In a series of e-mail announcements sent to the university at-large, President Alice P. Gast has unveiled a series of councils and special interest groups, whose intentions stand to further progress for a more diverse, more ecologically conscious campus, a motive that Gast presented among her inaugural goals.

The Council for Equity and Community (CEC), the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG), and the Global Lehigh Advisory Committee (GLAC) represent the bureaucracy that Gast has set out to create. Vague, guided by pure populism, and I suspect a push to pad her personal curriculum vitae, Gast’s committee fetish has long term repercussions for Lehigh University, mostly in the form of high legacy costs and nonsensical parliamentary actions.

Starting with CEC, which is to be composed of “faculty, staff, undergraduates, and graduate students who have demonstrated commitment to diversity through research, teaching, work, or service,” this group automatically alienates the average Lehigh student. Rationally, most students do not “commit themselves to diversity,” as they operate under the belief that interacting with their peers in such a way that does not differentiate behavior based on race, denomination, et cetera, is business as usual. In other words, most people do not try to create a homogeneous environment by outright discriminatory means, (barring the archaic pledging processes that define our Greek Life system).

The only people who might fit the definition of being “committed to diversity through research, teaching, work, or service,” would be professors whose field of study is the very-specific, not-so-diverse area of Asian, Africana, or other cultural studies – clearly, not the type of people who might think outside of the academic space in which they reside, or students who have made a lot of white noise, preaching their messages of separatist, gratuitous wanting by means of “movements” or the editorial columns of the Brown & White. Thereby, I postulate that the only benefit that could come from such a committee would be the encapsulation of such causes of civil unrest within a restrained committee, from which the occupants could be buried in their own red tape and self-congratulatory smug.

Realistically, there is a need for Lehigh University to attract a diverse palate of candidates for its newly matriculated classes. As stated in my previous article, Diversity Doublespeak, I noted that international and minority students enhance the university experience by providing new perspectives in studies and social interactions, and allow existing students to interface with peers of unique cultures, heritages, faiths, or whatever it may be within the scope of their academic career, as preparation for their life in the diverse working world. However, by what motive do we do so? Is it fair to initiate a slew of new racial scholarships in lieu of merit-based ones, which in essence bribe persons of one race or another to come to a university that they might not otherwise care to attend? Should they choose to attend on the basis of such monies, is it fair that they should then want to impose their personal worldview (which may not be so diverse) on the existing student body?

To further this argument, consider the difference between equity and blind placation. The council’s stated purpose is equity, which is defined as being fair or impartial. Yet, based on the application criteria, how very impartial would a committee of social sciences professors and angry radical students be? Moreover, are we simply acting to placate these students by giving them the feeling of power to offset the perceived imbalance, while in actuality sending the message that the majority’s whims and wishes are subject first to a council with direct access to the President of the university? Gast’s email lends to the idea that such a council will have access to funding – something already spoken for in the diversity arena by the Multicultural Affairs committee, headed by Alta Thornton, and the Joint Multicultural Program, headed by Yaba Blay, alongside whatever fragments are left of The Movement, the Provost’s office (which spent at least five figures on the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. day), and how many more? The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers? The Black Student Union?

The question also arises as to whom we as a university would like to attract. Do we want the Deborah Dickerson-defined Black student who represents the stereotypical, “non-job-having, middle-of-the-day malt-liquor-drinking, crotch-clutching, loud-talking brother with many neglected children born of many forgotten women?” If we are, is it fair for that individual, whose personal lifestyle choice will inevitably be aesthetically opposed to the country-club stock that so petulantly defines this university? That individual will be ostracized, and the question shifts to the blame: is it the financial aid office, which bribed this student to come to a university whose social space is diametrically opposed to his? Is it the students who will cast judgments upon this individual, not understanding where he comes from? Is it this individual’s fault, for espousing a lifestyle that defines what some consider urban detritus? Is it Bethlehem, and the environment that we somehow must be affecting, and should form some woebegone committee to rectify said ecological climate?

It’s an absurd question, but it’s a real one, and the true answer is that no one party is responsible for the failure of one culture to smoothly interface with another. All parties are guilty – the student should realize that if he’s receiving so much financial aid, many of his new peers will be well off and unadjusted to his unique situation, and the existing students who push so fervently for this “diversity” should realize that they then must accept those who they claim they want to attract. Is the solution to this problem a committee, which is composed of only the protagonists of diversity and none of it’s detractors, or objective critics such as myself? Why is this even a question? If 13% of the United States is composed of “Black” individuals, by whatever definition might be chosen, are there enough minorities to placate our university’s stilted expectations? Our numbers are fine, and this issue should have been dropped ages ago.

Likewise, there persists the fact that many international students do not feel represented on campus, despite the existence of so many committees, clubs, unions, and societies. To once again reference Diversity Doublespeak, there is a rift between Black and Hispanic students (who are born as U.S. citizens), other domestic minority students (such as Asian, Native American, European, et cetera), and international students on visa.

To briefly paraphrase a previous argument: the first group of individuals (Black and Hispanic) remains the prominent focus of our school’s diversity efforts. This is undeniable. Look at the sheer size and money spent on the King Day celebration, look at the Rap Sessions event, look at Rock for Darfur, and a consistent pattern begins to develop. I don’t see existential discussions on issues pertaining to any other domestic minorities.

International students have become the latest demographic to be woefully mangled in the diversity debate. While their on-campus presence isn’t celebrated nearly as much as specific domestic minorities (outside of the International Bazaar and a few lecture series, through the UN Coalition), their recruitment efforts have redoubled nearly as much as domestic minority initiatives. Sound attractive? Hardly – the Global Lehigh Advisory Committee presented a laundry list of expensive, irrational, excessive goals that challenge the very mission of our institution. (What happened to “practical education?”)

GLAC’s first effort is the Required International Experience (RIE). The RIE exists under the logical convolution that, on account of the positive reactions garnered from students who choose (keyword choose) to study abroad, Lehigh might as well raise tuition and force everyone to pick a country and study there for a semester. I suspect this effort has more to do with Gast being credited as some sort of pioneer in higher education for her decision to make Lehigh less affordable to the very people it says it’s committed to recruiting, with the intentions of globalizing such assumedly close-minded students such as ourselves.

