The recent senatorial election in Massachusetts resulted in what some have described as the most important political upset of the century. The revered seat of Ted Kennedy, the so-called Lion of the Senate, fell into Republican hands on January 19, 2010. Senator Kennedy held a prominent position in the Senate for decades before succumbing to brain cancer on August 25, 2009. Ironically, the law mandating a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts was established to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from replacing Senator John Kerry with a Republican in the event that Kerry won the 2004 presidential election. An extremely influential Senate seat that was in Democratic hands since 1953 fell to the Republicans with a resounding victory for Scott Brown.

The significance of this issue cannot be overstated. The race itself received a tremendous amount of attention from political leaders on both sides of the aisle. President Obama campaigned for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, and Mayor Giuliani threw his support behind Brown by campaigning in Boston for the Republican cause. A climactic moment of the election occurred during a debate when moderator Devid Gergen asked Brown why he would oppose health care reform while holding the “Kennedy seat.” Brown replied, “It’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.” This notion of an election for the ‘people’s seat’ became a rallying cry for the Brown campaign. An election that the Democrats initially thought would be a proverbial walk in the park turned into a major upset that will seriously change the political climate and focus in Washington.

The reaction from some major political leaders is clear evidence of the effect of this historic election. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – N.Y.) declared, “I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.” When Democratic representatives are openly discussing the death of their legislation on the grounds of a single election, it is clear the election must be significant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, made reference to the passionate nature of the election as a reprisal against the Democrats. “We will all be making a mistake if we believe that the message that was delivered in Massachusetts last night was unique to Massachusetts,” he said. “That anger was directed, frankly, at all of us.” Republicans responded in a more positive, but equally passionate, manner. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky recognized the frustration of the American people in response to a year of Obama-driven legislation. “There’s a reason the nation was focused on this race,” said McConnell. “The American people have made it abundantly clear that they’re more interested in shrinking unemployment than expanding government. They’re tired of bailouts. They’re tired of the government spending more than ever at a time when most people are spending less. And they don’t want the government taking over health care.” Even Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a moderate who had voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the health care bill said, “I never say anything is dead, but I think that clearly they’re going to have to revisit the entire issue. I think that was true from the outset. I think there were a lot of concerns that ultimately, collectively manifested themselves in yesterday’s vote. The American people are rightfully frustrated and they should be. This process is not becoming of this institution, the United States Congress. You can’t drive a policy that doesn’t have the support of the American people.” Her admitted hesitation about the health care issue as a result of Brown’s election is a factor that supporters of health care reform must come to terms with.

This dramatic response from both parties cannot be ignored. Even if the significance of Brown’s election turns out to be more ephemeral than substantial in the long run, it at least has had the effect of jarring Washington out of its stupor. President Obama himself recognized how the election would change his priorities and referenced it in his State of the Union Address as an example of how the election year to come would be a time of trials. Washington clearly sees Brown’s election as being significant, but how does it affect us at Lehigh?

Clearly health care will be thrown off schedule because of Senator Brown, which in all likelihood will be a good thing for America and our generation, specifically. The health care legislation that Congress and Obama have been trying to push through, if passed, would essentially be another tax with a goal of income redistribution. It is a classic example of having a few pay to support many, just as social security “works” today. Health care is just one example of the legislation that Obama will have to rework with Brown’s presence in the Senate. Obama will have tone down his priorities and really work for a bipartisan arrangement on many issues.

In the recent Presidential election, our generation was a bastion of support for Obama. We were largely responsible for electing him with a promise of hope and change. Is it true that a year after his inauguration, we are no better off? Many Americans, specifically those who elected Brown, see the Obama illusion as fleeting. They see Obama’s messianic message as a promise of the campaign trail only. In the last year, Obama has accrued a Nobel Peace Prize (whilst overseeing two foreign wars), a large national debt, and no foreseeable solution to the economic crisis.

What are some Lehigh students saying about Scott Brown’s election? I’m sure many haven’t even heard of him. The average Lehigh student who elected Obama should learn Brown’s name and fear the effect he will have on Obama, both real and psychological. Levi Bissell, ’12, a Lehigh student and resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, laid out his thoughts on the Brown election, “It’s a hopeful sign for the U.S government in general that we’re getting back to the two-party system, especially for a very blue state like Massachusetts.

