In an effort to show unity and take a stand against hate, members of the UF Jewish community gathered together to reassemble the large menorah in the Hillel garden Monday night.

The menorah was uprooted from its foundation, moved about 15 feet and disassembled.

According to the program directors, the vandalism is thought to have occurred early Saturday morning.

The menorah was discovered Saturday evening when Hillel staff went outside to light the fourth candle for the fourth night of Hanukkah.

Jessica Davis, program director, said the menorah was left outside and untouched to show the community that this is not an issue Hillel is embarrassed about.

“People do things like this to break you and loosen morale,” she said. “But it always does the opposite, and this has strengthened us.”

Read the full story at the Independent Alligator.

Duke University responded last week to two civil rights complaints filed with the U.S. Department of Education by seniors Justin Robinette and Cliff Satell.

The two complaints, which were filed with the Department of Education early this Fall, allege that the University discriminates on the basis of sex and race. Jim Bradshaw, who works in the Department of Education press office, confirmed that both cases are “under investigation.”

Robinette claimed in April that he was impeached from his former position as Duke College Republicans chair because he is gay. Robinette later filed three cases of discrimination against the Duke College Republicans with the Duke Student Government Judiciary, which did not rule in his favor in any case.

Robinette and Satell, former club vice chair, have since maintained that University administrators failed to take action despite claims of harassment.

Read the full story at the Duke Chronicle.

The DREAM Act is headed for a procedural vote in the Senate Wednesday morning — and it will likely fail.

The bill has failed to secure the necessary support among centrist Democrats and Republicans, including former sponsor Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has said he will not vote for the bill, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants not born in this country a path to legal citizenship.

Students across the country have been rallying recently in support of the DREAM Act with hunger strikes in San Antonio and student senate resolutions—but opponents of the legislation have been loud as well.

“I think this is a matter of national survival,” said William Gheen, President of ALI-PAC (Americans for Legal Immigration), an organization opposing the bill that would provide permanent residency to undocumented immigrants for attending an institution of higher education.

The DREAM Act would allow illegal aliens who were brought to the US before the age of 16 to apply for citizenship, on the condition that they attend college or serve in the military for at least two years. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Estimates on how many would qualify for citizenship under the DREAM Act range from 1.3 to 2.1 million.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that the current version of the bill would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion, assuming these students went on to get jobs and pay taxes.

The Center for Immigration Studies, however, has estimated DREAM would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year, based on a number of factors, but particularly the cost of higher education — a core element of the bill.

The latest version of the bill, the fifth, introduced a number of compromises in an attempt to win back support from centrists including barring illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition, dropping the eligibility from age 34 to age 29, and limiting the ability of DREAM applicants to sponsor family members’ legal immigration.

The bill’s struggles are a setback for the Obama administration, which has spent the past weeks expressing their support for the bill.

“It fits into the larger strategy of immigration enforcement,” said Janet Napolitano in a conference call with journalists on Dec. 2, “as it will complement enforcement resources of removing dangerous criminals and help the Department of Homeland Security do its job enforcing laws.” Napolitano called DREAM a “priority for the administration.”

“You can’t make the argument that the DREAM Act will act as a magnet for people to come here in the future,” Cecilia Munoz said in a Nov. 30 White House online chat on the DREAM Act.

“If enforcement by itself worked as a strategy, we wouldn’t be having this discussion (about DREAM),” Munoz said, pointing to the 1996 immigration reform.

Opponents feel differently.

“Any bill that changes federal law to accommodate lawbreakers is wrong, destructive, and will lead to more lawbreakers,” Gheen said.

On campus, the mood has tended to be more pro-DREAM than anything, but there are some hold-outs.

“To solve the problem of illegal immigration in our country, our government must first stop the flow of illegal immigrants into our nation,” said Brian Koziera, vice-chairman of the University of Michigan College Republicans. “(There are) two primary ways: proper and effective border security and a review of incentives and benefits that illegal immigrants may receive that incentivize their presence here in the United States.”

