Vol.

XV Issue V

04 May, 2015

Cornells Liberal News and Opinion - www.thecornellprogressive.com

Remembering Violence Against Black Women

By Vrinda Jagota

ndeniably, black men are being

unjustly killed by police officers throughout the country. They are
being robbed of their humanity, constructed as dangerous and subhuman,
and denied voices. These instances
of violence are not outliers, not freak
events by a few bad seeds, but,
rather, are indicative of the large
scale racial bias and oppression in this
country. They are undeniable proof of
the less acknowledged; more subtle
aggressions people of color must deal
with on a daily basis. They are irrefutable proof that to make any claim
of a postracial America is to turn a
blind eye to the realities of systematic
injustice that did not disappear with
ostensible legal equality.
But, while cases of police brutality
against unarmed black men are getting more coverage than ever before,
we must constantly remember that
news sources are far from judicious.
One narrative that has consistently
been ignored is that of black women, many of whom have also been
killed or injured by police officers on
duty. While names like Eric Garner
and Michael Brown are being wide-

ly circulated, and are sparking conversation, reaction, and, potentially,

change, as they should, it is difficult
to name even one woman of color
whose story is being discussed.
To be clear, it is, of course, important to consider the unique experience
of being a black male in public space.
But, it is also crucial to acknowledge
that it is not the only narrative, that
there are a number of black women
who have been unjustly killed by police officers.
Take, for example, the case of
Tanisha Anderson, who died on November 13, 2014 as the result of being physically restrained by police
in Cleveland. Or Yvette Smith, who
died on February 16, 2014 in Bastrop, Texas, unarmed, after being
shot twice by Daniel Willis, Bastrop
County sheriffs deputy. Or Shelly
Frey, killed by Louis Campbell, an
off duty sheriffs deputy who faced
no charges. The list goes on and on.
There is an intersectionality of
oppression in the case of women of
color that results in their narratives
being erased. Partial representation is
a unique violence that says that black
lives are equivalent with black male
lives. Again, this is not to say that the

heinous murders of black men are

unimportant, but, rather, to urge the
inclusion of violence against black
women into the conversation.
Black women have a high risk of
being sexually harassed or assaulted by police officers. Black mothers
are often killed holding their children, and have been accused of using
strollers to hide drugs Black single
mothers are raising children on sub
poverty wages. Black women and
children are killed inside their homes.
Black women are being systematically left out of the conversation in initiatives like Obamas My Brothers
Keeper policy, which only addresses
violence against black men.
The one black womans story that
has been circulated lately is that of
Toya Graham, a mother who stopped
her son from rioting in Baltimore.
Lauded by media sources and even
by the chief of police as #momoftheyear, she has become the face of
the correct response to rioting.
This woman, who has said that
she acted out of concern for her sons
safety rather than out of distaste for
rioting in general, is having her behavior appropriated and molded into
a new narrative. She is being used to

set a standard, one that says that the

correct response to police brutality is
calm, is nonviolence. But, as TaNehsi Coates so eloquently wrote,
When nonviolence is preached as
an attempt to evade the repercussions
of political brutality, it betrays itself.
When nonviolence begins halfway
through the war with the aggressor
calling time out, it exposes itself as a
ruse. When nonviolence is preached
by the representatives of the state,
while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself
to be a con.
Of course, this story is perpetuating the stereotype of the angry,
dangerous black man. But it is also
defining Ms. Graham in relation to
her son. She loses all autonomy and
relevance except as the mother of a
black man. The media portrayal of
Ms. Grahams behavior ignores the
particularities of her experience as a
black woman that, as a single mother, she is singlehandedly responsible
for the welfare of her son, a son who
is at high risk of becoming a victim to
police brutality should he participate
in riots.
Continued on Page 5

Inside this Issue:

EDITORIAL:

On The Political Use of Police Against Student

Activism, p. 2
More Money in Politics, p. 3
Reflections on the Agency and Solidarity Conference, p4

Power and Universities, pg. 5

Necessity of Judicial Gatekeeping, pg. 6
Spanish as Second National Language, pg. 7

The Last Laugh, pg. 8

The Cornell Progressive

EDITORIAL

T
Editors-in-Chief

Amanda Aragon 15
Wes Turner 16

Managing Editors
Vrinda Jagota 15 (Creative)
Chris Hanna 16 (International)

Treasurer
Nathaniel Williams (18)

Staff Writers
Emma Scher 15
Omar Khurshid 16
Wyatt Nelson 17

Editors Emeriti
Amy Frieder 15
Nathan Gelb-Dyller 16
Matt Lynch 15
Ian Cohen 14
Roxana Amirahmadi 13
Alisa Hand 14
Josh Uhr 12
Sarah Greenberg 13
Sam Ferenc 12
Zach Newkirk 12
Jake Arem 11
Elie Bilmes 10,
Shai Akabas 09,
Ethan Felder 09,
Samuel Levine 09