It will push a lot of issues back into the open.” Another Lehigh student, Caleb Raddens, had a more somber thought on the election, “It’s sad that things are going to be deadlocked. I want to see progress.” Both students bring up good points. Brown’s election does make it clear that Obama does not have free reign to override Republican interests. And whatever your opinion of the health care debate, it is disappointing to see legislation that so many worked so hard for to be defeated. It makes one wonder if Congress can really do anything, even though perhaps the real question should be why the President thinks he has the prerogative to direct legislation. Regardless, Democracies are wonderful things. People speak through elections in republics, and the people have certainly spoken in Massachusetts.

Does the man who is handed a fish reap the same satisfaction of the man who caught his fish? In the general sense, do people who receive the end result appreciate it as much as those that work for it? Equality is not an issue simply between races and ethnicities; equality involves ensuring all people, regardless of origin or creed have the same opportunity to succeed in their own way.

In modern America, an amalgamation of tax credits, welfare, and social services create a culture of perpetual poverty and downward social movement amongst many Americans. Instead of relying on an antiquated patchwork of social services cobbled together over many years, I propose an overhaul of Federal Services to implement a safety net to protect all citizens.

Equality should not be limited to state of mind; it should extend to opportunities granted to all citizens. All people, regardless of origin or creed should have the ability to live with a roof over their head, adequate food and suitable living conditions to raise a family.

The first area of focus to change the face of the United States is in reforming the tax code. The United State’s tax code has become patch-worked and convoluted to the point that average Americans are at a loss in deciphering the intricacies of it. This gives a significant reward to people who can navigate the system of financial penalties. Tax credits attempt to encourage growth in facets of life the Government supports, but these largely benefit people well enough off to take advantage of them.

The other issue with the current US tax system is based in the progressive nature of it; by increasing one’s self worth, one will be taxed an additional amount. In extreme cases, this results in the government taking more money than your increased salary. The marginal tax rate1 harms the country by decreasing worker productivity and ensures people remain in poverty to the detriment of all.

If people are put into an economic state to succeed, safeguards should be created to allow citizens to experiment and fail without failing permanently. The two critical human necessities are food and housing, both of which would be the pillars of any system of safeguards. The federal government utilizes two programs to provide housing and food; housing projects and food stamps. Both of these programs have shortcomings because of the social stigmas and abuse associated with them; housing projects are considered to be bastions of poor and drug lords, while food stamps have been woefully underfunded to the point of being unable to adequately feed anyone. The answers to both of these issues are subsidized rental properties and increased value of food stamps by the government. Additionally, food stamps should have heavier restrictions and an emphasis on staple, rather than luxury food.

The last component to economic well-being is a means of advancing one’s social position. Quality education at both a primary and secondary level is vital at ensuring equality extends to all people, and not simply those privileged enough to be given it. Although reforming education is important, creating a strong technical education program at the post-secondary level is vital to national well being and social welfare. Traditional trades and crafts have fallen by the wayside in the wake of a rush to America’s colleges; professions have been marginalized by the concept of college elitism.

Free, public trade schools that offer quality education in a career path beyond “gas station attendant” gives everyone the chance to improve social standing. The other component to meaningful social well-being is basic employment; all people deserve to have an available job, regardless of circumstance. Beyond simply receiving money, public improvement projects give all people that choose to be employed employment. Jobs at or below minimum wage, coupled with housing and food assistance will create a gainful base-line of social well-being that all members of society can attain.

While this system sounds similar to welfare or government handouts, both of which are disconnected from equality, the opposite is true. In 21st Century America, Economic Freedom is invariably linked to social well-being; in the governmental sense, all people have achieved equality under the law. The difficulty comes in creating economic opportunities that all people can benefit from to break the cycle of poverty and despair.

President Gast has been out in front of a number of initiatives designed to finally rectify some of Lehigh’s old Achilles’ heels (ahem, diversity) and push the University towards new heights of academic prestige and national significance.

Of course, creating the impression of imminent academic superstardom is mostly a platitude designed to attract the most qualified high school applicants, but there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, this place could probably use a bit more academic chest-thumping.

In the business and engineering schools, our reputation for post-graduate job placement is highly touted, and successful students usually work hard enough to justify the accolades. But Lehigh should work to create a reputation for rigor across the University. More specifically, it’s time to require a series of intense core classes for all undergraduates. I’ll leave the specific content of the core to better pedagogical minds than mine, but Columbia College’s legendary Core Curriculum should serve as a guide.

