THE BROWN

SPECTATORA JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT • VOLUME IX , ISSUE IV • 5/2012

a university’sshame

How Brown betrayed one of its students

featured

8

10

11

telephone society What the “quiet car” has to teach us

guilds of the 21st century On quality and accreditation

6 report

not just for the needy The case for expanded financial aid

T H E B R O W N

SPECTATOR

editor-in-chief Ryan Fleming

senior managing editor Manas Gautam

managing editors Kelly Fennessy Olivia Conetta Oliver Hudson

design editor Philip Trammell

photographer Tasha Nagamine

business managers Gabriela Suarez

copy editors Samuel Choi Stephanie Hennings Christopher Kim

contributors MacLain Christie (U. Rochester ’13) John Paris Hare Daniel Prada

For questions, comments, subscriptions and responses, email editors@brown-spectator.com.

If you are interested in contributing to The Brown Spectator (or in doing some web design!), contact ryan_fleming@brown.edu.

In light of all my experience over the last two years as the Ed-itor-in-Chief of The Brown Spectator, the only thing I have to say is thank you. Thank you to everyone who has ever written, edited, or designed for The Spectator. Without you, there would not have been a Spectator, no matter how hard I may have tried. You helped me build this magazine from the ground up, and I hope you all feel as much pride when you read its pages as I do. I also want to thank everyone who has ever read The Spectator (and a special thanks to those who take the time to read the letters from the editor). I hope you loved it, hated it, agreed with it, disagreed with it, and maybe even had a few arguments over it. After all, The Spectator was made to start discussions at Brown and maybe even give students some new perspective, and it will always give a voice to the opinions that are too often drowned out. Before I go, though, I want to wish the best of luck to our incoming editors, Olivia Conetta ‘14 and Oliver Hudson ’14. You have been the best editors that I could have asked for and I know you’ll take The Spectator further than I ever did. Some advice: The Spectator shot glasses are double shots, so watch out; don’t be afraid to ruffle some feathers; and ladies love editors, so don’t forget to mention that in small talk (well, maybe you shouldn’t take the advice in that order). In all seriousness, I can’t wait to see what you can do next year. Lastly, thanks to Manas Gautam ’12 for being my right-hand man; Kelly Fennessy ’13 and Gabby Suarez ’13 for always being there; Alex Drechsler ’15, Daniel Prada ’12, and MacLain Christie (University of Rochester ’13) for your nu-merous articles; and a huge thank you to Philip Trammell ’15 for making The Spectator look incredible. It’s not easy to give up the reins, but I know our magazine is going to be in good hands.

Sincerely,Ryan Fleming

Editor-in-Chief

editorial board

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

1

for needy and priveleged alikeWith the second-lowest undergraduate financial aid budget in the Ivy League, Brown cannot compete with other schools’ offers and so suffers from a lack of socio- economic diversity. People of all backgrounds would enjoy a richer educational experience at Brown if we devoted more of our resources to financial aid.

telephone societyWith loud cellular conversations now tolerated in nearly every social setting, perhaps the quiet car of the Metro North has something to teach our generation about the value of quiet peace and contemplation.

guilds of the 21st centuryThe tortuous accreditation procedures that now plague our every industry masquerade as necessary quality-control measures, but they are simply ways for those already established in their professions to keep out potential competitiors.

a university’s shameIn 2006, Brown dealt freshman William McCormick a series of gross injustices, on the questionable accusations of a wealthy donor’s daughter, that culminated in William’s expulsion from the school. The story reveals to us the flaws in a system dedicated to unwavering defense of the accuser at the expense of the accused.

amtrak and the economyFounded in 1970 as a political ploy to assuage fears about the doomed railroad industry, Amtrak should never have been. The vast sums that have been spent over the years to keep this service limping along with uncompetitive prices and absurd travel times would certainly have been better spent in the private sector.

music reviewMaps & Atlases is a group blessed with a unique voice (literally), and their latest album, Beware and Be Grateful, makes good use of their lead singer’s eccentricities. With standard instrumentation but creative organization, the album should well appeal to anyone with a taste for indie rock.

laugh now, cry laterA collection of political cartoons for yourenjoyment.

farewell to the class of 2012!Congratulations to all of you graduating Brown this year. We wish you the best in all your endeavors. Go far, visit often, and take The Spectator with you!

2

5

S

6

8

14

17

18

20

CONTENTS visit us online at brown-spectator.com

COVER

2 S opinion

The financial aid report points out that in the 2011-12 academic year, the average total debt from loans the 45 percent of the class of 2011 bore after graduation was $20,455. In other words, Brown released about 700 students into the real world with loan debt — and interest on that debt — that they must spend many of the follow-ing years paying off. And if they decide to go to gradu-ate school, they will rack up even more debt that they will need to pay back later with interest. Their money could be better spent elsewhere at their discretion. Each dollar loan-burdened Brown gradu-ates spend paying back loans is a dollar they do not spend on, say, an apartment, transportation to work, or, of course, donations to Brown.

With greatly reduced loans, however, graduates can spend a greater share of money on anything else they choose. A foundational tenet of economic theory is that resources — for example, a recent college grad-uate’s income — are scarce. If

we view each graduate’s income as a pie chart, a fraction of the pie is devoted to loans and interest. And if we reduce that share of the pie, graduates’ discretionary income — to spend however they choose — increases. Microeconomic theory, in turn, dictates that ra-tional consumers maximize their preferences relative to their budgets. It follows that if a recent Brown graduate al-ways wants more of a certain good and can afford a certain amount of it, he will buy that amount. Increase his income and he will buy even more. Such increases in consumption would benefit the small business owners situated in areas with high concen-trations of recent college graduates. A dollar that leaves the hand of a recent Brown graduate enters the hand of a small business owner down the street. Depending on his marginal propensity to consume, that owner will spend a certain fraction of that dollar and save the rest. He is eco-nomically better off because of the graduate’s extra spend-ing.

