Joseph C. Phillips had an interesting article tackling one of the most common myths the New Left pushes when it comes to conservatives:  the belief that conservatives hate change.

I don’t know how this label got started; either conservatives opposed the liberals’ wishes to increase government power in the ’30s and ’60s, or it is just another way to call the GOP a party of “old white men.”  All Republicans are not Conservative, and not all Conservatives are Republicans. I refer to myself as a Conservative in public because the GOP needs to revitalize their ideals.  The party needs a leader, and they don’t have one.  Although 41% or so the country identifies itself as conservative, only about 21% identify with the Republican Party.

Conservatives desire change:  tax reform, health care reform (just not Obamacare,) and basic limiting of the federal government’s power.

Who among us wouldn’t want the government to just leave us alone?

Lehigh values its aesthetic value as a beautiful campus. The excessive use of mulch on our highly sloped terrain, however, is futile and unnecessary. The rain carries a large proportion of this mulch away. Established growing systems of grass, trees and other plants have infused root systems allowing them to maintain their position through a variety of weather conditions. Lehigh could benefit from replacing mulched areas with living plants that are more resistant to erosion. This shift would act to save Lehigh on the immense upkeep costs while showcasing the natural beauty of our campus. Currently, Lehigh contracts mulch to be literally pumped through hoses from a truck onto campus. Mulch is simply not a necessary expenditure of the schools resources.

Two articles to stimulate your interest:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/attention_whole_foods_shoppers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588792834312898.html

Introduction: Among the feedback I received for my last piece, “A Case Against a Chief Diversity Officer,” I was asked to propose a better system for institutional inclusion and excellence.  I now present my proposal in the form of a narrative fable.  The following is hypothetical, and while some source material is used (and cited), the following is a work of fiction – all named parties did not say or do anything of what you will soon read…

Fable:

“Call Sharon, we’re going to need her for this!” exclaimed Alice as she bid farewell to Bradley and the children.  It was time – for Lehigh’s own “Gang of 8” to meet and discuss the future of the university, using Asa Packer’s top secret pensive to see into the future.  The team – composed of President Alice Gast, Provost Pat Farrell, Development head Joe Kender, deans Meltzer, Brown and Wu (of the Arts & Sciences, Business & Economics and Engineering & Applied Science colleges, respectively), Vice Provost John Smeaton and Dean of Students Sharon Basso – met every other semester to discuss the future of Lehigh, aloof of the trustees, faculty and students.  

Alice strode past the creepy painted woodshed in the grove on the hill by ATO, where a sculpture garden once stood – here was where the Gang of 8 met.  Standing over the pensive, Alice ceremonially plunged her head into the cauldron.  John Smeaton blew pixie dust into the air while the 7 circled Alice and the pensive, slowly chanting “Chronicle… Chronicle” in reference to their sacred text, The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Sparks leapt gracelessly out of the pot – Smeaton stepped back, to avoid his robe catching spark.  “Chronicle… Chronicle…”  The chanting grew louder… stronger….  Suddenly, a blast of purple fog emitted from Smeaton’s mouth as he cocked his head back, shaking violently.  Figures from Lehigh’s past, present and future flew out of the opening and around the grove in a frenzy – Joe Kender dove out of the way to avoid being struck by class of 2009 President Scott Wojciechowski.  The infamous words of W. Deming Lewis’ 1974 Presidential Address echoed in tremolo.  “…and I think we are an elite university…”

. . .“Ben, let’s go!”  We were late – later than usual, in fact, for this week’s Patriot meeting.  Among the agenda items, a summary review of the new diversity infrastructure implemented by the administration.  Radical changes had taken place – the resource rooms disappeared, with their respective groups changing over to Senate-recognized, student-run organizations.  Some resource room heads were re-used in the restructuring; others left or were asked to leave.  These were considerable changes, and the Patriot had to comment.  Ben jumped down the stairs, skipping every other one while avoiding the remnants of one of his “extracurricular meetings” from the night before.