At Columbia, students spend the bulk of their first two years as undergraduates completing core requirements in the sciences and humanities. Columbia’s Core is, however, infamous for its level of difficulty. There is a case to be made in favor of the flexibility offered by distribution requirements, but that doesn’t mean the current system is anywhere close to ideal. By picking out the most salient aspects of the Core Curriculum, we can have the best of both worlds.

The first step ought to be the implementation of a foreign language requirement. Lehigh’s “Strategic Plan” is accompanied by the slogan, “Advancing our intellectual footprint.” Inarguably, that footprint can only grow so much if Lehigh’s graduates are marching in boots that only speak English. Proficiency in a foreign language is not only an easy way for job applicants to distinguish themselves from a pack, it’s a way for Lehigh to situate itself on the cutting edge and get out in front of the competition.

Another important course, entitled “Contemporary Civilization,” is a survey of religious, political and social thought designed to provoke discussion and cultivate better-informed citizens. The syllabus includes everything from the political philosophies of Plato through Locke to The New Testament and The Qur’an. If Lehigh is serious about attracting and outputting the best and the brightest, it should entrust its students to internalize and carry on the intellectual traditions that constitute the foundations of human civilization.

Columbia’s “Literature Humanities” course also offers a model to be emulated. An excellent University ought to be more than a utilitarian means to employment – it’s a vital cultural sustainer. Still, too many students are startlingly ignorant when it comes to the most profound and enduring achievements of the human race. College should be a crucial rite of passage in which our rich literary heritage is passed onto a new generation. With that in mind, a survey of “great books” should replace the current freshman year English requirement.

The current incentive structure actually discourages the strongest English students from actually studying English at Lehigh. Someone who enters college with high verbal SAT scores or AP credit would place out of the required English classes. Pursuing an ambitious major or concentration, completing distribution requirements, and attempting to branch out academically while maintaining a high GPA might easily preclude that student from ever stepping foot in an English classroom.

Even worse, the rest of the freshmen are robbed of the chance to interact with the strongest students who would raise the bar for class discussions. Those who wish they could leave dense reading and paper-writing behind for good will be rudely awakened by the barrage of cover letters, graduate school entrance exams and business memos that beckon in a few years. Conversely, a challenging mandatory English curriculum would position students to breeze through those mundane tasks while developing much-needed capacities for critical thought, reading and writing. All these skills are applicable to any profession, but only in college can we immerse ourselves in and concentrate on them as ends in themselves.

Certainly this isn’t an exhaustive list of potential ingredients to constitute Lehigh’s core curriculum, but the idea is simple: a series of rigorous mandatory courses to develop critical skills and encourage introspection to guide the student in his or her choice of a major and improve the quality of work within that ultimate concentration.

All of this would require only a modest investment from the University in exchange for significant returns. Foreign language instructors don’t even have to be professors to be effective, and graduate students or young assistant professors are the best candidates to lead candid discussions on politics, society and the humanities. As for the benefits, they aren’t hard to imagine…

In the kerfuffle over Lehigh’s issues with diversity and inclusion, much focus has been visited upon ways to amend the first year experience. Among the options being considered is a mandatory course in diversity sensitivity training. The idea isn’t terrible, considering the preponderance of students arriving at Lehigh fresh out of a homogeneous suburban bubble. But such a heavy-handed approach isn’t likely to be effective, and the very idea has prompted a strong backlash from some students.

Instead of such thinly-veiled finger-pointing, a core would give students the opportunity to constructively share ideas in a non-confrontational setting. Many students settle into their social comfort zones within a few weeks or months of arriving at college. An extended core would maintain an imperative of diverse interaction through the first two years, fostering a more welcoming and integrated social and academic community.

Some have argued that the distribution requirements in the College of Arts and Sciences are an ad equate way to produce well-rounded students and that anything more stringent is overkill. But distribution requirements are just a convenient way for students to find the easiest courses in each department. Ironically, these requirements reflect the fact that a given discipline is essential to a complete education, but students have an incentive to sacrifice the essential for the expedient when selecting courses.

This phenomenon contributes to grade inflation- meaning that it’s just too easy to pad a Lehigh GPA. Employers and graduate schools are fond of comparing applicants to the mean or median performance at their particular institution. That makes the choice between challenge and success a zero-sum game. If you choose to push yourself academically, you risk losing out to those who would rather coast.