Advisor
Edward Baptist, History
Founders
Thomas Leung 02
Tsee Yuan Lee 02
Cover Photo Courtesy of Washington Post
Funded in part by the Student Activity Fee.
Published with support from the Center for
American Progress / Campus Progress
www.CampusProgress.org
Comments and letters to the editor are always
welcome at:
CUProgressive@gmail.com
The Cornell Progressive, an independent
student organization located at Cornell
University, produced and is responsible for the
content of this publication. This publication
was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it
necessarily express or reflect the policies or
opinions of, Cornell University or its designated
representatives.
The Cornell Progressive is a non-profit
newspaper pulished by Cornell students for
the local community. We act as a forum for
political discussion. The viewpoints of our
writers do not necessarily reflect the views of
our advertisers or our editorial board.
Visit our website and join our listserve to keep
up to date with Cornell Progressive news,
events, and deadlines.
www.cornellprogressive.com

Volume XV Issue V

On The Political Use of Police Against

Student Activism

he university, a traditional
center for dissent, has joined
the ranks of the oppressor. Student activism is no longer welcomed and, like an authoritarian
regime, Cornell has begun to use
its police force as a political tool
to repress speech which challenges the Cornell administrations
vision of Cornell as a laboratory
of predatory capitalism, perhaps
most explicitly articulated by
Cornells $2 billion dollar investment into the business program
NYC Tech, as well as hundreds of
millions of dollars in additional
construction on the Ithaca campus. Cornells capitalist dream
can only be achieved through the
exploitation and parasitic consumption from students, faculty,
and staff, hence the $350 health
fee, and the over twenty million
dollars of cuts from the colleges
and their academic departments.
Cornell sees student protestors,
fighting against this exploitation, as a grave threat, hence the
police intimidation and threats of
violence.
Last week, the CUPD called in
a student organizer for questioning. When the organizer said that
he would rather not respond to
questions, the officer claimed that
the CUPD had subpoenaed the
administrator list for the Save
the Pass Facebook page and had
DNA and fingerprint evidence
linking the student organizer to
an alleged crime the morning
of the Welcome the Trustees
action. If the organizer didnt cooperate, the investigator claimed,
police would lead him out of class
in handcuffs and arrest him for a
felony with a minimum sentence
of three years in prison. Still
declining to give information, the
organizer was dismissed and told
he would be arrested in the next
couple of days.
The administration has been
trying to construct a narrative
that their actions are merely to
investigate a potential crime.

This is unambiguously false. The

administration claims protester
broke into the amphitheater the
night before the trustee meeting.
The charge hinges on alleging
that the doors to the amphitheater were locked at the time of
entry, and that students would
have had to break the locks to enter. However, the activists claim
that these doors are left open
all night. If they had been locked
that particular night for some
reason, there would have been no
way of breaking in without breaking the entire door, as the locks
are electronic. The cops have also
admitted there was no property
damage.
Cornells political deployment
of police violence to stifle speech
is not a new phenomenon. In
March 2014, when, despite the
administrations best efforts, a
candidate of whom the administration did not approve was
poised to be elected to the presidency of Haven: The LGBTQ
Student Union, a Cornell administrator yelled Elections are over!
Everybody needs to leave now!
Students leaving the room were
met with several police officers
standing outside, and four large
police SUVs parked outside the
building. In the days following
the elections, several students
received emails informing them
that they were under police investigation. Cornells tactic of police
intimidation was successful in
preventing these students from
speaking out and reporting what
had taken place. Only when the
semester was nearly over did
Cornell officially drop its investigation without filing a single
charge.
When viewed through the
administrations other actions, it
becomes clear their goal is not
justice for a crime, but to intimidate students from protesting.
This most recent incident took
place on March 26th, yet the
police did react until the week

before Charter Day, April 25th.

The timing was not accidental;
the university was willing to do
anything to make sure its 150th
birthday party went off without
any disturbances.
The administrations response
following the Welcome the
Trustees event is illuminating
as well. Susan H. Murphy 73,
Ph.D. 94, Vice President for
Student and Academic Services,
and Mary G. Opperman, Vice
President for Human Resources and Safety Services, wrote a
letter to the editor in the Cornell
Daily Sun. The letter warned
that protesters would receive
discipline for future actions. The
administration did not acknowledge a single issue the protesters
raised and instead suggested they
familiarize themselves with the
campus code of conduct.
The administration also
reached out to students who they
believed to be the leaders to meet
and help them understand the
campus code of conduct. Is this
the notorious dialogue they continue to urge protesters to have?
In fact, the administration
seems to be confused with the use
of disruption as a tactic. In their
letter to the editor they applaud
past student activism but threaten
present activism pretending not
to notice the irony. As Cornell
students, we are all indebted to
the participants of the 1969 Willard Straight Hall takeover, who
protested against pervasive racism on campus after a cross was
burned outside of a co-op inhabited primarily by black women.
Cornell attempted to quell this
student dissent by deploying the
National Guard. The administration will never sanction ongoing
activism. They were against student activism then just as they are
now. Dont seek their approval for
how to affect change, they dont
want change.
Continued on Page 4

Join The Progressive!

