Question: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Basic human rights have always been defined as simple things – life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  However, none of these four principles are possible without one other key element:  the ability and willingness to defend oneself.  In today’s day and age, defending oneself becomes possible only through the possession and use of a firearm, in one of its forms.  Contemporary complacency has sidelined the role of firearms in maintaining these rights.  However, firearms are necessary in reclaiming them.

Although contemporary culture is kept in line through the rule of law, and by extension the government, what keeps the government in check? Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Someday, this tree may need to be watered.  At that point, the defense of house and home, the usurpation of a dictatorship to renew a democracy will require both the will of the people and the firearms in peoples’ possession.

In a world without firearms, governmental tyranny will be allowed to continue ad infinitum, because the opinions of the masses will be silenced by the opinions of the men with guns.  Turning to contemporary examples of places such as China or Tibet, the oppression of the proletariat by the ruling classes eliminates the right to life, liberty, property and happiness by constraining opportunities for advancement and speaking out.  By limiting the access to firearms, it becomes possible for those in power to oppress those without power.

The concept of life, liberty and property as essential human rights is derived from the Declaration of Independence, a document penned by Thomas Jefferson, but solidified by the blood of the patriots who desired freedom above all else, even their lives.  The time will come again when liberty must triumph over tyranny, where freedom overthrows a dictatorship.  When that day comes, Americans must be willing to stand up for what they believe in, and they must also to have the tools at hand to become a new wave of minutemen, responding to the crisis of the modern age at a moment’s notice to defend the liberty of those that have none.

Provisions restricting the possession of firearms can be categorized into three broad areas; age-related, location-based, and firearm-based.  Each of these areas constitutes a grave threat to the safety of our nation and the people within it, and the relevant legislation must be revised to allow Americans to secure their rights.

The first of these areas, age-related firearm legislation makes sense only in the most absolute of vacuums.  Enabling gun ownership allows the youth of our nation to protect themselves and their property.  While anti-gun advocates will insist that prohibiting gun ownership among youth is a protectionist measure that saves lives, people will always have the means to kill others.  Access to firearms may expedite the process, but weighing that against the benefits of gun ownership clearly shows society better off with firearms than without.  Furthermore, the current set of laws is ineffective; it is illegal to buy handgun ammunition when you are under the age of 21.  However, you are allowed to buy long gun ammunition, even if it is an identical cartridge.

The second of these groups, location-based prohibitions constitute the most dangerous and egregious firearm-related laws.  The most well-known of these laws is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act.  The Act prohibits the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.  Despite the best intentions of lawmakers in safeguarding our youth, the Gun-Free School Zones Act simply enables people that seek to do harm to do so without restraint.  When incidents like the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre occur, the perpetrators do not obey the rule of law; rather, they violate federal statutes by bringing firearms into an educational institution.  The shooters at Columbine were then able to shoot without regard for personal harm; as the Federal government had stripped their classmates and teachers of the ability to shoot back.  An even more extreme example of a gun-free zone massacre took place in a mall in Omaha, Nebraska in December of 2007[MJC1] , where eight people were murdered and five more were wounded.  The mall had a prohibition on concealed carry of firearms, meaning that outside of the uniformed mall security, the shooter was the only person with a firearm.  This incident is more notable because the shooter was not stopped by mall security, but an off-duty police officer who was in the mall and broke the law by keeping his gun on him.

Firearm based provisions are the final facet of legislation on the subject.  Current federal law bans outright many of the most terrifying weapons available in this world.  However, as preposterous of a notion as it seems, legalization of all firearms, whether they are fully-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, or one of the other prohibitively restricted firearms under current federal statutes is necessary for supporting democracy in our country.  Although the current single-shot and semi-automatic weapons commonplace among American homes have the potential to aid in usurpation of an overbearing government, fully automatic weaponry will allow Americans to truly secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.

The minutemen of Lexington and Concord started a noble tradition of usurpation of an unfair government; a tradition only made possible by the climate surrounding guns in Colonial America.  In our current political climate, grave threats to our freedoms have been orchestrated under the notion of “security.”  When the day comes, Americans must be able to have the ability to take control of their own government once again.

Question: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Before I weigh in on this topic wholeheartedly, I offer full disclosure: I’ve written about the Greeks only once before – in my piece entitled Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, and it concerned the attitudes of the community towards the Technology in Society living program.  The tone of the article leaned towards the preservation of the system with the understanding that good expansion could come through special interest houses, which are (as the article explains) quite similar to Greek houses, without a set of letters.

