them.”

Knyszek originally started her work in September 2007, and was handpicked in May 2009 to be apart of the newly formed MPD Homicide Task Force-Cold Case Unit with special intensive investigation into recent serial killings in Milwaukee.

Intitially a student investigator assistant, she was promoted in May 2008 as one of three program analysts for the pilot program establishing a Witness Protection Unit in the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.

“Her work as a program analyst was so impressive that she was handpicked to serve as one of our two representatives on the unit,” said David Budde, chief investigator for the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office.

Created to work on the case of multiple unsolved female homicides in the Milwaukee area since 1986, Knyszek helped with a variety of work while in the unit. She helped sift through over 700 names in nine homicide files, researched over 15,000 sexual assault investigations from the last 23 years, reviewed nearly 6000 prostitution-related investigations and arrests, looked over 2000 arrests over a 15-year period in the geographic areas where the bodies were discovered, questioned over 1000 names through the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and searched the state DNA databank of 125,000 people and the national DNA databank of 6,000,000 people.

With her help the serial killings were eventually linked to a suspect, Walter Ellis, who was arrested in September, 2009, and charged with seven counts of homicide.

Asked to stay on the unit, she worked on at least four additional cold case homicides in which leads were eventually developed and criminal charges were issued.

From search warrants to autopsys, watching interrogations to touring the crime lab, and working on high profile cases, and getting subpoenas to testify in court, Knyszek has found her work to be quite exciting.
“I think the most exciting part overall is just knowing that each day I go into work what I do truly matters and has an effect on some part of a criminal investigation or could even affect some other person’s life,” said Knyszek.

As a whole Knyszek’s work has been praised by the Attorney General of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee County Executive and the District Attorney. With this achievement she becomes the first student from the District Attorney’s office to ever win Student Employee of the Year.

“She is the finest work-study student to have worked for the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office in the past decade – out of a pool of well over 125 students,” said Budde. “This is an unprecedented assignment for a work-study student – never in the history of our office’s association with Marquette University has something like this been done.”

Still ecstatic about her award, Knyszek remembers the day she found out like it was yesterday.
“Everywhere I went everyone was congratulating me and telling me how happy they were for me,” said Knyszek.

“It served to further confirm the feeling of community I have within both the District Attorney’s office and MPD, particularly with everyone being truly happy for my accomplishment and thanking me for the work I have done for them.” Knyszek will stay with the unit until she graduates in May 2010.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Remember peer mediation from elementary school? Yes, the group of your peers that helped you cope when the big bad bully pushed you off the slide in the tot-lot. Well, there is a peer mediator for part-time and full-time staff, administrators and faculty at Marquette University—the Ombudsman. One would walk right past Dr. Kerry Egdorf’s office on the fourth floor of Cudahy Hall, and be unable to figure out what her job was except for the telltale bowl of rocks in the middle of her conference table etched with such words as: “harmony” and “peace.” So, if Egdorf is a peer mediator, why call her an Ombudsman? “It is a Swedish word used to describe someone who served as a liaison between citizens and the government,” said Egdorf.

Although one would think all faculty members agree on most things, Egdorf is there for the bumps in the road. “I am available to part and full-time staff, administrators, and faculty to listen to their concerns, and help them solve problems they might have with procedure or a colleague,” said Egdorf.

With a Ph.D in Communication Studies, Egdorf, who was once a professor on a tenure track at Marquette from 1997-2001, describes her role more like a “conflict coach” than peer mediator. She has a graduate certificate in dispute resolution and maintains a position as an adjunct assistant professor in the College of Communication and the College of Professional Studies. She believes that these roles allow her to both bind and detach when necessary, which is crucial to her job.

“ I see myself as, and want to maintain the role of, familiar outsider. I know how the university works, and can maintain an independent seperateness from the majority of what the university does. I can remain impartial to conflict between staff and administrators or faculty and staff or any other combination,” said Egdorf.

If the idea that those who educate and advise us sometimes have disputes with one another is foreign, that is the way it should be. Confidentiality is a major part of the role of Ombudsman and Egdorf does not keep record of who comes and goes in her office. Egdorf admits that her job is mostly listening and people often leave differently than when they arrived.

“Sometimes people feel better having a confidential resource where they can vent. After that they may or may not do anything about the conflict, “ said Egdorf.

Those who come into her office know that it is informal, a place to talk and generate possible solutions to conflicts and concerns. Egdorf redirects those looking to file formal grievances to the Human Resources Department, and stresses that the Office of the Ombudsman is just one of the places on campus where employees have a voice. “ One is Human Resources, and another is the Employee Assistance Program, which is a resource for all employees who have stress or workplace problems, “ said Egdorf.

Dr. Egdorf also emphasizes that her job is not to implement change, or take sides in a conflict or dispute. “ If I do any intervention it is known that I do not have any authority to change policy or processes,” said Egdorf. “My job is to get the conversation started and help keep it going if it stalls.”