While GLAC has a few positive keynotes to it, such as efforts to outright recruit more international students and the establishment of overseas “hubs” to attract both students and speakers, GLAC seems to have missed a few recitations. It states that it wants to increase international graduate students – which means more international teaching assistants. To be fair, I have had some very good experiences with foreign TAs, yet I’ve had twice as many unfortunate ones with the very same demographic. As I’ve personally noticed a large percentage of international grad students covering labs and recitations, my observations have been corroborated by several of my peers, and we’ve come to a mutual conclusion that the language barrier is a significant detriment to an intellectually enriching recitation or lab experience. The Brown & White corroborated this in their article titled Prof’s Accents Cause Confusion for Some.

Finally, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group stands to raise tuition and cut institutional improvements further by forcing the university to go “cutting-edge” on experimental, marginally cost-efficient, minimally cleaner, outright expensive technology. Representing a further step in Gast’s mission to bring a bit of Berkeley to Bethlehem, LEAG has direct access to the President’s office, and will likely be padded with sizable seed funding.

LEAG’s initial stage, which involves evaluating existing campus practices, will, in all fairness, accomplish something that a different committee should be evaluating: wasteful practices. While I cannot support an organization that will force costly change on the basis of marginally earth-enhancing practices, I can certainly see how an oversight committee, which evaluates waste and the most effective ways to reduce it, would be beneficial to our institution.

To most effectively synopsize the principle grievances I have with this bevy of recently established committees, it comes down to two key ideas: purpose and practice. On the former, we must look to our school’s original outset mission statement: for practical education. While it is undeniable that we live in an age where technology is dictated more by an environmental conscious than it had been in previous years, and while there are positive consequences to a truly diverse campus (not one of displaced, disgruntled “free Mumia” supporters who want to assuage what is often called “white guilt” or “liberal guilt,” in order to further leverage campus policy), and while we would like to expand our international horizons to more effectively manage the global marketplace, the fact of the matter is that these, like all other trophy committees, will do no such thing.

We then come to practice. Consider that most of these committees aren’t predicted to make any real headway for at least five years – some, longer. This allows President Gast to sit back and watch the gears turn on her grand placation scheme, designed to distract the angry minorities and radical left from pestering her with posted demands, rallies, and walkouts. Thereby, she can take on the two principal presidential roles: raise money, and impose her political and social will on this institution.

My predictions? Alice Gast has no real long-term intentions for this school. Her children, now approximately 11 and 13, will likely not attend this school. There is no conceivable reason why the valedictorian of USC Berkeley, with such extensive academic credentials, would allow her children to go to anything but a top-tier research institute. As such, she will likely step down in about five years – maybe ten, if she is presented with a more attractive university presidential offer. I base this on Gast’s inauguration – her colleagues, mostly university presidents and trustees, almost mocked Gast for her choice of residence here. The ceremony smacked of a farce – this presidency is a stepping-stone for a west-coast liberal who wants to change the world, with no thought to the possible class conflicts and other wake she may leave in tow. She’ll get to return to one of her several alma maters, take a high-level position, and forget that Bethlehem is anything but a smudge on a map.

When it came time to select a class schedule for my second-to-last semester at Lehigh, it became evident that I had not once in my four years here taken an American History course. This disheartening fact troubled me for a few reasons (it also probably could have won me a few $50 gift certificates and rounds of car-bombs at McGrady’s Trivia Night). I was slightly embarrassed by my lack of in-depth knowledge of the history of our great nation, a nation to which I owe so much. Every one of us, hopefully, has been schooled on the general history of America. We can all recite the names and dates, but I’m afraid to say that I, along with most students today, had little idea about what was truly going on during the formation of the greatest nation on earth. Some people may ask why understanding our past is so important; why not spend your time and money taking classes in business or engineering, both of which can help you earn a living later in life? The answer to this question is not only complex; it is one that many people in today’s society refuse to believe and are intent on undermining.

Once the decision was made to take a course on American History, the next step was to determine which one. I concluded that a class on the discovery of the new world and its transition into the society we see today would be the most rewarding. History 41, History of the United States to 1865, seemed to fit the bill. Nothing in the title or course description suggested anything other then a general survey up to the specified date. One would expect a dispassionate account of the people, places, and events that shaped the country, with their importance as the deciding factor in the time allocated to each. It didn’t take much more than my trip to the bookstore to realize I was asking too much. I noticed that half of the class reading was coming directly from firsthand Slave and Indian sources. I immediately understand this could go one of two ways. Either the class would focus on how the settlers’ dealings with the Indians and Slaves impacted our county’s formation, or the material would center on the evils of our forefathers. The first class made it quite clear that the course would focus on the latter. When the professor could not mention the freedom and opportunity that the new world offered without a sarcastic “if you were a white Christian male,” I knew I was in for a long semester.

It wasn’t even the material that I truly had a problem with, but the way in which it was taught. Of course, by today’s standards, the treatment of the Indians would be considered inhumane, and the very notion of slavery appalling; yet there was little effort to place both practices in contemporary ideology. Consider, for example, the settlers’ relations with the Indians. At what point in history did a civilization come about by peaceful measures? Did the sun never set on the British Empire because they sailed to foreign lands, assimilated into native cultures, and then democratically voted to be subject to British Rule? Of course they didn’t. The same is true with the great Roman and Greek civilizations; and like America today, the Greek and Roman people lived safer, freer lives than the people outside their borders. As a matter of fact, compared to other great cultures, the future Americans were friendly to the people they called savages. While the British, Greeks, and Romans immediately sought to eradicate native populations, the early Americans attempted to live peacefully among the natives. Just as could be expected from a historical standpoint, when different cultures clashed, violence was inevitable and escalating.

When people cannot understand that violence and conflict are unavoidable in this world, they attempt to assign an explanation for each example. In the case of History 41, it was the innate racism and belief in superiority that made the white settlers drive the Indians from their lands. It had nothing to do with the growing population on the East Coast and the need for more land to sustain that growth. To back that theory up, we were assigned readings dealing with individual Indian accounts of the brutality of their white oppressors. To most people in the class, I am sure the readings had their desired effect: create a personal connection to a single Indian case and provoke an emotional attachment. Of course these individual Indians weren’t the ones who coexisted peacefully with the white settlers, but ones that suffered mercilessly at the hands of the early Americans. Not to say that I didn’t feel horrible for the Indians we read about, but it is a two way street. I wonder why we didn’t read any pieces on the white women and children that were scalped and brutally murdered by rogue Indian tribes. Apparently, that wouldn’t follow with the message that the teacher was trying to get across.