Considering the circumstances, as I understand them, Greek Week was cancelled by the Fraternity Management Association, a conglomerate that is Lehigh-run with administration from each house on-board.  If this is not correct, I apologize.

If such is, in fact, accurate, then the dispute seems to center around motives and motivation, and not an undue action by the administration’s part.

I did not attend Greek Week last year.  I read the coverage, I made my biases, and I sort of left it to the wayside.  My understanding was that there were derogatory remarks made publically (derogatory as defined by The Brown & White, or some PC attendees), and someone may or may not have wet herself.

The fact is, the University’s attitude towards the behavior of its students has very much been characterized by the scolded, naughty child approach.  Guilt is often assumed before evidence, and the weight of opinion always seems to stand on the side that reads nicer in public relations reports (aka, the politically correct side).  I for one believe that political correctness is a means for control.  I believe that people do not intrinsically have the right not to be offended, because oftentimes, their offense offends me, so it’s an absurd, moot catch-22.  All this considered, while I’m sure some individuals said or did things that everyone would’ve dismissed had it been a private affair, clearly it was a public affair, and someone cried foul.

Should this constitute cancellation?  That’s a hard call.  If the Greeks really want to shed their reputation as entitled, underachieving, shallow beings that dominate the school’s social scene by force (I’m not saying that these descriptions are accurate or inaccurate – I’m merely restating a partial perception consensus culled from many articles, editorials, and other published works), then it would be in their best interests to rethink their approach.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Replacing “A Moment With Mumma” will be “The Lighter Side” where an editor or author discussing some of the events that we saw in the news over the past month in a “lighter” way. This section may contain blatant or hidden sarcasm, distasteful jokes, and or other literary devices that should not be read literally. Thank you and enjoy!

On September 17^th, President Gast held a townhall meeting discussing the short and long-term goals for the Lehigh community. Were you there? Probably not, considering most people have classes from 1 to 2:30 on a Thursday. Did you hear about it before hand? Again, probably not. The events advertisements consisted of an article on the Lehigh homepage, strategically hidden along other exciting headlines such as “A dose of HPC helps buildings survive earthquakes intact,” and “Arup SenGupta wins new acclaim for improving global health.”

While it really is great that Arup developed technology to remove arsenic from drinking water in poverty-stricken regions of the world, the headline isn’t really something to make you sit up in your chair. Everything aside though, this town hall meeting clearly was not designed for the Lehigh student body to attend. There’s two reasons why this could be the case. First, President Gast and company don’t think students care about the strategic vision or second, they don’t want students to care about the strategic vision.

I felt this was something I should look into, and thus did something no Lehigh student has done yet. I downloaded the 30-page Strategic Plan, and read it. It’s not the most exciting thing in the world, but I did pick up that the strategic plan is big on strategies. In 30 pages, the word ‘Strategic’ appears 44 times. This brought to mind an amusing image of President Gast sitting in her office muttering “Strategery” in her very best George Bush imitation.

But let’s move on to more important things, such as the aforementioned Strategic Plan. It is simple in essence, looking to improve Lehigh, the faculty, students, and the local community. From the wording of the document, it is clearly a long-term strategy. Along with ‘strategy’, the document is peppered with phrases like “intend to build”, “advancing our intellectual footprint”, “position us well for developing further”, and “we aspire to.” As the wording shows, the strategic plan isn’t a strategy for us as students, but rather for the Lehigh of the future.

That’s not a bad thing. Certainly Lehigh needs to look toward the future, and since most of us won’t be active members of the Lehigh community 10 years from now, it makes that we won’t be the ones affected. Even so, a better effort should be made to allow current students to weigh in on the strategic plan, and play a role. Students have a different perspective on Lehigh, and have an entirely different set of experiences. Strategically, hearing student’s opinions and questions will benefit Lehigh and the strategic plan. Hopefully next time Lehigh’s administrators will make a better effort to involve students.

Civil Discourse

As the health care debate rages on, people are starting to lose extremities. Less than a month ago, William Rice was arguing with another protester when a scuffle broke out. In the ensuing melee, the tip of William’s pinkie finger was bitten off.¹

The alleged attacker was protesting with a group organized by Moveon.org, a left-leaning web organization. It has yet to be determined if this is now the official strategy of the Democratic Party, since calling protesters names such as “Un-American” seems to have failed to curb their enthusiasm.