Even though a core curriculum would do a great deal to improve the Lehigh experience, the impact on those who aren’t here yet and those that have just departed would be even more pronounced. For conscientious prospective students, Lehigh would compare more favorably to alternatives, while the intellectually disinterested might stay away. In the crucial (no matter what anyone tells you) US News and World Report rankings, Lehigh is consistently dragged down by weak assessments from peer-institutions, which is worth 25% of the total score. Bolstering our “intangibles” through the introduction of a challenging core would give those reviewers a reason to take a second look.

Employers and graduate schools, too, would recognize the rigorous crucible that all Lehigh students must pass through. This could very easily improve post-graduate opportunities across all majors, but chances are, the students will speak for themselves.

Each year, there comes a time to discuss the topics of diversity, equality, and justice. These topics are critical to our future as a nation and as a society.

To begin, what is diversity? Common sense would suggest a definition describing an abundance of variety within a group. In a social sense, this meaning may be expanded to reference the state of having a wide variety of different people with different ideas, backgrounds, and experiences all coming together and representing themselves as equals. Few would disagree that this arrangement is representative of a diverse society. Yet for such a simple idea, why does it seem that the ultimate paradigm of social diversity constantly eludes us? This answer lies deep within our social fabric.

It is important to note that there seem to be significant differences in the various ways diversity is interpreted. Diversity is acceptance of and respect for others regardless of whether one agrees with another’s thoughts and actions. Once phrased in these terms, diversity can be described as a respect for man’s natural right of freedom. Mankind has received no greater gift than that of freedom, a right granted by nature and inalienable by any other force. Only recently has the opportunity arisen for people to escape the will of despots and tyrants to live in a state of at least partial freedom. As such, I would consider it a terrible crime to unjustly deprive another person of his or her natural rights. It is here, where diversity and freedom intersect, that the greatest dangers to our natural rights exist.

Oppression has plagued societies throughout history, and there are even contemporary instances of oppression in the United States and abroad. From injustice, a hierarchy of leadership arises in the form of special interest groups, who strive to restore natural rights to their oppressed constituencies. It is through such advocacy that rallies are formed, speeches are given, and the creation of diversity positions in schools, businesses, and governments occur. By itself, this is not inherently bad, as it may indeed serve its purpose as intended. However, one must consider the cost of such activism when left unchecked. It is easy for unbridled activism to diverge from its original purpose and move towards the oppression of their perceived former oppressor through unrealistic demands.

For this reason, it is imperative that the progression of diversity through activism and advocacy be checked with prudence. Care must be taken to ensure that both the immediate and long-term consequences of our actions serve to benefit society as a whole and do not merely further segmentation and oppression. The reasoning for this is simple: special interest groups are, by definition, specific concerns within society, which tend to seek measures which not only ensure their own liberties, but which also occasionally advocate the recession of natural rights belonging to those they consider their oppressor. Such a mindset is based in the concept that an advantage to one must result in a disadvantage to another, a belief which is simply not true. There is no reason why everyone cannot enjoy their natural rights together, as this is the true meaning of diversity.

As a conservative thinker, I have been labeled as racist, prejudiced, unjust, immoral, sexist, intolerant, and even evil in the past, an experience shared by many conservatives. After hearing these accusations, I always question whether I am actually racist, a good person, or if my beliefs are wrong. These are difficult questions to ask but after long and hard consideration, my answer became clear. My friends emigrated here from various countries around the world, subscribe to a wide variety of political views, differ in sexual orientation, practice different religions, and are of varying ethnic backgrounds. In this respect, I embrace the differences in others around me to improve on the diversity of my life. In my mind, such a realization begs the questions: who is really intolerant, the man who believes in every person’s inalienable rights or the special interest group that divides society, pushes our differences to the forefront, and calls for the alienation of others in order to further their own interests? It is good to seek diversity, but prudence must dictate our course when dealing with something as sacred as our natural rights. Our freedom is both the most powerful and delicate possession we have as human beings, and as such it is imperative that we seek change and improvements in the diversity of our society, but we must take care to let our actions to be guided by the wisdom that all of society must progress without fear of further division and oppression.

To conclude the Martin Luther King Week festivities on Tuesday evening, January 26th, the passionate Southern Baptist preacher, Dr. William H. Gray III, delivered his remarks on the life of Martin Luther King Jr. Gray addressed the history of the Civil Rights Movement and issues that continue to face America today.

