http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_654237.html

Whether they want to admit it or not, the supporters of alternative energy rely on the threat of oil scarcity to sway people who really do not care if the Earth’s average temperature rises 1°F in 100 years.  This article purports that the claim our oil wells will dry up in about 1o to 30 years is not only unfounded but also has been repeated for the last 80 years.

 This reminds me of the conspiracy theory that oil is not limited but instead is constantly being created deep in the Earth and oozes up from tectonic plates. Since that science is a little shaky, I’ll do my best to stay away from that and other conspiracy theories.

Our world runs on oil, gas, and coal. To deny that is ignorant. I do not suggest we drop all research into alternative energy, but to set unreachable goals for “energy independence” (double talk for non-fossil fuels; true energy independence would be domestic drilling) is foolish.

More people are demanding more energy than ever before and the “green” technology is not affordable or efficient. With the leaked CRU documents putting conciderable doubt on anthropogenic global warming and new, large oil deposits continuously being found with improving technology, I wonder why we are allocating so much tax money to alternative energy. For example, GE got billions from TARP and other federal sources to make wind turbines (Made in China) and install them. Wait, aren’t GE and Obama best friends?

Right, no conspiracy theories.

On Friday, hackers infiltrated the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and posted hundreds of documents and emails regarding CRU’s research, climate models, and publications.

While main stream news sources have tried to downplay this, there is no hiding the incriminating evidence contained within. Currently, all signs point to the emails being authentic. While the hacking of CRU’s server is a crime, what it exposed is even worse.

Despite the American mainstream media’s ambivalence on the subject, this is big news. Many media outlets in other countries still understand that. For analysis on that, see the Telegraph’s commentary on the news story.

For analysis on the various documents contained, much is still being uncovered from the massive amounts of information held within the files. However, the Herald Sun in Australia has some very good analysis on what this means for IPCC lead author Dr. Phil Jones.

Many blogs are leaping on this story, detailing a lot of the troublesome quotes from the emails. One blog details a lot of the quotes that show severely unethical practices.

While I won’t detail the extent of the comments, I will leave you with one quote from an email sent by Dr. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

What does this mean for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? That is for you to decide. Take a look at the evidence and make up your mind.

If you are so inclined, the .zip file containing the documents and emails can be found here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/11/the_us_house_of_presumptuous_meddlers_99099.html

Many young people, such as college students, do not worry about the implications of health care. We aren’t concerned by it because we don’t think that we’ll get sick. In fact, the exorbitant numbers we always here about how many Americans that don’t have health insurance are probably inflated just because of how many young people choose not to have it. They could afford it but choose not to because they don’t plan on getting sick, as a senior citizen would.
Even if we only have to tap into the health care system when we are older, we should be aware of what is happening in the Capitol building. No good can come of government takeover of health care. We as students need to be awake to these frightening realities.

Article

In Friday’s issue of the Brown and White, a letter from Jailin Lu was published. It contends that the so-called egregious waste of food that occurs on a daily basis in the fine eating establishments on this campus are responsible for the genocide of millions of people in much of the underdeveloped world.

Jailin’s letter largely attempts to apply the cultural customs of China, in particular their ancient proverb of “wasting food is a crime” and that it was disrespectful towards farmers to waste their hard work. However, we do not live in China, nor do we live in Ancient times. Instead, farming is a profit-driven enterprise conducted by less than two percent of the American population in today’s day and age. Wasting food in today’s world is no more disrespectful to farmers then wasting gas is to oil drillers.

Another contention perpetrated by the letter was that wasted food here translates into recurring genocide throughout much of the world. However, wasted food, which equates to higher food prices in the United States is beneficial; not detrimental to much of the world. Many people in rural Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are local farmers. Higher food prices translate into an increased amount of money that can be made by farmers, which in turn spurs local investment, increased economic development and the ability for many to improve their social standing. In turn, higher food prices are beneficial, and not detrimental to impoverished people throughout the world.

Upon reading this editorial in the Washington Examiner, I was genuinely surprised about recent polls released about women’s views on health care. The bottom line is that more women would oppose a large health care overhaul with a public option than support it.

