If the current economic crisis leaves behind a substantial legacy, it will be embodied in lost educations. These educations will primarily be lost to minority and low-income students now that many colleges, including Lehigh, are quietly eliminating the practice of “need-blind” admissions. In other words, at the margin, admissions counselors will distinguish between two qualitatively identical applicants based on each one’s ability to pay full tuition. And while discrimination is a fact of life at private universities, we should not tolerate the same from the federal government.

In denying federal tuition assistance to any student with a minor drug conviction, the government is actively discriminating against those who rely on financial aid to enroll, or remain in college. The law, passed by Congress in the 1990s, applies to any offense committed within a decade of the aid application and includes misdemeanors that are typically punished with fines and community service. This policy is substantively identical to one that would only expel students below a certain income level.

But our drug problems go deeper than this one injustice. Recent events in Mexico are revealing the full consequences of our abortive “war on drugs.” Violent conflicts between rival drug cartels have put Mexico in a league with Pakistan: at the risk of becoming a failed state, defined as the “wholesale collapse of civil government.” Considering the large, porous border we share with Mexico, this could be our most imminent national security threat.

Last year alone, the death toll in this Mexican civil war was at least 5,000 (including civilians and government officials), and the violence has already spilled over into the border states of Arizona and Texas. This violence, of course, is committed in the name of capturing a share of the black market that American drug policies have created. Legalization would shrink the cartel’s income, making it more difficult for them to continue to arm a paramilitary force just south of the border. When you combine 5,000 dead and a country teetering on the brink of collapse with the proven medicinal value that marijuana has for glaucoma and cancer patients, prohibition seems increasingly at odds with any notion of fundamental human decency.

But it’s not just prohibition that feeds the problem. Our prison systems are more proficient at producing, rather than rehabilitating, criminals and drug addicts. One-third of those in prison today are there serving time for nonviolent drug offenses. Like the restriction on federal aid, our sentencing guidelines disproportionately harm poor minorities, who are more likely to be prosecuted for drug offenses and less adept at manipulating the legal system.

Luckily, the zeitgeist may be shifting, as states from Massachusetts to California are taking steps to legalize medicinal Marijuana. Polling whiz Nate Silver (who had the 2008 election down to a science) projects that a supermajority of Americans will favor marijuana legalization in the year 2022, assuming current trends hold. Only then, he opines, will legalization be politically viable. In the meantime, however, there’s much that can and should be done to pave the way.

Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have proposed a substantial prison-reform bill, with an emphasis on addressing drug policy. Webb notes that the US, with only 5% of the world’s population, holds 25% of the world’s prison population. With $150 billion spent annually on policing and courts, almost half of all arrests are marijuana-related. I’m certain that a substantial contingent on the right, with their ranting about seven-figure planetariums and bear DNA research, wouldn’t mind if a large chunk of that $150 billion could be kept in taxpayer hands.

Conservative libertarians in the political chattering class like Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic and Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute are taking a different approach. They are advocating that public figures and ordinary citizens alike come out of the “cannabis closet,” to prove that marijuana use is widespread among productive, normal, healthy Americans – from PTA moms to soccer coaches.

Some of those Americans were probably responsible for making a question on “marijuana legalization as economic stimulus” the single most popular inquiry on whitehouse.gov. When President Obama dismissed the suggestion, he was right in the abstract. Imagine the headlines: “Obama’s Green Economy?” With more than enough political battles to fight, our overstretched President certainly doesn’t need to put his foot in this one. As a strategy of economic recovery, legalization is both politically suicidal and fiscally impotent. Reformists need not dismay, however, as Obama has spoken in favor of decriminalization outside of this politically heated context.

While decriminalization is likely to happen in individual states long before legalization becomes relevant, it’s important to note the unique benefits and potential pitfalls of legalization. Legal marijuana, subject to a substantial tax and strict regulations on marketing and distribution, could provide significant government revenue while making it harder for kids to get their hands on marijuana, which anecdotally is easier to acquire underage than alcohol and cigarettes.