“So what’s our angle?” I asked.  “I really see this being one of the few things we can stand behind – the problem is, there’s so much misinformation out there.  If I have to walk through one more protest… I swear…”  Ben cut me off – “…I’m sick of it, too, but what else can they do?  They think they’re crippled without their resource leads – they’re like a computer who lost its hard drive, they can just beep and stop functioning.”  “i.e. protest and boycott class…” I followed.  I held the door for Ben as we found our usual meeting space in Packard.  Ben set up the projector, bringing up coverage from The Brown & White, while I found a chair.  “Don’t forget to bring up the org chart!” I reminded him.

As the meeting began, Ben opened by reading one of President Gast’s legendary staged emails.  “Lehigh has traditionally been a place for new beginnings,” the letter began.  “I recognize that we have been in a state of limbo since the restructuring, so let me make myself perfectly clear.  We are working to gain neither national attention nor recognition, though such has come upon us as an aside.  We are working to create an individual environment – one school, many voices.  Each of you may now stand for something, be it social change or self-liberation.  We come to college to find ourselves, but we must now leave college having found one another.  I believe that Lehigh has taken the necessary steps to start not one but many dialogues.  Our new model of centralized diversity leadership, working groups and student leadership for special interests will allow Lehigh to lead the way for 21st century diversity excellence.”

“Strong stuff.  Now – as Trevor asked me on the way over – what’s our angle, team?”  said Ben.  Managing Editor Brandon Sherman, ’10 was the first to speak – “I’d like to cover how students are doing, now that the resource leaders and dedicated spaces for The Women’s Center, LGBTQIA Services and the M-Room, to name just a few, are gone.”  I broke in next, “I can follow Brandon’s piece with a discussion about how the ‘victim’s row’ hall on the second floor of the UC is being converted into an extension of The Dialogue Center.  Also – does anyone know what they did with the old Rainbow Room?”  Associate Editor Matt Keim, ’12 chimed in, “It’s VP for Equity Henry Odi’s office.  He picked it because of its high visibility, and the fact that it’s location encourages students to pop in and start a conversation.”

“What about staff?  Who’s still in?  Who’s gone?” I asked.  “Since Matt broached the topic of the VPEC position, let’s see an assessment of the renewed org chart.”  Ben brought up the chart.  “Looks like Ja’mel Hodges is still here – his position is ‘Deputy to the VPEC: Dialogue Captain.’  What’s that?”  “I think they basically gave him a new title as a glorified conversation starter.  He’s a good moderator and he breaks the ice really quickly – I’m sure as long as he doesn’t expand the speech codes we’ll be fine,” I added.  “Wait… which one of the Women’s Center directors was moved to work over at the Health Center as a special liaison for sexual violence prevention?” I asked.  The organization chart didn’t have a name next to the block yet; the Patriot staff settled on the conclusion that we weren’t through the woods yet with the death of red tape.  “Someone make sure we get that name before we go to print,” Ben added.

“Did anything happen to the outreach for the Rainbow Room?  Who’s doing Safe Zone now?”  asked Associate Editor Alyssa Gerety, ’13.  “Alyssa, I think it’s also under the new Health Center liaison.  They decided to decouple the politics from most of the outreach from all of the resource rooms, and most of the sexual health stuff went over to be a part of Dr. Kitei’s team.” I noted.  “Incidentally, Brandon, did you interview any of the protestors yet?”  Before he could speak, Ben cut both of us off.  “Wait a sec, I forgot to scroll down on the Gast Press Release – looks like she addresses the protestors here.  Let me read what it says.”

“We must reinforce the idea that diversity means everyone.  To this end, the abolition of certain resource rooms as fixed institutions on this campus will allow the natural progression of free markets to enter the conversation.  The new Women’s League organization, ALGBTQIAS [Association of LGBTQIA Students] and incorporation of certain legacy M-room events into the Black Student Union, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers and other existing diversity and activism groups led by student on campus will allow you, the students of Lehigh to have a say in the course of events as we move forward.