Keep in mind that women typically vote Democratic and the woman vote was not insignificant in Obama’s move to the White House.

Between having more medical procedures done and a typical man’s refusal to see a doctor even after a finger or two are missing, women have more exposure to the health care system. The poll revealed that women would prefer private options opposed to one public option, whether because of a fall in quality or a rise in price. Most are happy with what they have and worry that funding a public option would fall on their children’s shoulders.

According to the poll, women do want a decrease in the cost of insurance (who doesn’t) and a reduction of “artificial roadblocks to a more competitive and efficient private health care system.”

That is something I can agree with.

Token conservative columnist Ross Douthat has an interesting piece in today’s New York Times to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  His argument, in short, is that the end of the Cold War has left us without a legitimate target for our paranoid delusions about the next great turn or tragedy in world history.  He takes both political parties to task for their role in perpetuating pseudo-threats in an age of what is actually unprecedented security.

On the right, pundits and politicians have cultivated a persistent cold-war-style alarmism about our foreign enemies — Vladimir Putin one week, Hugo Chavez the next, Kim Jong-il the week after that.

On the left, there’s an enduring fascination with the pseudo-Marxist vision of global capitalism as an enormous Ponzi scheme, destined to be undone by peak oil, climate change, or the next financial bubble.

Meanwhile, our domestic politics are shot through with antitotalitarian obsessions, even as real totalitarianism recedes in history’s rear-view mirror. Plenty of liberals were convinced that a vote for George W. Bush was a vote for theocracy or fascism. Too many conservatives are persuaded that Barack Obama’s liberalism is a step removed from Leninism.

OK, fair enough.  Give Douthat some credit for making a bold claim that directly contradicts conventional psychosis wisdom.  The state of our public discourse is abysmal – but that doesn’t mean our current economic, political and social solutions are actually sustainable.  It just means the crazies haven’t been vindicated…yet.  Twenty years of ideological hegemony for global capitalism is hardly enough time to declare “the end of history.”

What do you think?

Lehigh’s Environmental movement has finally realized that organizations and committees are not enough to change the world. Their first noticeable step towards changing Lehigh is a simple, hard plastic sign which can now be seen by visitors to Taylor Gym. The sign, brought to you by SustainabLehigh, advises gym goers that “showers here are a privilege” and to “conserve water by taking shorter showers” in order to “protect the environment.” In a few simple sentences, this display brilliantly exposes the arrogance, hypocrisy, and ignorance of Lehigh’s Green movement, which mirrors the same flaws of its national counterpart.

The arrogance of the Green movement is the easiest flaw to see, and the most important. Since the late eighties, those intimately involved with the effort to “combat climate change” have engaged in smear campaigns, strong-arm tactics, manipulation of data, and unethical use of the media. All of these tactics serve to place anthropogenic climate change as fact instead of the hypothesis that it is. In doing so, people skeptical of climate change have been equated to holocaust deniers¹. Data inconsistent with climate models has been ignored and thrown out². Models have been purposely distorted for the purpose of scaring the general population³. Finally, some media outlets portray this issue as scientific fact despite hundreds of qualified voices saying otherwise⁴.

