Culture, Identity, and Politics are terms that have suffered from rampant usage over the years, and the average college student, in hopes of sounding well informed, probably uses them like one would arbitrarily choose words in Mad Libs (discussions in Contemporary Civilization class come to mind). Therefore, one wouldn’t know what to expect from the vaguely titled “Culture, Identity, and Politics” lecture hosted by the Heyman Center for the Humanities last night. Like other similarly conceptual speeches from the Heyman Center, this lecture inevitably left one expecting more from its esteemed speakers and all-encompassing topic, but the problems raised by the three speakers were interesting enough to engage the diverse audience in an event that lasted slightly over two hours.

This Tuesday, the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected Roman Polanski’s plea to be released from custody, increasing his chances of being sentenced in the U.S. for his alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977. That’s right, 1977. Why European authorities waited thirty-two years to arrest Polanski is anyone’s guess, especially since he had been living openly in France and Switzerland all these years. But what was equally problematic was perhaps the sheer number of celebrities and political figures who steadfastly supported Polanski in light of his arrest in Switzerland last week.

Is Meghan McCain a benefit or a liability to the Republican Party? The punk-rock-loving, gay rights supporting Columbia alumni has divided both liberals and conservatives alike, describing her politics as “being faithful to the original core values of the GOP while open to the realities of our changing world.” Her brand of “New Age Republicanism” seems ambivalent at times, and her recent Twitter photo scandal probably didn’t do much to spread the said “core values” of the GOP, but let’s cut her some slack. This girl is doing more than her Republican detractors in actively redefining the GOP’s image and in questioning the party’s relevance in relation to the new generation of Americans. Here are a couple of (hopefully positive) points we can take from her:

A few weeks back, the New York Times published an article on the relevance of political science.  According to them, the main trouble stems from the term “science” in “political science.” A growing number of academics are staying away from policy-based research and putting more emphases on statistical methods and mathematics-based models, resulting in the further specialization of the field of political science. If this continues, political science research runs the risk of being increasingly irrelevant to real-life concerns. But there are still traditional scholars who prefer to answer the “big questions,” and look back on history and culture in attempts to explain political phenomena. For the Times, a balance between the two methods is optimal.

At Columbia, the emphasis seems to be on “big picture” analysis—courses lean toward the qualitative side, while the required Core Curriculum provides students with some additional insight into political philosophy and cultures. There is some acknowledgment of political science as an interdisciplinary study: students are “strongly advised, but not required,” to take additional credits in a related social science field. But most interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any math requirement for the major.

The protest movements of Tibet and Xinjiang have caused a stir in the Western hemisphere in the past year, but there is another country controversially linked to China that seems to be neglected by Western media. Taiwan has been a main source of tension between the United States and China ever since the China Communist Party rose to power after WWII, causing the Nationalist Party (backed by the US) to flee to Taiwan and establish their own government in Taipei. Last night, Columbia’s Taiwanese American Students Association invited Mr D. Lee Ridley, a project coordinator with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to lecture on America’s historic role in China-Taiwan Relations, its current stance, as well as future involvement and action.

What is the number one issue on America’s mind? If Youtube users are a good representation of the American population, then the question that many US citizens demand to be answered by the Obama administration is about a plant. Not any plant, but an expensive, psychoactive, prohibited herb by the name of marijuana. On the first of February 2010, America revealed through Youtube that more so than education, healthcare, and the war on terror, its primary concern was the legalization of cannabis: from the 11,697 questions submitted to Obama on Citizentube, Youtube’s political channel, more than 20% were about marijuana legalization. One especially insightful citizen even noted, “as marijuana also is a great catalyst to intellectual thinking and creativity, it will benefit the economy if legalized, by the fact that creative thinking can create new useful and undiscovered items to be produced and exported." Such a perceptive idea would surely never be proposed in Congress. Could Citizentube actually be a harbinger of Obama’s preferred policy-making style, whereby the average citizen can directly collaborate with the President on the formation of pressing, controversial policies?

Does a definitive American style still exist in the 21st century? New York Fashion Week took place last week in an America that was still recovering from the economy, still trying to assert its authority amid foreign competitors while appeasing the increasingly divided public. In response to such an identity crisis, many American designers attempted to adapt quintessential American fashion to the modern age, from Derek Lam’s cowboy inspired fall collection to Tommy Hilfiger’s classically preppy designs. Most notably, perhaps, was the reemergence of voluminous, extravagant fur on the runways. One year ago, at the peak of the economic crisis, no sane fashion designer would dare include fur in their collections, for fear of being accused of disregarding consumer demand and violating animal rights. But this year, to the dismay of animal rights supporters, lavish fur coats, fur dresses, fur tops, and even fur purses were proudly and freely presented down the runways. Does this surprising trend represent a disjunction between the fashion-forward artistic crowd and Middle America, or are designers signaling towards an optimistic future, one where the United States is able to revert to its prominent, relatively luxurious past?