As the timeline of the course progressed and the Indians no longer played a significant role in the nation, a new angle had to be taken; the course material saw a shift from the Indian perspective to that of the African slaves. Once again, the issue of slavery was introduced as if it was an entirely American creation. Not once was there a mention of the long tradition of slavery in Africa among warring tribes, or the mass sale of black slaves by African chiefs to the Portuguese slave traders. To suggest anything other than early American malice would be counterproductive to the main objective of the course. While there can never be a valid explanation for the forced servitude of a fellow human being, it is simply unfair to deny the greatness of our early leaders, such as Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson, simply because they engaged in a common, albeit evil, practice of the time. What we did not discuss, however, was the impact of abolition on a historical scale. It was never mentioned that Western culture was the first in history to free their slaves without outside influence. To do so would be to propose that our ancestors took advantage of an immoral, yet widespread practice, and eventually freed their slaves due to the liberal ideals on which our country was founded.

“If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let’s start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan during his farewell address to America, are truer now more then ever. We cannot allow our forefathers to be demonized in the classrooms. This doesn’t mean leaving Indians and African-Americans out of our history books, but we cannot use these specific cases to turn today’s society against its past; doing so would completely demoralize the nation. After all, what makes a nation? Few people can argue that what makes countries unique are their diverse cultures. Everything from their legal and governmental systems to their people’s values is a direct result of their culture. What forms a country’s culture is its people’s shared history and the evolution of their society. America is where it is today because of the shared experiences of our people. If we had no knowledge of our history, nothing would unite us: we would all just be citizens of the world. Our country wouldn’t be worth fighting for, and our culture not worth fighting to protect.

For these reasons, I cannot fathom my professor’s approach to teaching history. My first question is why? Why spend your time researching the ancient evils of our society for any other reason than to undermine that very society? To me it seems analogous to a child digging up the skeletons in his or her parents’ closet and exposing them for the neighbors to see. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. For a country that asks so little, if anything, from its citizens, you would think that there would be few instances of America-bashing in its classrooms. Speaking of its classrooms, I was temporarily relieved when I remembered the American History education I received in grade school. I was taught to love our founders; that they were wise and courageous men. As long as we instill these values in our children, our culture and way of life are safe. I was relieved when, speaking with other Lehigh students, I was told that they received similar, pro-American educations. However, my hope quickly faded when I had the realization that although today’s grade school teachers will continue their honorable work, tomorrow’s teachers are being taught by today’s liberal college professors. Has the “long walk through the institutions” finally begun?

On Monday, January 21st, at 1:26 PM, I received an email in my Inbox “from” President Alice Gast, informing me of the University’s Martin Luther King, Jr. celebrations. Amongst the festivities were a website, the creation of a Council for Equity and Community, and a performance dubbed “Rap Sessions” brought to our attention by Calvin-John Smiley.

The website’s URL is http://www.lehigh.edu/~inking/, enjoying a position next to other administrative websites such as the Registrar’s Office (~inrgs) and the Bursar’s Office (~inburs). In other words, a day is almost as important in the day-to-day functioning as the offices that deal with the financial and academic records of the University’s student body. I’m still waiting for the Columbus Day website.

The Council for Equity and Community “encourages the Lehigh community to move toward a deeper understanding of the world around them, recognizing and promoting activities such as research and scholarship, community service and co-curricular programming,” according to the hurriedly put-together site at http://www.lehigh.edu/~indiv/. An infinitude of points can be made about efforts such as these.

One such argument is the “reverse racism” argument. By singling out members of other races as being different, and thus recognizing that they need to be better included, it implies first that members of other races are different and that they are excluded for that reason. Most of the efforts to reduce this issue focus on the exclusion and create policy intended to specifically include such people, in effect singling them out even more. The real issue is the assumption that members of other races are different. While this is undoubtedly true, there is a distinction that needs to be made between “different” and “inferior.”

The “Rap Sessions” promoted and scheduled by Calvin-John Smiley and coordinated in conjunction with the Office of Multicultural Affairs are an interesting twist on the King Day themes. Traditionally, King Day is intended as a day to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. (in whatever way you choose) for what he did for the African American community in the 1960s. “Rap Sessions,” however, was simply one more performance in a series of several rap artists sponsored by the same group of individuals, departments, and offices, all of which have been funded extensively by the Visiting Lecturers Committee and the President’s Office.

This unorthodox set of festivities in celebration of King brings into consideration what we are really celebrating. There are those of us who look further into King’s history than the short narrative we are given in elementary school and judge his character based on other less-honorable moments in his life and ask why we are told only the “good parts.” The answer is quite simple: Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

This phenomenon is by no means new. The assassination of John F. Kennedy immediately martyred him. Abraham Lincoln was never intended to become President, but his assassination made him nearly as legendary as George Washington. Even Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian prince whose assassination started World War I, is primarily remembered simply because he was shot.

Thus, is it really necessary to celebrate Martin Luther King Day? He did bring to light the situation African Americans were enduring; he did “have a dream.” He should certainly be remembered, but does a day need to be named in his memory, or is it enough to mention him in his place in American history? After all, we don’t celebrate John F. Kennedy Day or Franz Ferdinand Day.

While the answer to the above question is not very clear-cut, I think we can agree that spending an egregious amount of money on all the events mentioned above, in addition to bringing Jonathan Kozol to campus as the keynote speaker, specifically for a single day in the middle of January, is unnecessary.

As a first-time voter in the upcoming presidential election, I have been following the race more than any past election, with a special interest in the issue of immigration reform. After watching debates on television and YouTube, and reading articles about candidates, however, all I have observed is an uncomfortable shiftiness about the politicians when questioned on illegal immigration and uniformity in their “solutions” to the problem. I have been most disappointed to see not a single candidate take a position of granting amnesty (fully and truly; no strings attached) and then stand behind it. What we are left with – excluding those who advocate deportation – is a group of politicians who have resorted to what I would call “fake” amnesty, calling for fines and a legalization process, which is really no amnesty at all.

Who can blame them? Amnesty has become demonized to the point of seeming criminal. A politician dares not utter it, for fear of bringing his campaign to a screeching halt. So while some of our presidential candidates may even believe in their heart that full amnesty is the right thing to do, we will never hear about it; all we hear is the same basic gobbledygook from both parties. For that very reason, I endeavor to pick apart immigration legality and reform, ultimately making a case for amnesty. I will put forward the arguments I have heard that are against granting amnesty, and respond to each of them separately.

