Skip Navigation

Viewpoint

  • Knowledge, Science and Despicable Certitude

    Both the accomplishments and the approach of science are revered as gospel in Western society.  If something can be legitimately justified in the name of science, it is respected.  As a result, science formulates our view of the world, and the scientific methodology is a gold standard.

  • How Do Scientists Function Without God?

    It’s probably the case that students studying the sciences have a much better taste for the humanities than visa versa. Certainly it’s easier to imagine a physicist penning a fine lyric in her free time then picturing, say, Griffin Johnson dissecting a frog in his kitchen out of curiosity.

  • Where’s the Compassion? Reflections on Human Privilege

    In the last Carletonian of fall term, Anna Schmiel ’17 wrote an op-ed titled “Where’s the Tofu?: Reflections on Food Privilege.” As the person with whom she had a conversation, I would like to reaffirm my message and address some of the problematic statements she made in the article.

  • What is Killing?

    They call St. Petersburg the “city built on bones.” Beneath the city’s melancholy streets lie the bodies of tens of thousands of laborers who perished in this great battle of man against nature: building an imperial capital from scratch on a foggy swamp teeming with disease.

  • Editorial

    At present rate, the Carleton Student Association’s asinine spending policies and nonsensical red tape would make even a Californian blush. Faithful readers of these pages will know that the student association – our student association – is running an enormous surplus.

  • An Invisible Christmas

    I cried 3 times over winter break. No, I did not attend 3 funerals; I worked at a large retail chain store. I am unable to say the name of the specific store for legal reasons (really, it was in my contract), but I can assure you that I will be vehemently hinting at it throughout this article.

  • Reinvestment at Carleton

    In Spring 2013, the CSA passed a transparency resolution for Carleton’s endowment. Students were not allowed access to information about the college’s public equity holdings, aside from the top 10 largest holdings.

  • Considering the Value of a Dollar: Perplexed by the Bald Spot WiFi Proposal

    Relative to the rest of the world, Carleton has a warped understanding of value. In the past week alone I have heard people call international flight fares "relatively cheap" and $40 shoes a "steal," and others agreed. There are few other places on this planet where these statements could pass as reasonable... This mentality manifests most clearly in relation to the recent proposal to bring WiFi to the Bald Spot.

     
  • "Where's the Tofu?": Reflections on Food Privilege

    Sometimes, lovely ideas are completely ridiculous. The other day at Sayles, I was asked to watch a short, graphic video about animal rights abuses and discuss my reactions. Now, I’m a vegetarian, so I was on board until one of the members of the student organization that sponsored the event began talking about complicated topics like "veganism" and "speciesism." I disagreed with him, but felt stupid and non-progressive doing so.

  • Where We Come From and Where We're Going: Privilege and Oppression at Carleton

     We cannot be blamed for where we come from, but we are always responsible for where we are going. I cannot be blamed for being from a wealthy background. However, I will always be responsible for my aspirations from this upbringing. This means that I am responsible for continuing to aspire towards where I am going even when where I come from makes this difficult. At the same time, we can show sympathy towards this difficulty.

  • Intellectualism at Carleton?

    A parting thought from fall term... happy break, friends.

  • CUT Me a Break: A Reply to Goodgame and Halloran

    This past week, my article in issue six of the Carletonian was the subject of criticisms by Maddy Halloran and Michael Goodgame.  They argued that I had no evidence for my views, which were not only false and unfair to CUT, but (as Mr. Goodgame charges) downright “hateful” and “spiteful.”  I concede that I ought to have more clearly referenced my sources in the piece.