The drowning out and denunciation of rational opposition is arrogant. The level that it has reached on this particular issue is astounding. Arrogance by the leaders of a movement trickles down to its followers and adjacent groups, which brings us to Taylor Gym. Because the Al Gores and Barack Obamas of this world seem so sure that humans are destroying the planet, SustainabLehigh (a branch of the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group) is able to feel justified in telling people their showers are too long. Importantly, SustainabLehigh sees showers as a privilege for Lehigh students – something that could legitimately be taken away. Low-flow shower heads, timers, or the removal of showers are implied to be potential reactionary steps with a discourse that indentifies showers as gifts, and not a service covered by tuition.
The extremism of the Green movement inevitably lends itself to hypocrisy as well. As Al Gore lectures on the doom that our planet is about to suffer due to carbon emissions. He is also heating four large houses across the country and flying around in a private jet ⁵. If CO2 emissions are so harmful, and Al Gore has humanity’s best interests in mind, as he claims, then why isn’t Al living as a dimly lit beacon of sustainability?
We must assume one of two things. Either Al does not believe a word that comes out of his own mouth, or that he considers himself above the rules he sets for others. Given the arrogance we discussed earlier, let’s assume he considers himself above what he preaches – certainly not a stretch for any politician. In addition to being arrogant, this is hypocritical. He tells others what to do and how to live, while completely ignoring those rules when they inconvenience him.
This characteristic also trickles down to Lehigh. SustainabLehigh clearly sees showers at the gym as a privilege, and a harmful one at that. Given that showers are harmful, the morally consistent thing to do for people who subscribe to that belief would be to shower as sparingly as possible. Somehow, I think that many involved with the Green movement are still concerned about their social standing and what their significant other thinks. For that reason, they probably prioritize cleanliness over their obligation to the environment. Even so, they still feel justified in telling others about how showers are a privilege, and how long or short their showers should be.

Finally, SustainabLehigh’s shorter shower movement is ineffective, and an ignorant appropriation of resources. The amount of water that can be saved by shorter showers at the gym is negligible on the Lehigh scale, let alone the national or worldwide scale. Even if such a sign changes the behavior of gym-goers, the cost savings will still be almost nothing. Certainly, SustainabLehigh knew this, yet they posted the signs anyway.
Perhaps this was an attempt by Lehigh to parody the climate bill in Congress, which similarly attempts to impose unnecessary restrictions on the masses in order to “save the planet.” Both the bill and SustainabLehigh’s parody of it result in negligible changes to the environment, while providing unnecessary burdens on others. Both organizations are trying to do something that it isn’t their job to do. Congress is supposed to serve the United State’s best interests, and Lehigh is supposed to serve its student’s. Instead, wings of each create arbitrary guidelines that they feel others should follow. In doing so, they exert far more effort and carbon than they save by controlling the lives of others.
At the end of the day, the signs at Taylor Gym are simply pieces of plastic. However, there is an obligation for students to respond. The university is spending money on this either from our tuition or alumni donations. While the hidden incentive may be to save money on the water bills, the idea behind it still highlights the illogical behavior of the Green movement. These signs won’t make Lehigh or this planet any greener. Without voices of dissent, the student body’s tacit consent will signal to the University that they can discourage, limit, or take away more, all in the name of going “Green.” Lehigh needs to know that its students want their money spent on tangible goods and benefits, not warnings at a shower near you.

Sources:
1. Ellen Goodman, “Deniers of global warming harm us,” The Boston Globe.
2/9/2009.
2. Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008.
3. Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Lawrence Bender
Productions, 2006.
4. Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
12/11/2008.
5. Peter Schweizer, “Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe”,
USA Today. 12/7/2006.

On Sunday, May 4th, 2003 a group of junior and senior girls gathered to participate in an unsanctioned school game of Powder Puff football. These girls from Glenbrook North High School, Illinois, met at a forest preserve wearing their jerseys. However, instead of playing football, the event changed course and resulted in a nationally publicized hazing incident. During the hazing, the junior class participants were covered in paint, urine, feces, animal innards, shot with paintball guns, kicked, slapped, and otherwise injured as the senior class continued with their ritual that had been going on for decades.

Kelly O’Keefe, ’10, a freshman during the incident said, “This was not a onetime thing, and it had been going on for years.” I was only thirteen when the Glenbrook North hazing occurred, however, being only twenty minutes away from that high school, it affected our community. The result was a lot of freaked out parents watching the Oprah special on “Glenbrook North Hazing.” Since then, hazing has caught the nation’s attention and has enforced a sense of obligation to crackdown and counter hazing rituals.

Glenbrook North, a case caught on tape, pushes the limits of cultural acceptability. It made society question the limits of group fanaticism. And, it showed the world what is really happening. This event begs the question, what is hazing? Can one event revise the nation’s perspective on young adult rituals?