To address the civil unrest that has occupied the front lawn of the UC for the past two weeks, I ask you – put down your signs, stop raising your voices, and listen.  Your ideas, your concerns – these are the fruits of a great discussion and a healthy dialogue.  Reserve a room in the new conference area of the UC and host a brown-bag discussion.  Write an editorial to one of our campus newspapers.”

“I guess some things never changed,” chuckled Ben as he editorialized by adding in his best Gast voice, “Just get off my damn lawn – it’s almost candidates weekend, and we need our plants and trees to look picture perfect.  Brickman needs to mulch soon…”  The room laughed, but I had to break the mood, “Wait – Ben, this org chart… there’s a lot of stuff missing here.  It looks like some things got absorbed into Office of Special Projects, but almost everything under Dean Allison Gulati is gone, except the Clubs & Orgs people who help Senate manage the 140+ student-led organizations on campus.  In fact – I can’t even see Gulati’s name – where did she go?”  Ben smiled, “I knew you’d notice that.  Check this.”  Ben brought up a copy of The Brown & White’s Crime Report, where it noted that, “…a female employee was escorted off campus recently for behavior that served no purpose.”

“I heard about that!” interjected staff writer Will Thode, ’12.  “She was in Upper, screaming at the workmen who were dismantling the old ‘victim’s hall,’ saying ‘you’re tearing this community apart!’ over and over.  It was nuts.  I think they towed her car.”  The staff roared with laugher, as Ben logged off the room’s computer.  “You know,” I started, “we all know that I was the last possible person you might think would’ve supported some flavor of a Chief Diversity Officer on this campus.  But the fact is, Lehigh’s made a clear commitment to demonstrating that diversity really means everyone – a point I’ve been making for…” Light laughter.  “…well, forever.  They’ve trimmed the fat, cut back on staffers, opened a hall for universal student use and I think made a great step in starting some penetrating conversations on this campus.  Plus, if anyone should be VPEC, Odi’s clearly the best choice.  And – we didn’t hire anyone new!  I mean, that’s the best thing of all… this is a cost-neutral move that signifies both economically and symbolically that the school really is committed to open discussion.  And while the media spotlights us for ditching the resource room leads who were let go rather than focusing on the big picture, the fact is, those leads were diluting the conversation.  By speaking on behalf of their representative groups, they were like lawyers who tipped the scales in favor of one point of view over another – a situation that’s historically divided Lehigh more than it has united us.  It’s like, if MSNBC and Fox ditched the pundits and let the people think for themselves…”

“Hold on now, Trevor,” said Brandon.  “I have one more question – these leads tackled issues as they arose.  That is, if Lehigh experienced a hate crime today…”  I cut him off.  “Brandon, you know I don’t believe in hate crimes, and…” Brandon retorted, “…regardless, say a situation arises where one of these special interest groups experiences a rash of, say, vandalism with their posters.”  I replied, “This would be a situation for both the VPEC to handle in conjunction with a temporary ‘working group’ – a cohort composed of faculty, students and administrators who represent a fair cross section of Lehigh to assess what steps should be taken.  Why retain these resource rooms for a situation that arises perhaps once, if ever in the course of a year?  It’s much more action-oriented to form a committee – which I note would loose the bias that the resource room head would have.  I’ll counter your example, Brandon – say there was an incident where a transgendered person was harassed in a bathroom.  Now, no one here would ever defend harassment, but look at the situation closer… what would harassment constitute?  The LGBTQIA head now might insinuate that you have the right to enter a gender-segregated bathroom of your choice based on ‘how you feel that day.’  This is radical, in my humble opinion, but more so, it’s a dimensioned issue that impacts both the transgendered community and the heteronormative community.  Just like that individual doesn’t have the right to be harassed, I don’t either – and I find that someone of the wrong gender in my bathroom is sexual harassment.  In short – it’s a highly faceted issue that deserves a full evaluation.  That’s something a resource head could never provide.