Meetings: Tuesdays at 5:30 PM
in 164 Goldwin Smith

Email: cuprogressive@gmail.com

04 May, 2015

The Cornell Progressive

On Campaign Finance Nathaniel Williams

More Money in Politics

n this country, campaign donations are viewed as a form of free

speech. The projected multi-billion
dollar budgets for the 2016 presidential campaigns are part of the normal functioning of our democracy.
This financial sort of free speech is
different, however. The more pedestrian sorts of free speech, such as
freedom of the press and the right
to vote, face increasing opposition.
But unusual care is taken to protect
the ability of rich individuals and
corporations to donate massive sums
of money to candidates and organizations anonymously.
On April 15, the House passed
by voice vote H. R. 1104. The bill
ensures that individuals contributions to 501(c) groups will not face
a gift tax, clarifying what has been
an ambiguous section of the tax
code. These groups are designated
non-profits, but include many overtly political organizations, especially
under the 501(c)(4) designation.
Karl Roves Crossroads GPS, David
Kochs Americans for Prosperity,
and Grover Norquists Americans for
Tax Reform all file with the IRS as
501(c)(4) groups and would benefit
as a result of this bill.
Filing as a 501(c)(4) organization
was already a very appealing option
for political groups. Falling under
the broad description of organizations not organized for profit but
operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, these groups
are considered nonprofits and are
exempt from federal income taxes.
H. R. 1104 changes the tax code to
exempt donors charitable donations to 501(c) groups from the
gift tax. This is not only financially
beneficial for the megadonors that
support these groups, it also allows
them to remain anonymous as they
would no longer face any federal
taxes on their donations.
The gifts in question are those
exceeding $14,000. No gift tax is
currently assessed up to that point.
The bill simply removes that limit. In an open letter to Congress,
several 501(c)(4) groups affected
by the legislation imagine the bleak
future they would face if the legislation failed to pass. The gift tax
would present an enormous burden
on 501(c)(4) groups, they write, as
some donors would only give up
to the annual exclusion of $14,000.
While not stated in the letter, the real

benefit would result from the donors

greater willingness to give when
they can remain anonymous.
The bill now awaits a vote in the
Senate. Given the nearly complete
lack of opposition of the House, the
bill is likely to pass if it actually
reaches the Senate floor. The bill
was introduced by Republican Peter
Roskam with three co-sponsors,
all Democrats. Rep. Tom Reed,
the Republican representing Ithaca
and much of Western New York,
highlighted his support for the bill
in an April 13th press release as an
example of his unwavering commitment for fostering a tax code that is
simple, fair, and competitive.
The passing of the bill was largely symbolic. The gift tax had rarely
been assessed on 501(c) donations,
but nonetheless it was a bill that
received public support from some
organizations affected by it. Passage
by voice vote indicates that there
was no opposition to the bill. Both
parties benefit significantly from
increasing the power of their major
donors and in this case were anxious to demonstrate their support for

their donors interests rather than

the interests of the majority of their
constituents.
The role of money steadily grows
and the power of a typical voter
continues to shrink as low-profile
legislative efforts to reform the tax
code are advanced that directly benefit the megadonors that can sustain
or destroy political careers. This bill
is just one of many. It deals with a
technical detail in a specific section
of the tax code that would have
little direct impact on future elections. Because of that, it receives no
attention from the press and faces no
public opposition. But it did receive
attention from the ten major political organizations that signed a letter
supporting the bill that was sent to
every member of the House.
It is exactly these sort of legislative actions we should be concerned
about. Its easy for a candidate or
elected official to denounce in the
strongest terms the role of money
in politics or the Citizens United
ruling. But when no one is watching, there is unanimous support to
continue to extend the power of

megadonors and their groups. Its

not surprising, but passage of this
bill is reflective of a political climate
that is dominated by the interests of
the very rich. The Supreme Courts
rulings in the Citizens United and
McCutcheon cases are relatively
well known, but far more inconspicuous legislative actions, particularly
in the form of changes to the tax
code, continue to erode what remains
of American democracy.