Sadly, doctors were unable to reattach the rest of William’s pinkie. Despite the loss of the digit, there was an ironic benefit for William. His trip to the ER was covered by his Government-run Medicare policy.²

1 – http://www.theweek.com/article/index/100164/How_Bill_Rices_finger_was_bitten_off

2 – http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/community/man-bites-off-protesters-finge/

Sing a new song onto the Lord

In an effort to reestablish the totalitarian regimes of Europe during the 1940’s, one New Jersey teacher is attempting to start her own cult of youth for President Obama. Modeled after the Hitler Youth, the teacher had her entire class singing songs of praise for Barack Obama.

With the surfacing of a video of the event on YouTube, the teacher’s movement is in jeopardy as the school district is launching an investigation. Nevertheless, these students will clearly have lyrics such as “He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay. Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama.”³

If this means that politicians are next-in-line behind religious figures for songs of adulation, then my worldview has been turned upside down.

That’s all I’ve got. I’m off to write my ballad of praise for Mark Sanford and John Edwards and their upstanding morals.

3 – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/lyrics-songs-president-obama/

Editor’s Note: a form of ‘strategy’ was used 18 times in this article. For over double the strategery visit www.lehigh.edu/2009plan/

Question: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Two words: Public option.  Note that this modest, hardly even progressive measure does not amount to a “government takeover” of health care.  Actually, I wish it did, but it doesn’t even come close.  Save for curbing some of the most outrageous abuses of the private insurance industry, President Obama’s health care plan will leave this market largely unchanged.

A public insurance option accomplishes two indispensible goals of reform by lowering costs and increasing coverage.  If every American had the option of a public insurance plan, private insurers would be compelled to lower their premiums in order to remain competitive.  Compared to the rising cost of premiums in the status quo, this measure would provide an effective tax cut for all Americans.  The choice of public insurance would also provide coverage for many of the 30 million Americans who currently can’t afford it.

Costs will only come down, however, if health reform includes an individual mandate – a requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance.  This rubs many libertarians the wrong way, but it shouldn’t.  Even those who are convinced of their invincibility will fall ill.  Those individuals push the cost of their care onto the rest of society, and their absence from the ranks of the insured hurts the bargaining power of individuals to demand lower premiums from their insurance providers.  Even then-Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney advocated the implementation of an individual mandate as a matter of “personal responsibility.”

If these measures bring down costs, increase choice and competition and compel Americans to exercise greater personal responsibility, why is there so much opposition on the right?  Easy.  Republicans are using the playbook from 1993 – the last time they killed health care reform.  As in the case of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare-state programs inherently undermine the GOP’s knee-jerk “no-government-is-good-government” position.  In 1993, opposition to health care reform was shrewd political strategy.  In 2009, the situation is no different.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Question: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

On the eve of Ted Kennedy’s death, after I finished a glass of my favorite brut and lit some scented candles (outside the dorms, of course…), I reflected on the life and legacy of the deceased Lion of the Senate, who is now being propped-up post-mortem, like a gangly overweight puppet and paraded about as a means to finance an ill-conceived health care “reform” package that is more agenda-ridden then, well… most of the things that Teddy ever touched.

The fact is, the liberal stronghold (a figurehead of power as they’ve recently proven, with their so-called supermajority and no way to pass anything meaningful other than flag-waiving and blame-chasing resolutions) has toted their socialization of medicine package as reform, and chastised those who don’t care to see their doctor become yet another supplicant of the state as against reform.

This is both wrong and immoral.  And, incidentally, I should address morality, as I was asked a very popular question while debating this very topic at Lehigh last year.  I was asked if I put costs or means or anything else ahead of care, and given yet another sob story on someone who was “lost in the system” and died young.

I replied that, yes, I do believe in picking “who shall live,” but it’s not with government panels and legislation, but with common sense.

At present, while I agree that the scope and nature of the term “preexisting condition” needs to be reviewed, those who smoke or are overweight, or use illegal substances are subject to additional tariffs and, in some cases, die from their disorders from a subsequent inability to pay.

I’d frankly rather see the obese or maligned die in small numbers, than face a government who (in an attempt to be brutally fair) will banish snack foods, sugar, cigarettes (I like to consider them a form of blue collar population control), and of course, the lovely glass of bubbly that I’m enjoying as I push my Matchbox cars off the surface of my desk into a pail of water, reflecting again on the life and legacy of Ted Kennedy.  And I don’t want to stop those who eat to excess or smoke from celebrating their freedom and doing it, so long as they don’t force their burden onto me.