It’s important not to get carried away, though. Marijuana isn’t “safe,” but neither are cigarettes, alcohol, Oxycontin, or toys from China. And no offense to those who are coming out of the “cannabis closet,” but you’re still stoners, and as relevant as the caricatures of drunkards and chain-smokers are, so will your epithet remain.

But nobler ideals are at stake than those embodied in the sanctimonious drones of social conservatives. We continue to feed a vicious piece of machinery that eats up taxpayer dollars, spits out death and destruction in our backyard, and exacerbates poverty and crime at home. For the first time in ages, there is tangible recognition of these facts, and a glimmer of sanity in the drug war debate, but how far will it take us?

This is a review of a book that was written over 20 years ago by an eccentric lover of cities, a social activist concerned with preserving city neighborhoods, a woman adored by the N.Y. Times, yet today not much studied or consulted. This is a book about the 1930s and about today, so I am looking at it afresh.

(more…)

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” Nietzsche

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” J.S. Mill

“All the principles of sceptics, stoics, atheists, etc., are true. But their conclusions are false, because the opposite principles are also true.” Blaise Pascal

(more…)

When many people gather to live together in close proximity, it is inevitable that there will be crime. Such holds true for the Lehigh Valley, where the most urban areas have a pressing problem with a rise in gang activity and the violent crime that is coupled with it. Crime is not only a serious concern for the safety of people like us already living in the Lehigh Valley, but it is a potential problem as it lowers the quality of life and reduces the attractiveness of the area to families, workers, and prospective students of the nearby universities. Distinguishing the Lehigh Valley as an area increasingly prone to crime is the fact that it lies within two driving hours of the major metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and New York City. While the externalities from these cities’ crime activity are responsible for a significant portion of the crime in the valley, they are not the cause of all of it.

The most consistent and comprehensive source for crime data required for an accurate assessment is obtained through the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI sorts crime data into eight indices, which are the acts “considered most likely to be reported to police and, as a result, are used nationally as a basis for comparison of criminal activity. The offenses are murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor-vehicle theft and arson,” (Pennsylvania State Police). These principal crimes are then divided into two subcategories: violent crimes and property crimes. Violent crimes include the offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, while property crimes are the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The counts of crime are normalized for comparison across cities by computing their rate per 100,000 residents. These categories will be the basis for a majority of the crime assessment in this article, but it is important to take into account that the data may be less than the actual number of crimes, as not all crimes committed are reported to police.

The general state of crime in the Lehigh Valley can be assessed by looking at the three major cities in the area: Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton. Allentown and Bethlehem have increasing or steady levels of violent crime in recent years, while Easton has seen a drop. Furthermore, while Bethlehem and Easton have maintained violent and property crime rates below the state and national average, Allentown has not.

In fact, the number of murders in Allentown has more than quadrupled from 5 in 1980 to 21 in 2007. Forcible rapes, robberies and aggravated assault have all increased as well, prompting the total number of violent crimes in Allentown to jump from 321 in 1980 to 870 in 2007. This is a troubling 171% increase in only 27 years, approximately a 6.3% increase per year. If this trend continues, it is projected that there will be 1074 violent crimes committed in Allentown in 2010.

Unfortunately, this trend has been echoed by the city of Bethlehem. While the number of reported rapes has remained relatively constant since 1999, murders, robberies and assaults have increased. As shown in the table, the total of violent crimes has not increased steadily, but has increased from 227 in 1999 to 270 in 2007. Data for the year 2006 and 2008 has not yet been made available by the FBI.