CP

Racial Violence Against

Women

Continued from front page

So, we must continue the conversation about every black man unfairly and brutally murdered at the hands
of a white police officer. We cannot
let these stories be forgotten. But we
must also remain acutely aware of
why and how certain stories get circulated, how black women continue
to be excluded and dismissed in the
sharing of these stories, and how
partial representation is not enough.
CP

Generation Progress works to help young people- advocates, activists, journalists, artists - make
t h e i r v o i c e s b e h e a r d o n i s s u e s t h a t m a t t e r.
Learn more at GenProgress.org

The Cornell Progressive

Omar Khurshid

Volume XV Issue V

On Intersectionality

Reflections on the Agency and Solidarity Conference

t often feels lonely to be an activist on this campus. I myself am

very new to this work having only
joined Asian Pacific Americans for
Action and Islamic Alliance for Justice at the beginning of this year and
more recently organizing around
#FightTheFee and creating an Independent Students Union. To many
who identify as activists, engaged
in social justice or environmental
justice work, we seem pretty small small enough that we see each other
in many of the different organizing
meetings. However, I would challenge how small we think we are and
how small others think we are. Too
often, I hear the concerns raised by
activists on this campus be dismissed
because its only a marginal number of students raising them. This attitude marginalizes the very real and
legitimate concerns by activists and
further marginalizes the voices of
activists who come from historically
oppressed communities or have identities that are marginalized. The fact
is many students care on this campus,
but the way we express it is not always visible. Its not always in the
form of a direct action or a rally and
thats okay.
In challenging that narrative, I
along with the rest of the members
of the steering committee organized
the Agency and Solidarity Conference on March 14th. The conference
brought over 100 activists affiliated
with over 50 different organizations
together to talk about the themes of
agency and solidarity, educate each
other, and improve our organizing.
We not only wanted to challenge the
marginal narrative, but also wanted
the activist community on campus to
be stronger. The strength, I believe,
lies in building coalitions on the principles of student power, collective
liberation, and a solidarity politics.
In the welcome address to the
conference, I argued, That separated, we are powerless. That together,
we are powerful. I perceived a disconnect between the various activist
causes and groups on campus, at least
the ones I knew, so one of the intentions of the conference was to build
connections between the individuals
and these movements by providing a
forum for them to meet, educate each
other, learn, and grow.
Back then and now, I believe what
we need on this campus is a solidarity politics. In one of the workshops
at the conference titled (Ab)using
Intersectionality to Derail, I learned

Photo Courtesy of Agency and Solidarity Conference

that a solidarity politics entails an

understanding of intersectionality, a
term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw
81, to combat the kind of zero-sum
thinking that comes from engaging
in the oppression olympics trap. To
understand that our identities are diverse and complex and that we do not
need to chronologize movements,
i.e. supporting one after another, but
that such movements can converge
is essential. Solidarity politics in social justice entails that we, as privileged people, step back and center
those were in solidarity with in any
discussion about the issues they face.
In their March newsletter that I
thought was very applicable in the
context of our campus, DRUM (Desis Rising Up and Moving) wrote:
Organizing our communities to fight
for the issues that impact them is very
powerful. But if we are not careful,
our campaigns and demands can be
blind to the issues of other communities, or in fact, undermine the efforts of other communities. This is
why it is critical that our members
(and our movements) are continuously engaged in deep political educa-

tion, and more importantly, that our

members deepen relationships with
similarly organized mass bases in
other communities. Transformative
solidarity is built in flesh and blood
relationships.
So what does this solidarity and a
belief in collective liberation look
like? An example specific to me as
an Asian American is being part of
the #modelminoritymutiny, which is
an act of resistance to the concept of
the model minority. The myth of
the model minority essentializes all
Asian Americans as inherently intelligent, politically passive, the most
successful of all racial groups, and
in no need of support institutionally.
This erasure of diversity and individuality within the Asian American
community is oppressive. The myth
is a deceit that was initially used to
shield Asian Americans from persecution to secure citizenship but was
taken up by opponents of the civil
rights and Black Power movements
in order to pit Asians against Blacks.
To engage in this resistance is both
a method of self-liberation but also
expression of solidarity with Black

Editorial -- Continued From Page 2

folks in Baltimore, Ferguson, and

throughout the rest of the country
on #BlackLivesMatter. In particular,
disrupting the model minority myth
placed on me because I am an Asian
American is my way of resisting the
anti-Blackness that comes with internalizing or accepting the myth. So
while I do not face the same oppression that Black folks do, the oppression of Black people and the oppression of Asian people are intimately
connected. Nobodys free until everybodys free as Fannie Lou Hamer
put it.
My hope is that through this conference, Cornell student activists
are excited to have discovered the
many individuals doing social justice and environmental justice work
around campus. I also hope that the
conference will inspire them to continue engaging in deep political education. That people will act on the
principles of collective liberation,
strive for more student power, and
support solidarity politics as a way
towards building a safer, more accessible campus environment as well as
CP
a more just world.