According to Michigan student Priscila Martinez, of One Michigan, a student-based, volunteer-run organization dedicated to getting the DREAM Act passed, the group, along with other local groups, has made over 50,000 calls to Congress urging senators and representatives to vote yes on the act. The organization also sent students to Washington to lobby for the bill. Members of One Michigan have also taken part in a number of “mock graduations” in an effort to raise support for the bill.

Opponents of the bill, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, have expressed feelings that it is unfair for the lame-duck Congress to pass the bill. In a December 2 letter addressed to his colleagues, Sessions also called it highly suspicious and against the will of the public.

However, Jose Franco, a leader of One Michigan and undocumented student, disagrees.

“The lame-duck session is appropriate,” said Franco. “The bill is only 26 pages long, which means debate time shouldn’t be long.” He added that the bill has had past bipartisan support and hopes some of those Republicans (who supported the bill) can vote on its merits without thinking about re-election.

Concerns from the opposition also come because of the number of versions of the bill which have been released in the past two weeks.

Franco believes the newest version of the bill addresses Sessions’ arguments in depth. Still, Sessions’ December 2 letter to his colleagues urges them to vote no on the bill. He writes that the four versions of the bill are extremely similar, and “all grant nearly unrestricted amnesty.”

“The bill is not amnesty,” Franco said, “as it is tailored specifically at a certain group, and has rigorous requirements which can’t be met by just anyone.”

With a roll call vote on the way and Democrats up for reelection in 2012 in more conservative states, any vote perceived as amnesty could be dangerous for reelection bids.

“If they pass this Act, the intensity of the public backlash will be unprecedented,” Gheen said.

Stephanie Wang is a staff writer for the Michigan Review. Daniel Walmer contributed reporting to this piece. They are both members of the Student Free Press Association.

Last night, the Northern Illinois University (NIU) Student Association Senate denied recognition for the second time in six weeks to NIU Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).

As a result, SSDP may not meet on campus, post flyers, or even reapply for recognition for two years. As we outline in today’s press release, the Senate also denies funding to all “political” and “religious” student organizations, including the Model United Nations, which it labels a “political” group. Meanwhile, groups dubbed “social justice” or “advocacy” groups—including student pro-life, pro-choice, antiwar, women’s rights, and victims’ rights groups—are eligible for funding.

SSDP first came up for recognition on October 24, 2010, as a “Social Justice, Advocacy, and Support” group because it advocates “that the War on Drugs is failing our generation and our society” and seeks “to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse and drug policies.” The Senate denied recognition to SSDP but offered it a chance to be recognized as a “political” group, which would render it ineligible for funding.

On November 7, the Senate then issued hopelessly vague definitions of “political” and “religious” groups that guarantee an unconstitutional double standard. Indeed, Advocates for Choice, Campus Antiwar Network, Consumer Education Society, PAVE (Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment), Students for Life (NIU), Vegetarian Education Group, and Women’s Rights Alliance are eligible for funding as “Social Justice, Advocacy, and Support” groups, yet funding is denied to the Committee for the Preservation of Wildlife and the Model United Nations, an academic simulation of the UN, because they are classified as “political” groups. Similarly, the Baha’i Club, dedicated to discussion of the Baha’i faith, is eligible as a “Diversity and Cultural” organization, while Campus Crusade for Christ, Hillel, Latter Day Saint Student Association, Muslim Students Association, Newman Catholic Student Center, Pagan Student Association, and many more are not.

Under the new definitions, NIU Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers—currently ineligible for funding—will become eligible. And if the Senate is going to be honest about applying the new definition of a “political” group, a lot of groups will suddenly find themselves reclassified and ineligible for funding. The new definition of a “political” group even prohibits a student group from receiving Activity Fee funding if any of its activities result in any individual, anywhere, “petitioning Federal, State, or Local legislative or executive bodies for policies advocated by that group”-amazingly violating the First Amendment right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

FIRE wrote NIU President John G. Peters on November 18, explaining that the Senate is bound by the First Amendment and that NIU is obligated to step in if the Senate fails to uphold students’ rights. FIRE’s letter reminded NIU of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) and Board of Regents v. Southworth (2000), which established that public universities like NIU are required to grant political, religious, and other expressive organizations equal access—on a viewpoint-neutral basis—to student fee funding distributed to other student organizations. NIU Deputy General Counsel for Administration Gregory A. Brady replied on December 3, announcing last night’s special Senate meeting.