As I was passing the security guard at the front desk of the Sciences Library one afternoon, a small stack of nondescript white packets was resting

next to the usual copies of the Brown Daily Herald. Their ti-tle read: “A Report on the State of Financial Aid at Brown,” compiled by the student group Brown for Financial Aid. The report makes the case for expanded financial aid opportunities for Brown students and need-blind ad-missions for all types of students, including international, transfer, and resumed undergraduate education students, all of whom are currently admitted on a need-aware basis. It also suggests ways to expand financial aid. More recently, the Herald’s four-part “Money Mat-ters” series has called attention to the role of socioeconomic status “before, during, and after Brown.” Interviews with stu-dents who turned down Brown for less expensive alternatives stress Brown’s inability to pro-vide adequate financial aid for more students. I agree with Brown for Financial Aid that the University should make it feasible for every qualified applicant to matriculate. Lowering the loan burden on students whose parents cannot afford to pay the full price, but whose income does not qualify them for full financial aid, will impact and improve the economy as a whole.

OLIVIA CONETTA

The average total debt from loans that 45 percent of the class of 2011 bore after graduation is $20,455. In other words,

Brown released about 700 people into the economy with significant student debt.

for needy and privileged alike The case for expanded financial aid

2011-2012 TOTAL FINANCIAL AID PER UNDERGRADUATE

PRINCETON

HARVARD

YALE

DARTMOUTH

U. PENNSYLVANIA

COLUMBIA

CORNELL

$22,687

$22,281

$22,180

$16,478

$15,630

$14,495

$9,329

THE MISERS OF THE IVY LEAGUE

BROWN $14,250››

3Sopinion

financial aid offerings. Her gratitude toward Brown will make her more willing to give back to her alma mater. To quote our fight

song, she will feel “ever true to Brown.” On top of that, she has some extra discretion-ary money to spend because she does not have to pay back as great an amount of loans. Brown can begin asking this graduate for contributions

more quickly — and she will be able to pay more than she would have otherwise. Brown’s privileged students will also benefit from the school’s increased socioeconomic diversity.

Reducing graduates’ loan burdens puts more dis-cretionary money in their pockets, which in turn puts money in small business owners’ pockets, making them better off. But an expansion of financial aid also has more immediate benefits for Brown itself. A Brown graduate who has received financial aid sig-nificant enough to cover much of the cost of her loans should rightfully be grateful to Brown and to her donors for pro-viding her with the opportunity to get an Ivy League edu-cation at a more affordable cost. She likely will feel tied to Brown and strongly want to continue its more generous

Instead of just barely covering students’ needs or requiring that they work long hours to pay the tuition, Brown would do well to attract the brightest disadvantaged applicants with competitive offers of aid.

Whenever Brown loses a qualified student for financial reasons, our community loses an invaluable resource and is deprived of the positive externalities of the student’s

intelligence and experiences.

students’ intelligence and experiences. In their classes, in chats with their friends, and in student groups, students will reap numerous intan-

gible benefits from a wider array of socioeconomic per-spectives. Discussions of John Rawls and Robert Nozick will be more meaningful with stu-dents whose life experiences have caused them to genuinely ascribe to the veil of ignorance

and the original position. Planning a weekend activity in-clusive of all socioeconomic strata will teach students to be more considerate of others’ differences. And instead of witnessing the glorified campout that was Occupy College Hill, we may see an uptick in meaningful student activism and social entrepreneurship. My argument stems not from a desire to redistrib-ute the wealth of the students whose parents are able to pay Brown’s full sticker price of over $50,000. Rather, it stems from my conviction that if someone is genuinely qualified for admission to Brown, he or she should have the means to attend. Because the students paying full price derive the

benefits of a socio-economically di-verse and qualified student body, it is in everyone’s best interest to provide opportunities for all qualified ad-mits to matriculate at Brown. The University needs to reevalu-ate its budgetary priorities. Finan-cial aid deserves a bigger piece of Brown’s budget pie.

One conservative stance on the issue of financial aid might be along the lines of “Let the forces of the higher education market determine who can attend certain col-leges.” But I do not think that a monetary market adequately decides who should be able to attend college. Another type of market — a “brain market” of merit — works better. Ostensibly, the Admis-sion Office uses need-blind ad-missions as the equalizer of socioeconomic status so that the “good” being traded is simply one’s merit to get into Brown. Then, the Office of Financial Aid divvies up the financial aid budget and offers pieces of it to admitted stu-dents with demonstrated need. But when those pieces are not enough to allow a student to come to Brown, a brilliant, qualified, enthusi-astic student may look elsewhere to reduce the burden on her family or her future self. Each time Brown loses one of these students for financial reasons, Brown loses an invalu-able resource for its faculty and students. The Brown com-munity is deprived of the positive externalities of those

continued | for needy and privileged alike

4 S opinionadver tisement

My argument does not stem from a desire to redistribute wealth... it is in everyone’s interest to ensure a socioeconomically

diverse and qualified student body through adequate and competitive aid offers.

Sopinion

telephone society

JOHN PARIS HARE

day environment. Many people even believe it is socially acceptable to jump into their phone conversation in the middle of a face-to-face conversa-tion. I’m sure you have experienced the “Oh, I’m sorry, I have to take this” conversation killer. P o n d e r -ing the ubiquity of communication devices urges me to recall the earlier decades of the 20th century when the telephone was just starting to grow into a household necessity. How did those generations react to its onset? The tele-phone certainly brought efficiency, but it also brought noise. A common solu-tion to this new domestic intrusion was the advent of a “telephone room,” which, as its name suggests, housed the telephone and contained the ex-traneous banter that was not fit for the rest of the house. My generation has reversed that view. Most of us deem it neces-sary to have a phone on our bodies at all times. The prize of efficiency has replaced a common concern for any sense of “peace and quiet” (which feels like an older generation’s jargon even as I write it). I am reminded of the words of the author David Foster Wallace: “When you feel like the pur-pose of your life is to gratify yourself and get things for yourself and go all

This morning on the Metro-North Railroad into New York City, the overhead speaker

came on. It played out a reminder that the last car on the train is specified as the “quiet car,” meaning that no cellp-hone conversations were allowed to take place in that car. I was pleasantly surprised at the announcement. What surprised me was that Metro-North, even with all the power that accompanies its simple ability to

decide whether you ride the only train or not, had the guts to tell its passengers where they could not use their phones. It’s true that the Metropolitan Transit Authority should have some say over what is allowed on their trains, but this type of enforcement is not your typical “No Smoking” announcement. I be-lieve I was surprised by the regulation because the MTA commuter rail feels enough like a public space, and today most public spaces are loud and cer-tainly not restrictive about cellphone usage. With a few select exceptions, cellular conversations are tolerated in almost every social setting. The only anomalies that come to mind are class-rooms and business meetings. Other-wise, you can expect to see someone doing the hang-head-with-cellphone waddle in most corners of your day-to-

the time, there’s this other part of you, it’s almost hungry for silence and quiet and thinking about the same thing

for maybe a half of an hour instead of thirty seconds, that doesn’t get fed at all.” Most of us, I believe, have fallen into the habit of constant self-indul-gence and, in turn, have lost our pa-tience for extended tranquility and thought. In a culture where the cell phone can spare no time or space, I sa-lute MTA for allowing all of us a little peace and quiet on the last car of the train.

