Women's Hoops Travels To Face Central N.Y. Foe

By wpengine | December 2, 2003

After suffering three consecutive losses in its first three games of the season, the women’s basketball team (0-3, 0-0 Ivy) will look to battle back against regional-rival Colgate (3-1, 0-0 Patriot) tonight in Hamilton, N.Y. The Red has had trouble so far this season because of the caliber of its competition, but the Raiders will be no cakewalk.

“Colgate is a very scrappy team,” explained head coach Dayna Smith. “They are very aggressive on the defensive end.”

Colgate is a strong team, and the squad came out of the starting gate on fire this season. The Raiders won each of their first three games, and lost for the first time this season last Saturday at Vermont, 85-75.

Colgate has several players that the Red will have to defend against carefully. Senior Malissa Burke, who will be a force for the Raiders, averaged 11.1 points per game last year and recently surpassed the 1000-point mark in her college career. The Red will also have to keep an eye on freshman Molly Patterson, who was named Patriot League Freshman of the Week two weeks ago after averaging 16 points per game in Colgate’s first two contests.

“Colgate is very balanced,” said Smith. “It’s difficult to key in on one person. We need to shut down as much as possible Patterson, and we are going to focus in a little bit on Burke.”

In addition to managing Colgate’s top players, the Red has to get several of its own going if it expects to see any positive results tonight. Senior Karen Force, hobbled by injury, has yet to find her stride, garnering only a single point in Cornell’s last game against St. Francis.

“Karen is battling an injury right now,” said Smith. “We’ve got to get her to be our point guard and make good decisions.”

In addition, the Red as a whole has been struggling, after averaging just below 33 percent shooting in its three games. Opponents have also outscored Cornell by about 34 points per game.

When asked about who could step up in Force’s place, Smith explained, “I think Katie Romey needs to be consistent as far as point production. I also think Tanya Karcic needs to be more dominating inside. [And] Lauren Kilduff needs to be a bit more offensive-minded. If Karen can pick up the leadership part, we’ll be OK.”

This game against Colgate marks the fourth and final contest in the Red’s somewhat disappointing season-opening road trip. However, if Cornell can finally mesh as a team against the Raiders, the Red may consider itself successful.

“We haven’t defined who we are,” explained Smith. “If we play the way we’re capable of playing, I think we can compete with [Colgate] and we can beat them.”

