Students Have No Future in Ravenstahl's Pittsburgh

The following column was recently published in The Pitt News.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s proposal to tax students and hospital patients as a partial fix to the city’s pension crisis lacks specifics. But one thing is clear: Another Ravenstahl administration will cost students hundreds of dollars.

The proposed tax has escalated in recent weeks from a flat $100-per-year fee to a 1 percent tax on tuition, and the mayor said he will not release a specific proposal until November 9 — six days after the mayoral election.

The mayor’s refusal to propose specific new taxes before the election demonstrates the political opportunism that you’d expect from a man running as both a Democrat and a Republican, and it’s this crass opportunism that defines Ravenstahl’s relationship with young people in the city.

The problem is that the mayor knows we don’t vote with any regularity the way unions do and we also don’t give thousands of dollars to his campaign the way that prominent development companies like the Forza Group and the Rubinoff Co. do.

Coincidentally, we are much more likely as a group to be gassed and shot with rubber bullets than members of unions or corporate executives.

Ravenstahl mocked the post-G-20 Summit grievances of students at “Off the Record IX,” the Post-Gazette’s annual variety show, on Oct. 1. The Pittsburgh City Paper reported that Ravenstahl appeared on stage in riot gear and said, “I heard we’re going to face a free-speech lawsuit. Well, I have some free speech for you: F*ck you, Vic Walczak.”

Ravenstahl’s tirade against Walczak, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, was not just childish and crude but demonstrative of the contempt the mayor has for civil liberties and the men who defend them.

One of the few voices publicly condemning the mayor’s behavior, independent mayoral candidate Kevin Acklin, said Ravenstahl’s appearance was “offensive and inappropriate.” I contacted the mayor’s office to get his side of the story but my request for comment was declined.

Acklin said that it sent a message to students and others affected by the G-20 Summit that Ravenstahl isn’t waiting for a trial and that “he’s already made up his mind that it’s okay for the mayor’s office to militarize Oakland, to abuse students’ rights and then to use those offenses as a punch line for a cheap laugh.”

But Ravenstahl’s vulgar outburst was more than just a cheap joke, it was a jab made by a man who thinks he exists above civilized discourse in a city where very few institutions or individuals have the power to stand up to him.

Indeed, Ravenstahl seems to be right, as it took two weeks for the story of his conduct to even appear in the press. The Post-Gazette, at whose event he made such crass remarks, endorsed him on Sunday as the only candidate who “can handle the job” of mayor.

Clearly, the mainstream institutions of this city have failed to hold the mayor accountable and would rather remain on his good side than demand that he shape up and articulate a viable future for the city. This is the crux of the matter: the Ravenstahl Administration has never articulated a vision of the city’s future, but has instead devoted its energies to getting even with the mayor’s enemies and enriching the mayor’s campaign contributors.

Remember, this is the mayor that tried to cut City Council’s staff over a budget disagreement and an Administration that has overseen the awarding of lucrative contracts to campaign donors even when they aren’t the lowest bidders.

The mayor’s approach to students is simply one aspect of his inability to transcend daily politics and lead the city — young and old — toward a better tomorrow. By arbitrarily taxing students and ignoring their legitimate grievances about the city’s handling of Oakland during the G-20 Summit, Ravenstahl is ignoring the very people who are going to be part of this city’s future.

As Acklin said of the mayor’s plan to tax students, “It’s no way to treat the young people so vital to our city, and it’s no way to roll out the welcome mat to tens of thousands of our most eligible future residents.”

And that’s what many of us are: potential future residents of Pittsburgh who should be courted rather than penalized. Many of us work here, we pay taxes, we’re a vital part of the city’s economy and it’s time that we vote in local elections to secure this city’s future and our place in it.

The Independent Alternative to Ravenstahl

The column below was recently published by The Pitt News.

Eschewing the typical ideological identity and principled policy positions that identify a politician as either a Democrat or a Republican, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is running for reelection as both a Republican and Democrat.

            

Ravenstahl, a life-long Democrat, finagled this by defeating a challenger in the Democratic primary and winning the write-in contest for the Republican nomination with 607 votes from Pittsburgh Republicans.

            

With the two-party system successfully broken to Ravenstahl’s will, two independent challengers, Franco “Dok” Harris and Kevin Acklin, emerged to contest the election.