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeMost of us deem it

necesssary to have a phone on our bodies at all times.

We have fallen, I believe, into the habit of self-indulgence and, in turn, have lost our

patience for extended tranquility and thought.

5S

aetaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeToday, most public spaces are

loud... with a few select exceptions, cellular

conversations are tolerated in almost every social setting.

least hopefully indicated the quality of their work. Yet if my Nigerian friend opened up an accounting firm in 2001 next to these exact same CPAs, he could have been incarcerated for practicing without a license. Does that seem reasonable to you? This story is not unique. I have met Dominican doctors, Mexican lawyers, Malian anthropologists, and Sal-vadorian nurses that, even though they have had decades of experience in their home countries, can do only menial work in the U.S. because they cannot find the resources or the time to become accredited. It is a story widespread in American society and, even more problematically, one whose effects can be felt right here at Brown. Do you wish to become a practicing doctor? Ac-

cording to the American Med-ical Association, you must first go to a four-year college and incur an average of $25,000 in debt. Then, after taking ac-credited courses in organic chemistry, physics, and writ-ing, you must then spend hours and hundreds of dollars to take

the Medical College Admission Test, provided by our helpful Association of American Medical Colleges. Then, you must apply to approximately 134 medical schools and watch as half of your applying peers will not even get one acceptance letter. If you get accepted, you must incur, on average, another $156,456 in debt to spend four years studying with an intensity, ironically, damaging to your health. Then comes residency and, ah, yes, the finish line. You’re almost done — now you are free to practice. You just need to do one last thing: get certified by the state in which you hope to work. This procedure is basically the same if you want to be a pediatrician or a neurosurgeon. How many times have you taken a pre-med course and asked yourself, “How will this help me actually do my day-to-day work?” It’s a good question — and one that needs a serious answer, be-cause thousands of potential practitioners of medicine are thrown away every year because they never get a chance to

On my cab ride to a job interview in Pawtucket, R.I., I sat and spoke with my taxi driver: a kind, outgoing Nigerian immigrant. We joked about

languages and about how weird the Jersey Shore could be. Casually, I asked him why he was working as a taxi driver. Looking straight ahead, he told me how he had been a career accountant in Nigeria for nearly 15 years and had formal, college-level education in accounting also. At the age of 37, he flew from Lagos, Nigeria, to London to New York City to Providence with the hope of earning a higher income as an accountant in the U.S. But he couldn’t do anything with his skills here. Slightly confused, I asked why. “Accreditation,” he vented. “I have to pay for an ex-pensive, state-approved curric-ulum and then wait for months until I can take an even more expensive exam before I can formally practice accounting in the United States.” Because of the accreditation process, he lives paycheck-to-paycheck on a $30,000-a-year salary, driv-ing taxis, even though his skills and experience could serve him — and the rest of us — better as a practicing accoun-tant. If you ask the American Institute of Certified Pub-lic Accountants, they would say that the barriers to entry being imposed on this Nigerian immigrant ensure qual-ity standards throughout the entire accounting profes-sion. They would not want people fraudulently claiming that they can practice accounting, because it would reflect poorly on the entire industry. So, they will tell you, accred-itation is a lamentable but necessary practice. Curiously enough, around 2002, Arthur Andersen — considered one of the globe’s top five accounting firms — committed a scandal of epic proportions, helping Enron lose its shareholders eleven billion dollars through a pro-cess of purposeful accounting fraud. The certified public accountants that were operating on the scene had incredi-ble pedigrees and state-approved licensing, all of which at

DANIEL PRADA

6 S opinion

I have met Dominican doctors and Malian anthropologists who, despite decades of experience in their home countries, can do only menial work in the U.S. because

they cannot find the resources or the time to become accredited.

guilds of the21st century

7Sopinion

is fine, smart, and morally acceptable for private associa-tions to provide seals of quality. One some level, branding serves the same purpose. Apple, for example, does not pro-duce high-quality products because regulators and license bureaus judiciously watch over shoulders of the engineers, designers, and workers, monitoring their every action. They do so because they know that excellence in design and functionality will warrant them the highest approval and continual business from their consumers. Problems only arise when the state, through its monopoly of force, literally prohibits other people from practicing. What would happen without state-sponsored li-censes? Would murderous doctors and morally corrupt lawyers plague our country into a culture of decadent dis-

honesty? Not at all. In reality, it is very hard to successfully run businesses that lie, cheat, or steal without government sup-port. In a free market, the mo-ment a doctor claims he is able to do an operation he is unable to perform correctly, his cus-

tomer’s family can sue him to kingdom come for fraud. If a lawyer fails to do his job well because he actually does not know a scrap of law, he will lose his cases and his firm will go bankrupt. Without state-sponsored licensing, providers of health care, legal services, and nearly every other profes-sion would only have their brands, and the seals of their private professional associations, as statements of quality. Entrepreneurship would explode, allowing experienced but not formally accredited professionals — including those who received accreditatation outside the country — to compete against the currently protected. We will be told by our benevolent professional as-sociations and government regulators that such de-licen-sure would only expose us to corruption, greed, and fraud. In my opinion, this is a sham. If people have sued McDon-ald’s over a hair on their French fry, I’m sure they will be able to sue a bad accountant.

