The Cornell Democrats, Cornell Republicans and Cornell Libertarians debated education reform on Wednesday.

The six candidates for student-elected trustee clashed at a debate held Monday by the Cornell Forensics Society and the Cornell International Affairs Society. 

The Student Assembly debated Resolution 77, which would require student organizations to make their events accessible to people with disabilities.

Natalie Raps '12 and Adam Nicoletti '12, candidates for Student Assembly President, discuss their differing approaches to the promotion of mental health.

Representatives debate to require all or only by-line funded student organizations to submit sustainability report.

Columnist Vicente Gonzalez '12 catalogues the diverse and interesting international debaters he has met over the last month.

Those of you who flipped through The Sun’s opinion section last week may be under the impression that Cornell suffers from a widespread case of prejudice. Last Tuesday, columnist Andrew Daines ’10 argued that a persistent anti-religious bias permeates our ivory tower. “Faith,” he wrote, “[and] specifically the faith of others, seems to be a source of mistrust on campus.” He continues, “It is an unfortunate and very real feature of our campus life that faith-based political beliefs are often rejected out of hand.”

Last week’s panel on program houses, which was sponsored by The Sun and the aptly titled STUC, held the promise of reinvigorating our stale debates. Did it succeed?

In some ways, yes. The event allowed minority representatives to publicly articulate their concerns. Zach Murray ’11 noted the academic and social difficulties he faced as a freshman from a “90 percent black” neighborhood. As one of the few minorities in his dorm, he was not made aware of academic services or diversity resources. Ujamaa, he said, provided him with the support system, indeed the family, that would guide his undergraduate experience.

Some have recently expressed, in the pages of this newspaper, a feeling of marginalization. Specifically, I, and the group that I represent, the Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee, have been accused of acting to marginalize a Palestinian point of view. However, I firmly believe that this is not the case; instead, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be engaged — both in the microcosm of Cornell and on the world stage — by each party listening to the perspectives, needs and interests of each other.

As we, college seniors, begin the process of alternately facing and cowering from the world after Cornell, the one question looming over me more than others is this: Do we have responsibilities to that world?

If there are other Americans who would accuse Cornell and its students of elitism and privilege, then questions of obligation become increasingly important. In large part, this is because most Americans need a lot of things that we as future leaders can provide. Yet, what we need to change, I think, is the way we talk about these needs.