Popularity: 1% [?]

Let it be known from this day forward: fruit beers are no longer in the ‘girly drink’ category. Sure, there are some that are just terrible, cough- Lienenkugel’s Berry Weiss-cough, but let’s be real. We all like fruit. We all like its sweetness and juiciness, and it tastes great. So, let’s get beyond the stereotype that men are only allowed to drink things that are brown (beer, whiskey, tequila, etc), and pony up to one of the best beers I’ve had in a long while.

Among craft brewers and craft beer drinkers alike, the New Glarus brewery (brewmaster, Dan Carey) is widely known to produce arguably the best fruit beers in the world. Their Belgian Style Red is considered to be the top lambic (fancy name for fruit beer) on the planet. So, if we’re going to learn to start appreciating, nay, respecting fruit beer, what better brewery to start with than New Glarus. The Cherry Stout is a one of New Glarus’ ‘Unplugged’ brews. A few times a year, Carey decides to brew something a little experimental, a little crazy, and the results are typically astounding. For the Cherry Stout, Carey starts with a typical black stout aged in oak barrels, and then to that he adds obscene amounts of Montmorency cherries from Door County, WI.

Expect this beer to pour a deep red, and to have a wonderful aroma of cherries and oak wood. A small head will dissipate after a few minutes, but the beer will leave a nice lacing on your glass (a sure sign of a quality brew). The cherries overwhelmingly dominate the taste, but the stout offers a solid foundation for the cherries to rest upon. This is only a seasonal beer, and may never be brewed again, so pick some up while you can!

by David Kruse
david.kruse@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

It is Tuesday night, what are you doing? While some have meetings and homework, I chose to go swing dancing. The Milwaukee Ale House has swing dancing lessons on Tuesday nights starting at 8.

The lessons are lead by two people from the Jumpin’ Jive club in West Allis. They teach for an hour and then let people dance freely. For a whole night of dancing, it is only six dollars to dance until midnight. However if are under 21, you have to leave at 10 p.m. because the lesson take place in the bar area.

The night is structured that the leaders, usually the males, remain in place and they are paired up with a follower or female dance partner. Then, they begin to teach the basics and about every few minutes the females change partners and go to a new leader. This process continues for about an hour.

It can be a little awkward at times. Junior Kevin Menard of the College Business stated that, “My least favorite part of the experience was the people who were really good and would then become impatient when I was still learning.”

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee student, Ross Hartwick concurred with Menard saying that, “Some of the people were arrogant and would not be patient even when I explained that it was my first time swing dancing.” At times, it can be awkward with height differences or try to communicate while learning the steps. It is a great time.

Law student, Andrew McDonald, said that he had a great time for friend’s birthday and enjoyed it a lot.
After that it became a more relaxed and free. This was my favorite part, and Hartwick and Menard would agree that meeting new people and being able to get out our own and try things was great.

Usually that meant you were able to just mess around with your friends and have fun and not worry as much about if you are doing it right. It takes a lot of pressure off of the leaders and they were
able to have a good time.

About an hour after that, they feature a birthday dance which is a round robin for one song. The leaders are given a chance to dance the birthday girl. The same goes for the birthday boys. (However at the time, there were only females.)

Therefore if you are looking for a good time on a Tuesday night, come down and enjoy a swingin’ night with friends.

by Amy Wilson
amy.wilson@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

As much as anything else, strong personalities drive contemporary American politics and the accompanying 24-hour news cycle. The compelling life stories of both Barack Obama and John McCain helped them package their messages and win their parties’ presidential nominations, and certainly President Obama’s charisma and personal mannerisms contributed to his triumph in the general election. Other political figures such as Sarah Palin, Al Franken, Dick Cheney, and Jesse Jackson owe much of their support and notoriety to their styles of campaigning and speaking. Political ideas without compelling advocates tend to go nowhere, and this especially holds true for ideas and philosophies which fall between the cracks of our limiting two-party system. The media elites and intelligentsia, as well as the greater public, also dismiss as crazy those causes which are associated exclusively with a single offbeat public figure.

Following his 2008 libertarian campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, one of the few politicians I support on most issues, has used his newfound celebrity to promote a number of causes, including his signature battle against the powerful Federal Reserve system. In light of the financial crisis, his ideas, particularly his push for a transparent and full audit of the Fed, have now gained significantly more grassroots and congressional support than in previous years. However, to the media, Ron Paul and libertarianism have become one and the same phenomenon. Even as Paul’s celebrity forces the media to mention libertarianism as an alternative to liberalism and conservatism, their unfair portrayal of Dr. Paul as a conspiracy theorist, a racist, and a crazy, cranky old man allows them to quickly dismiss his ideas and the diverse and much broader libertarian movement.