We are a nation of laws. The first and most popular argument used to justify deportation; I also admit it is the strongest argument for fines or a legalization process. Included among the laws of this country is a law pertaining to fair punishments (the eighth amendment to the Constitution). The mantra “We are a nation of laws” is not a valid reason to deport every illegal immigrant living in this country. It would make sense to deport anyone convicted of a major crime who is not a citizen of this country. For otherwise law-abiding immigrants who have not obtained citizenship, a punishment of deportation does not fit the crime. The vast majority of those who came to the United States for a better life would be as good as deported if the heavy fines that politicians are calling for were inflicted upon them. In fact, with the cost of living here and the low income that most are bringing in, the fines could very likely corner immigrants into living on the streets. Therefore, these not-quite-amnesty-but-close penalties that our candidates advocate are no more merciful than deportation.

Finally, although I recognize that we are a nation of laws, few people who make that argument acknowledge that we are anything more than just a legislative machine. The truth is that we have two other branches which are conveniently left out of the argument: executive and judicial. The executive branch has the power to – and historically does – pardon individuals who have been convicted of crimes. That’s right, folks: in our nation of laws we have let people who were not innocent of crimes off the hook. Scandalous, I know. The definition of amnesty according to Merriam-Webster is the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. Last but not least, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to interpret the laws. Hence, we are more than a nation of laws.

Illegal immigration threatens our national security. This is probably the weakest argument I have heard for deportation. I assume by the use of the buzzwords national security that those who make such an argument are referring to the ease by which terrorists can enter a country where no physical obstacle is present at the border. Nevertheless, I fail to see the benefit of erecting a physical barrier; a fence, as some advocate. Physical fences do not stop terrorists. Terrorists can be citizens or have work visas (or any other kind of visa to reside here legally for a time). Why would any serious terrorist take the risk of tripping up his grand plans by being caught crossing the border or subsequently living here illegally? Those who take the risk of crossing the border illegally are desperate to escape a life of poverty which is hardly a life at all by our standards of living in this country. They literally do not even possess the means to disrupt – let alone threaten – our national security.

They are not assimilating. Ironically, the people who argue that recent immigrants do not assimilate are the same people who cry out that immigrants are taking American jobs left and right. Well, which is it? They are assimilating or they aren’t? Since I see these arguments as intertwined, I will address them simultaneously. Though I view this job-taking as a very obvious form of assimilation (if you want to see a people who are not assimilating, take a trip down to Lancaster and see the Amish, who we have allowed to live in this country for decades), I recognize that most people are referring to some immigrants’ inability to speak English. This is really not as big of a deal as some people would like to make it seem; in fact, the media and/or politicians have blown it out of proportion. It is difficult to live in any country for a long time without learning the common language of the land. It is a waste of time to force any of our immigrants to learn English, because they will do so on their own as a matter of convenience – or in most cases – necessity.

As for the argument that immigrants are taking American jobs, it is just not logical. Our economy is a market system; as the population increases, the demand on goods and services will increase, creating more jobs. However, it is not a fair assessment to say that the argument is just “immigrants are taking American jobs.” The underlying attitude is that Americans are being cheated because immigrants will work for less money. I have only a bit of advice for Americans who feel this way: rather than deporting our hard-working immigrants, deport yourselves to a place south of the border and find out what a low-paying job really is.

Immigrants are a burden on Social Security and healthcare. The argument is that the United States cannot afford 12 million or more illegal immigrants to receive emergency healthcare and Social Security payments. This is a flat out lie. Our country of 600 million people is very well-developed and wealthy. We can afford 12- to 20 million more Social Security and emergency healthcare receivers. What we cannot afford is a trillion-dollar war. Even 20 million more beneficiaries of Social Security and emergency healthcare is a drop in the bucket comparatively. They are a small fraction of what we already pay out to citizens of this country.

While there are possibly more arguments that add to the wave of terror about illegal immigration, these are the ones I came across most often and that people are most passionate about. Furthermore, I should emphasize that I am not in favor of illegal immigration continuing, especially at the rate it has been lately. I propose that one of the main reasons for our influx of illegal immigrants is the difficulty in obtaining legal citizenship. If these requirements were reduced, and the process expedited, there is no doubt in my mind that immigrants would cease taking the unnecessary risk of crossing the border illegally. No physical fence would be necessary to keep people out. As it is now, immigrants do feel that the risk is worth it because their lives at home are far worse than ours here, and the legalization process is too slow or difficult to suffer. Of course they don’t know English or American history if they have lived in Mexico their whole lives. I am not saying that a long line for citizenship is an excuse for breaking the law, but if we sympathize with their desperation, should we not also reform our immigration laws so that they do not feel the pressure to risk crossing the border illegally?

Now the sticky part – what to do about those who are already in the country illegally after we have reformed our immigration laws. No one wants to solve the situation without adding a clause for this and a clause for that. No one wants to risk political and social humiliation by using the a-word. But I will. There is only one solution to the millions of people currently living in our country illegally: full amnesty. Most people do not wish to take the effort to displace 12 million or more people from our land and put them back where they came from (I also do not believe it is logistically possible). As I have pointed out earlier, though, it is as harsh a penalty to inflict large fines on people who are mostly living right on or below the poverty line.

If it would cause you to lose sleep at night that millions of people in a country of laws should get away with such a crime, just remember that if we kicked every Lehigh student out of school for breaking the law (on a weekly basis), our underclassmen population would be less than a tenth of what it is. For those living here “legally” while breaking the law on a consistent basis: do you dare throw stones at otherwise law-abiding “illegals?” And for the rest, for whom this description does not satisfy – go learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

With the primaries now in full swing, a Republican frontrunner has finally emerged. This is at least true according to the mainstream media. His name is Senator John McCain. The media is fascinated with this man. They give him more positive press coverage than I have ever seen a Republican get in my lifetime. This should be good news, right? Maybe not. In my opinion, this coverage is a direct result of the media wanting to destroy the platform of the Republican Party. John McCain is an American hero; no one can deny that. He served his country honorably in Vietnam, being held as a POW for five years. However, I do not want him anywhere near the White House. There are many reasons why.