But with the working groups,” I continued, “Lehigh has the opportunity to bring all respective angles to the table to have a conversation.  That moves us more forward than any complaint-based system, or worse – the risk that a resource lead would demand some kind of skewed solidarity for their interest.  After all – remember what we talked about the incentives?  They spend their time evaluating the issues that plague the communities they claim to support.  It’s like, I go to CPAC every year – a conservative convention.  If I spent my whole life listening to people who speak at just CPAC, I’d only get one side of the story.  I’d see the world as a very scary place, and fail to realize the breath of what’s around me.  But these leads, they are very much in-tuned with the special interests they defend.  And because of this, they are the last people who should be in a position to lead a ‘crisis’-based response to any issues that arise on campus.”

I was on a roll.  I couldn’t stop now.  “Finally – and this is back with the incentives – what resource lead will ever step down?  This whole thing, it’s about money and power.  Money and power entrench their necessity more than anything else.  Do you think that there would be a day when one of these leads walked out of their office, handed a letter of resignation in and said ‘I’m no longer needed here’?  No!  Their ‘research’ will always lead them back to the conclusion that the world is out to get them and their constituents, and being that their job is essentially to carry out this research in addition to tending to student programs and directives, and occasionally teach – frankly, when you couple in the highly political nature of their work, I feared that they’d never go away.

Remember what we said about dialogue.  Simply telling students that their views are antiquated and oppressive – that just breeds internalized resentment, and that’s the favorite tactic of these resource rooms.  I always feared that my children would someday go to college, and in their first day or two, they’d have to undergo some kind of ‘sensitivity training,’ where they learned that – perhaps unintentionally, they were consistently offending and oppressing individuals.  Now, at Lehigh, the fist thing students are told at orientation is that..”  Ben cut me off.  “Wait, Trevor, I’ll pull up the document…”  Ben was referring to Lehigh’s new Diversity in Discussion pledge.  “Here it is, I’ll read it.

We the students commit that as members of this university, we challenge ourselves to never close our minds to an idea.  Ideas are the basis of humanity’s finest hours – ideas may be challenged, loved or hated, but they must never be quashed, quieted or censored.  As such, we understand that college is about the free and open exchange of ideas.  Some may be more comfortable to us than others.  We understand that discomfort from an idea does not constitute harassment.  We further acknowledge that the root of ideas is a dialogue.  Dialogue demonstrates to us as individuals which ideas will stand the tests of time, and which shall fall.  No one student, professor or administrator has the right to destroy an idea, be it at birth or gestation.  Lehigh has committed itself to this through our office of Equity in Community, a permanent cabinet-level position whose role is to start and moderate conversations – not to control the flow of dialogue (and ideas), but rather, to challenge and maintain order.”

“Ah, words to live by, eh Ben?” I asked, calmer now.  “I’ll be curious to see how this all holds up nationally – the VPEC report itself stated that we are moving towards a new epoch in diversity, and I believe it.  We are the children of the first generation, and we have been raised under radically different standards than those who necessitated the resource rooms in their early years.  Now, we can proudly say that we’ve moved past this piecemeal approach, tackling the challenge of diversity in education with a holistic, singular vision dedicated to dialogue and the free and open exchange of ideas.  Sounds rather Platonic, doesn’t it, Ben?”

…Lifting her head from the pensive, Alice stepped back.  The Gang of 8 cracked their fingers and necks, and chatted quietly amongst themselves for a moment before Alice broke the murmur.  “I think we all know what needs to be done.  I’ll call a meeting with the board – we’ve got work to do!”

Tuesday, January 12, 2010, tremors rock Haiti, 15 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince, the capital city. Shaking with a force of 31.6 megatons or 31 small-nukes, Port-au-Prince crumbled. Buildings once vertical lay shattered across the landscape. Devastation spread as the poorest country in the west lost its entire power grid. 

The already fragile infrastructure was now broken. Combined with, “poor infrastructure, landslides, vulnerable neighborhoods, no strict building codes, [and] a high density population,” recovery seemed hopeless.1 

And then came relief! Obama promised a “swift, coordinated and aggressive” effort.2 The Red Cross and U.N. rushed to provide relief as U.S. and international charities followed. Philanthropic Americans started new causes and poured money into the country. 