Liberals and conservatives have dozens of articulate and popular spokespersons with national profiles, who each appeal to different demographic and cultural groups within the American public. Libertarians like myself seem to have only Dr. Paul, who has done an amazing job in terms of securing media appearances and communicating a consistent message that makes his opponents in both parties look like hypocrites. America would be a better place if more political alternatives were discussed in the public arena, and libertarianism will only be able to challenge the more established philosophies if the public can recognize more than one public figure as a libertarian.

Fortunately for the sake of political diversity, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has formed a new non-profit, the Our America Initiative, to create a national platform for advocating libertarian approaches to public policy. Like Dr. Paul, Johnson represents the small and long ignored libertarian wing of the Republican Party. However, Johnson has the potential to reach Americans who are turned off by Dr. Paul’s economics lectures that I love so dearly. For starters, the former governor has eight years of executive experience with a record of making New Mexico’s government smaller and more efficient. He also benefits from being more than twenty years younger than the good doctor and having spent most of his life in the private sector building up his construction business. Most importantly, he climbed Mount Everest with a broken leg.

I had a chance to hear Governor Johnson speak at a conference recently, and he has an understated, calm, and straightforward approach which will help advocate for libertarian issues nationally. Johnson agrees with Dr. Paul on most issues and endorsed him in the 2008 race, but the governor communicates these ideas in a fresh way. He also appeals more to liberals and others wary who might view libertarianism as a right-wing reactionary cult. For example, he was the only sitting Republican governor in 2000 not to endorse George W. Bush for president, and he remains the highest ranking government official in American history to call for an end to the racist, unsuccessful, and costly “war on drugs.” Unlike Dr. Paul, Johnson also supports increased legal immigration rather than focusing on harsher border enforcement.

The American libertarian movement draws on multiple and occasionally even contradictory philosophical, cultural, and political traditions. While Dr. Paul has greatly swelled the ranks of political active libertarians and created new organizations to channel our energy, he still represents only part of the larger movement. Johnson’s return to the American political arena for the first time since he was term-limited out of office in 2003 will give the public another figure to associate with the ideas of liberty, one who cannot be so easily ignored.

Of course, part of the problem libertarianism faces will not be solved by having more nationally known libertarian figures, and that is that many people, probably including some reading this column, do not fully understand what the philosophy is all about. Johnson’s communication style will also help here, as he gave the simplest and most effective summary of libertarian beliefs I have yet heard: “I want to empower you to do your thing.” I only hope that we can hear that message from more and more new voices in the coming years.

by Andrew Marshall
andrew.marshall@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]

Many argue that ROTC may have a legal right to be on campus, but morally it doesn’t deserve place. but that it does not so on a moral ground. This argument is based on the premise that the teaching of war and values contrary to the Catholic faith and the Gospel.

It is true that war is against the teachings of the Catholic Church, but only in the case of unjust war. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians and doctors of the Church, addresses this issue in the Summa Theologica. In Part II, Question 40, he says that in order for a war to be moral “a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault”. In other words, if nation A attacks nation B, nation B may rightfully strike back at nation A. St. Thomas also cites Romans 13:4, saying that the nation that attacks out of self defense “beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”. Clearly, it is not against the teaching of the Catholic Church to wage a just war.

In order to carry out a just war, a military is needed, which in turn requires soldiers. Any Catholic would hope that these soldiers would be trained under the guidance of the Catholic Church, so that they may be led to make morally sound decisions in war. It is not contrary to Catholic teaching to train soldiers for this purpose. Therefore, ROTC does, morally speaking, have a rightful place here at Marquette.

While this justifies the presence of ROTC at Marquette in light of just wars, this argument does not justify, however, the presence of ROTC at Marquette in light of unjust wars, which, unfortunately, are all too common. So what is one to do if he is called to fight a war that is deemed unjust by the Catholic Church? And how can we justify training soldiers to fight these unjust wars at a Catholic University? To answer these questions, I quote the gospel of St. Mark, which says to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). The meaning here is that Catholics have a twofold duty in life: to God and to country. Catholics who do wish to serve their nation by joining the military, although there are many other ways to serve one’s country, do so because they recognize the need for soldiers to fight just wars in order to preserve and protect the ground you walk on. In doing so, they pledge, out of the humility that the Catholic Church so strongly instills in its faithful, to do the will of their country, whatever it may be. As citizens, all should vote for the candidates who will keep us out of unjust wars, but that is not always going to be the case. A soldier cannot pick and choose his battles; as such would be detrimental to the cohesion of the armed forces. Just as it is not our choice to decide what God asks of us, so it is not our choice to decide what our nation asks of us.

Finally, the classes that the ROTC students receive do not teach them to kill blindly, and “without conscience”. They simply give our nation’s future officers some of the tools they will need to carry out the wars this nation sends them to fight. How they choose to employ those tools is based entirely on their moral compasses, which are formed through their education.

To say that ROTC does not have a rightful place here at Marquette because it supports war, or because the ROTC classes teach future military officers to kill without conscience is clearly an uneducated opinion.

by John Schelstrate
john.schelstrate@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]