The first reason is his incredible ambition for the Office of the President of the United States. While ambition is not something I consider a bad thing, it can be when you would do anything to win the office. Senator McCain once said: “Presidential ambition is a disease that is only cured by embalming fluid.” Somehow, John McCain has the reputation as the candidate in this race who sticks to his principles no matter what. He claims to be the “straight talk express” and the media has never challenged this assertion. Senator McCain’s ambition for the White House has caused him to change his stance on many issues. In 2000, he was the maverick and outsider. He did what he thought was right and did not waiver. I will be the first to give him credit for that. However, when he lost the nomination that year to then Governor George W. Bush, he began to adjust his positions and associations. He sought to become the next Republican establishment candidate. He campaigned very hard for President Bush in the 2004 election. He currently seeks the support of hard line conservatives and subtly changes his positions with the polls. In fact, the only position he has not waivered on is the War in Iraq. He has always been a strong advocate for winning the war and came up with a good strategy to do so. But if you think John McCain would be the best choice for President, that feeling cannot be based on his record. Let’s take a look at Senator McCain’s three biggest legislative initiatives in the past six years.

Number one is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. This seems like a good issue to tackle. Most people agree that money has become too influential in politics and the system needs to be tweaked a little bit. This bill was not the fix that was needed. The bill worked to severely curtail the First Amendment. The bill does two things. First, it limits the amount of money that can be given to a Presidential candidate. The limits are actually quite low. This does not allow candidates to reach their full potential in any election. The biggest problem with the bill, though, is the “issue advertising” provision. This provision outlaws any ads by issue-oriented organizations within 60 days of a general election. That is a clear violation of free speech. Most conservatives agree that organizations should be able to run ads in support of any candidate based on an issue that is important to them.

Second is the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act. This act will put steep federal restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. If you have read any of my previous writings, you know how I feel about global warming, so I will not get into that. The problem with this bill, as with all global warming legislation both in the USA and around the world, is that it caps America’s emissions while leaving the rest of the world alone. The issue is, in fact, global warming, not America warming. All this legislation will do is force more American jobs overseas, where the restrictions do not apply. Also, it is estimated that gas would rise an additional 50 cents per gallon as a result of this legislation. That will make Americans happy every week when they fill up. Even those conservatives that agree with global warming alarmists also agree that any restrictions should not be unfair to America on a global scale.

The last, and worst, legislation McCain has supported in recent years is the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill. This bill would allow all illegal immigrants (excluding criminals) to pay a mere $3,000 fine to remain in this country forever. Oh yeah, they would have to pay their taxes for as long as they have been here as well. Crossing the border into this country illegally is a felony. This bill lets the perpetrators off the hook with a slap on the wrist, while prospective immigrants who respect our laws wait in their home countries unable to get visas. This bill, which McCain interestingly no longer supports, is pure amnesty, no bones about it. He also voted to allow illegal immigrants to participate in social security. Senator McCain would fail to secure the border, again something conservatives demand.

John McCain also voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. He actually justified his opposition by labeling them tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Sound familiar? I believe it was Teddy Kennedy who invented that phrase. In retrospect, the Bush tax cuts created five years of economic growth. McCain must realize this as well; he has since voted twice to make the tax cuts permanent. He also opposes water boarding. While this is good as a matter of policy, he has said he would never even consider it. If it were my family or millions of other American families in danger, I would want to know that my President would do everything in his power to protect them. That is the main responsibility of the President, after all. Subjecting a terrorist to less than a minute of discomfort is a small price to pay for saving American lives.

The bottom line is that nominating John McCain for President would be a profound mistake for the Republican Party. Think about this for a moment. If McCain wins the Presidency, he will shape policy for the party for the next eight years. That would effectively kill the conservative agenda for the party. He is wrong on the economy, immigration, global warming, national security, and free speech. The only thing McCain has right is the War in Iraq. It would be incredibly hard for the party to ever move back to the right and to the principles conservatives hold dear. The alternative is that McCain could lose the election. In that case, the party platform would only be destroyed for four years. However, during those four years, either Hillary Clinton (and Bill of course) or Barack Obama would be President. That is possibly the scariest thing I can imagine. With Mike Huckabee basically out of the running and Ron Paul never having had a legitimate shot, the only option for conservatives has become Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney advocates all the positions of true conservatives. He would advance the party platform in the mold of Ronald Reagan and keep us on the right track as a nation. It is essential that he be elected President later this year.

Lately, the print industry has been abuzz with discussions about the humanities, both as an academic institution and as it functions in society. Stanley Fish, a well-traveled professor and contributing writer to the New York Times’ blog, wrote a two-part blog entitled “Will the Humanities Save Us?” He was inspired to do so because of three recent pieces of writing: the report of the New York State Commission on Higher Education, which barely mentioned the humanities amongst its widespread proposals; Anthony Kronman’s book, Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, which Mr. Fish said implied that colleges should be “a place of the training of character” through the use of the humanities; and reader comments to a previous Mr. Fish blog post. Mr. Fish’s blog series facilitated a wave of reader reactions leading to hundreds of comments on the New York Times’ site and numerous blogs elsewhere.

Simultaneous to this firestorm, but apart from it, was the reaction to a newly published book by Yale University Press: On Eloquence by Denis Donoghue. John Wilson, of the magazine Books and Culture, wrote a review of the book and Denis Donoghue himself wrote about it for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Interestingly, even though these writers were not collaborating with each other, all three men came to roughly the same conclusion.

Mr. Fish’s answer to the question posed by his blog’s title is that the humanities will not save us. In fact, the humanities will do nothing for humanity, because they can do nothing for humanity. He denied that the humanities create well-rounded citizens or that they teach people how to improve as human beings. According to Mr. Fish, the humanities will not build character just as they will not build bridges or computer infrastructures. They will not build careers either. While Mr. Fish does think it true that the humanities can teach “critical thinking” skills and make people more interesting to talk to, he does not think they have a corner on providing such skills.

In fact, Mr. Fish purports that the humanities do not do anything at all. As Mr. Fish says, if the humanities were the answer to our society’s problems, as he believes Mr. Kronman says, then “the most generous, patient, good-hearted and honest people on earth would be the members of literature and philosophy departments, who spend every waking hour with great books and great thoughts, and as someone who’s been there (for 45 years) I can tell you it just isn’t so.” Mr. Fish swears he cannot remember a single time when a poem moved him to improve himself or those around him.

Mr. Fish contends that there is one thing that is “more than enough in my view to justify the enterprise of humanistic study:” that is “aesthetic wonderment.” The great satisfaction of the humanities, he says, “is the opportunity to marvel at what a few people are able to do with the language we all use. ‘Isn’t that amazing?’ I often say to my students. ‘Don’t you wish you could write a line like that?’” For Mr. Fish, this more than justifies the study of the humanities.