accomplish the totality of these steps. When it comes to doctors, the same people who write personal essays on their deep-seated passion for helping people will be those who argue for state-spon-sored licensing. Yet it is this very process of accreditation that keeps new doctors out and medical costs high. With so many potentially helpful practitioners barred from the chance to help a single patient, countless low-income fam-ilies are priced out of basic medical access altogether. One of an entrepreneur’s most important ways of judging business opportunities is to evalue what the barri-ers to entry for competitors are. With current doctors act-ing on their incentive to make entry into the medical field as painful as possible, the medical profession will never see the kind of cutthroat competi-tion that, for example, Internet startups have to face. The long-term result is a decline — not an improvement — in the qual-ity of the service provided. These are the guilds of the 21st century. Accreditation is used everywhere. It is pre-sented as an argument to assure “quality” and set “mini-mum” standards to all actions, but what it actually does is keep competition away from underselling someone. It sets in place a new totem pole devised by the current practi-tioners, whereby you will never practice your trade until they permit you to compete against them. If you want to cut hair, sell lemonade, provide fi-nancial advice, teach fourth grade math to young children, or manage the construction of a building, if you want to be a plumber, carpenter, electrician, engineer, architect, psy-chologist, veterinarian, or project manager, if you want to work in practically any serious profession, you must spend considerable time and money getting accredited in order to practice your work without being thrown in jail. Even if you can do the job better or more cheaply than another person, you cannot legally enter his profession unless you have the state’s stamp of approval. To clarify, I do not oppose the idea of licensing. It

It is fine, smart, and morally acceptable for private associations to provide seals of quality. Problems only arise when the

state, through its monopoly of force, literally prohibits the unaccredited from practicing

their professions.

clubs located on Pembroke Campus. During this time, how-ever, Dresdale did not file an official report with the Provi-dence Police Department. After learning about the initial charge, McCor-mick contacted Michael Burch about becoming his faculty advocate for the impending student hearing. Burch took McCormick’s case and anticipated a student hearing on the sexual assault complaint, but there never was one. Instead, on Sept. 13, 2006, Dresdale’s Residential Counselor, Shane Reil, lodged Dresdale’s second complaint via email that Mc-Cormick raped Dresdale on the night of Sept. 6. Brown po-lice immediately removed McCormick from campus, even though it would later be discovered that the allegation had not been reported to the campus police, and took him to Michael Burch’s house. Within 14 hours of the rape charge being filed, McCormick was on a plane back to his home in Wisconsin, never to return to Brown again. While in Wisconsin, Richard Dresdale’s attorney, Joe Cavanagh of the Rhode Island law firm Blish-Cavanagh, allegedly pressured McCormick into signing a waiver that forbade him from ever returning as a student to Brown, in-

definitely prohibited him from traveling to Providence without the permission of the Dresdale family, and required that he seek approval from the family before he could apply to any graduate school, fearing that Beth may be attending the same one. On

October 15, McCormick officially withdrew from Brown — never having received his student hearing — citing a previ-ously existing seizure condition. This condition caused him to have about one seizure a day since childhood, but by the time he returned home to Wisconsin, he was allegedly hav-ing 20-30 seizures a day. In September 2009, McCormick filed a complaint against Richard Dresdale, Marcella Dres-dale, and Brown University claiming wrongdoing in his dis-missal from Brown.

Richard Dresdale Plays DirtyRichard Dresdale’s influence over Brown stems from his sig-

When Michael Burch, a former assistant wrestling coach, first met William McCormick III, he fit the role of an accused rapist. McCormick was

a 6’4”, 275-pound, lumbering heavyweight wrestler who was asking help from Burch in dealing with a sexual assault charge that had just been filed against him. The case against him was strong; the charge was extreme and the University told Burch that physical evidence was coming. McCormick even seemed like a guy who would take advantage of a girl; he was a big, strong, and socially awkward student who was adjusting to his first few weeks in college. After meeting with McCormick — who was adamant about his innocence — Burch could tell that he was scared, and for good reason. The young woman who had accused him was Marcella “Beth” Dresdale ’10, daughter of the founder of a $2.1 billion equity firm and an essential donor to the University, Richard Dres-dale ’78 P’10.

McCormick’s Life Is Turned Inside OutWhen they began their lives at Brown in fall 2006, McCor-mick and Dresdale were both freshmen living in the same residential hall. They met, like most other new students, dur-ing the icebreaker activities of orientation, quickly becoming friends within the first week and exchanging both phone calls and emails. After a few days, however, Dresdale’s contact with William dwindled, even though he continued to email and call her regularly. The situation came to a head on Sept. 5, 2006, seven days into their stay at Brown, when Dresdale spoke with her Residential Counselor accusing McCormick of acting “creepy” and stalking her. On Sept. 7, Dresdale made a sexual harassment complaint against McCormick. Brown’s reaction to the allegation was swift. On Sept. 8, McCormick was ordered to move all his belongings across campus without any assistance from the University. He was also forced to drop two of his courses because they were in the same building as some of Dresdale’s classes. He was re-stricted to only eating at dining halls and participating in

RYAN FLEMING

8 S repor t

On Sept. 5, 2006, seven days into their stay at Brown, Beth Dresdale spoke with

her Residential Counselor, accusing William McCormick of acting “creepy”

and stalking her.

a university’s shame

9Srepor t

a sexual harassment complaint. On Sept. 9, Richard Dresdale went to Providence to take Shane Reil out to dinner at fellow alum and also wealthy private equity manager Habib Gorgi’s ’78 home and watch a football game with Beth Dresdale. On Sept. 11, Shane Reil wrote Richard Dresdale an email saying that Beth Dresdale had mentioned her father would “help straighten out a path for [his] future,” that he was thankful Dresdale was “making [him]self available to [him] as a men-tor” and that he and Beth were “becoming very close.” Two days later, Reil filed the rape charge — retroactively changing the original sexual assault complaint — against McCormick and allegedly included vicious character attacks against him. Dresdale’s influence didn’t stop with Shane Reil. He also asserted his authority over President Ruth Simmons. Not only was Dresdale one of the biggest donors to Simmons’s university, but they were also business partners. Dresdale’s Fenway Partners worked closely with Goldman Sachs (where

nificant donations to the University. He has a medical school scholarship named after him. He and three other donors were lauded for their “extraordinary generosity” in building the Brown Rugby field. He is one of only 54 members of the Brown Annual Fund Leadership Council. He is on the board of directors for the Brown University Sports Foundation. He is a past recipient of the H. Anthony Ittleson ‘60 Cup, which is given to extraordinary donors to the Brown Annual Fund. By contrast, McCormick was attending Brown on full finan-cial aid. From the beginning, Dresdale tried to use his wealth and influence to force McCormick out of the University. On Sept. 6, the day after Beth Dresdale accused McCormick of stalking her, Richard Dresdale emailed former Associate Vice President Ronald Dalgliesh ’91. Dalgliesh indicated that the issue was going to be resolved with the help of Shane Reil, Beth’s Residential Counselor. On Sept. 7 Beth Dresdale writes

Simmons met personally with Mr. Dresdale in financing the Boldly Brown “campaign for academic enrichment.”