Disruption is an extremely common tactic to achieve a more equitable distribution of power. If we enter the bargaining table as just students, the
administration does not respect us. They seek a dialogue in which they hold all of the power. Asking politely to remove the health fee cannot achieve
success. Disruption is not violent; it does not even cause property damage. Disruption shows the power that the students have; it makes ignoring students an impossibility.
Free speech is a fundamental right. We dont believe ensuring that an elaborate birthday is successful is what the Supreme Court had in mind with
the clear and present danger doctrine. The university is scared of what the students have to say because it knows the students see the truth. It is
willing to threaten students to keep them in silence. If the universitys claimed desire to engage in a constructive dialogue is sincere, it must cease its
attacks against students free speech.
CP
CP

04 May, 2015

orporations hold tremendous

power in the neoliberal global
economy. Massive banks caused and
profited from an economic collapse
that devastated millions of lives.
After the collapse, corporate banks
used their enormous wealth to ensure
that politicians couldnt stop them
from doing it again. The production
of weapons is controlled by a few
massive companies, which compose
the military industrial complex that
profits from endless war. Massive oil
and gas corporations enjoy heavy government subsidies as they drill under
the rapidly melting ice sheets.
Modern capitalism has spread far
and wide since its inception, transition
through the industrial revolution, and
its expansion into the digital age. Only
one institution has escaped its reach
and remains as the final bastion of dissenting thought. This institution is the
university, an institution that has the
purpose of education, research, critical
thought, and most importantly dissent.
Its purpose is pursued through a variety of educators, students, researchers,
and workers. The university must
stand firm against a ferocious assault
conducted by the mighty forces of corporatization. Even when institutions
like governments, churches, and family are conquered and controlled, the
university must hold against armies of
corporate donors, lobbyists, alumni,
investors, and politicians.
The university must be protected
as a reserve for dissenting thought
that checks the prevailing ideas and
ideologies of society. The university
must be protected because it serves as
our greatest tool to advance the well
being of all by creating and spreading
knowledge through human society. If
the society (through its economy or
otherwise) limits and constrains the
university, then the university cannot question or assist the society. A
university controlled by society will
only produce and discuss ideas that
perpetuate and confirm the practices of
society. A corporatized university cannot stand for the interests of humanity
or the planet--rather it will stand for
the interests of the corporations and
the few who control them.
The university can maintain independence from outside controls
because it is well defended by a powerful guard. The guard is composed
of four parts: faculty, graduate student
workers, undergraduate students, and
maintenance and service workers. The
faculty stand guard, armored with tenure, respect, and a deep understanding
of society. Graduate student workers
wield their tireless commitment to
educate and research. Workers have
labor power and a deep pride and
determination. Students stand on the
front lines against the surge of corporatization. They wield powerful tools:
their minds, their voices, and their
bodies. Students use these tools to do
careful analysis, speak critically, and
engage in peaceful action.

The Cornell Progressive

On Power Wyatt Nelson

Last Stand to Defend the University

Photo Courtesy of theguardian.com

When standing together as one, these

four groups--that compose both function and purpose of the university--can
create a force strong enough to hold
the thin line between the excellent
university and a deep perversion of
intellectual thought and reversal of
human progress.
While these forces stand guard,
corporatization has penetrated the
university. Those who are the purpose and function of the university
will not stand for this encroachment.
The board of trustees, a critical and
structural weak point that is highly
vulnerable to the influences of vast
wealth, is now commandeered by the
same massive banks and corporations
that profit from economic collapse,
climate destruction, and endless war.
The corrupted trustees unlocked the
gates to a wave of administration
actions that centralized power away
from the researchers, educators,
students, and workers. The administration has grown in size, doubling
and redoubling, as it moves more and
more activities under its jurisdiction
and expands its coercive reach. The
administration has usurped control of
the university--it has infiltrated and
bypassed and ignored those who are
fundamental to the very essence of
what a university is. The administration is nearly successful in its attempt
to restructure the university under a
centralized and authoritarian regime.
This regime will go to any lengths to
protect its power. The administration

will threaten and intimidate students

who speak against it. It will cut funding and block awards to faculty who
speak against it. It will target graduate
students and spread fear amongst
them. The administration will pressure low wage workers to capitulate
to unreasonable demands. And the
administration will openly pit one
group of people against each other:
faculty against faculty, workers against
students, or graduates against faculty
in a desperate attempt to maintain a
facade of innocence and benevolence.
The administration, directed by
the trustees and the corporations they
represent, has centralized and abused
its power while the guards of education, academic freedom, and human
good have stood by, actionless. Now,
as the final doors of the keep are about
to cave and the very fate of human
thought teeters on the brink of corporatization and meaninglessness, these
guards sound a call to arms.
The call to arms reaches across to
all those who can and must protect the
university. The workers of Cornell put
down shovels and mops to organize
and form a union, get a voice, and
build their power. The graduate student
workers of Cornell drop their red pens
and push aside high stacks of essays to
stand up and demand a voice and fair
representation. Faculty extend deadlines to read, think, discuss amongst
themselves, and publicize their criticism the administration. Students slam
their textbooks shut and open financial