On this point Mr. Wilson and Mr. Donoghue would agree. Mr. Wilson relates Mr. Donoghue’s experiences with his English students, saying “He finds among his students—students who have chosen to study literature—and in ‘departments of English’ more generally a suspicion of or indifference toward the merely ‘aesthetic’ and a preoccupation with moralizing.” Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Donoghue lament this state of affairs. They both decry the modern tendency of turning education into mere utility, a means to a career. They, like Mr. Fish, do not think that eloquence or aesthetics or the humanities need justification.

Instead, Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Wilson praise eloquence as a noble end just as Mr. Fish does aesthetic wonderment. Mr. Donoghue says, “Eloquence is not the same as rhetoric. Eloquence isn’t even a distant cousin of rhetoric — it comes from a different family and has different eyes, hair, and gait.” He adds, “Normally, eloquence is taken to be one of rhetoric’s flashier tricks. It is not. I want to release it from that servile employment and have it enjoy its independence as a play of language, gratuitous, a grace note in the culture that permits it.” Mr. Wilson expounds on this saying, “If eloquence is associated with ‘pretense’ and all that it implies, it is also suspect because it lacks weight. You can’t eat it. It won’t save souls, prevent global warming, reduce the spread of AIDS or the incidence of abortion. Yes, all true, and this is why eloquence is precious.” Eloquence is so gratifying precisely because it is superfluous.

All three men are correct in their assessment of aesthetics. Beauty, eloquence, aesthetics: they are meant to be enjoyed in their own right. They do lose part of their essence if they are employed in rhetoric, because part of their beauty is in their uselessness. As Ray Bradury said in the “Coda” of the 50th Anniversary edition of Fahrenheit 451, “Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page.” What makes literature beautiful is its rhetorically useless parts.

However, the study of the humanities for the pleasure of “aesthetic wonderment” does not lead to nothing. It, in fact, does something very important for the human race. It creates men with chests. Taking inspiration from Plato, C.S. Lewis, in his classic work on education entitled The Abolition of Man, describes humans as containing three parts: a head where the intellect reigns, a stomach where the appetite lurks, and a chest where magnanimity and sentiment resides. He says that the chest is the most important part. “It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.” The middle part allows the head, or reason, to control the stomach, or appetites. “Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organisms.” Without the chest humans are not humans at all.

When done right, the humanities give people proper chests. They teach people what is beautiful and true and noble. By studying art and literature people can be trained to recognize and appreciate the sublime and aesthetically pleasing. Through the study of history people can connect with the pure emotions of patriotism and duty to fellow mankind. If the humanities are done right they will provide a good education, as C.S. Lewis described it. They will “build some sentiments while destroying others.” Sentiments properly constructed will allow humans to use their intellect to its fullest capacity and will allow them to enjoy the pleasures of their appetites without gorging themselves on them. The humanities can help make humans human.

Originally published by Campus Magazine Online. Republished with permission.

While the 2008 Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration at Lehigh was in full swing, I decided to accompany my roommate to one of the guest lectures. For his political science class, he was required to attend Ewuare X. Osayande’s speech entitled “Confronting American Terrorism,” a name that truly caught my attention. I hadn’t heard the word ‘terrorism’ applied to supposed racial inequality in America and I wondered just how terror tactics were being used in our society. Despite my immediate disdain for the title of the lecture, I decided I would give Osayande the benefit of the doubt and allow him to explain himself. I made an earnest attempt to check my preconceptions at the door and give him a chance to convince me of this so-called “American Terrorism.” The following is a summary of his main points along with my own responses. Background or any proof whatsoever of his claims will not be covered in this article, as they were never covered during his speech. Apparently, he figured one all-encompassing explanation would suffice: institutionalized racism in America. This was a “proven fact” as he put it, and all of the societal ills that he would go on to address could be traced back to this “fact.”

Osayande first pointed to the wealth distribution in America. He claimed to be preaching MLK’s message: that capitalism was put in place by white racists to keep blacks from gaining true equality in America. As was the case throughout his speech, the audience was expected to accept this assertion, due to Osayande’s superior wisdom. Apparently, many members of the audience agreed with him. During the time allotted, a member of the audience prefaced her question by proudly acknowledging her hatred for capitalism; a stance worn as a badge of honor amongst those gathered to hear Osayande. Perhaps she honestly didn’t believe in capitalism and was a follower of the practical and often successful economic theory of communism. Osayande furthered his argument by pointing out how the wealth distribution in America was created by racist whites to keep blacks poor and in inner cities as a form of segregation. However, Osayande had researched a solution to this problem. He proposed that we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redistribute that money as a form of reparation to all African-Americans. How could our government have overlooked such an obvious answer?

Throughout his speech, Osayande pointed to current conditions and somehow made connections to racist institutions in our history, when no reasonable connections existed. Wealth distribution through capitalism as a means of segregating our society was the first example of this strategy. Osayande’s next case dealt with the prison system in America. He pointed out the alarming rate at which black males end up in prison compared to whites. No explanation was necessary aside from the implied “innate racism” of our judiciary and penal systems. He did not provide any evidence to back up this theory; however, he assured us of its “proven” accuracy. The next portion of his prison argument was an excerpt that truly captured the spirit of his entire presentation. He focused on the low or non-existent wages that are given to incarcerated workers for prison jobs and more specifically license plate manufacturing. Next, after pausing for dramatic effect, he lowered his voice and, as if he was exposing his audience to some obvious yet hidden truth, whispered “…slavery.” The room let out a simultaneous gasp; some even clapped as Osayande removed the veil that had been blinding us to the evils of American society. How had we not seen it before? American whites, who had so missed their beloved practice of slavery, ingeniously figured out that they could falsely imprison African-Americans and make them work for free in prisons. The very notion would be considered preposterous by any rational American, yet Osayande was confident in preaching its legitimacy.

His next topic was more recent in America. He spoke of the courts striking down a busing agenda that would have forced students from wealthy white neighborhoods and poorer black neighborhoods, no matter how far apart, to attend the same schools. In Osayande’s mind there could be only one explanation for the agenda’s failure to pass; I venture to say none were surprised at his explanation. Osayande repeatedly failed to provide a reasonable conclusion as to why busing was not put into practice. In his opinion, all of this is perfectly logical: the ends justify the means. If some poor blacks are forced to do the same thing against their will, but receive a slightly “better” education than in the school district their parents taxes pay for, his cause will be better off in the end. Most of us would be terrified with the knowledge that we could no longer go to school with the people we grew up with; that sounds more like “terrorism” to me than anything Osayande mentioned.