“Not many people can say that they were there on that hot August day, when 250,000 Americans gathered to fight racism” He said. “When Martin Luther King Jr. came up to the podium, he launched a thirty-minute attack on all the foundations of the past 200 years of American history”.

Gray proceeded to paint the bleak picture of America before the civil rights movement, a time he referred to as “a wart on our nation’s history”. Gray credited both King’s leadership, and widespread media coverage via television to the success of the civil rights movement. “He called America to live up to its high ideals…and in about ten years, all the laws had changed, without a bloody revolution”.

“Many people refer to him as the ‘great dreamer’… but Martin was no dreamer… He was a revolutionary for justice. Two to three hours of community service on his birthday was not his goal”.

Gray explained how he came to know King as a child in Philadelphia, when King stayed at the Gray family home on a fundraising endeavor. King was referred to as a “close friend of the family”. Although it is something to be said to have been a friend of one of the most influential men in our country’s history, Gray is more than accomplished in his own right.

After earning his Master of Divinity degree from Drew Theological Seminary in 1966, he was installed as Senior Minister of the Union Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey. In the years following, Gray also worked as a housing activist and as an assistant professor. When he accepted a pastorship at Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia, he found a new avenue of opportunity: politics. In 1978, Gray was elected to represent Pennsylvania’s second district in the House of Representatives, rising as high as Majority Whip. After accepting a position as president and chief executive officer of the United Negro College Fund, Gray stepped down from his congressional seat in 1991. In 1994, Gray served as an advisor on Haiti to President Clinton. He now serves as an independent director on the boards of three large corporations.

While Martin Luther King Jr., and Gray’s characterization of him were certainly the focus of the speech, what was most intriguing was the question and answer period which followed the speech. Gray answered from his experiences questions that were posed by audience members about contemporary American issues; such as unemployment and education, and Haiti.

When asked “What would Martin be doing today?” Gray responded by saying, “He would be looking for injustice in the world …moving toward economic rights and world peace”. “There are many areas where he would question us” Gray said “such as black vs. white unemployment differences, education, and foreign policy”.

For a man who has been more or less paid for his opinion under different titles over the course of his career; it was disappointing to find, underneath a grand fog of eloquence, only a pattern of generalizations, botched facts, and criticism.

According to Gray, everything seems to be an issue of black and white, with no other factors involved. Yes, unemployment for blacks is 1.8 times greater than whites (nowhere near 3 times greater, as Gray and the Brown and White seem to believe)1; but this still means that there are nearly 4 times as many unem ployed whites as there are unemployed blacks. Unemployment is an issue for all of us, regardless of color.

Gray thinks that more money and more social programs are the answer to our nation’s problems, stating proudly that he “opposed Reagan’s budget cuts and worked to expand social programs.” He criticizes the public education system, stating that education funding based on property tax is unfair to inner-city (black) students, suggesting an equalization of education funding, or even funneling more of the money into inner-city school districts. Established research suggests that spending does not always have a direct effect on quality of education. According to a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States is tied for the highest annual spending per student at 11,000 dollars, but has lower math, reading and science levels than other developed nations.2 Similarly, an article by the Washington Post shows that the Washington DC school district, while providing above average funding at $12,979 per student annually, still places far below average, with double the average percent of students lacking basic math skills (62%).3 In addition, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, annual per pupil expenditures in urban areas are nearly 25% greater than those in rural areas; and annual per pupil expenditures were greater for high poverty areas than low poverty areas.4

Finally, Gray’s comments on Haiti were most interesting, considering he is certainly an authority on the subject. During the speech, Gray stated that King would have said (about the tragedy in Haiti): “We should have done something a long time ago”. Gray blamed America for Haiti’s poverty citing a “racist trade embargo” imposed on Haiti after the country gained its independence from France in 1804.

What Gray didn’t mention however, was that the young nation of America was just following suit after the large colonial states of France, Spain and Great Britain all declared trade embargoes on Haiti; and that our young nation was also a victim of the same harsh tactic, before and after the Revolutionary War. Haiti has suffered through a long history of political instability and division, including 32 coups, which has weakened the country far more than any trade embargo ever could. Worst of all, world superpowers, such as France, Germany, and the United States, have all played God in Haitian politics, further weakening the government and lowering the country’s morale1. He also spoke of his efforts to pass a multi-billion dollar aid package to improve Haiti’s infrastructure while advisor on Haiti to President Bill Clinton.