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff sums up the injustices in today’s press release: “For too long, campuses have utilized hopelessly vague policies that allow them to favor some student groups and kick others off campus. At Northern Illinois University, we see the utter folly of such policies in practice. First, NIU twice prevents SSDP from becoming a student group. Next, NIU passes rules that brazenly flout Supreme Court law by discriminating against all ‘political’ and ‘religious’ groups. Finally, NIU demonstrates the impossibility of imposing such policies fairly by granting full recognition to a victim-rights group that employs ‘legislative tactics’ while denying it to the Model UN and the Committee for the Preservation of Wildlife. At a public college like NIU, this kind of double standard is not only unfair but laughably unconstitutional.”

Greg is quite right. The Student Association Senate might have set a record for the most violations of the First Amendment in a single set of campus funding and recognition policies (there are even more violations, but these are the highlights). Indeed, NIU’s Student Association Senate has violated all five of the rights codified in the First Amendment. First, the Senate violated the rights of freedom of speech and assembly by denying recognition to Students for Sensible Drug Policy and by discriminating against all groups it arbitrarily deems “political” or “religious.” Next, the Senate violates the right to freedom of the press by stating that unrecognized groups are prohibited from posting flyers on campus and that publications—such as magazines and leaflets, the nation’s oldest media for freedom of the press—will presumably threaten a group’s funding. The Senate’s policy also violates the First Amendment religion clauses, since Baha’i, humanist, and atheist groups can receive funding to discuss religious topics, but other religious groups get nothing, in practice favoring some religious groups over others. Finally, perhaps the Senate’s most stunning achievement of all was to violate the First Amendment right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

Now that the Senate has denied recognition to SSDP altogether, NIU must immediately step in to preserve students’ rights. Let NIU President John G. Peters know what you think by calling him at 815-753-9500 or e-mailing jpeters@niu.edu.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Northern Illinois University to meet its moral and legal duty to prevent the NIU Student Association from violating the First Amendment.

by Adam Kissel

Last night, the Northern Illinois University (NIU) Student Association Senate denied recognition for the second time in six weeks to NIU Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).

As a result, SSDP may not meet on campus, post flyers, or even reapply for recognition for two years. As we outline in today’s press release, the Senate also denies funding to all “political” and “religious” student organizations, including the Model United Nations, which it labels a “political” group. Meanwhile, groups dubbed “social justice” or “advocacy” groups—including student pro-life, pro-choice, antiwar, women’s rights, and victims’ rights groups—are eligible for funding.

SSDP first came up for recognition on October 24, 2010, as a “Social Justice, Advocacy, and Support” group because it advocates “that the War on Drugs is failing our generation and our society” and seeks “to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse and drug policies.” The Senate denied recognition to SSDP but offered it a chance to be recognized as a “political” group, which would render it ineligible for funding.

On November 7, the Senate then issued hopelessly vague definitions of “political” and “religious” groups that guarantee an unconstitutional double standard. Indeed, Advocates for Choice, Campus Antiwar Network, Consumer Education Society, PAVE (Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment), Students for Life (NIU), Vegetarian Education Group, and Women’s Rights Alliance are eligible for funding as “Social Justice, Advocacy, and Support” groups, yet funding is denied to the Committee for the Preservation of Wildlife and the Model United Nations, an academic simulation of the UN, because they are classified as “political” groups. Similarly, the Baha’i Club, dedicated to discussion of the Baha’i faith, is eligible as a “Diversity and Cultural” organization, while Campus Crusade for Christ, Hillel, Latter Day Saint Student Association, Muslim Students Association, Newman Catholic Student Center, Pagan Student Association, and many more are not.