records, read between the lines on administrator emails and statements, and
launch investigations of the trustees,
police, and administrators. Students
hold discussions, protest, and form
a union to advocate and defend their
interests. They demand that what is
happening must be stopped. Together,
a powerful coalition of allies that have
the ability and determination to half
the steady advance of corporatization
and reclaim the true and necessary
function and purpose of the university.
The walls of the university are a thin
line between a place of academic
freedom where the betterment of the
human race takes priority and a critical
understanding of the world exists and
a place where an intellectual freedom
is curtailed and education is warped
into a corporatized training program
for the next generation of the ruling
class. These thin walls are guarded by
a powerful group that must stand in
solidarity and act to close the breach
in their walls that capitalism rushes
through. The trustees opened this
breach and the administration has occupied it. As the guards rise to defend
their university from this perversion,
they must consider the aim they strive
for. They must defeat forces seeking
to transform the university into an
institution that benefits the wealthy
few. They must create a more perfect
university that serves to research and
educate the world and to benefit the
globe and all of its living things.

CP

The Cornell Progressive

Amanda Aragon

Volume XV, Issue V

On Expert Evidence in Court

Necessity of Judicial Gatekeeping

ith technology advancing at

an exponential rate, courts
are faced with the dilemma of what
should be admitted as expert evidence. Should the judge or the jury
be responsible for assessing the quality of expert evidence? . Evidence
demonstrates that the prejudicial
consequences of admitting unreliable
evidence for deliberation by the jury
outweigh the probative value that the
expert testimony can provide. Since,
as scholar Stacey Burns put it, experts unduly influence and prejudice
jurors the judicial gatekeeping role
is crucial to maintain the balance of
expert evidence so that its prejudicial
value does not outweigh its probative value.
To begin with, it is important to
establish that science is what Jasanoff describes as socially constructed. In other words, the facts that
scientists present are produced in
accordance with prior agreements
about the rightness of particular
theories This means that what is
being presented to the jury as fact
by an expert witness, is actually a
collection of beliefs that include
covert assumptions and untried
techniques. This social construction
of facts creates contingencies and
hidden assumptions that the adversarial system does not reveal during
cross-examination. As a result, the
legal fact finder, the jury, obtains
the impression of the facts not as
they are, but as the expert witness
constructs them. Therefore, as Burns
found in her research, since juries
often reach their decision about the
guilt or innocence of criminal defendants based upon the opinions of the
exert witness it is important that the
expert witness the jury hears is based
upon valid scientific evidence. Once
an expert witness is allowed into the
courtroom, boundary work suggests
that the jury will be swayed by the
constructed facts presented by the
witness, because they will view it as
an unbiased truth from the scientific
field instead of themselves determining the validity of the expert testimony. A judicial gatekeeping function
would minimize this prejudicial
effect.
However, let us say that it is in
the best interest of justice to allow
the jury to hear the expert testimony, without the judge acting as
a gatekeeper. How well does the
jury understand what they hear?
Although researchers have found
that actual incompetence is a rare
phenomenon in jury decisions, it
may also be true that conventional
juries are less adept at addressing the
increasingly arcane issues presented
by complex and scientific evidence.
This is especially true when the jury
must judge between two statements
each founded upon an experience
confessedly foreign from their own.
Thus, the jury does understand expert testimony, but only to a certain

extent. If all expert evidence were

allowed into the courtroom, the jury
would be forced to judge between
the validity of evidence presented by
two experts in a field in which they
needed an expert in the first place
because it was outside their area of
expertise. The duty of the jury is to
act as a fact finder, not as an amateur
scientist. This duty cannot be fulfilled if the jury is too busy assessing
the quality of scientific evidence.
Therefore, it falls to the judge to do
so. This way the jury is free to perform their fact-finding duty and yet
can still be present in the courtroom
as a check to political and judicial
tyranny, as researchers Edmond and
Mercer put it. Accordingly, a balance
should be reached in which the power of the gatekeeper.
Perhaps one of the most important factors courts use when admitting expert testimony is precedent.
As Learned Hand succinctly put
it, No one will deny that the law
should in some way effectively use
expert knowledge wherever it will
aid in the settling of disputes. The
only question is as to how it can do
so best. This was written in 1900,
and since then courts have been
grappling with the best way to use
expert evidence. One major step was
taken in the 1923 case Frye v. United
States. In this case the court held that
scientific evidence was only admissible if it was sufficiently established