We need reform.  We need health care providers to have certain restrictions on this “preexisting conditions” crap that is so often used to prevent paying customers from receiving care, and we need tort reform to reduce the costs of that care.  We don’t need 150% Medicare-grade cost overruns and “public health initiatives” in the form of more restrictions on our foods and habits.  After all, wasn’t it the liberals who chastised me for questioning what someone can do (or eat, or smoke, as the case may be) in the privacy of their home?

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

There exists an ongoing debate between the Student Senate and the administration, specifically President Gast, as to the merits of adopting the Amethyst Initiative, a public statement signed by over 130 university presidents supporting, as their website states, “informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old drinking age.” In an open letter published last year President Gast stated, “I believe that signing, in effect, would signal support for lowering the drinking age to 18, though the Initiative’s supporters insist it is merely intended to encourage debate on this topic.”

Nevertheless, Student Senate XXII has vowed to push the initiative for a second year, establishing an Ad-Hoc committee headed by Michael Caffrey. The need for President Gast’s signature and the controversy surrounding the initiative have eclipsed the broader goals of the Senate: discussions and events designed to educate the student body and promote safe and healthy drinking habits.

Ostensibly, the administration agrees with the Student Senate’s safety and health approach, as President Gast writes, “I am not naive about our students’ use of alcohol, nor are my colleagues at Lehigh. We share a goal and a commitment to help our students make safe, healthy choices and reduce the problems that so frequently occur with alcohol abuse.” Not to say that Lehigh doesn’t provide resources such as substance-free housing and a blooming AlcoholEdu program to encourage responsible behavior, but the Student Senate is looking for a different type of resource. Student Senate XXII Treasurer Binay Patel identifies discussion as one of these valuable resources, where “student-run focus groups and administration hosted town hall meetings would start to define the specific issues that are prevalent to Lehigh.” Binay insists the importance of the Amethyst Initiative rests in the possibility Lehigh could become part of a global network with a capability to “develop integrated, thoughtful, and well-rounded programs to solve this issue.”

The Senate, however, faces a formidable barrier in that President Gast has already stated her refusal to sign the initiative. Even so, the debate does not encompass whether to change the drinking age, due to the immensity of a national campaign. The Student Senate recognizes the denial that surrounds underage and dangerous alcohol abuse, as well as its tendency to be masked and hidden by parents, universities, and the nation. Students – possibly due to their proximity and experience in underage and dangerous drinking – see the need for change but administrators and the nation as whole remain hesitant.

John Smeaton, Vice Provost of Student Affairs, advocates an approach that “separates abuse from use”.  This position, as well as the Senate’s goal of open discussion, at least from a university administration standpoint, will be difficult to achieve. Events with truly open discussions about underage and unsafe drinking could be difficult to hold due to legal restrictions. Discussion about alcohol that maintains the necessity of strict abstinence for those under the legal drinking age prevents a candid discussion of alcohol’s prevalent underage use.

The Student Senate believes the “status quo isn’t working,” thus they are urging action.  The administration acknowledges the problem of dangerous drinking but is extremely hesitant to take new action to foster discussion and education. While President Gast says she “encourage[s] open debate and discussion about drinking and alcohol abuse,” students want tangible steps taken, and they view the signing of the Amethyst Initiative as a catalyst to important new programs and discussion groups.

The vast majority of you reading this column will never need this information. My aim is to provide comprehensive information for students involved in the Lehigh University judicial process, as well as my opinions about how the system works. But this column may be useful for those students who become involved in the campus judicial system.

However, nothing in this column is meant to constitute legal advice. This column does not constitute a solicitation or formation of a lawyer-client relationship. More importantly, nothing I tell you here should be taken as more than my opinion about the process and your rights as listed in the Code of Conduct. If you find yourself in a disciplinary situation, you should know your rights and consider speaking with your friends, family, or a lawyer.

The Code’s jurisdiction encompasses any activity that affects the university, university members, or the pursuit of Lehigh’s goals. That means that for as long as you’re enrolled as a student if you engage in conduct anywhere in the world that violates Lehigh’s rules, you can be charged with and found responsible for a violation of the Code. This is true even if civil or criminal authorities have already acted, or if they refuse to act.

Lehigh states that the University has an interest in providing fundamental fairness in all conduct matters. Personally, I disagree with this statement. The university has an interest in covering its ass, and getting its problems away from campus, but providing true fundamental fairness…not likely. It’s far too difficult and costly to provide true fundamental fairness; instead, the university just gives a carefully designed list of rights to accused students that they “strive to provide” and calls it fundamental fairness. So what should you know?