Last month, Lehigh University participated in National Hazing Prevention Week with the goal of educating students about hazing. Their education session featured a definition so broad that anything could be reported as hazing. They said, “Hazing is any action taken or situation created, whether on or off campus, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule.” Although they give inclusive examples of “brutality of physical nature, such as paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics,” there is no clear threshold as to what constitutes hazing.

Is forcing a rookie to go buy you a sandwich hazing? According to Lehigh University, yes, it certainly is. It will be enforced through Lehigh’s anti-hazing compliance, as well as the state of Pennsylvania’s law against hazing, and the NCAA policies for sports related hazing. Therefore, it is crucial to educate students on the fine lines between hazing and initiation.

Using Lehigh’s mental or physical discomfort standard, the following situation can be tested as hazing. If I ask a freshman to go get a sandwich for me from the Goose, is that putting a person in physical discomfort and hazing them? If so, I am violating a Pennsylvania anti-hazing statue as well. This law states the punishment as a misdemeanor of the third degree, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. The NCAA has adopted similar policies and rules for college athletes, stating in their handbook, “Any act committed against someone joining or becoming a member or maintaining membership in any organization that is humiliating, intimidating or demeaning, causes emotional anguish or physical discomfort or endangers the health and safety of the person.”

In an attempt to reach some clarity with regard to this zero-tolerance rule, I met with Julie Sterrett, director of student leadership development. Sterrett asked a roomful of student athletes, “Is initiating a freshman acceptable or unacceptable?” The students responded with confusion. According to Julie, the definition of hazing with respect to athletics specifically, “…is making someone feel uncomfortable,” which sums up Lehigh’s policy too. However, what pushes the limit when it comes to uncomfortable, or what exactly qualifies as uncomfortable? Julie explains, “It is a controversial subject; hazing has a negative connotation to it. [It is]…in a sense seen as an extreme, and often misinterpreted. It is not a one size fits all [dynamic], and [requires] educating athletes to develop relationships so that teammates understand what makes them comfortable and uncomfortable so that there are no assumptions. Assumptions are what can get people in trouble.”

However, the definition of hazing as making someone uncomfortable is just ridiculous. People can get uncomfortable in all sorts of situations, and with such a broad definition of hazing, it puts sports teams under the impression that they’ve essentially initiated teammates to unify the team, and it turns out they’ve actually hazed them by Lehigh’s broad description.

In order to seek out more truth, I interviewed a freshman on the women’s volleyball team, Margaret Acton. When asked what her view of hazing was, she replied, “Doing stuff to freshman…or picking something embarrassing or annoying for those people to do.” Every year the incoming freshman have to perform a skit for the sophomores, upperclassmen, coaches, even the trainer, which incorporates every single person on the team in Lehigh’s Fight Song. According to Lehigh’s definition of hazing, that skit could potentially harm the mental well-being of those freshmen, causing embarrassment and ridicule. However, as Margaret explains, “No it’s not embarrassing, it brings the freshman and the team closer because it makes the freshman think about every member of the team and incorporate them in the skit.” This is a perfect example of a potentially infringing hazing situation; an initiation for freshman, the skit is required, and one’s mental state after performing a skit in front of said team could lead to possible psychological damage or discomfort.

Last year, I was a freshman on the volleyball team, and there were established rules and duties that had to be preformed every day before practice. Freshman, as a rule, were required to pick up and drop of the team’s laundry before practice every day. Failure to do so, resulted in negative consequences: the team would not have clean practice clothes and gear. However, in the context of the current frenzy, making a freshman pick up your laundry could be interpreted as hazing, which is a bit dramatic. Making freshmen follow the rules and participate in their duties is not damaging to their mental or physical health. Sure, it might be annoying to pick up laundry, but overall it creates a sense of obligation and respect for your teammates. I’m not saying other classes such as sophomores do not have duties; everyone does, but to single out freshmen and point out that getting laundry could essentially be hazing is absolutely ludicrous.

Hazing has become too broadly defined to accurately pinpoint what hazing exactly is. The lack of clarity in Lehigh’s and the NCAA’s anti-hazing policy allows too much misinterpretation and could lead to anything being considered hazing. What needs to be established is a conscious understanding that hazing is indeed harmful and detrimental to people. However, forms of initiation could prove to be beneficial in uniting groups, especially in athletics. Using common sense to evaluate whether or not a certain activity is hazing obviously isn’t working with the policies that have been established. The definition of discomfort is just too vague.