            

Acklin, a business lawyer who grew up in South Oakland and holds degrees from both Harvard and Georgetown, said he launched his campaign “to wrest control of this city from the Machine.” Acklin said that this election is about bringing stronger leadership to the mayor’s office and eliminating the corruption that has flourished during the Ravenstahl Administration.

            

Acklin’s got a point. Ravenstahl’s tenure in office has been dogged by unexplained no-bid contracts, the awarding of city contracts to campaign contributors when they’re the highest bidder and Ravenstahl’s personal misuse of city resources such as the SUV purchased with Homeland Security dollars that he took to a Toby Keith concert.

            

It’s hard to disagree with Acklin when he says, “[the Ravenstahl] Administration is being run for the benefit of a few.” And just in case you think you're one of the chosen few who benefit from the Ravenstahl Administration, remember that Pitt students are Ravenstahl’s new cash cow.

            

Ravenstahl recently proposed levying a $100 fee against undergraduate students in order to help resolve the city’s pension crisis. Both independent candidates came out strongly against this fee with Harris characterizing it as a cynical attempt to extract money from a constituency without the political clout to contest it.

            

Harris said that it made no sense to saddle students with an extra fee when students are prevented by their studies from holding down fulltime jobs. The city should instead look to wealthier non-profits like UPMC and others that own large amounts of land throughout the city but pay no taxes, Harris said.

            

Like Acklin, Harris said that he’s running to bring leadership to the mayor’s office and described himself as a social progressive, economic liberal and fiscal conservative. Harris will appear on the ballot as a candidate of the “Franco Dok Harris Party” and he said that Ravenstahl’s decision to run as both a Democrat and Republican reflects poorly on his personal character and demonstrates that he’ll do anything to win.

            

But the same can’t be said of Harris whose campaign has imposed caps on contributions of $2,400 per individual and $4,800 per household. Harris said that these caps are necessary because it’s impossible to show voters that you’ll bring change to the city if you don’t change the way campaigns are run in the first place.

            

Neither Ravenstahl nor Acklin have joined Harris in this self-imposed campaign finance reform and Acklin said that it simply isn’t feasible. Acklin said, “we’re running to win” and Harris’s contribution caps would make it impossible to defeat Ravenstahl’s well-funded campaign.

            

Although Acklin and Harris disagree on this question of campaign contributions, both candidates said that the best way to keep young people in the city is to promote small businesses and help start-ups establish themselves in local neighborhoods in order to create jobs for college graduates.

            

Harris said that the role of the mayor should be to forge public-private partnerships investing in start-ups and encouraging entrepreneurship. If elected, Harris said he would work to rebuild business districts and help connect entrepreneurs with free legal and business help from local schools.

            

Acklin is equally focused on creating jobs for young people and he stressed the importance of competition and entrepreneurship in rebuilding the city’s economy. As a business lawyer, Acklin said he worked closely with start-ups and green job providers who he thinks are key to the city’s future and its ability to keep young people in the area after graduation.

            

Acklin said that, if elected, he’d make the mayor’s office a “one stop shop” for entrepreneurs where they could be connected with local resources that would help them build a business and create jobs.

            

One thing is clear: There is no room for young people in Ravenstahl’s version of Pittsburgh where business deals are tied to campaign contributions and students are treated as an easy source of revenue in times of crisis.

            

Instead, we must look to the independent candidates because their vision of Pittsburgh’s future includes students not as a $100 a year revenue source to be exploited but as partners in creating a more vibrant city.

Obama Engages Dictators, Abandons Pro-Democracy Movements

The column below was published in The Pitt News today. Enjoy, read and comment:

Two nights of clashes between students and police have stolen the local media spotlight in the aftermath of the G-20 Summit but the major story for the international community to come out of Pittsburgh is the disclosure of Iran’s second nuclear facility.

            

Located on a military base outside of the holy city of Qum, Iran’s second uranium enrichment facility raises the stakes in tomorrow’s talks between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia.

            

These talks, to take place in Geneva, constitute the fulfillment of one of Obama’s key campaign promises to engage Iran diplomatically and it is a promise that Obama has adhered to in the face of Iran’s June 2009 coup, its continued funding of terrorism and its recent missile test.

            

Indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done everything in his power to communicate his regime’s intransigence to the world. He even appointed a wanted terrorist to the cabinet position of Defense Minister, thumbing his nose at international norms and laws.