Under the new definitions, NIU Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers—currently ineligible for funding—will become eligible. And if the Senate is going to be honest about applying the new definition of a “political” group, a lot of groups will suddenly find themselves reclassified and ineligible for funding. The new definition of a “political” group even prohibits a student group from receiving Activity Fee funding if any of its activities result in any individual, anywhere, “petitioning Federal, State, or Local legislative or executive bodies for policies advocated by that group”-amazingly violating the First Amendment right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

FIRE wrote NIU President John G. Peters on November 18, explaining that the Senate is bound by the First Amendment and that NIU is obligated to step in if the Senate fails to uphold students’ rights. FIRE’s letter reminded NIU of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) and Board of Regents v. Southworth (2000), which established that public universities like NIU are required to grant political, religious, and other expressive organizations equal access—on a viewpoint-neutral basis—to student fee funding distributed to other student organizations. NIU Deputy General Counsel for Administration Gregory A. Brady replied on December 3, announcing last night’s special Senate meeting.

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff sums up the injustices in today’s press release: “For too long, campuses have utilized hopelessly vague policies that allow them to favor some student groups and kick others off campus. At Northern Illinois University, we see the utter folly of such policies in practice. First, NIU twice prevents SSDP from becoming a student group. Next, NIU passes rules that brazenly flout Supreme Court law by discriminating against all ‘political’ and ‘religious’ groups. Finally, NIU demonstrates the impossibility of imposing such policies fairly by granting full recognition to a victim-rights group that employs ‘legislative tactics’ while denying it to the Model UN and the Committee for the Preservation of Wildlife. At a public college like NIU, this kind of double standard is not only unfair but laughably unconstitutional.”

Greg is quite right. The Student Association Senate might have set a record for the most violations of the First Amendment in a single set of campus funding and recognition policies (there are even more violations, but these are the highlights). Indeed, NIU’s Student Association Senate has violated all five of the rights codified in the First Amendment. First, the Senate violated the rights of freedom of speech and assembly by denying recognition to Students for Sensible Drug Policy and by discriminating against all groups it arbitrarily deems “political” or “religious.” Next, the Senate violates the right to freedom of the press by stating that unrecognized groups are prohibited from posting flyers on campus and that publications—such as magazines and leaflets, the nation’s oldest media for freedom of the press—will presumably threaten a group’s funding. The Senate’s policy also violates the First Amendment religion clauses, since Baha’i, humanist, and atheist groups can receive funding to discuss religious topics, but other religious groups get nothing, in practice favoring some religious groups over others. Finally, perhaps the Senate’s most stunning achievement of all was to violate the First Amendment right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

Now that the Senate has denied recognition to SSDP altogether, NIU must immediately step in to preserve students’ rights. Let NIU President John G. Peters know what you think by calling him at 815-753-9500 or e-mailing jpeters@niu.edu.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Northern Illinois University to meet its moral and legal duty to prevent the NIU Student Association from violating the First Amendment.

by Adam Kissel

At any given moment, a person’s Facebook profile is likely to be filled with the seemingly pointless pictures of family gatherings, posts about pets and birthday congratulations.

The 2010 Social Network Fraud Survey, released by research company Harris Interactive, shows that despite numerous privacy options provided by Facebook, more than 24 million Americans are most likely to leave critical information open to public view. People ages 18 to 34 were said to be more inclined to keep their profiles public.

Things like the names of pets and relatives and birthdays are common security questions for password-protected websites and may allow identity thieves to break into accounts.

Thomas Oscherwitz, the vice president of government affairs and chief privacy officer for ID Analytics, a consumer risk research firm, said leaving information public – no matter how trivial – could be considered a risk.

“Users need to remember that the same information they are posting online is often used for security or challenge questions when they log into financial or other online accounts to verify their identity,” Oscherwitz said.

Read the full story at the Temple News.

Update: Cornell emergency notification alerted students early Tuesday morning of a shooting that occurred at 301 Maple Avenue. The location is nearly a mile east of the intersection of Dryden and College, above apartment complexes that house many Cornell employees and graduate students.