The question posed to our editorial staff was: How should Lehigh’s administration deal with underage alcohol consumption?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

For Lehigh, the difficulty in this situation lies with the fact that it has a fully-accredited police force, sworn in by the state of Pennsylvania. As such, they are required to enforce the laws of the state over any policies that the University sets with regard to underage drinking.

With that said, Lehigh’s goal should be to create a system where underage students can drink responsibly without fear of legal troubles. Certainly, Lehigh does need to react to and set consequences for drinking that is dangerous to the individual in question or others.

From my point of view, the issue that students and administrators do not see eye-to-eye on is what drinking is defined as dangerous. I am reminded particularly of one conversation I overheard in a finance recitation last semester. I won’t belabor you with the details, but one girl was wearing the same dress as the night before, and she was the one person involved in the conversation who did remember what happened.

Certainly, the administration would see drinking enough to black out as dangerous to the individual, others, and to Lehigh’s reputation. But to students, this practice can be commonplace in some social circles. Students, to some extent, have a distorted view of what is responsible drinking, and what should be prevented. Lehigh has several interests that merge at this point, which can make things difficult to handle properly: student safety, state law, and Lehigh’s reputation are all affected by how administrators handle this issue.

So how does Lehigh measure up? When all of the issues at hand are considered, they do fairly well. Sure, they’ve messed things up. The frequent “busting” of fraternities is often unnecessary. It drives parties off campus into a less-safe environment, and only makes the hill seem more dangerous and less attractive to students. As students, we can certainly list a great deal of times when we have perceived the University to have erred on alcohol and safety matters.

That being said, there are things they can do to improve the way they deal with alcohol. President Gast should sign the Amethyst Initiative, and Lehigh should join the push for a drinking age of 18. Such a law would make it incredibly simple for Lehigh to deal with alcohol issues on campus.

Second, administrators should work with the police and Lehigh security to establish set reasons for fraternities to be “raided,” and set a policy that police must knock on the door before they enter. While Lehigh owns the houses can enter them at any time, the police should, as a state-run service, have to notify a house’s occupants before entering. This is something Lehigh could set in place, and would provide a more fair system as opposed to cops being able to enter a building for no reason.

Even with these changes, Lehigh can still monitor irresponsible and reckless drinking, and work to control that. The current system though is inefficient at doing that, because time is inevitably spent dealing with people who were drinking responsibly, but were in the wrong place. Signing the Amethyst Initiative and establishing how and why Lehigh Police enter residences would improve the alcohol situation at Lehigh.

David Gritz, Class of 2012

From the vantage point of the Lehigh administration, minimization of risk and maximization of student experience should be the focus of any policy conversation. Considering these metrics, Lehigh should adopt the following three approaches to reduce instances of underage drinking abuse “on campus”.

1) Prevent the worst instances – Using the broken window theory, Lehigh can target the outliers and worst offenders to reduce the net effect of the whole problem. By targeting students involved in recurrent hospital trips, drunken driving, and acts of public disturbance, Lehigh enforcement personnel can cut the worst out of the system. This focused policy will discourage students from engaging in the worst underage activities. Also, reducing the standard variance of underage offenses will discourage students from “breaking all the rules” because the perceived risks are much greater.

2) Use resources for next-best alternatives – Spend some of the extensive enforcement and correctional budget on exciting and extraordinary activities. If Lehigh students had other experiences that were just as “pleasurable” as drinking, they might spend their time on next-best alternatives. For example, if Lehigh offered free scuba diving lessons, showed movies in theaters, or took students on weekend adventures to different cities around the country, students would choose those alternatives. Administrators should spend less time making rules and more time making experiences.