Accused Right to Silence: If you’re accused, you do NOT have to answer questions posed to you, either at a hearing or in the investigation phases. Do not let university administrators try to convince you that as an accused student you are required to make statements or answer anything. Because you may still find yourself criminally liable after some Code violations, the university cannot take away your right to silence. You CAN still be found responsible for a violation, but you can’t be forced to speak.

Witness Right to Silence: You have none. If you are a witness, the university can require you to make statements under the Code, and can punish you if you refuse to cooperate. Think of it as a preemptive obstruction of justice, complete with the ability to punish the witness if the witness admits to doing something wrong in their forced statement.

Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. This means that to find you responsible the hearing panel “must believe that it is more likely than not, based on the information presented at the hearing, that the student is responsible.” You should note that this is the lowest burden of proof that can be provided, meaning it’s very easy to be found responsible, even in “he said, she said” cases.  Because you can be found responsible by pure majority vote, it only takes three of the five panelists to find you responsible.

Challenges for Bias: You will have no opportunity to explore the bias of panel members in anything but a cursory manner. Before a hearing, parties are asked if they know panel members or have any reason to believe they might be biased. That’s it. You have no opportunity to ask them questions before a hearing to determine if the member has any biases or reasons they shouldn’t sit on the panel. However, you do have an explicit right to be heard that includes the right to “ask questions of anyone present at the hearing.” You can try to use this to explore possible panelist biases, though the Conduct Officer and the panel may refuse to allow you to pursue this approach. In addition, you also have the right to challenge hearing body members for reasons such as a personal bias toward a participant or preformed judgment. Though panelist removal is by majority vote of remaining members (meaning it’s highly unlikely to ever remove a panelist by challenge, particularly if the panelist is a professor) it is still a useful tool to use to preserve the record for a later challenge. And because your Conduct Officer attends your hearing to “advise hearing panels regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of conduct procedures,” you may be able to question and challenge your Conduct Officer if something egregious occurs. If you get in a situation where you’re concerned about bias but are being prevented from asking questions, explicitly verbalize these two rights in connection to each other to try to get some leeway. Worst case scenario, it’ll make the university look really bad in the formal record, which may be helpful to you later in challenging a verdict.

Right to Assistance, but not Counsel: You have a right to advisory assistance. But this assistance cannot be by someone who is an attorney. Lehigh goes out of its way to prevent anyone with legal knowledge from seeing how it runs its judicial proceedings. The only way you can have an attorney present is in cases “where there are pending criminal charges.” Note that it says “pending” and not “pending or potential” and “criminal,” not “criminal or civil.” If you find yourself facing an accusation that might lead later to civil or criminal charges, or that has led to pending civil or criminal charges, you should speak with an attorney far in advance of your hearing date and you should try to have that attorney present at your hearing. Do not let Lehigh intimidate you out of protecting your legal interests, and don’t let them hide behind ridiculous policies.

Your advisor (whether attorney or not) will NOT be allowed to ask or answer questions or argue for you. They are just an observer. The advisor’s job is to ensure that the process is as fairly run as possible and to provide you with support. To that in, make sure if you have a non-lawyer advisor that they are a friend or someone you trust. Their role is also to ensure fair process, so you want someone who would testify for you. Make sure that your advisor brings an audio or video recording device to ensure that you have an immediate copy of the proceedings, and fight Lehigh on this if they try to stop you from recording.

Do NOT ask Lehigh to appoint an advisor for you. You don’t need to risk any intentional or unintentional delay on the university’s part, and you don’t need the stress of waiting. Your advisor is meant to help you prepare, so use all the time you can. In addition, in sensitive cases (where the university might anticipate a lawsuit resulting) the university could ask your university-appointed advisor to communicate with the school about your advisor conversations to get an idea about your case strategy or your plans.

Right to Information: You have the right to information. What this means is that you have a right to review available information, documents and witness lists. You should make copies of EVERYTHING. Copies will not be provided to you, and making copies will ensure that no unreviewed documents are used against you. Making copies will also allow you to familiarize yourself with specific issues to ensure that you are receiving a fair hearing and to better prepare to argue your case. Finally, you’ll want these copies if you want to pursue an appeal or a legal challenge.