Overall, the University made a good choice for a Martin Luther King Week keynote speaker. Gray has led a life similar to King’s, both strongly advocating for their race in the public spotlight. Who better to comment on the life and work of Martin Luther King Jr. than a close family friend, and fellow “revolutionary for justice”? That being said, Gray’s comments expose his narrow-mindedness, shortsightedness and abundantly obvious racial bias. By focusing on the differences between blacks and whites, Gray characterized whites as the enemy. His comments create more division in an America that is undergoing the healing process, trying to close the gap between blacks and whites. Typical of a politician, Gray’s solution to every problem is to throw more money at it; even when this is already being done and is not working. Anyone can look into our nation’s past and point out the problems. One would expect a man of Gray’s accomplishments and experience to offer real solutions, instead of biased criticism.

1. Martinez, L. (2010, January 29). Former Congressman recalls MLK. The Brown And White.
2. OECD. (2005, 13 09). OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training. Education at a Glance.
3. Keating, D., & Haynes, V. D. (2007, June 10). Can D.C. Schools Be Fixed? The Washington Post.
4. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., et al. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Writer’s Note:
1 A good example of this is the United States’ military occupation
and re-insertion by force of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, after he was exiled from Haiti in a military coup in 1991, which was planned in part by Dr. William H. Gray III. Aristide was forced into exile again in 2004 after a 2004 rebellion.

February 22nd saw the passing of the 1000th American serviceman in Afghanistan since the United States began combat operations nine years ago.

How many of us have looked up from our daily lives and took note of the ongoing conflict? Despite your opinions on the war, most can agree that our troops should be supported.

While the politics of the war can be debated endlessly, the fact remains; hundreds of thousands of men and women our age have been sent overseas to fight and die for our ability to live free.

Remember the troops.

Lehigh’s department of International Relations boasts more majors than almost any other in the College of Arts and Sciences – 130, according to its website.

That Lehigh has a separate department of International Relations, as opposed to one that is only accessible through the department of Political Science, has long been one of the CAS’s proudest distinctions.

However, all is not well in the back left corner offices in Maginnes. The department is losing its patriarch in Professor Rajan Menon, who holds a Bachelors and a Masters from Lehigh and has attracted countless students to the IR major with his masterful lecturing in his Intro to World Politics course.

Amid Menon’s departure, rumors, heretofore unreported by any campus media outlet, of IR’s imminent absorption into the Political Science department have students and professors alike ready to come to blows with Dean Ann Meltzer.

The IR department held its own town hall meeting last week for majors, which was off-limits to the press, but students left the meeting with a larger-than-ever sense of paranoia about the future of the department.

A resistance movement that was the product of that meeting has secured a sit-down with Dean Meltzer on March 2nd.

In a statement communicated to IR students through the department coordinator, Meltzer vehemently denied any plans to dissolve or merge the IR department. Her e-mail left little room for future equivocation, stating, “I am not aware of any proposal to do either.”

This directly contradicts off-the-record statements from faculty in the IR and Political Science departments, who insist that they’ve been approached with plans for some form of restructuring.

At this point, one of two outcomes is possible: The restructuring will proceed, revealing grave deception and a lack of transparency on the part of the administration. Alternatively, Dean Meltzer may already be backing off of this proposal after such a decisively negative reaction.

Either way, this is what college is all about: Professors and students standing up to administrative powers to protect academic excellence from the indiscriminate hatchet of cost-cutting and consolidation.

Anyone who’s critical of the role of tenure in higher education should take note of the crucial ability of professors to act as a check against wayward administrative priorities.

Stay tuned to The Patriot for additional coverage of this developing story.

