By ryan October 23, 2000
Another Student Assembly meeting concluded last Thursday, one characteristically free of outbursts and partisan contests. Following the meeting, however, tension boiled over for one Assembly member, and a debate that never took place on the Memorial Room floor that day emerged before several onlookers outside the meeting room instead. “These kinds of things happen after every S.A. meeting,” said David Mahon ’01, student-elected trustee, of the seemingly typical exchange. Then the ensuing argument between James Lamb, Jr. ’03, representative at-large and several Cornell Republicans escalated into something more. Lamb and the Republicans debated resolution 14, a proposal calling for a definition of the S.A. executive archivist’s role during Assembly meetings. “Nothing out of the ordinary happened at the meeting,” said Derrick Zandpour ’02, international representative. But then after the meeting, “[Lamb] started to get rather aggravated about [the resolution], pointing his finger at me.” Shouts followed, and Lamb threw a Snapple bottle in Zandpour’s direction, pieces of glass hitting him as the bottle smashed, according to Zandpour. “If people weren’t there to stop him, it could have gotten a lot worse,” Zandpour added. Mike Kalogiannis ’01, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences representative, then called the Cornell University Police Department, and the police — at Zandpour’s request — directed investigation of the incident to the University Judicial Administrator (J.A.). “I don’t think James would have ever laid a finger on Derrick — or anyone,” Mahon said. “That’s just beyond reason.” Still, the tense relationship between Lamb and the Cornell Republicans, Mahon noted, dates back to last year when Lamb became frustrated during an Assembly meeting. He stormed out of the meeting and returned, punching his fist through a pane of glass. This time, once again, Lamb was allegedly at the center of another controversial moment. “I saw [Jennifer Fang, the S.A. archivist] crying, because of other S.A. members acting as if her humanity wasn’t important to them,” Lamb said. “When I was faced with those tears, that was when I lost it.” As the event’s fallout emerged, inevitably affecting the S.A. by association, Assembly members have tried distancing the body from the incident. “We are waiting for the J.A. to take action,” said Michael L. Bronstein ’02, S.A. vice president for public relations. “It’s a shame,” Bronstein added, “because the body this year has been a very different body than it ever has been.” However, “I think this year’s S.A. will be able to preserve decorum,” he said, noting that the incident took place outside of the Assembly’s meeting, not inside. The resolution — authored by Zandpour and two other S.A. members — states that the archivist “must remain unbiased and neutral, publicly expressing no viewpoint on any issue before the Assembly.” “That, as far as I can tell, impedes on [Fang’s] right to speaking,” Lamb said, noting that her perspective — that of a minority — should be particularly valuable during discussions of the recent bias-related incidents. Lamb added that despite the orderly nature of the S.A., “there is a lot of animosity that isn’t being expressed publicly.” The resolution, he said, revolves not around the position of executive archivist, but around Fang — who holds the position — and Lamb himself, who is politically and personally close with Fang. “Yeah, it is personal,” Lamb said. “I honestly can’t see it as anything else.” Fang could not be reached for comment last night. Bronstein defended what he believes to be the true intentions of the resolution. “We felt that it was appropriate to change … the position,” Bronstein said, noting a past Assembly effort to remove the position altogether. “He thinks it’s a personal thing aimed at him and his girlfriend, [Fang].” This week, resolution 14 comes up for debate in the Assembly, and the agenda calls for a vote as well. “I am hoping that the S.A. does not try to cover this [incident] up and takes some kind of responsibility for this,” Zandpour said, recalling the incident involving Lamb a year ago. But many S.A. officials hope the incident does not alter the perception of a new Assembly, a departure from the tumultuous nature of the previous Assembly. S.A. President Uzo Asonye ’02 said he would not address the incident publicly during the next Assembly meeting, although an executive session will be held to discuss it. “From gavel to gavel, I maintain order in our meetings,” he said, but Asonye added what takes place after meetings is beyond his control. “I’ve made it very clear throughout this year that I am not going to tolerate any shenanigans,” Asonye said. Asonye has not discussed the incident with either Lamb or Zandpour. Neither has there been any official S.A. discussion regarding Lamb’s removal from the body due to his actions. “The only way that I know that you can do it is to recall [Lamb’s] election,” Bronstein said. Recalling an S.A. member would require about 2000 signatures from the student body just to be initiated. If that removal effort was successful, Lee Rudofsky ’01, would step into Lamb’s position on the Assembly. Hoping that resolution 14 is postponed pending the conclusion of the J.A. investigation, Lamb offered a look towards next week’s meeting. If the resolution were to be passed, he said, then “I would probably at that point resign.”Archived article by Matthew Hirsch
By ryan October 23, 2000
13,000 years of history were summed up in 42 minutes last night in the Alice B. Statler Auditorium. The Spencer T. & Ann W. Olin Foundation presented Prof. Jared Diamond, physiology, UCLA School of Medicine, who discussed human history from a scientific perspective. Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize winning book that combines history and biology to account for numerous modern social phenomena, was the topic of last night’s lecture. In trying to sum up his lecture in one sentence, Diamond said, “The difference between human societies on different continents seems to me to be attributed to environmental differences, not innate differences in the people.” Diamond opened the lecture with slides of various people from around the world to illustrate human diversity. “13,000 years ago, everybody everywhere in the world was a hunter-gatherer,” Diamond explained. “As a result of their nomadic lifestyles, [they] lived at relatively low population densities. The woman cannot carry two children on her back. She won’t give birth to her next child until the older child can keep up with the group.” Certain nomadic cultures existed in environments conducive to agriculture. These nomads were able to settle and develop farming along with edible plant and animal domestication. “There was a population explosion because they were able to settle down and live full lives,” Diamond said. Diamond explained that “90 percent of the world speaks languages derived two-thousand years ago from two places: the Fertile Crescent or China, the areas that developed the first farming and hence the first expansion of farmers.” He compared the agricultural societies with those that remained hunter-gatherers, pointing out that in the former there was no longer a need to space out births and that an agricultural society surrounds themselves with edible plants and animals, making survival easier. He added that the storing of food surpluses allowed certain people to be political or form armies, unlike the hunter-gatherer societies. As a result, the agricultural societies became more technologically advanced. Jennifer Fox grad, who has used Diamond’s book in a course she TA’s, said, “I was most pleased with his ability to utilize ideas from not only evolution and biology, but apply them to history and broad historical trends.” Gavin Sacks grad, said he found it particularly interesting when Diamond drew attention to “agricultural and domestication influences on the variable rates of civilization on different continents.” Many students commented favorably on Diamond’s interpretation of racism. The professor explained that the usual response from an academic when asked the question, “Why did Europeans conquer aboriginals and Native Americans instead of the reverse?” was “something like, ‘I know this isn’t politically correct, but those aboriginals were primitive and just not as intelligent as Europeans.'” He then said that “the reason why people fall back on these racist explanations is because historians have not given an explanation. People look different on the outside, so they must be different on the inside.” “I thought his arguments against racism were very appropriate and heartfelt,” said Dan Grossman grad. Audience members came from outside of Cornell as well. Donna Puskar, a biology and chemistry teacher at Wellsboro Area High School in Pennsylvania, said, “I applaud his cross-curriculum approach.”Archived article by Olga Byrne