Courtesy of outsidethebeltway.com

to have gained general acceptance

in the particular field in which it
belongs. However, this was a vague
standard that didnt define how general acceptance was demonstrated.
Thus, it was only a matter of time
until Frye was challenged.
This challenge came in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The
petitioners in this civil suit obtained
evidence in the form of animal
studies, chemical structure analysis,
and unpublished human statistical
studies that maternal ingestion of the
drug Bendectin during pregnancy
caused birth defects. The court ruled
that such evidence was inadmissible
under the Frye standard because it
did not meet the standard for the
admission of expert testimony.
The Supreme Court found that the
Federal Rules of Evidence, enacted
in 1975, superseded the Frye rule.
Specifically, Rule 702 provided the
new criteria for the admissibility of
expert testimony. The evidence must
assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence, it must also pertain
to scientific knowledge, and the
trial judge was given a gatekeeping
function to make a preliminary
assessment of whether the testimonys underlying reasoning or methodology [was] scientifically valid
and [could] be applied to the facts at
issue. It was decided that a judge
may take into consideration whether
the theory or technique had been

tested, subjected to peer review,

had a known error rate, and if it
had gained acceptance in a relevant
scientific community when deciding
whether the methodology employed
was scientifically valid. The reason
judges were given this gatekeeping
function was based on the idea that
the Rules were not designed to seek
cosmic understanding but, rather, to
resolve legal disputes. Thus, even
though the jury may be prevented
from hearing authentic scientific
breakthroughs, it is not the goal of
the legal system to find an ultimate
truth but rather to resolve disputes.
The most efficient way to achieve
this is for a judge to act as a gatekeeper.
However, even this standard for
admissibility proved to be open to
challenges. In 1998 in Kuhmo Tire
Co. v. Carmichael, the petitioner
sued Kuhmo Tire claiming that a
defect in the tire caused an accident
that resulted in one death and several
injuries. The case was based largely
on the testimony from a tire expert.
The district court denied the evidence based on the validity of the
experts methods, which they ruled
were not in accordance with the
Daubert standard. The Circuit Court
reversed and stated that Daubert
only applied to scientific not technical expertise. The tire expert constituted technical expertise and so
CP

The Cornell Progressive

04 May, 2015

On Speaking Christopher Hanna

Spanish: The Second National Language

s the United States enters a new

era of national linguistic duality, the English languages exclusively held de facto status as the national
language seems to be fading into
antiquation.
The history of foreign languages
in the United States is rich and varied; President Thomas Jefferson was
lettered in English, French, Italian,
Latin, Greek and Spanish. It is estimated that nearly half of American
presidents have spoken - at the very
least - a second language alongside English. Additionally, sizeable
minority languages that are unique
to North America, including Pennsylvania German, Louisiana Cajun
French, Navajo, and Cherokee, have
been spoken within our borders since

long before our national separation

from the British.
English language-supremacists,
while conceding that other tongues
play significant roles in the lives of
millions of Americans, stress that
the English language alone possesses macrolevel significance. This
argument has some merit; after all,
Jeffersons many tongues may have
enhanced his status as an intellectual
and diplomatic actor, but the unique
civil society and public sphere in
which he lived - and in which we
live today - has always operated
primarily in the language of our
British forefathers. Thus, despite the
fact that English itself is an imported tongue, minority languages are
perceived to be foreign in the

sense that they are of little material

importance to our national identity
and institutions. This understanding
seems to understate and ignore the
Spanish languages crucial place in
American society and culture.
For those who were wondering:
Spanishs influence consists of much
more than Taco Bells delightfully
sketchy menu items and Enrique
Iglesiass occasional Spanglish
chart-topper. Indeed, its roots in
this country long precede the 20th
and 21st-century influxes of Spanish-speaking immigrants that are
typically associated with its rise to
prominence. Spanish speakers have
inhabited the United States since the
sixteenth century, decades before
the English set foot in the Americas.