Our world today is much safer than any that has existed in the history of humanity. We have immunizations for a variety of viral infections, antibiotics, cars, clean food and water, a dearth of localized warfare and violence and even government-funded student loans. We have it good, especially when compared to the billions who existed before us. Most of history has comprised of a shortage of resources, perpetual hunger, brutality, violence and a life expectancy that rarely exceeded 50 years.
Industrialization brought us clean living conditions and protection from some serious diseases but it also brought us weapons of war. The World Wars were devastated occurrences that shaped our world today and took the lives of millions of people. Politically, however, we are much safer today than we have ever been. The mayor of the town over from us won’t raid and pillage our homes and Germany isn’t going to invade any time soon. Although we do have worries with respect to international relations, especially with the threat of nuclear war, we have the sense that widespread destruction is unlikely in our generation, or at least at this time. This lack of threat from a world war is probably in large part due to those very same weapons of mass destruction that cause so much fear. Terrorism is a threat that we must all live with and it is our generation’s great battle. Random acts of terror, however, pale in comparison to what generations previous have dealt with. We are not asked to charge the trenches or invade Europe. Nations that were once willing to lose 50,000 men in a single battle are now cringing at the thought of losing 100. This is a very positive development for humans but we don’t seem to be at ease with our new-found sense of well-being.
Even though our life expectancy is greater than it has ever been and we are not facing the constant threat of death, as most of humanity has, we still feel the need to craze ourselves with fear. We live comfortable, cushy lives but we also have the myopia of seeing our moment in time and our generation as THE generation that will have to battle THE issue of the century. Undoubtedly these moments have occurred. We often have a gross misunderstanding of history. Our lack of perspective leads us to pessimistically believe that our generation will suffer greatly at the hands of a foreign power, or economic devastation will result or an awful virulent disease. History tells us that we won’t be fighting a world war in the foreseeable future, that we are richer and more prosperous than we have ever been (considering that a hundred years ago the average person would be considering poor in today’s standards) and swine flu isn’t the black death which was actually something to be concerned about. (Swine flu has killed a paltry number compared to the bubonic plague’s reaping of a third of Europe).
The news is full of it. Scary stories about crime going up, the economy faltering and bin laden coming to get us. Let’s take a moment to question why. Why do you feel the need to scare ourselves when all the evidence shows that we are living at the best moment in human history? So next time you hear that big, bad story about the next big thing to be afraid of just remember: You are not going to get the plague, you’re not going to be sold as an impoverished slave anytime soon and you’re not going to be bombed by the Russians.

In the realm of legislation that fails to receive sensationalized media attention, Ron Paul’s HR 1207 has largely been ignored by the mainstream media.  However, the legislation has garnered the cosponsorship of over half of the representatives in the house, and a companion bill in the senate has enjoyed similar success.

So what is HR 1207?  HR1207 is a bill to audit the Federal Reserve; the quasi-governmental agency responsible for managing the money supply of the United States.  Despite the word “Federal” in the name, they are no more a part of the government than a Federal Bank.  The Federal Reserve’s website lists their goals as Influencing Monetary and Credit conditions, supervising and regulating banking institutions, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and providing financial services to depository institutions and the US Government.

Many people find fault with the Federal Reserve through the inflationary tactics it uses to accomplish its goals.  Inflation, the expansion of the monetary supply causes price increases and makes money worth less.   Since the Federal Reserve’s inception in 1913, the worth of an American dollar has fallen 97%; what one could buy for three cents in 1913, one now has to spend one hundred cents in 2009.

The rampant inflationary tactics have taken a new turn in the past decade, as the inflation creates boom and bust cycles within our economy, as evidenced most recently by the housing bubble that spawned our current recession.  Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has increased the monetary supply by buying assets of struggling companies, which results in a hidden tax on the average American consumer.

This issue becomes relevant to students as we progress through college and seek employment in the workforce.  A Federal Reserve that manipulates the financial markets has the ability to bring widespread panic and ruin to the population.

HR 1207: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

NBC and their Olympic coverage team generally provide some of the most extensive sporting event coverage in the world. With literally thousands of hours of footage, it is small wonder that the coverage becomes impersonal at times. Once such instance, found here: http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/assetid=d344b6d1-b25e-442b-b06c-cf2452e122f7.html depicts a very painful crash of American Stacey Cook in a practice run. Viewers see the terrifying crash, and then see Stacey Cook slowly try to sit up but then fall back down. NBC then flashes the rather obvious fact that she did not finish the race, and proceed to show the crash again, this time in slow motion. In the end, viewers are left with no idea how badly she was injured.

She's not moving, but I'm sure she's fine.

Update: Stacey Cook did, in fact, recover from the crash in practice, and ended up finishing in the top 10 overall in the Women’s Downhill event. This was quite an accomplishment, as at least four of the women racing in the finals crashed during the actual race, and did not finish. It was the quickest and most dangerous women’s downhill course in recent Olympics.