            

Ahmadinejad is closely following the North Korean playbook of outrageous international provocations and his conduct is a clear indication that he cannot be trusted.

            

Instead of recognizing Ahmadinejad’s government as the illegitimate and brutal farce that it is, Obama has blindly adhered to his vague foreign policy of engagement. This policy is not only harming the interests of this nation but also damaging the Iranian people whose pro-democracy movement has been largely ignored by the Obama Administration.

            

Rather than denounce the Ahmadinejad government and materially pressure it to abandon its nuclear program, Obama has handled Iran’s leaders with kid gloves and granted them international legitimacy by engaging them diplomatically.

            

Obama should recognize that the Iranian government thrives on illusions and requires international sanction in order to exist. For instance, every time that Obama refers to Iran as an “Islamic Republic,” he is participating in the Iranian illusion of representative government.

            

To call Iran a republic is to ignore the fact that an unelected religious despot known as the “Supreme Leader of Iran” and his council of Medievalist mullahs control the foreign and domestic policies of Iran. This Supreme Leader appoints the heads of the military, media and judiciary as well as the 12 members of the Guardian Council tasked with deciding who runs for president and what laws are ratified.

            

It is impossible to treat this government as representative of the Iranian people but Obama continues to do just this in his desperate attempt to placate the American Left and its nonsensical belief that Iran can be engaged diplomatically.

            

Not only is this policy of engagement a dramatic betrayal of American principles, it is an insult to the Iranian people who have taken to the streets in support of democracy. We should be engaging with these pro-democracy activists and aiding them in their attempt to establish a true Iranian republic not actively undermining them by treating their dictators as legitimate rulers.

            

Indeed, a democratic Iran unfettered by the tyranny of theocracy would have no need for nuclear weapons and would pose no threat to the United States or our allies in the region. Promoting democracy in Iran is the only sure way to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of Ahmadinejad and being used in his genocidal plans to wipe Israel off the map.

            

But what’s most troubling about Obama’s engagement with Iran is that it’s part of a larger foreign policy that fails to delineate between democracy and despotism, right and wrong. Obama has shown a remarkable propensity to reach out to dictators and treat them as legitimate rulers and potential partners with the United States.

            

He has warmed American relations with the Castro dictatorship in Cuba, reached out to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and sent high-level American politicians to meet with despots in Myanmar and North Korea.

            

Dictators crave international legitimacy and whether it’s shaking Chavez’s hand in a photo-op or trading meetings with powerful American politicians for the release of hostages, Obama has consistently delivered this legitimacy to some of the world’s most despicable rulers.

            

It’s time for Obama to tell the truth about despots in Iran and throughout the world and to stop treating them as trustworthy diplomatic partners. Only by standing with the oppressed, pro-democratic elements of nations such as Iran can our nation secure its national interest. 

Interns Deserve Pay Too

This column was published in The Pitt News today. After considering the issues in greater depth, I'm not sure I fully stand by this published position any longer but that's a post for another day.

Internships are a popular way for students to learn valuable work related skills while also getting their foot in the door at a corporation of their choosing. While many interns are paid for their work or at least granted a stipend, the unpaid internship is a fixture of college life.

           

Students in the social sciences flock to unpaid internships working at non-profits, political offices and news publications because they perceive the experience of working for these outfits as vital not only to their college experience but also to their future career.

           

In this process of working for experience rather than money, students are harming themselves and the labor market.

           

First, by working for free, students are telling employers that their labor is not valuable. Remember, internships vary from five to 40 hours a week and many approach full time employment.

           

Working these kinds of hours without any compensation except for “experience” signals that students don’t take their skills and time seriously in the context of a capitalist free market. Keep in mind, we function in an economy where hiring and pay are largely determined by skill.

           

Certainly, nepotism and affirmative action skew this metric but in a majority of situations it is an applicant’s ability that secures them a paying job. And the fact that it is paying is important because exchanging your skills and time for nothing but a letter of recommendation is a reflection on how you view yourself in a job market.

           

Remember, if companies weren’t able to dupe a student into photocopying, answering phones and writing internal memos for free, they would have to hire a paid secretary to perform these tasks. In any other economic system, this demand would give the applicant leverage to secure meaningful compensation for their time.