Courtesy of The linguaworld.icon

Editorial - Continued From Page 2

should be exempt from the Daubert standard. The Supreme Court held the
decision of the District Court and stated, the Daubert gatekeeping obligation applies not only to scientific testimony but to all expert testimony.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Daubert criteria did not
constitute a checklist, but rather it was up to the trial judge to determine
which measures were relevant to that particular case. This decision effectively broadened the judicial gatekeeping role by giving judges more discretion in determining the admissibility of expert evidence. The Supreme
Court upheld the District Court decision of rejecting the tire experts testimony because the question was whether he could reliably determine the
cause of the failure of the particular tire at issue and after an analysis of his
methodology the court found that he could not. As a result, his testimony
was excluded. Thus, as a result of the Daubert and Kuhmo decisions, judges
currently act as gatekeepers in admitting expert testimony.
It is important to note that there is more at stake than the evaluation of
the scientific quality of the expert evidence. If the judge, using his gatekeeping function, prevents the jury from hearing authentic scientific breakthroughs, then the jury can still fulfill its role as a fact-finder and can still
act as an instrument of justice. However, this changes if faulty testimony
is presented to the jury. Its already been established that juries tend to be
swayed by experts, so how can a jury properly fulfill their fact-finding role
and carry out justice if they are unknowingly supporting an interpretation
of the facts that is not their own, but that of an expert? No justice is done if
the expert in lieu of the jury becomes the trier of fact. One may argue that
this perspective underestimates the discretionary power of the jury. Surely
the jury as one of our societys most reliable decision-making institutions
would not be swayed so significantly by any expert, it could be argued. Past
cases prove differently, however.

This legacy is inextricable from

our national identity; hundreds of
American English words come from
Spanish, as do the names of many of
our cities and states.
Further, Spanish is now spoken
by over forty million Americans,
making the United States the country with the worlds second largest Spanish-speaking community.
Later in the century, it may take the
number-one spot away from Mexico,
making it both the largest Anglophone and the largest Hispanophone
country in the world. Moreover, the
American economy is well on its
way to becoming functionally bilingual, as businesses vie for candidates
who hablan Espaol. The changing
linguistic face of American society
can also be seen in media trends; the
Spanish-language network Univision has been crowned the number
one broadcast television network for
adults aged eighteen to thirty-four,
beating out traditional English-language powerhouses such as ABC
and CBS. Never has a language other than English played such a significant role in American economic and
cultural life, and never has Spanishs
designation as foreign been more
inappropriate.
With this in mind, the recognition of Spanish as a second national
language would allow us to embrace
our national history in its entirety
and equip ourselves for a future that
will most certainly be marked by increased linguistic duality. Anything
less is undeserving of our great society. Lets say it together: orgulloso
de ser estadounidense. Proud to be
an American.
CP

The case that best exemplifies the notion that justice is not done when
faulty testimony is admitted for the jury to decide is the 1996 David Asbury Case. This case took place in Scotland and involved the murder of a
woman named Marion Ross. The police obtained latent fingerprints from
the scene and matched them to David Asbury. This was the only physical evidence used against him. Despite the fact that one of the marks was
identified as matching Detective Shirely McKie, who claimed never to
have been inside the crime scene, the jury did not doubt the validity of the
fingerprint evidence and sentenced Asbury to life in prison for murder. Of
importance is that this case took place in Scotland, because in Scotland,
where conflicting expert evidence has been provided, it is for the tribunal
of fact to decide which evidence, if any, it will prefer. The tribunal of fact
is the jury. Thus, the jury decided that the fingerprint evidence was reliable
enough, despite the doubt cast by the identification of McKie. Would a
judge have prevented this evidence from reaching the jury if this case had
been tried in the U.S.? Its impossible to know for sure, but it is possible
that a judge could have found that the evidence, although performed using
a valid methodology, could not reliably determine the culprit in this particular case, similar to the decision made in Kuhmo. Perhaps then the jury
might have delivered a different verdict, dismissing all charges against Asbury because of the lack of physical evidence. One can argue that this may
be the wrong verdict, as Asbury could truly be guilty despite the lack of
physical evidence. However, since our legal system is based upon the belief of innocent until proven guilty, it must be assumed, in light of evidence
indicating otherwise, that Asbury is innocent in this scenario. The difference in these two scenarios in the admission of expert testimony is the life
of a potentially innocent man. Thus, the stakes are high when it comes to
the presentation of expert testimony, especially with current criminal cases
that hinge on the presentation of such evidence.
CP

The Cornell Progressive

Volume XV, Issue V

The l a s t LAU GH

Photo Courtesy of Tom Toles

The only fun thing about filing your tax return is getting
a refund. About 80 percent
of taxpayers get money back,
which is a weird thing to be
happy about. That means
youve been overpaying all
year long. Its like if someone
broke into your house and
the police recovered the stuff
and brought it back and you
said, Oh, presents.
Jimmy Kimmel

A company is working on
a new selfie stick shaped
like a human arm so users wont look like theyre
alone in pictures. Instead
youll just look like a completely normal person
whos carrying around a
human arm.
-Seth Meyers

Photo Coutsey of Steve Sack

"Marco Rubio announced hes

running for president. Fun
fact: Marco Rubios wife is a
former Miami Dolphins cheerleader. In other words, she
knows how to generate fake
enthusiasm for someone whos
not going to win.
Conan OBrien
Photo Courtesy of Patrick Chappatte