Six Cornell and Ithaca Police vehicles were parked outside the apartment complex just past Maplewood Community Center as police patrolled the area.  Around fifteen police officers were stationed in various locations throughout the apartment complex guiding passersby through alternative paths around houses and out of the main area.

University and Ithaca police informed Review reporters that advanced paramedics were on the scene by around 3:30. In a second emergency notification, the University told students officials were investigating a shooting that occurred at about 2:15 a.m. Police do not have a description of the suspect at the time.

Final Update: The Ithaca Journal reported this morning that Police found the body of Paul Garcia, 47, shot and dead, in the Maple Ave apartment’s parking lot.  He was from New York City, in town visiting friends.

Stanford is currently ranked fourth in the nation in the Bowl Championship Series and is going to the Orange Bowl. The Cardinal went 11-1 this year, up from 8-4 last year, 5-7 in 2008, and a woeful 1-11 in 2006. There’s no doubt that the arrival of new head coach Jim Harbaugh for the 2007 season had a major (positive) impact on the Stanford program. Given this fact, and the fact that Harbaugh’s contract does not forbid him from leaving to coach elsewhere, it’s not surprising that a petition has appeared calling on the Stanford administration to:

We, the undersigned, as lifelong supporters of Stanford’s greatness on the playing field and in the classroom, hereby offer this petition to the greater Stanford family and community including John Hennessy  (President of Stanford University),  Bob Bowlsby (Athletic Director), the Stanford Board of Trustees, Mr. John Arrillaga (lifelong Stanford leader and donor), leaders of the Stanford Athletic Board and to all Stanford football fans, friends and family; in recognition of Coach Jim Harbaugh’s achievements and commitment to the Stanford ideals of the scholar-athlete; that Stanford University will continue financial support to the continuing pursuit of excellence in D1 football.

That Stanford University will pledge a new, extended contract to Coach Harbaugh and the football program for maintaining the highest level of coaching that our world-class scholar athletes have come to expect.

It is vitally important that the Stanford community recognizes the hard work of all Stanford athletes and their coaches. We take great pride in the successes of the Stanford athlete on and off the field.  Coach Harbaugh has created and developed an elite football program that not even the late, great Bill Walsh thought possible.

Coach Harbaugh’s successes on and off the field are of benefit to not only the athletes and students but to the greater mission of Stanford University to provide world-class opportunities in everything it pursues. Stanford’s name and the pride it brings to students, faculty, alumni, families and friends have never been better as evidenced by the continued coverage of our football athletes on and off the field. From their leadership skills to their scholarship, the Stanford scholar-athlete that plays elite football is a reality.    We believe Coach Harbaugh has been an outstanding public figure and embodies the Stanford spirit and its pursuit of excellence.

We hereby petition that Stanford University does not hesitate nor delay to extend a new five year contract to Coach Harbaugh no later than January 1, 2011.

This petition has already attracted 1769 signatures, a mix of proud alumni and current students. What should we take away from this?

At the risk of speaking heresy, what I take away from this is not immediately that Stanford should triple Harbaugh’s salary, but rather that Stanford should think about what it means to become a football powerhouse. A few nights ago, I participated in a heated dinner table debate a few nights ago at the house. The topic was this: Would Stanford benefit from paying Harbaugh the additional few million it would take to keep him at the school?

There were basically two sides to the debate:

Stanford should be awesome at everything it does, including football. vs. Stanford should not prioritize sports over other pursuits such as academics or the arts.

The first argument is easy to understand. I’ve been more excited about Stanford football this year than at any point since I came to the school. If Stanford has a yearly budget of over $3.7 billion, can’t it find $3 million to augment Harbaugh’s salary?

The common response to this argument is that spending $3 million on a football coach means spending less on other, equally valuable, activities. Unfortunately for this counterargument, it seems likely that a high quality football team would ultimately pay for the pay raise through ticket sales and TV revenues (in spite of some evidence to the contrary). If that weren’t enough, is it hard to believe that alumni couldn’t be found to endow the “Jim Harbaugh Chair of Football Excellence,” thereby avoiding straining the general revenues?