           

But this isn’t only about the individual college student and the fact that they’re getting ripped off by corporations. No, college students accepting and even clamoring for unpaid internships affect everyone by devaluing labor and making it impossible for students in some areas to trade their skills and time for compensation.

           

For instance, a political science major would be hard-pressed to find a paid internship in a political office and it is almost impossible to find one on Capitol Hill. Instead, there’s intense competition for unpaid internships in politics making it almost impossible for a student to find a paid position.

           

These unpaid internships may teach students the ins and outs of the political system, but they make a political education almost impossible for students who have to pay their own way through college. Without income through the internship, students have to take on second jobs, rely on family or go further into debt in order to gain a firsthand political education in the nation’s capital.

           

This trend is repeated throughout many disciplines as students who have to pay their own way are priced-out of internships. This turns a job market based on merit and ability into one based on wealth and connections.

           

Of course, in some instances, unpaid internships may be necessary for a particular field of study such as law but as an overall trend in education, unpaid internships should be discouraged.            

The difficulty is that many colleges and universities have incorporated unpaid internships as part of their curriculum, encouraging students to basically perform volunteer work for credit. But while a student’s labor can teach them many things through work experience, employment should be considered primarily an economic question and only secondarily as an aspect of education.

           

Treating work as an economic issue rather than an educational one will prepare students for the reality of their time after college, when securing a job is based on your skills rather than your willingness to work for free.

           

On the whole, unpaid internships distort the job market, price many students out of positions in competitive fields such as politics, and reinforce an unrealistic understanding of post-college work. Universities should encourage students to secure the greatest monetary gain possible for the skills they possess, rather than support the exchange of hundreds of hours of labor for little or no material gain.

Pittsburgh: Proof that Capitalism Works

This column was just published by The Pitt News. Read it below and comment.

G-20 protesters have descended on Pittsburgh not to protest any single policy of the G-20 but to rail against capitalism as an oppressive and unjust system foisted upon billions of people by a cabal of world leaders. These protesters promise to make our city their ideological playground filled with tent cities, anti-capitalist marches and – if the bluster of online anarchists is to be believed – violence directed against local businesses.

            

But Pittsburgh is a vibrant counterpoint to the incipient whining of socialists, Marxists and anarchists who seek to blame an economic system for all the world’s troubles. Our libraries, museums and universities are the product of industry.

            

Every building or public space with the name Mellon, Frick, Carnegie, Heinz or Schenley is a product of capitalism and the wealth generated by innovation and competition.

            

Of course, our city’s relationship with capitalism and industry has had its ups and downs. From the great railroad strike of 1877 to the Battle of Homestead to the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick, Pittsburgh bore witness to violence perpetrated by both labor and capital.

            

But in spite of the occasional conflict between labor and business, Pittsburgh’s economic history is one of growth driven by industry.

            

Although we look back on the practices of 19^th century industry with distaste and today view coal, the material that powered this nation, as a disastrous pollutant, Pittsburgh would not exist today as a center of education and medical research had it not been for our past industrial success.

            

Our story of success is one of hard work, competition and innovation and it is a story that goes hand in hand with the history of capitalism in this nation. The simple truth is that no other economic system would have enabled such a history and we need look no farther than the gulags of Soviet Russia, the murderous Great Leap Forward of Communist China or the authoritarian nightmare of Fidel Castro’s Cuba to understand the capitalist imperative.

            

The history or state-directed economies is the greatest vindication of capitalism as the economic system that allows people the greatest liberty and chance for success without undue impositions or interference.

            

Of course, with this chance for success comes the chance for failure and no capitalist economy is without those who have failed. This appears to be a major source of contention for protest organizations like Bail Out the People who kicked off this week’s G-20 protests with their March For Jobs on Sunday.

            

On their website, Bail Out the People called for “a moratorium on layoffs, foreclosures and evictions” and proclaimed “the right of everyone to a job or a guaranteed income.” The suggestion that everyone deserves an income regardless of his or her ability or work is ridiculous.

            

Bail Out the People is demanding that need be elevated above ability and that competition be abandoned in favor of an individual’s “right” to employment regardless of their ability to perform a job or the job’s necessity to the economy.

            

Bail Out the People is just one of the organizations protesting the G-20 but it is important to recognize their ethic of need for what it is and remember that neither this nation nor this city were built by giving jobs to the unqualified or by paying people to do nothing.