These are only a few of the examples Ewuare X. Osayande presented to prove the institutionalized racism in America. He also ran through the usual “evidence”: the government’s response to Katrina, the Jena 6, Megan Williams, and others. In each case, he ruled out coincidence. Whenever crimes were committed against blacks, Osayande concluded that white racists intentionally committed it. He took this idea so far that I began to wonder if anything negative could happen to African-Americans that wasn’t the result of institutionally racist America somewhere along the line. I felt an obligation to address this line of thought during his allotted question time. While the rest of the class lobbed softballs that basically asked him to enumerate his points on racist America, I alone asked him to explain himself. I posed the question, “Do you think that any one of these issues that you have raised could also be explained by flaws and the lack of quality leadership in the black community, and cannot solely be explained away by anti-black racism?” He seemed taken aback, as if anyone in the room could still have doubts about evil America after his brilliant, eye-opening speech. He cockily chuckled as he responded to me, once again stating that everything he said was a “proven fact.” Interesting; next time I’m in a debate I’ll try the Osayande strategy: simply state that whatever I say is a “proven fact.” I’ll call it plan X. I then asked him if he understood the harm that he was doing, teaching this message of hate to young African-American children. Nothing could be worse than telling young boys and girls that they will never be given a chance in their society, that the people around them generally hate them and will not allow them to succeed. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy: if enough demagogues like Osayande tell blacks that they cannot succeed in racist America, many will eventually begin to believe it and won’t possibly be able to prosper. Another harm in his message was the pure divisiveness of it. It was obvious that he was attempting to divide our society by asking blacks to get together and demand “equality.” He went so far as to list the ethnic groups that blacks needed to work with, such as Asians, Hispanics, and Cubans. He left whites out, of course, stating that “we don’t need to work with whites; we are constantly forced to communicate with them.” I wonder if Lehigh could have found someone who was less in line with the words of the great Martin Luther King Jr.

So if you notice the title, this article is about changes, in keeping with the theme for this month’s issue: “changes on campus!” More specifically though, the article is about why changes suck and how we deal with them. What’s that? Changes can be for the better, you say? Of course they can! However, that’s not my point; it’s that change itself is an awful experience, which could leave a lesser human confused, scared, angry, or even changed.

“Oh, but John, change forces us as humans to adapt and evolve to survive! It’s what Darwin would’ve wanted!” Evolution? Whoa hold on there! My conservative mindset tells me to disregard evolution as a trick of the devil, just like fossils and chimpanzees! Even if we did “evolve”, we are still not any better at changing. Now how can a species that’s come so far in evolution not be willing to change? The answer is: evolution doesn’t exist for us, at least not willingly. Evolution got us here, but it’s not going to take us anywhere. We are the only species to change the environment around us instead of changing ourselves to fit the environment. Isn’t it odd that there is only one species of human, but many species of everything else? Any adaptations we undergo slowly creep in and become the new norm, kind of like Crocs and Uggs (very useful adaptations at that). On a side note, I’m tired of the entire stereotyped dumb girl with Uggs/North Face pull-over/jeans/huge sunglasses cartoons in the Brown and White. Seriously, picking on them isn’t funny anymore; it’s like making fun of emo kids, done to death and too easy (not the girls, the jokes, mind you).

If there’s one thing I have learned observing people, it’s that people do not react to change well. We like to hold onto a foundation, a safety net to fall back on so we never fall too far if things go wrong, something that will never change no matter what happens. When something comes along that is truly life changing, it often involves letting go of that foundation, to follow that new path. Only by letting go of possibly the thing you hold most dear, your family, friends, your life and support, can you ever truly change. Of course this is the hardest, most painful thing a person can do, to let go, but for doing so you will feel much more value for your new path. It’s a path wrought with tears, anger, frustration, and sadness, so it’s no wonder we hate change. Why we endure it is because if it is something we want badly enough, it should be worth fighting for. Even with simple changes, such as moving into new surroundings, not knowing what to expect, fills us with a primal fear, of that which is unknown.

“Well John, you seem to be getting at something, but you’ve only said what’s been obvious to everyone. How is this worthy of being published?” It’s not, but honestly I’m not getting paid for this, so it works out. So for my final trick, I will save this piece by linking it to something relevant, like say… the upcoming 2008 presidential candidates! You ever notice how every single candidate’s slogan goes something like “Awful Candidate Here: FOR CHANGE!” Well obviously you are for change, we aren’t electing you so you can sit on your ass all day and get paid to dine with queens. None of them are your traditional cookie-cutter presidential candidate, one of them is a black man with a Muslim heritage, one is a woman, one is a former prisoner of war (a president who has actually seen war? Now that’s old school), one an ex-minister turned politician, one is a Mormon, one has been three times married and probably the best Democratic candidate with a shot of winning, and the other isn’t important enough to merit a mention. Talk about a change. America is in a tough spot right now: through a series of unfortunate events, we’ve wound up trying to fix Social Security, fix the border, fix Iraq, fix Iran, fix international relations, fix dinner, fix elections, and fix taxes all while we keep up to date on how Britney is doing, and voting for our favorites on American Idol.

So who can take control of America during this trying time of change, to lead us down a new path without steering us into the rocks? Who can handle such enormous pressure to change the world? Well I guess Satan could, I mean that guy is all for change. How long has God been in power now? Maybe “In Satan We Trust” doesn’t sound too bad… since it’s for change! And change is a good thing, right?

Group Projects. I don’t know anyone who truly relishes the thought of a group project for one of their classes. You open up that syllabus on the first day of class and see in bold characters “Group Project – 25%.” My first thought is usually a sinking feeling of dread. Twenty-five percent of my grade rests on the responsibility of my other team members and how they decide to perform. My second thought is that I hope we are able to choose our own teams. Even if you don’t know anyone else in the entire class, you can usually judge who the students are that you want to work with. They are the ones sitting in the front row, always on time, and ready with their homework completely done. These self-selected groups tend to be more productive, as the team members have similar expectations for the end result and generally put equal amounts of time into the project. On the other hand, there are professor-assigned group projects and this is where the real trouble begins.