Note that this rule says nothing about panelist research. If you’re not aware, the panelists are given information on the case beforehand to familiarize themselves with the issues. This allows the panelists to conduct research on the issues that might arise before the hearing. Panelists can consult materials that the accused never has a chance to see or prepare against, and panelists can bring this outside evidence into the hearing to use against a party. The accused and accuser have NO right to see any of this evidence beforehand, because the university can argue they had no reason to know about that evidence, so they had no obligation to provide it to the parties. Because you have no right to inquire into the panelist’s knowledge of the case (at least until the hearing starts) you have no way to know they’ve done this research until you’re already in the hearing, preventing you from effectively responding to it, if you even find out about it. After all, Lehigh won’t stop the hearing so you can get on your laptop to try to find contrary information. And because panelists often conduct much of the questioning, this allows your judges to become advocates against you, using information that they personally researched and that you’ve never seen before.

Right to Admit “Relevant” Information: This is a very vague right because the decision of what is relevant is subjective. To Lehigh, evidence is admissible when it is shown to be relevant to the factual issues of the case in the opinion of the majority of the panel. However, the panel decides what they will take into account, and so their biases matter. But some information will never be allowed, such as an alleged victim’s sexual history with the accused in a sexual misconduct case (even if consent is at issue), a rule contrary to every state’s criminal laws. Other evidence is always admissible; for example, if university officials search you or your property “in accordance with their duties” that evidence is always admissible, even if the search would be 100% illegal under the 4^th Amendment.

Open Hearing: Hearings are generally closed, but you have the right to request an open hearing. However, the Conduct Officer can deny your request, and also has the power to close your hearing to the public at any time. As such, your ability to get an open hearing in a matter is tenuous at best. But if you can stand your friends and peers hearing the details, you may want to try an open hearing in serious cases. Their presence will give you a host of witnesses to call about any procedural deficiencies or problems that occur.

Right to Appeal: If you are found responsible, you do have a right to appeal. However, the appeal is most likely just an opportunity for the committee to rubber stamp the hearing panel’s decision, especially since you can’t attend the appeal. Appeal is limited to only three grounds: that new information that could reasonably be expected to have altered the outcome is now available that wasn’t available at the time of the hearing, that university disciplinary procedures were violated in a way that adversely affected the case outcome, or that the sanction was unduly harsh. Due to these subjective limitations, it is very difficult to prevail on appeal.

In order to file an appeal, you have seven days from the date you receive your outcome letter. These timeline holds fast even if you receive your letter before a holiday period, so be sure to be on top of the deadline. Also, the conduct office will not make you copies of the hearing tapes or the evidence used at your hearing, so you will have to go to the conduct office in order to get that information. If your case concerns a serious enough issue and you didn’t make your own audio copy, immediately after your hearing you should go to the conduct office and try to transcribe the hearing tapes so you have a copy. Do your best to get the names of every speaker. You should provide a copy of the transcript to your lawyer if you have one, as they may find sufficient problems with your hearing to assist you in getting a new hearing or a settlement.

The Conduct Officer: If you find yourself facing a judicial conduct charge the Conduct Officer on your case will be your liaison between you, your accuser, and the office of judicial conduct. They’re also not your friend. I should repeat that just in case you didn’t get that fact. Your Conduct Officer is NOT your friend. They do not have your best interest at heart, because they work for Lehigh. They have Lehigh’s best interest at heart. That’s not to say that they’re out to get you and that they don’t care, but it does mean that you should be smart about your actions.

The Conduct Officer is the one who investigates the charge against you. That means it’s their job to gather the evidence that will either find you responsible or not responsible. It also means that they’ll only do what they think is sufficient to prepare for your hearing. There is no requirement for how in-depth an investigation they have to do, and you can’t be sure that the Conduct Officer hasn’t reached a decision about how they want the case to turn out and that their decision guided their investigation. So it becomes your job to do their job, just to ensure that you have the best chance to present all your evidence. As such, you should stay in continuous contact with your Conduct Officer to find out what they’ve done, so that you know what you need to do.

If you lose your case and challenge the procedure, then the Conduct Officer becomes an advocate against you during the appeal process. It becomes the Conduct Officer’s job to respond to your appeal and explain why the process you received was fair. Not only that, but the Code allows the Conduct Officer to “assist students in preparing appeals.” So, if this situation wasn’t funny enough, if you don’t know how to properly file an appeal to the conduct procedure, you can get your Conduct Officer to assist you in preparing your appeal challenging them, which they immediately get to respond to and deny.

