By Robert Rossi, Editorial Assistant -

For those who haven’t heard, the United States has been in a recession for a little while. Americans have been losing jobs at alarming rates, and John Wells took it upon himself to direct, co-produce, and write a film exploring the painful effects. Continue Reading

By Michelle Martínez, Asst. News Editor -

O’Neill Library has undergone many changes this year. Not only was a new entrance added, but also a new way to express creativity in the form of the Living Wall.

This public sketchbook, located in the bottom floor of O’Neill, consists of a significant display space where student artists can place drawings, paintings, poetry, or any other form of creative expression that can be physically tacked up on the cork wall. In hopes of achieving a larger presence of the arts on campus, the Boston College Art Club started approaching several university administrators since last year to push for this goal. According to Margaret Mansfield, vice president of the BC Art Club, in one of their meetings with University Librarian Thomas Wall, they learned that Kevin Tringale, a librarian in O’Neill, was also working on getting more art displayed on campus. By working in conjunction with Tringale, they began to discuss the different space possibilities within the library, finally deciding upon the walls of an open study room on first floor of O’Neill.

In creating the Living Wall, their intention was to create a “real life blog that could frequently get updated by any student,” Mansfield said. But unlike a blog, it would finally be a step away from the virtual world that essentially dominates students’ interactions these days. “The hope was that people would put down their laptops, look away from their blackberries, iPods, cell phones, etc. and communicate with one another in a creative way,” Mansfield said.

By Michelle Martínez, Asst. News Editor -

Coinciding with the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the trial of Scott Roeder began last Friday. Roeder is being charged with murdering George Tiller, one of the nation’s only late-term abortion doctors in Wichita, Kansas.

On May 31, 2009, Roeder shot and killed Tiller in the foyer of the doctor’s church. Though Roeder publicly admitted to shooting Tiller, he pled not guilty of first degree murder, since he said he carried this out in order to “save unborn babies.” Roeder and his defense team are hoping to make the trial less about who killed Tiller, and more about why he was killed. Judge Warren Wilbert of Sedgwick County District Court, however, stated that the case cannot be turned into a debate over abortion, and such a “necessity defense” may therefore not be presented.

It is not only abortion rights groups, but also pro-life activists across the nation that have condemned Roeder’s actions. William Cody, vice president of the Pro-Life Club and A&S ’11, said that the pro-life movement has always condemned violence. “Every pro-life movement immediately condemned the shooting,” he said. “Scott Roeder has no association to any credible pro-life group.”

Numerous national pro-life movements note that the trial is not at all meaningful to their movement, since the acts are inherently unethical and stray from the principles held by most who are pro-life.

In spite of disallowing the use of Roeder’s alleged “necessity” motive in court, Wilbert is allowing Roeder’s defense team to argue that the killing can be considered voluntary manslaughter. In Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter is defined as killing with an “unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” The possibility of lessening the charge from one of murder to voluntary manslaughter has abortion rights groups greatly worried that the Tiller trial might set a precedent convincing extremists that it is a worthwhile sacrifice that only carries up to five years in prison. Many on the pro-life side of the issue agree. “[Roeder's] murder of Tiller was absolutely wrong and he deserves to be punished accordingly,” Cody said.

Other late-term abortion providers like Warren Hern call the decision to allow this defense a “death sentence” for himself and his colleagues. But giving hope to abortion rights groups, as well as other advocates for Roeder’s conviction, is the fact that even though Wilbert has allowed Roeder to defend charges of manslaughter, it is not yet known whether the jury will be permitted to reach a verdict based on that charge. Most importantly, in order to satisfy the definition of voluntary manslaughter, Roeder’s defense must prove that there was an imminent threat to a third party.

So far, no state has ever declared a fetus a “third person.” Another obstacle for Roeder is that there was no legitimate imminent threat, given that Tiller was shot at church and not at his abortion clinic. Furthermore, District Attorney Nola Foulston is in the process of building a strong case against Roeder, proving that his actions were meticulously premeditated. Among the evidence that she intends to present to jurors is a receipt for ammunition bought shortly before the murder, a Wichita motel registry for a day Tiller happened to miss church, as well as Roeder’s calendar, which had the day of the killing highlighted.

By Kevin Fagan, Associate News Editor -

In a contentious 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided last week to overturn decades-old restrictions on the way campaigns are financed by allowing corporations, advocacy groups, and labor unions to donate an unlimited amount of money to candidates. This decision not only overturned the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act, but also two prior high court rulings (Austin vs. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission). This decision is more wide-reaching than previous decisions that simply revised precedent on election law, rather than replace it.

The vote came down along traditional ideological lines, with the conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia voting for the overturn while John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor voted against the measure. Swing vote Anthony Kennedy pledged his support for the reversal early in the process, making it easier for Samuel Alito and John Roberts to shape the complete overturn given that they knew they had the necessary votes.