Archived article by Michael Pandolfini

Connerly Lectures

By wpengine December 3, 2003

“Ward says Jim Crow. We say hell no!” This slogan — chanted by members of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration, Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and other activist groups — was just one sign of protest seen outside of a Uris Auditorium presentation last night. The presentation, entitled “Affirmative Action = Racism (?),” drew a full, if not friendly, house to hear Ward Connerly, chair of the American Civil Rights Institute, well-known for his outspoken criticism of affirmative action. As spectators arrived at Uris, they were greeted by members of BAMN, the Asian Pacific Americans for Action (APAA), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and others who supported affirmative action. All together, there were roughly two dozen protesters who chanted, held signs with anti-Connerly slogans and distributed fact sheets about Connerly. According to Lin Yang ’05, the APAA was protesting “because [the APAA] supports affirmative action, and [they] believe that in this country the playing field is not equal enough to get rid of affirmative action.” Some made more direct personal attacks on Connerly. One member of the NAACP, Sarah Elliot ’06, described him as “the puppet for neo-conservative beliefs,” and added that he was abusing the fact that he’s African-American for his own personal gains. The presentation itself began with a reminder to the audience about the Cornell University Campus Code of Conduct, reminding the audience that “a speaker has a right to speak without intimidation, and the audience has the right to hear what they have to say.” After this, Elliott Marton Reed ’05, chair of the Cornell Campus Republicans, gave a few welcoming remarks before introducing Mr. Connerly. Connerly opened his discussion by saying, “Tonight I’d like to share my perspective about the issue of race.” He went on to expound upon the virtues of removing racial preferences, specifically affirmative action, from society. “Over the years we’ve crafted this very clever way of saying that the only way to achieve equality is by treating people differently,” Connerly explained. He then stated his view that racial equality can only be achieved if people stop taking race into consideration entirely. As an example, Connerly described his own experiences as a regent for the University of California, where he helped push forwarded a measure that ended affirmative action policies. Instead, the university now targets more troubled school districts, and uses a policy of “comprehensive review” that looks at each student individually. Throughout the speech, there was a great deal of tension in the auditorium. While most of the audience seemed interested in Connerly’s ideas, many others were openly hostile: refusing to clap when he was introduced and holding up various signs and banners expressing their objections. At one point, Connerly stopped his speech, calling one of the banners a “distraction,” and asking for its removal. At this, the audience erupted into a jumble of applause and murmurs. During this, an unidentified audience member yelled, “Why is it a distraction?” to which another replied, “Oh grow up!” Gabriella Barbartito ’05 and Jarrett Stoltzfus ’05 were two of the audience members holding the banner. According to Stoltzfus, both made sure that no one in the audience would be blocked by the banner and they were trying to be respectful in their protest. Barbartito agreed, but said she was not upset that they were asked to put it down. They were more disappointed by the fact that Connerly never addressed the issue they were trying to raise. After the speech, Connerly answered questions from the audience for over an hour. These ranged from questions about his views on racial profiling, to how Connerly can work with a publisher that has produced racist works in the past. Connerly responded to the latter saying “Oh my God! My publisher is a conservative press!” and eliciting laughter from the audience. One self-described “Jewish American” audience member was offended by Connerly’s comparison between racial classifications in America and the Nuremburg Trials following World War II. Connerly explained that what he meant was that the Nazi philosophy was based on supposed racial differences, the same principle used in affirmative action. “The classifications have [historically] been used for evil purposes,” he explained. Even after the official question and answer session ended, Connerly remained available for several minutes to discuss the issue with a group of students. Most students seemed to appreciate the chance to hear different views on the issue. “I thought it was a good honest intellectual debate,” said Brian Kwoba ’04. “It was really stimulating ideologically for me personally, and it was a good event to have on campus.” Others, like Sika Bediako ’04, disagreed with the views Connerly presented. “Cornell’s not going to let me in with a 1.3 GPA just because I’m a black person,” she said. “Affirmative action doesn’t get me a diploma, I get the diploma myself. It just gives you that first step you need.” Reed was very pleased with the turnout the event received. “I couldn’t have asked for a better crowd,” he said. He also expressed his pleasure with how smoothly the event ran, and how considerate the audience was overall. “I expected this from fellow Cornellians and I think it speaks to intellectual curiosity,” he explained. Connerly said that the reception he received matched his expectations. “Basically, you have people [at Cornell] with a wide variety of opinions,” he explained. “The thread that is common is all of this is that people don’t have confidence that society will treat them fairly.”Archived article by Courtney Potts
Reactor's Nuclear Fuel Removed

By wpengine December 3, 2003

University officials announced yesterday that spent nuclear fuel from Cornell’s Teaching, Research, Isotope, General Atomics (TRIGA) reactor at the Ward Center for Nuclear Sciences had been removed two weeks ago. The removal of the materials is one of the phases in the lab’s decommissioning process following the shut down of the reactor on June 30, 2002. After 40 years of operation, the decision last year to deconstruct the lab created much debate and criticism among groups including the National Association of Cancer Patients and individuals such as Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). Last February, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, requesting that the materials be removed from Ithaca. At the time, Schumer expressed concern about a potential security threat with the radioactive material. “Cornell University’s mission is to educate students and conduct world-class research — not to play security guard for dangerous, highly radioactive materials. In a post-9/11 world, it is essential that these inherently dangerous materials be guarded by those with the expertise and resources to do so,” he said in a press release last year. The nuclear fuel was removed during the week of Nov. 10, according to Linda Grace-Kobas, interim vice president for University communications and media relations. Grace-Kobas said that even though the material removal was supposed to occur several months ago, delays were caused by difficulties in scheduling with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other government institutions. “We were glad … to have the fuel removed by the beginning of the year,” Grace-Kobas said. “But we were not in control of the [removal] schedule.” She added that there was a possibility the fuel might not have been taken away until next year, but the U.S. Department of Energy actually moved up the Ward removal schedule to an earlier date. Due to federal regulations, University officials were not allowed to disclose information about the removal until 10 days after its Nov. 20 arrival at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ithaca Mayor Alan Cohen ’81 and Ithaca Police Chief Victor Loo were informed about the procedure before it occurred. Although many were concerned about the possible hazard created by the presence of the fuel rods, Grace-Kobas said that the University — which did not feel the material created a security concern — is pleased the materials are off-campus because they can now continue to dismantle the reactor. “We’ve always … operated the facility with due diligence and compliance in all safety regulations,” Grace-Kobas said. “We did not feel like [the rods] were a health hazard on campus. We can [now] move forward with the decommissioning process.” The reactor is slated to undergo further decommissioning over the course of the next several months. This process will include the dismantling of the TRIGA reactor, said Charles Fay, vice provost for research administration, in a University press release. Fay said the decommissioning is projected to be completed by the end of next year, although plans are not finalized concerning how the space will be used once the process is completed. “That’s still under discussion by the administration,” Grace-Kobas said. Archived article by Brian Tsao