So, what should you do when you are summoned in to meet with a Conduct Officer? If this is the first time you’re meeting with them, and you have no idea what the meeting is about DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. Listen to what they tell you, make basic responses, but don’t say anything about the substantive nature of the allegation. Don’t admit it. Don’t deny it. Don’t say anything until you have a chance to think on the matter, learn your rights, and talk with your family, friends, or an attorney. Do not give a statement. Do not tell your Conduct Officer of any potential witnesses. If this is not your first meeting, listen, respond only with what’s necessary or not at all, and take notes of everything that was said at the meeting immediately after the meeting ends to ensure their admissibility in potential legal challenges. Remember, your Conduct Officer is not your friend; they represent your accuser just as much as they represent you, and their main loyalty is to Lehigh.

Again, nothing in this column is meant to be legal advice. It’s simply my attempt to share my opinions from what I’ve learned and observed about the campus judicial process. Know your rights, don’t be afraid to talk to your friends, family, or a lawyer, and be safe. Good luck to all of you in the school year, and enjoy your time at Lehigh.

Beginning a new year at Lehigh comes with a unique set of challenges, from buying books to organizing classes and from arranging housing, to getting involved in clubs. Amid all this complete chaos, we also need to find time for our classes, sports, homework, studying, and of course, socializing.  In this season of mayhem, political involvement is probably not a high priority for the average student, myself included.  So when I was asked to write a story on local Lehigh County candidate Scott Ott, I put aside these reservations and went to see him speak on campus.  I was immediately impressed by the message he was spreading.

Nobody would doubt that there are major political debates taking place, and that political lines are now changing in movements that have never before occurred in our generation’s lifetime. Of course, many of us feel that in the grand scheme of national politics, we each as an individual serve very little importance. Not a single one of us could stand up to Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Bush, or any national candidate and tell them that we strongly disagree with their actions, nor could we express our approval to them directly. They are too distant from us.  It is simply impossible, or so we are made to think.

Scott Ott is amongst the newest breed of politicians to emerge, known as “common sense” candidates, who believe that government is too distant from the people and should be made more local. Their promise is simple: bring increased accountability and responsibility to the government, one step at a time.

Scott Ott is currently running for the position of Lehigh County Executive against long-time incumbent Don Cunningham. Scott’s plan is to increase the fiscal responsibility of the county government by taking control of the budget, and in doing so, help decrease our growing national debt.

Lehigh County is currently $20 million dollars in debt and the budget for the upcoming year, as currently posted, will have fully exhausted all its reserve funds. By cutting down on unnecessary and inefficient spending, Ott hopes to prevent a major 2011 tax hike.

This amount of money, according to Ott, is within the control of the local people, as compared to the futility of attacking a federal deficit currently on the order of trillions of dollars. Ott plans to accomplish these cuts by approaching department heads within the county to find methods of achieving across-the-board savings and increasing efficiency. This will include holding all departments more accountable for remaining true to their budget than in the past – an idea that is unheard of and unprecedented in many parts of the government.

Additionally, Ott plans to cut unnecessary programs, such as economic development offices and tree planting programs, at least until the economy improves and revenue can cover their expense. While these actions may initially seem reckless, only three years ago, Lehigh County spent $60 million less than the current budget and was no worse off for it.

These millions of dollars are not all from Lehigh County; in fact, only one quarter of Lehigh County’s revenue is directly collected through taxes, the rest is “pass-through money” which is collected by various counties, given to the state, and then distributed by the state back to the counties along with mandates on how it must be spent. In many instances, provided funds are not sufficient to cover the expenses of mandated programs. On this major issue, Ott says, “I am going to stand up to the governor in those situations and say ‘We are not going to spend this extra money.’”

I challenged Ott to explain the importance of these issues for Lehigh University students, who live in the county adjacent to Lehigh county.  He confidently responded that success in Lehigh County will spur the election of similar, “common sense candidates” in neighboring counties – eventually influencing state and federal politics as well.

If local governments started balancing their budgets and preventing tax increases, neighboring regions would be foolish not to adopt similar practices. And this responsibility would have no choice but spread to the state and beyond, because citizens of this great nation would not accept anything otherwise. Ott believes that we can take control of our federal government, we can stand up to major political forces, and we can do this by taking control of government on a local, tangible level.

Consider this: If the federal government is debating a major issue, this will not likely have an immediate daily impact on your life. Even if you feel very strongly on this issue or are directly affected by it, most likely you will never get the chance to stand, testify, and debate before Congress. If, on the other hand, your town decides to build a road through your backyard, you’re not going to miss that next town council meeting to voice your opinion.  Ott wants to see more opportunities for people to stand up and enforce accountability in government.