Spring 2003Marcella “Beth” Dresdale accuses a high school science teacher of sexual harassment after she is caught cheating on a quiz. The teacher is fired. Beth faces so much backlash from the student body that she transfers high schools.

August 30, 2006First-year orientation begins for William McCormick and Beth Dresdale, living in the same freshman dorm (Keeney).

September 5Beth Dresdale makes a complaint to the University that McCormick has been stalking her.

September 7Beth Dresdale files a complaint accusing McCormick of harassing her the night before. Michael Burch is assigned to represent William McCormick in the student hearing.

S repor t10

dents, whom Burch claimed at the time may have rewritten their accounts at the prompting of the deans — came back as acerbic assaults against McCormick’s character, a curious result considering that these students had not seen much of McCormick between the writing of these assessments, since he had already been removed and barred from campus.

One of the more puzzling aspects of the entire case was the fact that the rape was not re-ported to the Providence Police Department or the Brown Cam-pus Police. In an interview with both Margaret Klawunn and Senior Associate Dean of Stu-

dent Life Jonah Ward that the Spectator conducted on May 2, 2012, when asked if “it would be unusual for an egregious sexual assault not to be reported to the police,” Klawunn re-sponded, “Absolutely,” and Ward concurred, saying, “Right,

Ruth Simmons was on the board of directors at the time), and they were involved with the takeover of Simmons (no relation) Mattresses, according to a report by PR Newswire. On Oct. 3, Dresdale emailed Simmons saying, “Ruth … I am working to resolve the matter with the student who attacked Beth — the goal is to have him withdraw from Brown and not have a University hearing. This will enable Beth and the other students to avoid having to come in contact with the stu-dent and face questioning from his advocate [Burch].” Conse-quently, there never was a stu-dent hearing.

The Deans Engage in MisconductRichard Dresdale wielded such considerable influence that he was able to prevent any semblance of a fair trial for Mc-Cormick. Not only were the deans unwilling to give McCor-mick his due process, but they were also instrumental in his dismissal. In an interview, Burch singled out Associate Dean Terry Addison, then-Interim Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Russell Carey ’91 (who personally handed McCormick his one-way ticket home), and then As-sociate Vice President for Campus Life and Dean for Student Life Margaret Klawunn, whom Burch described as a “ring-leader”. The only dean whom Burch claimed was privately sympathetic to McCormick was former Associate Dean of Student Life Robert Samuels, who told Burch, “We are all scared for our jobs.” Perhaps it was this fear that prompted the deans to perform a wholly inadequate job of granting McCormick a fair trial. They allegedly disregarded, hid, or tampered with vital pieces of evidence in the case. The first instance of alleged misconduct by the deans occurred when witnesses re-wrote character assessments for McCormick, a highly unusual and dubious action. The orig-inal statements, which the Spectator has obtained, described McCormick as an average freshman with no outward signs of violent tendencies. What makes the deans’ integrity ques-tionable is that the new assessments — from the same stu-

Mr. Dresdale’s gifts to the University had already earned him an Ittleson cup (an honor given to Brown’s most generous donors). By contrast, McCormick was

attending the school on full financial aid.

September 8McCormick is forced to move across campus and to drop two classes because because they are held in the same buildings as classes in which Dresdale is enrolled.

September 9Beth’s father, Richard Dresdale — a University alumnus, donor and fundraiser — comes to Brown and takes Marcella’s Residential Counselor, Shane Reil, out to lunch to discuss Reil’s “career opportunities.”

September 13Shane Reil writes a charge against McCorick on behalf of Marcella Dresdale, retroactively changing the charge from harassment to rape. Two hours after the alleged rape, Dresdale and McCormick were seen acting normally together at a party.

Brown names Richard Dresdale one of four primary donors to whose

generosity is owed our men’s rugby field.

11Srepor t

Ryan Fleming dated May 3, 2012, Ward wrote, “If there is a question about sexual activity, any reasonable evidence to help determine the truth would be admissible and reviewed by both the complainant and respondent.” That, unfortu-nately, does not appear to have been a right afforded to Wil-liam McCormick.

Richard Dresdale Gets Caught in the ActIn April 2010, Burch discussed part of the story to the Brown Daily Herald. A few months afterwards, Richard Dresdale began to target McCormick’s advocate. In fall 2010, he hired a private investigator to intimidate Burch. On Sept. 27, 2010, a package addressed to Michael Burch was delivered to the house of his girlfriend, a single mother. Burch had not shared the location of his girlfriend’s house to any of his coworkers and was disturbed that some-one had located him at that address. Upon opening the package, Burch discovered an invitation to a free meal at the once-popular Down City Diner in downtown Providence: favorite restaurant of Scott Kilpatrick, McCormick’s attorney. When he arrived for dinner, he learned that two anonymous women had paid for his meal. The next day, he received a call from a woman claiming to be in charge of a company that de-livers anonymous gifts, inquiring whether he had enjoyed his

dinner. When Burch questioned her about the company, she hung up. The message to him was clear: People were watch-ing his and Kilpatrick’s every move. Through court subpoenas, Burch was able to trace the calls back to former New York Police Department Detec-tive Patrick Brosnan, the current CEO of Brosnan Risk Con-sultants, an investigative firm. Brosnan had been hired by Richard Dresdale to “keep a close eye on Burch, out of con-cern for his daughter.” Dresdale had paid Brosnan $10,000 to keep constant watch on Burch.