3) Push drinking away from campus – With Lehigh’s “not in my backyard” mindset, controlling consumption can be as easy as pushing it away from campus. By monitoring underclassmen dorms on campus instead of patrolling off-campus houses, the university can save resources and push drinking away from campus. By creating a circle of control, the university will ensure that less students drink on campus.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

When discussing alcohol and kids, I think one really needs to evaluate the situation from two hypothetical angles: the real world, and the perfect world. This is key to understanding why Dr. Alice Petry Gast won’t sign the Amethyst Initiative.

In the real world, the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18 essentially passes the responsibility of handing transition-age young adults from college to high school. If you give a damn about the state of education in this country, (which I know most Lehigh students do not, as most of us, myself included, went to very expensive preparatory schools and public districts where students can read at their age-appropriate level, and can’t fathom a situation where individuals struggle to attain mediocrity), you would understand that the last thing that improving and needy district administrators need is another coming-of-age issue for their older, bigger, and more difficult students.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, talk about the perfect world, in which Lehigh students get their wish, and nearly 100% of the campus is legally able to piss away part of their savings (or their parent’s) to Pennsylvania’s sketch liquor monopoly called Wine & Spirits. Lehigh students have been spoilt, insofar as most universities have barred their student organizations from procuring alcohol on campus-sponsored establishments. In plain speak, the Greeks would probably have to go dry, and those of age (now, everyone) would likely be prevented from keeping alcohol in their dorms. Why? Too many dangerous incidents.

I’ve heard, time and time again, the argument that Lehigh students do the asinine things they do under the golden influence in an effort to hide or conceal their presently illegal actions from the big scary Lehigh police and their Janet Reno tactical assault squads, which surround innocent law-abiding residences and set the children afire. I’ve heard that the reason people “pre-game” (read: binge drink prior to casually drinking) so often and with such force is to avoid being caught by the police; in short, drink the liquor before the police can take it from you. I’ve also heard that students who enjoy themselves too much are afraid of seeking help, because they run the risk of being caught.

Frankly, and more importantly, objectively, this situation is so absurd I have trouble discussing it seriously. Why does the illegality of drinking encourage people to drink more and, thus, put themselves in danger? So, if everyone can now consume legally, does this mean that the side effects of drinking past moderation (sexual and physical assault, property damage, the need to baby-proof sharp corners) will cease to be?

Think about it. At least, at the moment, Lehigh can claim that the incidents where students reenact the bacchanal excesses that only Tyco executives could pull off in their little clubhouses, the administration can say that the situation was a breach of the law, and thus any side effects are merely grace notes to a misdemeanor. Once that layer of absolution is gone, there is nothing to prevent the school to reverse its policy.

The argument that alumni will stop donating is moot – those that would aren’t of the caliber that it would matter, and those that matter are likely not too concerned about today’s students’ opinions – for them, 30 years ago is all that matters, and what Lehigh did for them. Likewise, the demand for admission is far more based in the prestige that a Lehigh education gives – not the amount of colored stripes someone can get at a rainbow party.

Oh, and as for the Lehigh police – don’t get me started. I was at the Hawk’s Nest late one evening, when I witnessed four boys coaxing their friend through male purging (they were asking for hot towels – it was like a birth was taking place), a girl asked me if she could borrow my key card to get into her building (and was too drunk to know that Brodhead isn’t Dravo), and a boy in a near state of paralysis was slumped over and walked in front of a car in front of four police officers – clearly under the influence, and none of them lifted a finger or batted an eyebrow.

My advice is simple – don’t push for Amethyst. Keep tabs on your peers – I have no problem with underage drinking. I have a problem with having my car keyed, or having to babysit my friends. What it comes down to is responsibility – something that, if practiced, might actually make these nonsense pass.

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Last year, President Gast voiced her concerns with signing the Amethyst Initiative, leaving the administration with fewer options involving cooperation with the Student Senate on the issue of underage alcohol consumption. Vice Provost of Student Affairs, John Smeaton, has acknowledged that the administration takes note to “separate abuse from use”, but it remains to be seen whether this view will be carried out in new policies and events undertaken by the administration. Minimal backlash from students will be seen if the administration assumes this viewpoint in its implementation of policy to curb underage alcohol consumption. The administration must focus on alcohol abuse and the dangers it poses to students, rather than alcohol’s overall use by Lehigh’s underage population.