Year     Murder     Rape     Robbery     Assault     Total Violent Crime

1999     3     21     84     119     227

2000     3     13     93     113     222

2001     4     14     76     155     249

2002     2     31     98     114     245

2003     1     20     94     75     190

2004     1     24     83     115     223

2005     2     17     114     135     268

2006     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A     N/A

2007     6     24     100     140     270

(Violent Crime in the City of Bethlehem)

Property crimes should also be considered when evaluating the current crime situation in the Lehigh Valley. Following the trend of violent crimes, the total number of reports of property crimes has increased in Allentown in recent years, from 4,946 in 1999 to 5,379 in 2007. This is largely due to an increase in the number of burglaries and larceny-thefts cases; the reported number of burglaries in Allentown has increased 20% since 1999, while the number of larceny-theft cases has increased 7%.

Contrary to Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton have seen a decrease in the total number of Property Crimes since 1999. Cases of burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson in Bethlehem have all fallen since 1999, at 10%, 3%, and 46%, respectively. In Easton, however, only cases of burglary and larceny-theft have decreased in recent years. While these crimes have seen 46% and 12% drops, motor vehicle thefts and arson cases have risen 47% and 30% since 1999.

With homeland security receiving an increasing amount of press in recent years, it is understandable that there has been less attention focused on local crime. For example, on Governor Rendell’s website, even though he is the head of The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, there is nothing listed under his agenda pertaining to making Pennsylvania a safer place to live or working to decreasing crime rates. This does not do justice to the fact that many long-term residents of Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley are concerned that crime is taking over their towns. In a quality-of-life poll conducted by The Morning Call, more than 54% of respondents said that they believe life in Lehigh Valley is getting worse, up from 48% in 2007 (Drobnyk). This is significant because crime has a direct influence on residents’ judgment of the quality of life in the area. Furthermore, only 25% of residents in the Lehigh and Northampton counties surveyed in 2008 said that they think life in the Lehigh Valley is getting better. This is the lowest percentage since The Morning Call began its annual quality-of-life poll in 2003. Even though 81% of people gave local law enforcement a rating of excellent or good, nearly 33% of residents polled by The Morning Call said they are very concerned with becoming a victim of crime. This figure has been rising steadily over the past five years, as less than 20% of residents said the same in 2003 (Drobnyk). If the Lehigh Valley wants to continue attracting families and workers into its community and economy, then it needs to tackle the issue of crime to remain an attractive place to live.

Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that, like Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley cities have struggled with crime in recent years. Despite Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton having lower crime rates in every front in 2007, Allentown tied its record high in homicides in 2007 with 21, and Easton and Bethlehem have seen an increase in gang activity. This rise in Easton and Bethlehem is definitely a concern, because gangs have the ability to easily migrate from city to city depending on how much pressure they are receiving from the law enforcement agents there. Thus, as Bethlehem Police Lt. Robert Righi, who serves as head of his department’s criminal investigations unit, reports, “[gang activity has] become more of a regional issue rather than a local issue,” (Falsone). Consequently, it is crucial that all of the Lehigh Valley support efforts against the infiltration of such activity into the region, and be open to changes in policing strategies, especially as the dynamic of the valley changes.

For upperclassmen at Lehigh, you may remember that in 2006 the announcement of the construction of a new Casino in Bethlehem was met by mixed feelings. While some argued that it would stimulate the lagging local economy, others saw it as a catalyst for increased gang activities and violent crimes. While there is justification for both sides of the argument, it is irrefutable that, historically, casinos have had connections with organized crime. One study analyzed crime data collected from all 3,165 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1996 by looking at local crime rates before and after casinos opened. The study found that crime began to rise after the first year, slowly at first and then at an increasing rate. Crime continued to rise until it had easily surpassed what it would have been if the casino had never opened. “By the fifth year of operation, robberies were up 136%; aggravated assaults, 91%; auto theft, 78%; burglary, 50%; larceny, 38%; and rape, 21%. Controlling for other factors, 8.6% of property crimes and 12.6% of violent crimes were attributed to casinos,” (Morrin). Furthermore, the conductor of the study found that “crime rates didn’t rise in neighboring counties while they soared in casino counties – [which is] evidence that casinos create crime locally and don’t merely attract it from somewhere else,” (Morrin). Despite these published findings, the casino is scheduled to open by 2009. In an attempt to assuage a rise in crime, Bethlehem should increase the number of officers on patrol in the area around the casino, if not assign one officer to be stationed there permanently. The town should also make sure that the casino employs legitimate security personnel to assist in the local police department’s efforts to mitigate crime, and encourage a continuous exchange of information.