            

Over the next week, we will all be subjected to the protesters’ slogans, placards and proclamations. As they criticize and demonize capitalism as an economic system of oppression, we must remember that all we hold dear in this city would be impossible without it.

            

We must remember that capitalism’s critics have had their chance in other nations to establish socialist, communist and statist alternatives but have only succeeded in creating greater pain and suffering.

            

We must remember that for all of capitalism’s flaws, it has still proven to be the economic system most conducive to individual liberty and social mobility.

            

Let the protesters attack capitalism, let them march in our streets and protest outside our businesses because when they’ve exhausted their rage and the circus has ended, our city will still be standing as a testament to the achievements of free men and women engaged in a free capitalist economy.

Religious Rhetoric Has No Place in Health Care

This column was just published by The Pitt News. Read it and comment.

President George W. Bush and his Republican Party consistently used religious faith to justify their policy initiatives during the Bush administration’s eight years in office. Stridently opposed by the Left, Bush injected religion into every issue — from the war in Iraq to stem cell research — and used faith as a crutch to support weakly reasoned policies.

But the American Left that assailed Bush’s religious initiatives as a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause has been remarkably silent now that President Obama is enlisting religious leaders in his health care reform assault. A clear sign of desperation, Obama and his Democratic allies have attempted to use faith to sell health care reform since June, when Democrats organized an Interfaith Week of Prayer on Health Care .

Of course, Obama’s use of religion in support of public policy has grown more brazen as the debate has grown more difficult. In an Aug. 19 speech before a group of religious leaders, Obama called his health care reform plan a “core moral and ethical obligation” and identified his opponents in the health care debate as “bearing false witness.”

Obama’s language is that of the most dangerous thief who would take money from the American worker and redistribute it to the unproductive in the name of morality. He has revealed his core ethical obligation to be a massive expansion of entitlement spending, contributing trillions of dollars to this nation’s deficit, and he justified the entire program through the language of religion rather than reason.

What’s worse is that Obama has enlisted religious leaders to sell this thinly veiled theft in a blatant violation of the intent of our Constitution. The Founders understood that collusion between religious institutions and the state was not in the interest of the citizenry’s liberty.

For this reason, the Founders included the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, and presidents and politicians have respected this division between church and state for centuries. Indeed, the 13th president, Millard Fillmore, said, “I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.”

But Obama has ignored this strong secular sentiment evident in our nation’s history and done exactly what Fillmore and the Founders warned future leaders not to do: mingle faith and politics.


Now Obama is spreading his bastardized brand of politics and religion across the country in a desperate attempt to recapture public support for health care reform. Just last Wednesday, Organizing for America sponsored a health care rally on Flagstaff Hill where both a priest and a congressman enjoined the crowd to
support Obama’s health care goals.

Just as the public use of religion to justify national policy demonstrated the intellectual poverty of the Republican Party during the last decade, Obama’s attempt to sell Americans on health care reform through faith rather than reason should be understood as a sign of weakness.

Indeed, it is a weak politician who cannot support his policy positions with facts and reasoned arguments but instead resorts to statements of belief and morality. This is just what the Democratic Left is doing today by relying on the language of religion and morality in the health care debate.

Toward this end, the Democratic Left has introduced the notion that health care is an inalienable human right that the government has a moral duty to provide to all Americans. This is a great lie designed to separate hard-working Americans from the fruits of their production and redistribute it to the unproductive.


It is a dangerous argument that suggests that the American people have a right to the services of doctors and hospital administrators that trumps the right of these medical professionals to work for their own profit. It is, plain and simple, an assault on individual liberty.

And it is in this assault on individual liberty that the Obama administration has found allies in the nation’s religious leaders. Religion tells man to love his neighbor as himself and to subordinate his interests to an almighty god, just as Obama’s statist ideology demands that citizens assume their neighbor’s burden as their own and submit their liberty to the almighty state.

Both ideologies are incompatible with the republican foundation of this country that’s Founders recognized religion and government as defining threats to individual liberty. When government and religion unite, they are certain to have only one goal: the subjugation of the individual American citizen.

This Week's Pitt News Column

The summer is over and that means that I'm back to writing weekly columns for The Pitt News. This week's is about Students for Justice in Palestine and their involvement in the G-20. Below is the full text.