The Student Senate seems willing to offer student input, and more importantly, wants a more active role in creating discussion and events designed to educate the student body and promote safe and healthy drinking habits – and the administration should grant them this responsibility. Student to student discussion and education will prove far more useful and effective than executive orders by President Gast or harsh University-wide sanctions. The administration should utilize the Senate as an important tool of connection and communication to the student body.

Overall, the administration and the Student Senate must move past the hindrance of signing the Amethyst Initiative and focus on the issue of underage alcohol abuse. The administration should work with the Senate because their cooperation will be key in implementing a solution that both the student body and the administration can appreciate. Together their goal should be to educate the students with safety as a priority, rather than the impractical focus of eliminating underage alcohol consumption altogether.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The drinking age debate is doomed. The most passionate advocates for reform have three years to make their case. Then one day, they miraculously stop caring, or worse, they join the opposition.

Attrition is not the only problem, of course. There are no new arguments to be made. Compelling statistics overwhelmingly support a 21-year-old drinking age, and the political will for change is non-existent.

However, that the drinking age is and will remain 21 does little to rationalize the way the law has been enforced here at Lehigh. The administration is in the precarious situation of trying to reform our ‘party-school’ image while somehow retaining it – because, well, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

If candor were the order of the day, President Gast could express skepticism about strictly enforcing a 21-year-old drinking age. Most 18-20 year-olds at Lehigh drink regularly, and the law is hardly a deterrent. But Lehigh is under the yoke of two separate but overlapping police forces: the LUPD and the Bethlehem Police Department. In recent years, the Bethlehem Police have received grants from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Those grants provide the money to pay the small army of cops on bikes that patrol the South Side each fall.

As such, it is difficult for the University to find the right tone with which to address this issue. A more progressive attitude could create the illusion of amnesty for underage drinkers or risk undermining the authority of the police.

To walk this tightrope, the administration should reiterate that its primary concern is the safety and security of Lehigh students – safety from alcohol abuse, to be sure, but also from a tarnished permanent record and from the physical dangers of South Bethlehem.

The LUPD should coordinate with the Bethlehem Police so that underage-drinking citations are handled through the University disciplinary system – not a kangaroo court above a video rental store. The University should then scale back the severity of the punishment for first-time offenders so that students stop fearing the police. With this ironclad partnership between students and law enforcement in place, maybe the Bethlehem Police Department will turn its attention to some “real” problems – like plasma TVs with legs.

My wife and I came to Lehigh University from Pakistan just a few months ago on a Rescue Fellowship, which was sponsored by the International Institute of Education (IIE). Pakistan has been in the international news frequently these days due to the war against terrorism. In the wake of terrorist attacks all over the country and growing lawlessness, President Asif Ali Zardari and his administration seem totally helpless. Let me share some of my experiences working at a Pakistani university so that you might be able to understand what is actually going on in post-fundamentalist Pakistan.

Amnesty International and The Human Rights Commission Of Pakistan publish documents every year detailing the human right abuses in Pakistan. They mention that the state of Pakistan still fails to provide adequate protection for women and the working class. Despite making up almost 51 % of the population, women continue to face a discriminatory status in Pakistani society. There is a great tide of violence against women since 9/11. Hundreds and thousands of innocent women are victims of honor killings, acid throwing, rape and murder. In post-colonial Pakistan, gang rape and other barbaric traditions are used as a form of criminal punishment. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Pakistani women have already suffered gang rape in the name of honor or tribal revenge. Last year, five women were buried alive in Baluchistan. Human rights groups and civil-rights activists organized protest demonstrations all over Pakistan. It is the most shameful and barbaric crime of the 21st century.