“On the [national] political front, crime has fallen way behind issues such as Iraq, health care and gas prices, not to mention the meltdown of our financial system,” (Jones). The United States’ economy has now entered a recession, and in times of negative economic growth people are more likely to be unemployed, become desperate, and resort to criminal activity. Elected officials, police and community members need to take an active role in protecting their Lehigh Valley communities, such as South Bethlehem, and provide a safe environment for all residents. The Lehigh Valley is a unit, and “Allentown’s problem today could be Easton’s problem tomorrow” (Falsone). It is thus imperative that the Lehigh Valley as a whole takes the initiative and continues to not tolerate crime.

Works Cited

¬Callaway, Brian. “Lehigh County may help pay for more police: Executive Cunningham wants to give $1 million to localities to fight crime.” McClatchy-Tribune Business News. Washington: 12 February 2008.

Drobnyk, John. “Optimism tanking: Valley residents have deep concerns about crime, the economy.” McClatchy-Tribune Business News. Washington: 16 May, 2008.

Falsone, Nick. “The battleground: Gangs rooted in NYC; shared intelligence key to fighting back.” The Express Times. 2 June 2003.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Uniform Crime Reports.”

Jones, Ashby. “Crime Hasn’t Dropped as Much as Our Interest in Talking About It.” The Wall

Street Journal. 2 October 2008.

Office of the Governor. “Governor Rendell’s Agenda.”

Morrin, Richard. “Casinos and Crime: The Luck Runs Out.” The Washington Post. 11 May 2006.

NBC 10. “Residents Say ‘Best Place to Live’ Title No Longer Applies.” 19 August 2008.

Pennsylvania State Police. “Crime Index Offenses Drop 2.2% In 2007: Overall Number of Crimes Reported in Pennsylvania Also Decrease.” Harrisburg: 9 October 2008.

In recent years, diversity has been a high-priority issue for President Gast and Lehigh’s administration. The issue took center stage with the well-publicized incidents and subsequent town hall meeting last semester. A theme at that town hall meeting, and the subsequent Council for Equity and Community (CEC) meetings, was the role that Greek Life played in thwarting the construction of a diverse and accepting campus. In addition to that, a series of letters to the Brown and White this semester have accused Greeks of being cheaters, racists, bigots, and rapists 1 2.

Given all of that, it should be a huge deal when one of these Greek organizations spends a considerable amount of money to bring a speaker to address the issue of “How Race is Lived in America,” the title of the speaker’s Pulitzer Prize winning series which was originally published in 2001. As a Harvard Graduate and professional reporter for over 35 years, Michael Winerip was able to provide an intelligent and balanced lecture on the role race and racism play in America today. Such an event should have drawn a huge crowd, especially if diversity was as big of an issue at Lehigh as it was portrayed last semester.

However, the administration met the event with complete silence, and the Brown and White just managed to tuck an article on Mr. Winerip’s lecture onto page five 3. Those who did attend were treated to an enlightening view on race relations from a man who spent an entire year studying how race affected the interactions of an undercover narcotics unit in New York City. Even though his speech focused around the articles he worked on eight years ago, many of his comments were timely today, both for the United States and the Lehigh community.

Introducing the issue of race, he brought up Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent comment that “though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards4.” Mr. Winerip said that he had “a lot of empathy for what Mr. Holder expressed,” and used the example to show how truly universal issues of race are in the world today. Winerip also brought up the often forgotten fact that problems with race are present everywhere, saying that they are “universal and worldwide.”