right.” One can only wonder why neither Klawunn nor Ward — both involved with the McCormick case — reported to the Providence Police after Dresdale filed her complaint. The deans also appear to have ignored a closer ex-amination of the incident’s timeline. Beth Dresdale claimed that the rape occurred on the evening of Sept.6, curiously the same day that she spent the entire afternoon discussing the “creepy” McCormick with her RC and a University advi-sor. Furthermore, just hours after the alleged rape occurred, Dresdale and McCormick were seen together at a birthday party in their dorm. In two separate emails to Terry Addison — both dated Sept. 15 — two witnesses described Dresdale and McCormick as behaving normally. When this detail was brought to their attention, Klawunn and Carey proceeded to keep McCormick out of Brown, while Dresdale enjoyed col-lege life at her father and grandfather’s university. Perhaps the most destructive misconduct that deans committed was concealing evidence from McCormick and

his advocate Burch. In the entire rape case, there was only one piece of supposed evidence against Mc-Cormick: a pair of ripped boxers. Beth Dresdale claimed to have the pair of boxers that she was wearing when McCormick allegedly ripped them off and proceed to rape her. This being the one and only alleged piece of physical evidence in the entire case, Burch rightfully asked to see it in order to examine it for finger prints and DNA — anything to help determine McCormick’s in-nocence. The deans refused. In an email from Terry Addison, dated Sept. 25 he said, “The boxer shorts will not be entered as material ev-idence. References to the shorts in witness statements will not be stricken” i.e. witnesses can still claim that the boxers were ripped off. In an email to Spectator editor

Upon leaking the story to the Herald, Burch began eerily receiving anonymous gifts of various kinds. The message was

clear: People were following his every move.

September 14Within 12 hours of the charge, Russell Carey, senior vice president for Corporation Affairs and Governance, gives McCormick a one-way plane ticket home to Wisconsin. Brown places an accused rapist on an airplane, without protection, to fly across state lines.

October 3Richard Dresdale emails President Simmons: “Ruth... I am working to resolve the matter with the student who attacked Beth — the goal is to have him withdraw from Brown and not have a University hearing. This will enable Beth and the other students to avoid... contact with the student and questioning from his advocate.”

October 15McCormick officially withdraws from Brown, citing a pre-existing seizure condition.

12 repor t

assault. The student dated the daughter of another wealthy member of a private equity firm throughout the 2008 school year until they had a tumultuous break-up during the sum-mer of 2009. After the break-up, the daughter allegedly filed a sexual assault complaint with Brown Police but told them not to process it. Then the student claimed that he was in-directly warned by a Brown police officer that there was a potential charge against him. Upon learning this, the male student contacted Michael Burch asking for help. At Burch’s suggestion, he filed a slander charge against the female student. However, for nearly three months neither Burch nor the male student knew if there was an official complaint filed against him. They claim to have re-peatedly visited, called, and emailed Brown Department of Public Safety, Jonah Ward, and Margaret Klawunn asking if there was an official charge, but they never received a clear

answer. After months of asking, Brown officials finally told the male student that a formal com-plaint was never filed against him. He claimed that he was advised by the university to not proceed with his complaint and

let both charges fade away since he was graduating later that year. The male student wished to proceed with his slan-der charge, seeking an apology from the female student and a retraction of her statements. He was told to meet with Dean Richard Bova. He student claims that Brown would not allow Burch to attend the meeting. When they finally acquiesced, neither Burch nor the student could make the meeting in time. Days later, the student claims that he was told that the meeting that they had missed was in fact the judicial hearing for the case and that the University would not disclose the outcome of the hearing. Having a student hearing without the accuser being present would contradict statements made in the interview with Klawunn and Ward, where Ward clearly stated that at any judicial hearing the accused, the accuser, an advisor and a student conduct panel

Shortly after the incident, Kilpatrick — a former As-sistant Attorney General, in the Rhode Island Criminal Divi-sion — filed a motion to default for the ongoing case of Mc-Cormick v. Dresdale on account of witness intimidation, i.e. that the defense — Dresdale — would automatically default (lose) their case. After a deposition of Brosnan, Kilpatrick withdrew his motion to default and stopped the witness in-timidation investigation. In a letter dated Nov. 8, 2010 Burch wrote to Kilpatrick “Scott...you are acting like someone who has been threatened. If this is baseless, then I really need some very, very good explanations for why you are taking such a different tact since Brosnan’s deposition.” Burch, fearing for his own safety, was granted a temporary restraining order against Dresdale and filed an official complaint with the Pawtucket Police Department. Despite initial enthusiasm for investigating the case, the po-lice quickly responded that they would not pursue the in-vestigation. Burch speculated that it could have been because of Dresdale’s influence went beyond Brown University to elected officials (i.e. Democratic Senator Jack Reed, to whom he donated $3,300 in 2007) as well as Dresdale’s firm, Fenway Part-ners, receiving significant investments from the Rhode Is-land’s state pension fund ($15 million, according to Pensions and Investments).

Not Just Isolated CasesA case like this seems like an anomaly. It cannot be too often that a university like Brown is seemingly willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of one of its students simply to protect their endowment funds. Unfortunately, there is evidence that Brown’s actions in the McCormick case may have been the rule, not the exception. In September 2009, just three years after the Mc-Cormick incident, there was another eerily similar case. A student, who wishes to remain anonymous, approached Mi-chael Burch — who was known for advocating on behalf of McCormick — seeking help after being accused of sexual

S12

September 2009McCormick files a complaint under seal in R.I. Superior Court, claiming that he was falsely accused and that Brown mistreated the case due to its financial relationship with Mr. Dresdale.

September 2009The daughter of Michael Lewitt, another wealthy patron of the school, files a rape charge. The accused claims innocence and files a slander charge in response. Lewitt’s daughter drops her charge, and Brown refuses to allow the accused to continue with the slander case.

May 2009Michael Burch resigns, claiming he was pressured to do so.

September 27, 2010A package addressed to Burch is delivered to his girlfriend’s home. The next day, Burch receives an anonymous call about it.

Beth claimed that the rape occurred on the evening of September 6, after complaining

about McCormick to her RC and a few hours before two witnesses saw her with

McCormick at a party, “behaving normally.”

13Srepor t

a Brown University I will talk about this story for fear it will some day be repeated, whether it be falsely accused students or victimized students who are denied justice, Brown can-not be trusted when their money or public image is at stake. We ought to be thankful that William McCormick stood up against such odds — he did so for a lot of people.” Klawunn, who headed the case against McCormick, was promoted to vice president for campus life and student services shortly after, while the sympathetic Robert Samuels left Brown not long after the case. The Spectator could not find any solid evidence linking these outcomes directly to the deans’ involvement in the case. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the case is a loss of faith in the University. Brown is supposedly a place where students can learn, experiment, and express themselves in a protected environment regardless of personal background. The University, however, has punctured that dream. Fur-

thermore, both Beth Dresdale and Brown have unnecessar-ily called into question the ve-racity of any rape accusation. Through their actions, they prove accusing someone of sex-ual misconduct can be used as a means of manipulation. Brown’s

unwavering protection of the accuser at the expense of the accused — no matter how much the evidence points in the other direction — is a major flaw in the University’s judicial system. One hopes that what happened to McCormick will never happen again, but with the current judicial structure and Brown’s own track record, there is little reason to believe this will be a unique occurrence.