The uncommon response, touched on in the piece linked above (which largely focuses on a “But why doesn’t society value X at the same level as football?” argument, which may be valid, but doesn’t deal as well with the current economics of the situation), but not fully articulated, is a question of Stanford’s ethos. Stanford is, first and foremost, an academic institution. How would having a perennially great football team change that ethos? Does Stanford want to be a school where 50 percent of the school tailgates every game? Does Stanford want to be a school where not going to the game becomes something needing a “good explanation?” Would that happen, even if Stanford was a football powerhouse? I don’t know, but I was disturbed by a quote from a recent ESPN article saying:

“We’ll contact the dean of student affairs and have him drum it into every freshman’s head that Saturdays in the fall are football days,” N yelled. “Require all RAs to attend every game and offer a prize to the dorm that boasts the highest attendance per game and over the course of the year. Create a football culture from the top down!”

Do we want a “football culture?” Money may not be a binding constraint, but there are still only 24 hours in a day. There are already abundant social pressures on Stanford’s campus, no doubt, but by-and-large they seem to favor activities that I think most Stanford students already value: studying, doing lots of extracurriculars, going to the gym, etc. Does adding a social pressure to go watch football make sense?

All of this is a bit premature, of course. Would retaining Harbaugh leads us to years of sterling performances? I don’t know. Would Harbaugh’s departure doom us to ignominy again? Possibly, but we did attract Harbaugh on a bargain-basement salary of only $700,000. However, it’s a conversation worth having before we rush on in our pursuit of excellence. Stanford is already a phenomenal place. Having a football team that deserves the Rose Bowl is an awesome bonus. Does that mean that we should aim to create a culture that places additional value on football greatness? Possibly. I have a friend who told me that he would not have attended Stanford without its excellent D1 sports program – it’s important to him to have people for whom to cheer. But the resources that we commit to developing that legacy are not insignificant. Whether it is more time spent on recruiting, pressures to push the admissions office just a bit too hard to get that killer recruit, or just the fact that even a resurgent football team will have some down years, prompting unpleasant publicity about coach salaries, there are reasons not to go ahead with buying Harbaugh for life.

I’ve enjoyed watching a great team take the field this season and Harbaugh has much to do with that. If the administration did decide that it needed to pay him more to keep him, I wouldn’t protest. But I hope that when they do make their decision, they’ll consider what it means to Stanford as an institution. It’s worth the debate.

Two professors of psychiatry, one at Stanford Medical School, might have allowed a pharmaceutical company to write an entire textbook for them.

Dr. Alan Schatzberg, former Chair of the Psychiatry Department at Stanford Medical School, along with Dr. Charles Nemeroff of University of Miami Medical School are listed as the authors of a book on psycho-pharmacology for family physicians. But whether or not they actually composed the text of the book is now in question.

The charges arose when the Project on Government Oversight recently filed a complaint with the National Institutes of Health about something it considers to be an increasing problem in the medical academia community: ghostwriting. Evidence contained in the complaint revealed the accusation against Schatzberg.

According to the New York times, a writing company, Scientific Therapeutics Information, was to research for the book under an “unrestricted” research grant from pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham. The Associate Editorial Director for Scientific Therapeutics Information, Dr. Sally Laden, sent an email to Nemeroff in 1997 explaining the timeline for the development of the book. The timeline included dates on which drafts from Scientific Therapeutics Information were to be sent to both SmithKline Beecham and to Nemeroff and Schatzberg for review, sign-off, and final approval. The letter also stated that a complete content outline had already been developed and referred to a “primary technical writer” in whom Nemeroff and Schatzberg would be “in good hands.”

Schatzberg told the New York Times that the letter in question was simply, “a theoretical proposal that bears little, if any relationship to what actually happened.” Both Nemeroff and Schatzberg maintain that they were the primary authors, despite the fact that a “primary technical writer” is referenced in the letter.

This most recent development in medical ghostwriting continues an argument advanced by Senator Charles Grassley (R – IA) this past summer. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, several controversial “blockbuster” drugs’ marketing campaigns may have benefited from ghostwritten articles. Now Grassley and the Project on Government Oversight are calling for tighter regulation of academic medical writing from the National Institutes of Health or from universities themselves.