Tens of thousands of protesters are planning to descend on Pittsburgh in late September in order to oppose the G-20 summit being held at the David Lawrence Convention Center. Environmental groups, human rights organizations and advocates for the poor all plan on protesting the G-20 Summit and, although I disagree with many of them, I fully support their right to nonviolently express their opinions in public.

That being said, a small minority of protesters promises to physically disrupt the G-20 through illegal means. Organizing on the Internet, this minority has released countless statements denouncing capitalism as a brutal economic system responsible for the world’s ills.

One such group, the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project, calls the G-20 “the managers of our oppression” and is calling on people to “confront and disrupt the G-20 and its political, corporate and institutional enablers throughout the city” according to a proclamation on its website.

Toward this end, the Resistance Project is planning an unpermitted march in violation of city ordinance on Sept. 24.

According to plans detailed on its website, the march will involve unspecified “direct actions,” a term that has, at past international conferences in London and Seattle, served as code for violently disruptive protests and vandalism by other groups.

Most notably, the anarchist Direct Action Network planned protests against the World Trade Organization meeting in 1999 in Seattle that included the vandalism of storefronts, the smashing of windows and violent confrontations with police.

The Resistance Project has even posted a list of targets for unpermitted protests, including Starbucks, the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute and the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation on Atwood Street.

The Resistance Project also issued an online statement calling for supporters who cannot come to Pittsburgh to “plan local actions” and to “disrupt schools and financial institutions” as a form of protest against the G-20 Summit.”

But this vague language is a clear threat against educational institutions around this country and their ability to function free from the interference of extremists. What really piqued my interest was that a Pitt student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, is listed on the site as having endorsed the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project.

Wondering why a student organization would support the disruption of educational activities, I spoke to Jonas Moffat, the group’s president. During our conversation, Moffat listed a series of grievances that, he said, justified his organization’s opposition to the G-20 Summit.

From President Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan to the state of health care in the United States, Moffat’s grievances had absolutely nothing to do with the policies of the G-20 but instead focused on the policies of the United States as an individual nation.

Moffat’s sole criticism of the G-20 was that it had excluded Iran and Venezuela from membership in the group even though both states possessed large international economies. Our conversation became more confrontational when I asked Moffat if he believed that Iran, as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Venezuela, as a socialist state opposed to international capitalism, should be allowed into an international body designed to promote economic cooperation.
He refused to answer the question, saying simply that some people (he didn’t specify who) believed it and then said that some people also believe that the United States is a sponsor of international terrorism. When asked to provide a yes-or-no answer as to whether the United States is an international sponsor of terrorism, Moffat said that my questioning was too aggressive and ended the interview.

In a later interview with The Pitt News, Moffat said that he declined to answer the questions because the members of Students for Justice in Palestine have many conflicting opinions and he didn’t think it would be right to give an opinion on behalf of his group or inject his own opinion. Moffat did say, however, that his group’s leaders and more active members voted on whether to endorse the proclamation, and the decision was unanimous.

I respect individuals who defend their convictions reasonably and factually, but for the leader of a student organization to defend his group’s actions through innuendo and suggestions is simply irresponsible. Moffat owes us an explanation of his reasoning because his organization is calling on students to take action against their schools.

Moffat’s group has endorsed a proclamation calling on students to disrupt schools, and his only justification for this is that the G-20 hasn’t allowed Venezuela and Iran, two nations ruled by dictators, to participate in the Summit.

This is ridiculous, and what’s even more disgusting is that every student on campus is funding this group’s activities through the student activities fee. According to Moffat, Students for Justice in Palestine received about $5,000 in funding from SGB last year and he expects to receive even more financial support from the University this year.

Certainly, the student activities fee is used to support a broad range of activist organizations with goals not every student agrees with.

But Students for Justice in Palestine has called on students to disrupt educational activities, and it is unconscionable that we should all be monetarily supporting its existence on campus. Academic funds should not go to those who do not respect the academic process and instead encourage its disruption.

Indeed, Pitt’s “Guidelines for Student Organization Certification” says that student organizations must “refrain from advocating, inciting or participating in any material interference or physical disruption of the University” and by calling on students to “disrupt schools,” Students for Justice in Palestine is employing language that has led to such violations in the past.

It is inappropriate that such a group be affiliated with or supported by this University, its administration or student body. At minimum, this organization’s certification should be suspended and their conduct reviewed by the Student Organization Resource Center.