The problem with assigned group projects is that not everyone puts the same amount of effort into the project. Randomly selecting groups allows for the lowest common denominator performance. Invariably, one or two people end up doing the bulk of the work, carrying the rest of their team members. The students that want to receive a good grade will do whatever it takes for that “A,” even if it means doing the majority of the work meant for four people. The students that are “carried,” so to speak, by a single group member know that they can put little effort into the project and still come out no worse off. When these students can piggyback on someone else and know that that someone else is willing to do the work, why should they care? It is a simple matter of efficiency – except for the person who does all the work and gets burned for it. To a certain extent, professors do seem to realize that teams generally function this way, but at the same time they want to ensure that everyone performs at about the same level and has the same opportunity to succeed. This principle is not consistent with the real work world. For instance, actors could be randomly assigned to movies to produce commonly bad drivel; athletes could be randomly assigned to the Olympics to ensure that the United States loses all the medals; and high school students could be randomly accepted to Lehigh so that we are guaranteed not to outperform the local community college.

There are benefits to group projects, of course. Countless professors will tell you that you need to learn how to collaborate and cooperate in a group setting, no matter what field of work you go into. I wholeheartedly agree with this way of thinking. In the professional world, hardly anyone will complete a task alone. However, in the work world the best companies will have the best teams and will achieve the best performance. There are better ways to go about group projects, such as allowing students to choose their groups. This method will put students with similar standards for group work together. Students who previously would simply ride on the work of their other group members would be forced to contribute. This technique of self-selecting groups provides the most overall benefit to a class.

I had one class this semester in which the professor announced we could form our own groups and choose our own topics. Naturally I was pleased about this and went around to find other students who shared similar expectations for group work. It seemed like a cruel joke when, two weeks later, this very same professor had a complete change of mind and started assigning groups. Apparently, this professor’s department colleagues were somewhat aghast that students were allowed to select their own teams for a project. So this semester my class has acquired the dubious honor of becoming an experiment for the department. The professor can compare the quality of our group projects to that of previous semesters. I know what my prediction for the outcome will be; in a semester, we will know for certain. Somehow I don’t think that sinking feeling is really going to go away.

This week has been a crazy week for me. I have said that before in my life, but this time I really mean it. At 4 am Sunday morning last week, I woke up to the sound of a smoke detector going off in my attic bedroom in the off-campus house on Fourth Street that I share with four other girls. Less than ten minutes later, we stood on the other side of our street in pajamas and slippers, with 10 degree wind whipping around us, watching flames shoot out of every window of the second story of our neighbor’s half of the house. We stood there with a million thoughts going though our heads: Would the firemen get our neighbor’s loveable black lab out of the house in time? Were flames going to be shooting out of our bedroom windows any minute? What was going to happen to everything we own? Where would we sleep that night and would we have any clothes to put on that day? And, how could this possibly be happening in the house where we had all, just that day, spent the afternoon eating chili with friends after a hike, and then playing Scrabble and watching a movie?

At 6:30 am, I found myself still clad in my flannel pajamas and blue fuzzy slippers sitting with my housemates in a hotel lobby talking to five wonderful people from the Red Cross. They sat down with each of us for a few minutes and, next thing we knew, we each had little bags with toothbrushes and shampoo and soap in one hand, and a voucher in the other for food and clothing.

Every time there is a big disaster like Hurricane Katrina or the tsunami in Southeast Asia, I read about the Red Cross being there. Sometime in elementary school, I think I wrote a report on Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross. I always thought something along the lines of “Oh, the Red Cross, they help people when there’s a big flood or something.” Sitting in the hotel lobby, though, still not knowing if what I had on my back at that moment was all the material possessions I had left, the Red Cross became five friendly faces who gave my housemates and I a few small comforts like a toothbrush and toothpaste and soap that I have taken for granted almost every other morning of my life. Never was I more grateful for such simple things!

It turns out that our neighbor’s dog and cats did not get rescued in time, and his house, with so much of the art that was his life, was completely destroyed. Two of us lost almost all of our clothes because the fire caught into the roof above our attic closet. The rest of us have extensive smoke, soot, and water damage to our things. The next day, my bedroom had a gaping hole in the roof and was covered in broken glass and burnt timbers, while literally everything in the house was blackened with soot, soaked in dirty water, and reeked of smoke.

Somewhere in the whirlwind of things I had to do in the next few days, an email reminded me that I was supposed to write an article for the Patriot this month. I thought there would be no better way I could make use of my chance to write something a few other eyes would read than to remind people what a wonderful organization the Red Cross is. Many others, including Lehigh University, have been unbelievably helpful to us, and I realize that most people who lose their house and belongings in a fire do not have nearly the support that we have had from our friends, churches, and the University. As blessed as we have been with all this help, I will not forget that the Red Cross were the very first there to help us and that they had the things we needed right at that moment, along with the assurance that we would have clothes, food, and somewhere to stay in the next few days. How much more must those who are less fortunate place value on what the Red Cross provides?

I have already taken up most of my space for this article telling part of our little story, and I almost erased some of it to make more room for facts about the Red Cross. On second thought, though, I left it in hopes that telling a personal story makes what the Red Cross does, even on as small and common a scale as a house fire (according to the Red Cross website, there are 150 families every day that the Red Cross helps out after a house fire), more real and personal than mere statistics about it could do. Since I have hopefully stirred your curiosity about the Red Cross a little now, I will give you a few facts about their history and other things that they do in order to inform you of who they are and what you might be able to do to help them.

The Red Cross was started in America by Clara Barton in the early 1880s. She had been a nurse on the front lines of a few wars fought in Europe and had seen the drastic need for trained ‘first-responders’ to deal with wounded soldiers right on the front lines. She also saw the work of the Swiss Red Cross and came back to the U.S. to campaign in Washington D.C. for an American branch. She succeeded, and led it for more than two decades. The organization grew tremendously during WWI and the tragic influenza epidemic of those years; and then again during WWII. Since then, they have become an integral provider of “blood services”, as well as tissue banking, various health and safety training programs, and extensive support for victims of disaster. They rely almost completely on volunteers, as I found out personally from the five who so willingly showed up at 5 am on a Sunday morning to help us out.

Whether one family loses a few belongings in a house fire, a military family needs help with contact and support, thousands of people in a town get wiped out by a flood or storm, or a lone person’s life depends on getting a blood transfusion after an accident, these fantastic volunteers are there and ready to help. My housemates and I have discovered from the donations and other help coming from so many directions how wonderfully generous and kind people can be. So, let me encourage you, the next time you have a few extra hours or dollars to give, picture yourself as a person in any kind of imminent need, think how tremendously grateful you would be to have someone there to help you, and give a little to the Red Cross.