For liberals and anti-corruption activists, this ruling represents the worst possible outcome. Corporations and other special interests will have a greater impact on the election conversation, while individual donations could be crowded out by the immense wealth of corporations and certain advocacy groups. Some argue that senators, congressmen and presidential candidates might be tempted to vote a certain way depending on the monetary support they could receive from corporations during the next election cycle. Particularly for Congressional representatives who typically have relatively low fundraising totals and elections every two years, an especially large donation from one corporation can make the difference between getting the word out to voters by television or radio and being forced to rely on word-of-mouth and phone banking.

For conservatives and free speech advocates, this decision comes as a welcome relief after decades of restrictions. It allows corporations and labor unions to be able to fully participate in the judicial process for the first time in about thirty years. Despite their immense wealth, corporations are owned by shareholders, many of whom only own a few shares, while labor unions and advocacy groups receive donations and dues from their members. Conservatives argue that allowing this money to go towards candidates is not a corruption of the political process, but rather a simple execution of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They argue it is not right to exclude anyone from the political process.

To help moderate what they view as the negative consequences of this ruling, Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Charles Schumer, Senate Rules Committee Chairman, are looking into enacting new legislation. The legislation they are thinking about would require shareholder approval of campaign advertisements run by corporations, and would require the CEO of the company to come on air and approve the message being conveyed. Other possible provisions include barring foreign-owned subsidiaries and American corporations receiving public assistance from financing ads. If passed, such restrictions could be subject to another Supreme Court ruling to determine their constitutionality.

On the other hand, some conservatives feel that the current composition of the Court would allow it to consider a case that would challenge current limits placed on contributions to a federal candidate. Currently, individuals are limited to giving $2,400 to a candidate per election and $30,400 to a national party committee, according to the Federal Election Commission. A challenge to these limits appears unlikely to arise in the near future, though where the Court might go in its proclamations of constitutionality in the long-term is unknown.

If pop culture were made of ice cream, here are the three flavors I’d be ordering this week:

Favorite casting of a 90s has-been: Freddie Prinze, Jr. in 24 Continue Reading

By Tue Tran, Editor-in-Chief -

Boston College workers who are a part of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 615, have voted against the “last, best offer” that the administration presented them with last Thursday. Those who voted included custodial, grounds, building maintenance, and mailroom workers.

While it is union policy to keep the tally of the votes confidential, Howard Ryan, a senior representative for the union said that it was “a substantial majority.”

What this means is starting this Monday, when the current contract is set to expire, workers will be permitted to hold informational pickets among other activities that will bring more attention to the issue. BC and the union will continue to negotiate on Thursday, but as of last week, according to the union, BC will not extend the current contract.

By Tue Tran & Andrew Schofield, Gavel Editors – (Photo: Sharon Costello / Gavel Editor)

Today, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 615 will vote on what Boston College administration has titled the “Last, Best Offer for a New Collective Bargaining Agreement with SEIU Local 615.” Continue Reading

William Sloneker, Contributor Opinion -

In the past month, the American intelligence and security community has seen its competence tested considerably in a number of different incidents: Northwest Flight 253 (the failed in-flight bombing on Christmas Day), the assassination of seven CIA operatives by the double agent Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, and the evacuation of the American embassy in Yemen. These episodes differ significantly from one another in terms of what transpired, but the common thread lies in a similar potential to disrupt American security and weaken public confidence in the institutions responsible for such debacles. Continue Reading

By Blair Thill, Gavel Blogger -

I love the idea of awards shows, but it always feels like once you’re actually watching them, you wonder why you’ve looked forward to them all year. Sunday night’s telecast of the Golden Globes was a delightful exception to the tedium of awards season. Continue Reading

By Andrew Slade, News Editor -

After several decades of representation of Massachusetts residents by two Democratic senators, Republican State Senator Scott Brown defeated Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley in an extraordinary upset from what was just weeks ago assumed to be a sure thing for the latter candidate. Over the last week, however, the race tightened significantly with some polls taken prior to the election indicating that Brown was leading Coakley.

While the cause of the relatively sudden downfall of Coakley’s campaign cannot be pinpointed, commentators and party leaders are citing a sense of complacency in Coakley, coupled with the public’s distaste for the present state of legislative progress in Congress. In her concession speech, Coakley promised to be “brutally honest” about her performance as a candidate.

For Senate Republicans, Brown represents a 41st vote: the exact number required to maintain a filibuster and effectively prevent the passage of Democratic legislation like the health care reform bill. Among some Democrats, there is hope that Massachusetts officials will be able to stall the seating of Brown for the next two weeks, potentially allowing Congressional leaders to push through health care reform while they still theoretically have the votes necessary to do so.

Since this was a special election to fill the vacancy that resulted from Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing, Brown will only serve until the end of the last term to which Kennedy was elected, meaning he will have to run again in 2012. Assuming she wishes to run, Martha Coakley will be up for reelection to the office of Attorney General this fall.