The Stanford Daily notes that Stanford School of Medicine has a specific policy prohibiting ghostwriting, implemented in 2006, long after the incident with Schatzberg took place. But many schools don’t yet have such a policy.

While research grants from pharmaceutical companies are not unusual, one must naturally wonder whether or not SmithKline Beecher would benefit financially from some of the content in the book. Certainly some of the smaller ghostwritten articles pointed out by the Chronicle of Higher Education supported the drugs being promoted by the pharmaceutical companies writing them.

This news does not help a higher education system already struggling with students who pay others to write papers for them. A writer for a custom-essay company recently described his experiences helping students cheat their way through college in another article for the Chronicle of Higher Education. He addresses the academic world and specifically notes the prevalence of cheating and the incompetency of the students who do it.

Do ghostwriting doctors and professors need to be held to the same standards to which students are held, and receive similar punishment? Or are the practices fundamentally different?

Kyle Huwa is a staff writer for the Stanford Review and blogs for Fiat Lux. He is a contributor to the Stanford Review.

Dan Chinburg begins every meeting of the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots with the Pledge of Allegiance.

While that may sound like typical fare for a Tea Party meeting, the location isn’t: Chinburg is a student at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Tea Party Patriots is a campus organization.

Student-run, grassroots Tea Party groups like Chinburg’s Tea Party Patriots are springing up on campuses around the country — and now they may be banding together. The recently launched TeaPartyStudents.org has made the first attempt at bringing together individual Tea Party groups into one network. So, far, the group has 12 collegiate groups.

“We wanted to prove stereotypes wrong, the liberal pundits who say that [the Tea Party] has no appeal to youth,” said Daniel Oliver, the site’s founder.

While Tea Party Students is run by students, the website also hosts an advisory board consisting of national leaders of the Tea Party movement, including Michael Patrick Leahy of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition and Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation.

The on-campus groups were started independently of each other, all by students who felt that their views were unrepresented by the curriculum and by the clubs already on campus.

“I thought there was a real need for students to understand the cause of the economic hardship, and I didn’t trust the professors to give them an unbiased account of capitalism,” said Dan Chinburg, founder of the UPenn chapter of the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots. A former full-time intern for a Pennsylvania county Democratic Committee, he said he’s “always believed in freedom and liberty,” but when he began to consider those things in the economic sphere, he changed his mind about the role of government in its citizens’ lives.

“The individual is the most important minority in any country,” Chinburg added.

“I want to educate,” said Mary-Alice Perdichizzi, co-founder of the Brandeis Tea Party, and another former liberal turned Tea Party member. Perdichizzi began her on-campus activism as a member of her college’s Republican club, but felt that they “weren’t doing anything except campaigning.” She feels the Tea Party is a “more invigorated conservative movement.”

While she feels that the group has received a considerable amount of support from fellow students and professors, the group’s events have met with some “scary backlash” from campus groups like Jewish Students for Peace, and the Muslim Students Association. Students attempted to prevent them from screening the documentary “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West.”

While they were eventually allowed to show the movie, there were people outside passing out pamphlets accusing them of racism and Islamophobia. The screening itself was interrupted by an angry student.

“He literally shouted at us and ran out,” Pedichizzi said. “I want to debate. I’m trying to collaborate with clubs on campus. College Democrats won’t debate us.”

The UPenn chapter had the same problem.

“They said it would be redundant, because they already debate the Republican Club,” Chinburg said. He believes his group is different from the Republicans, however.

“We stay away from social issues. We’re invested in the free market. We’re non-partisan. You don’t have to show us a party card to enter,” Chinburg said. He noted that several of the “big government” programs they are against, like the bailouts, were begun by the Bush Administration.

“When a party gets elected, they can tend to rescind their principles,” he said. “We’re going to hold the fire underneath the new Congress.”

Kate Havard is a junior at St. John’s College. She is a member of the Student Free Press Association.