There can be a change in politics – a move away from a system of elected officials who act irresponsibly and against the will of the people, towards a new breed of politicians through the election of principled people in local races. And the role of young adults, college students especially, is vital in making this change. If we become involved, then the outcomes may be surprising. According to Ott, “It’s not that we’re apathetic, it’s just that we think we can’t win.

Even for those outside of Lehigh County, including most Lehigh Students, there are major issues lying in wait. One such issue is a sales tax increase. Currently, the Pennsylvania sales tax is set at 6%.  However, pending legislation in Harrisburg, each county could gain the option to increase that tax by one percentage point to a 7% sales tax. This amounts to a 16.66% tax increase; and is rumored to be a matter of particular interest for the mayor of Bethlehem.

For those of us who feel too busy to get involved, Ott has some advice.  “Twenty to thirty years from now, you will never remember what you got in that science course. You will never remember your grade in English Literature or what the paper was about that seems so important right now. You’ll never remember this stuff; it will all become literally meaningless to you. Once you get that diploma, all of that just kind of fades into insignificance. What you will remember is the real stuff that you did, the way you got involved in a cause that was bigger than yourself.”  We should all should take this advice and get involved in important causes, stand firm for what we believe in, and make a change for the better in our lives, our school, our local government, and our great federal republic.

The other day, three students in my Economics class told me they were robbed in their fraternity the previous evening. They all missed class because they had to file police reports and get their lives back together.

I read in the Brown and White that a student claimed she was sexually assaulted, and then recanted.

Soon enough, I suspect, we will get our first report of a binge drinker being hauled into the emergency room at St. Luke’s for treatment.

All this is very disturbing. None of it should happen, but it does. Some people are thoughtless; some people are just plain bad.

At the same time, every day of school has been sunny and beautiful.

My freshman students are as enthusiastic and bright as any I have ever taught.

I saw a student writing assistant, part of Greg Skutches’ Writing Across the Curriculum program, meeting with younger students in the library, patiently helping them through their first theme.

The professors I hang around with at lunch seem pumped up about their classes. I see Rosemary Mundhenk, who has been teaching serious students serious literature for decades here at Lehigh, scribbling last minute notes before her first class on David Copperfield, one of the great works of the human imagination.

I frequently run into Paul Brockman, our most distinguished newly minted Joseph and Amy Perella Professor of Finance, zooming around campus, anxiously preparing his first course for Lehigh undergraduates.

When I asked him if he had been to the Linderman Library, he said he had. “Nice building,” I said. “That’s the most elegant academic building I have seen on any campus,” he replied.

A year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the beginning of the greatest financial crash since the Depression, the stock market is recovering nicely. While Yale and Harvard reported endowment losses of about 30 percent, Lehigh has been doing relatively well. I would guess that we are down less than 10 percent from our highs. Not bad, all things considered.

All this blizzard of conflicting activity puts me in the advice-giving mood.

Here goes.

First, there is always plenty to be cheerful about.

But to enjoy the good times, we must all battle to keep life simple.

Lehigh is far too willing to admit all the pressures and temptations of the outside world into what should be a refreshing, less complicated college experience. We have too much competition, too many clubs and affinity groups (they do not unite the campus, they fragment it), too many outside speakers (a shameful waste of money), and too many noble causes and diversions. Avoid them all. Avoid the speakers (they are usually blowhards anyway), don’t join the clubs, and don’t worry about saving the planet, or curing cancer, or eliminating poverty—at least not yet. And stay away from television.

Here is some advice on the subject from the great Yale intellectual, Harold Bloom: “Do not attempt to improve your neighbor or your neighborhood by what or how you read. Self-improvement is a large enough project for mind and spirit.” That’s an understatement. Think about it.

Make friends, do your homework, and if you have an interest—sports, or singing, or journalism, or something like that—do it. But avoid the rest. The classroom experience should be the centerpiece of your college life. Only in the classroom can you get your money’s worth here—if your teachers are no good, study with others who are. Classes should not be boring. The great teachers are what most old-timers remember about college. Don’t make class work an afterthought, and don’t accept mediocrity easily.

Finally, behave yourself. Be reasonable.

On that subject, here’s a thought from Satchel Paige, an uneducated, itinerate pitcher, now proudly ensconced the Baseball Hall of Fame. Satchel didn’t know much about Yale, but he knew thing or two about the sportin’ life. “Go very light on the vices, such as carrying on in society” he cautioned. “The social ramble ain’t restful.”

So there. Class dismissed.