I came along with African-American parents who couldn’t read or write all that well, but they brought

along traditions from their parents. I would love to live in a world where people are valued on the basis of what

qualities they offer as a person, rather than on the means that they happen to have at any given time.

–Ruth Simmons, Ebony Magazine, July 1st, 1996

would be present. The McCormick case was not entirely unique in Beth Dresdale’s history. Two years into the McCormick case, a former high school teacher of Beth Dresdale’s revealed that he allegedly had a similar experience and that during Beth Dresdale’s freshman year of high school, she was involved in another sexual misconduct scandal. In spring 2003, Beth Dresdale was allegedly caught cheating on a 10-point quiz by her science teacher, who wished to remain anonymous for this story. Following the teacher’s personal policy on cheating, he did not give Beth a zero on the quiz, but instead talked with her privately about the incident and discussed the possibility of retaking it. Af-ter their discussion, Dresdale accused the teacher, who had 32 years of experience, of sexual harassment. According to the teacher, Richard Dresdale quickly became involved, tak-ing the case to the police. The police dismissed the claim and told the school to handle the situation. Within a week the teacher was escorted out of the school and was later released. Following the incident, Beth Dresdale transferred to an all-girls private school in the fall.

LegacyFollowing his coerced withdrawal from Brown, McCormick sued the University Beth Dresdale and Richard Dresdale. In December 2011 the case was settled after McCormick had been offered approximately $1 million, according to Go Lo-cal Providence, who had obtained a secret recording of Kil-patrick discussing the settlement negotiations. McCormick finished his college career at Bucknell University, where he continued to wrestle, and majored in Film. Beth Dresdale graduated from Brown without interruption in 2010. Burch continued to work for Brown until 2009, when he resigned from his coaching position, claiming that he was pressured to do so. In 2010 the University cancelled his summer teaching contract that he had had for 7 years prior. After his dismissal from Brown, Burch continues to support McCormick’s innocence, saying, “as long as there is

11S

OctoberUsing subpoenas, McCormick’s lawyers trace the number used to call Burch regarding the anonymous gift to former New York Police Department detective Pat Brosnan, who currently owns a private security firm and regularly works for Dresdale.

NovemberKilpatrick, McCormick’s attorney, files a motion to default due to witness intimidation. After his deposition of Brosnan, a scared Kilpatrick withdraws the motion.

January 25Burch files a criminal complaint against Dresdale in connection with the anonymous gift.

January 2012Burch secretly tapes a call with McCormick’s lawyer in which Brown’s lawyer is stated as being present at the settlement negotiation. Brown denies this.

Brown still maintains that it did nothing wrong in the handling of the case... Through

their actions, they prove that accusing someone of sexual misconduct can be

used as a means of manipulation.

Thanks to the BDH for letting us use facts originally published in “McCormick Timeline,” March 9, 2011

14 S opinion

this practice intensified in the 20th century. Other regu-lations, such as a requirement to have a fireman aboard at all times, even though technological improvements had made such a precaution unnecessary, were commonplace. Adding injury upon injury, local governments levied enor-mous property taxes on railroads. By 1970, railroad executives saw the bleak course of the business and wanted out. Anthony Haswell, the leader of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the railroad industry’s lobbying group, pushed for Amtrak. The price of consolidating a railroad into Amtrak’s system was only half of its losses for 1970. In return, any partic-ipating railroad would have Amtrak cover all future pas-senger-related losses. It was a huge giveaway — or bailout,

if you will — of the railroad industry, sold under the guise of protecting a vital industry of the nation. Indeed, Nixon’s advisors expected it to collapse within two years, conveniently allowing enough time before the 1972 election to mollify the

public’s fear of the railroads’ decline. The history of Amtrak’s founding explains why it is so expensive. No matter how great the government sub-sidy, the service cannot compete on price or speed with its competitors because as far back as the 1970s, the message from the market was that rail service should not exist. As with many industries, the federal government got in the business of propping up an industry doomed to demise, producing a half-hearted service that can only barely com-pete with its competitors. There is little question that the taxpayer money spent keeping Amtrak from drowning over the years would have been far better directed, perhaps even directed to develop better modes of transportation, had the government not insisted on using it to keep Am-trak limping along. Of course, a government-owned firm has little in-centive to focus on innovation or maximizing profits. That Amtrak receives a subsidy that frees it from worrying about either of the two (indeed, the subsidy is generally granted

Among commuters, Amtrak is the butt of many jokes. The nationwide train service is synony-mous with high expense and slow travel. Indeed,

to say that one has traveled along the East Coast by Am-trak amounts to a gross faux pas. Tantamount to drinking from the glass to your left at a dinner party, in selecting Amtrak you have admitted you lack the commuter’s cus-tom of searching for the fastest and cheapest transporta-tion available. Consider the trip from New York City to Washington, D.C. One could pay under $200 and arrive in about an hour by plane, or one could take one of the many East-Coast bus liners, such as BoltBus, for as low as $10 and arrive in around four hours. For the same trip, Amtrak will cost you $80 for a three-and-a-half-hour ride. Amtrak is very expensive for its travel time. The article attempts to explain why. Amtrak’s creation is a story its founders would rather you not know. Former Presi-dent Richard Nixon managed to botch a cover-up of Wa-tergate, but his administration did a superlative job with Amtrak. Amtrak was born in 1970 with the Rail Passen-ger Service Act. In the midst of the decline of the railroad industry, exemplified with the bankruptcy of the Pullman Company in 1969 and the Penn Central in 1970, the cre-ation of a government-owned railroad corporation was sold to the public as a way to preserve a vital American industry. Amtrak was to be a last hurrah for a public enam-ored of the romance of train travel. The real story is not so sweet. The railroad industry had had its heyday from the mid-19th century to roughly the 1920s, but ever since, it had been in sharp descent. The invention of cars, busses, and planes, coupled with former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway Sys-tem, drew customers to new modes of transportation. At the same time, government regulation of trains was giving railroads a further financial strain. Beginning in the 19th century, the Interstate Commerce Commission had the au-thority to dictate rates and speeds of private railroads, and