While discussing affirmative action, Winerip noted both the positive and negative aspects of its implementation. He noted cases which he had seen as someone involved with the admission process at Harvard where affirmative action policies either favored a minority candidate too much, or cost a worthy candidate his or her place. Even with that, he supported the continuation of affirmative action to some extent, saying that “three hundred years of history [of slavery and discrimination] aren’t going to be wiped out in 40-50 years.”

In the United States, Winerip sees racial problems as more of a class issue than one of bigotry. This is not a new idea. Many studies have shown the extremely negative effects that poverty has on someone, regardless of skin color.

He was also optimistic about the progress being made on the issue of race. He sees both parties working on the issues of class and race “from different perspectives,” and that there have been “tremendous gains in his lifetime.” The most important thing, according to Winerip, in continuing this process is open dialogue and integration. He said that “integration is a tremendously important thing” as it “builds empathy,” which allows for an open dialogue on issues of race.

At Lehigh, this description closely fits the CEC’s mission statement “to create an environment where all members of campus work together, transcending racial, cultural, and other boundaries, to build a stronger community and create a richer educational experience for all5.” However, the CEC has not lived up to this mission. So far, the CEC and the conversations at the town hall meetings have focused around attacks of various groups around Lehigh and suggesting additional requirements that students do not want.

This has made race even more of a taboo topic of conversation here at Lehigh. The CEC has turned many students away from the discussion process, and created animosity between groups of varying opinions. The recent exchanges between Greeks and Non-Greeks in the Brown and White illustrate the difficulty of addressing such issues reasonably.

Mr. Winerip’s lecture was very valuable, and went further toward creating an open dialogue than anything the CEC has done thus far. Sadly though, the event did not generate the interest that it should have. The events of last semester drew front-page coverage, campus-wide emails, and the attendance and comments of President Gast herself. Despite the value of the event and the accolades of the speaker, this event drew none of the above. While the CEC will probably continue to create more problems than they solve, hopefully more organizations will bring intelligent speakers as Phi Sigma Kappa did with Mr. Winerip.

Sources:

1 Letters to the Editor. The Brown and White, 2/03/2009.

2 Letters to the Editor. The Brown and White, 2/13/2009.

3 Russial, Martina. Speaker Addresses Race Relations. The Brown and White, 3/31/2009.

4 Barr, Andy. Holder: ‘Nation of cowards’ on race. Politico.com, 2/18/2009.

5 The Council for Equity and Community. www.lehigh.edu/diversity/

I am not an operator inside the administration. Frank Roth, Lehigh’s general counsel, probably wakes up to copies of my emails, under some privacy-invasion clause of which the school failed to inform me, thanks in part to some of the efforts that I’ve stood behind in my time here. They [the administration] don’t care for me, but they pretend to.

I’m not raising a flag and screaming for uproarious change – in fact, I’ll state that in this letter I stand behind that which has raised more eyebrows and blood pressure rates than any other topic, beyond even race: the Greek System.

(more…)

The art of complaining is developed in humans from a very young age. Over the years, it seems that our generation has attained markedly improved skills in this area compared to our predecessors. While most of our parents’ generation couldn’t whine and talk back without getting smacked, our generation was mostly able to avoid such a tragic fate. Whether this is due to the laws in place against child abuse or the compassion of our parents’ generation is uncertain, but it is also beside the point. What we have now is a mass of people in their twenties who find it outrageous when one little thing does not meet their understanding of “fair.”

(more…)

The Presidency of Barack Obama is a new age for America. It is also, quite possibly, the signaling of the death of capitalism in America. The very traditions and ideals that helped to make this country great are now being abandoned for special interests and instant gratification. Quick fixes are not the answers our nation needs in a time of fiscal uncertainty. We are witnessing, with each passing day, new powers being ushered unto the federal government without so much as a pause to question the legality of it all. Is our government supposed to be in the business of manufacturing cars and distributing home loans? We are moving so fast that everyone is asking whether the stimulus plan will work, not if it’s really permissible. The long-term repercussions of Obama’s economic policies are leading us down the road of socialism, which is especially bad news for those of us preparing to enter the workforce.

(more…)