I was teaching as an adjunct lecturer in the English department at Bahauddin Zakria University Pakistan at that time. My wife, Shirin Haider was professor and chair of the English Department. She asked me to organize a peaceful protest demonstration against the barbaric killing of the five innocent women. We organized a rally in which hundreds of female students very actively and voluntarily participated. They shouted slogans against barbaric tribal laws and feudalism. My wife announced the declaration of war against barbaric and criminal traditions against women by founding the Revolutionary Women’s Action Committee (ReWAC), a platform for women’s liberation and revolutionary struggle. It was one of the biggest organized rallies in the history of Multan, which, with its feudalism and religious shrines, is one of the most backwards and traditional cities in Pakistan. In places like Multan, women are not allowed to participate in politics because of chauvinist pseudo-religious dominance.

The next day, our rally was covered in the news. All the local and national newspapers ran headlines with images of women demanding their legal rights. We started consciousness-raising groups and seminars on gender and social awareness, and the response was very positive. Within a few months, hundreds of female students joined our organization. We organized another protest rally, this time inside the campus, against gender harassment and violence against women. Despite threats from the Taliban and the conservative University administration, our female activists organized the rally. In that part of the country, this was deemed a progressive and revolutionary move. It heralded the feminist uprising within the campus. Our democratic and revolutionary initiative was a great success; it gave strength to oppressed and humiliated female students.

Critical revolutionary activism of female students was a breath of fresh air in the stifling environment of Southern Punjab. However, the reactionary and conservative University administration, sponsored and influenced by the feudal lords, local fanatic groups and traditionalists felt threatened by the revolutionary activism of female students. Our activism was a spark of life and hope for the oppressed women who are denied basic human freedoms and rights. Our activists tried to organize a musical evening on the campus to promote awareness of sexual harassment, which is rampant in all state-run universities. Recently, a female faculty member at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad was burned with acid at the hands of a fanatic professor. In another incident, two female students experienced harassment at an examination centre at Zakriya University in Multan.

The Vice Chancellor of our University demanded an immediate explanation from Professor Haider for launching ReWAC. Like a ruthless dictator, he banned all activities linked to ReWAC. Our activists were coerced through harassment to give up their membership in ReWAC, and were threatened with expulsion if they resisted. I was immediately terminated from my position. The Vice
Chancellor very ironically thought that I was plotting a political rebellion for social change against the government with female students. I was banned from even stepping foot on the campus. It was an assault on my freedom and an insult to my pedagogy, so I protested with my wife and students. The very next day Professor Haider was removed from her position as chair of the English Department. I was arrested at the main gate of the University as I was going to my residence inside the campus. My wife was manhandled, and I was sent to police station where I was brutally tortured by the police for three days. Then, I was sent to jail and was released on bail after 14 days.

During my detention, my wife, along with female students and activists were psychologically harassed and humiliated by the University administration. During my detention, I started a hunger strike which lasted for 54 days. On the eve of the 54th day, I pinned down nails in my feet and left hand as a symbolic protest. I was treated like a war criminal; they forcefully undressed me and struck my lower back with 17 lashes. They asked me to cry and beg for mercy, but I refused. They kept hitting me harder and harder until I fell unconscious. They later threw cold and filthy water on me. During torture, one of the police officers pressed my genitals and scornfully laughing, checked my circumcision. I have seen the naked brutality of Pakistani state. I have also experienced the hypocrisy of intellectuals and professors. I have witnessed malicious opportunism and the betrayal of middle class friends and colleagues.

After this experience, I realized that one of the main reasons Pakistan is fast becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism and terrorism is because of the oppressive and decadent education system based on class stratification inherited from British imperialism. Pakistan is a failed state, although paradoxically it has nuclear weapons for people’s destruction. It has a very powerful corporate army, which is mainly responsible for harboring and preserving socio-political decadence, lawlessness, violence and corruption. There is a very strong police force, which is used for political victimization, harassment and torture, and the judicial system is inhumane and corrupt.

Pakistan is a long-term strategic partner of the United States and the most faithful ally in its war against terror. Now, the US Congress has approved the Kerry-Lugar bill of $1.5 billion to facilitate non-proliferation, faithful implementation and commitment towards war against the religiously faithful terrorists. I think the grant will only add insult to injury. It will further aggravate political tension and will sabotage the political and democratic process of Pakistan. Pakistan needs immediate social surgery, because the tumor of religious extremism and terrorism is getting more and more dangerous for global peace and security.