OLIVER HUDSON

Nixon’s advisors expected Amtrak to collapse within two years, conveniently allowing enough time before the 1972 election to mollify the public’s fear of

the railroads’ decline.

amtrak A microcosm of America’s economic woes

15Sopinion

which will satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied needs of the public.” Around 1970, the prudent entrepre-

neur would not have selected rail service and instead would have selected another project to “satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied needs of the public.” That the govern-ment did select rail service, as it does with so many dying

firms clamoring for a bailout, has hurt the public. Abol-ishing Amtrak is just the first step in withdrawing from government its inclination to direct economic progress.

in proportion to the degree of Amtrak’s failure) certainly is part of the problem. However, the principal effort of the article has not been to demon-strate why government runs business poorly (see a history of the Soviet Union, North Ko-rea, or Venezuela for further reading), but to suggest how destructive government can be in simply trying to preserve a dying industry. The great economist Ludwig von Mises once said, “The task of the entrepreneur is to select from the multitude of technologically feasible projects those

Around 1970, the prudent entrepreneur would not have entered the rail service

industry to “satisfy the most urgent of the not-yet-satisfied needs of the public.” That

the government did so has hurt us all.

AMTRAK vs. AIRLINE ( subsidized vs. profit-generating )

All prices were verified on April 30, 2012 and are for trips on May 31, 2012. All times are given in Eatern Daylight Time.Prices listed are the cheapest found. Both plane and Amtrak tickets are for one-way trips.

$67Providence: 4:00pm

Washington, DC: 11:00pm

$100Providence: 6:50am

Washington, DC arrival: 2:00pm

Washington, DC departure: 4:05pm

Chicago: 8:45am, next day

$277Providence: 10:22am

Boston arrival: 11:04am

Boston departure: 12:00pm

Albany arrival: 5:35pm

Albany departure: 7:05pm

Chicago arrival: 9:45am, next dayChicago departure: 3:00pm

Los Angeles: 8:15pm, two days later

$60 (Southwest Airlines)9:10am: Providence 10:30am: Washington, DC

$118 (US Airways)10:35am: Providence 1:00pm: Chicago

$156 (United Airlines)10:35am: Providence 1:00pm: Los Angeles

16 S adver tisement

17Sar ts & style

MACLAIN CHRISTIE

RATING (of 4)

ALBUM TITLE

ARTIST

LABEL

GENRE

Beware and Be Grateful

Maps & Atlases

Barsuk Records

Indie Rock

music review: Beware and Be Grateful

Maps & Atlases has been meaning to make its way into

my listening list for a while now, and I’m sorry I had not invited it in sooner. This is a group blessed with a unique voice, literally. Sometimes there is nothing more defining about a group’s sound than the sound of their lead singer. In this case, Dave Davison sings with a very round, smoky, slightly nasal, slightly folk voice. It fits for this band that describes itself as “ec-centric indie rock.” This album, Beware and Be Grateful, is particularly eccentric. Although the instru-mentation is very standard, the way in which they place these standard sounds is very cre-ative. Take note after four and half minutes of the first song on the album, “Old & Gray,” where out of the simplicity of a repeating guitar pluck and solo voice comes an impressive jolt of stabbing piano chords. What makes this album even more musically appealing is that many of the songs flow continuously into the next if the album is played in order. This makes for an album that is worth listening to from start to finish, without breaks. I recommend Beware and Be Grateful if you like Yeasayer, Born Ruffians, Tall Ships, or Fang Island. Enjoy.

LAU

GH

N

OW

cry

late

rca

rtoo

ns p

rovi

ded

by u

sbic

ef

18 S ar ts & style

19Sar ts & style

Congratulations to the

Class of 2012!

To everyone graduating Brown this year, we are honored to have called ourselves your peers. We at The Spectator may not

always have agreed with your every judgment or political position, but wherever you are headed, we wish you the best in all your endeavors. Go far, visit often, and remember this place

you once called home.

20 S

21S

You may be leaving Brown, but don’t think you can’t take The

Spectator with you!

For subscriptions or individual issues, email

ryan_fleming@brown.edu; or

visit us online at brown-spectator.com.

And of course, we will always welcome your submissions.

GARY JOHNSON ANGEL TAVERAS

winners & losers

In this age of ineffective and unprincipled politicians, Gary Johnson, former Repub-

lican governor of New Mexico and current presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, stands head and shoulders above his peers. As governor, Johnson was a strict constitutionalist, ve-toing 48 percent of legislation that came

before him in his first six months, earning the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut the state’s annual 10 percent budget growth by cutting taxes and spending within them. Even in office, he had the courage to call the war on drugs an “expensive failure” and ad-vocated the legalization of marijuana. In his second term, Johnson made creating school vouchers his signature issue. Even in a state that was at the time two-thirds Democratic, his fidelity to tried-and-true libertarian principles won him success and reelection. When his eight years were up, Governor Johnson left office with a legacy of derailing high taxes, curtailing excessive regulation, and limiting reckless spending. Our federal and state governments alike, drunk with ex-cessive power, need more politicians in the

mold of Gary Johnson.

In another installment of the tension be-tween the fiscally responsible and irrespon-sible, Mayor of Providence Angel Taveras has recently called yet again upon Brown, a tax-exempt nonprofit, to pay its “fair share” of property taxes. Taveras neglects to notice that Providence’s fiscal woes do not stem from Brown’s unwillingness to fork over property taxes it is not required by law to pay, but from the politicians of Providence itself, who mired their city with unsustain-able pension plans and other unfunded obligations. President Ruth Simmons got it right when she told the Undergraduate Council of Students, “I don’t think it’s rea-sonable for the city, having made mistakes and having become insolvent because of those mistakes, to turn to institutions that are successful and to demand that they pay for those mistakes.” And even in her recent state-ment of commit-ment to additional payments, she made explicit that they were strategic, voluntary grants in exchange for various property rights, not Brown’s duty to an irresponsible city. You tell ’em, Ruth: Stand up for fiscal responsibility.