However, that is not the whole story.  Interwoven in the epic relief effort is a narrative of corruption, scam and politicization of crisis. 

Starting at the top, the over 3,000 NGOs have taken most of the donations to effectively pay their employees. The America Red Cross has already admitted to financing their debt with donations. After nearly two month relief efforts and $354 million collections, almost half of the 1.3 million homeless don’t even have a tarp for the rainy season.3 More substantially, not even one-third of the collected money has been spent on relief. Instead it stays stagnant in the bank accounts of large NGOs. 

Even worse is the bottom feeders of the crisis, out scam the average Americans. According to Symantec Corp, maker of Norton Antivirus, the first scam e-mails about the Haiti earthquake appeared only two days after the quake.4 Scammers send e-mails requesting money for children in Haiti, when they are actually routing your relief money to pay for their child support! 

So, what has Lehigh been doing about the earthquake? 

Lehigh has been using Haiti issues as a source of free publicity and program subsidies. Three programs in specific are have used this crisis as a source of publicity. 

Starting with the publicity stunts, the Brown and White took a non-Haiti related speaker on campus, Ellen Gustafson, and painted her speech and the associated program as a Haiti only front cover news issue. Ellen came to Lehigh to speak on leadership through her experience as founder of FEED Projects, LLC and the Feed Foundation. This event, hosted by the Leadership Initiative at Lehigh was student run program that brought together students across campus from all majors to learn about leadership. However, the Brown and White did not cover any part of that story. Instead they took out of context, a mention Ellen causally made about Haiti and turned it into a front page picture.  

Continuing with the sources of program subsidies, both the Hawks for Haiti program and the DanceFest 2010 have used the Haitian discourse to conjure interest for their events. According to Tyrone, organizer of DanceFest, only 70 percent of the proceeds go to Haiti related donations. The rest of the money goes to the host. Similarly, Hawks for Haiti is organizing a carnival for Haiti. However, there is no mention of how much money or support they actually plan to give to Haiti related organizations. 

Together crisis politicians at Lehigh have agreed to donate all of the money raised to the Red Cross, the corrupt organization mentioned above. In a conversation with the Community Service Office, I was told that the director researched the best place to put the money. It is clear this research did not take in to account any in-depth analysis of charity effectiveness. 

In the treachery of charity for Haiti, what can you do to help? How can you avoid scams?

There are two ways to do the right thing: 

(1) avoid scams 

(2) be informed. 

The Christian Science Monitor recently published five tips to avoid scams.5

The top three things that have to say are: 

(1) be cautious with online donations.

(2) check out the charities.

(3) donate to organizations not individuals. 

If you ask for all of the facts and call the charity you can learn a great deal about where your money goes. 

Furthermore, it is important to be informed. You should read technical information sources that are non-biased. For example the U.S. Geological Survey measured 16 earthquakes above 6.0 on the Richter Scale in the last 3 months. Some of these earthquakes were more than ten times as powerful as the Haitian earthquake.6 It is also important to consider the opportunity cost of your donations. If you donate to Haiti, you are not donating to help HIV/AIDS in Africa or the earthquake in Chile or poverty in Bethlehem. Therefore, when looking at donations through a systems lens, it is important to think about where you can give for the most impact and the most need.

Sources

1 – http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2434299

2 – http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=9547609&page=1

3 – http://www.sfbayview.com/2010/red-cross-under-fire-where%E2%80%99s-the-money-for-haiti/

4 – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/HaitiEarthquake/story?id=9561420&page=2

5 – http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0115/Five-tips-to-avoid-Haiti-relief-scams

6 – http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/

New Jersey recently passed a law known as Kyleigh’s Law.  (Politicians enjoy having poster boys- -or in this case, girls, for their initiatives) This law is named after Kyleigh D’Alessio, a 16-year old who was killed in 2006 in an automobile crash in Washington Township, NJ, involving another teen driver.  This new law makes it illegal for any driver under the age of 21, with a provisional license, to drive between the hours of 11:01 PM and 5:00 AM and to have more than one non-household passenger in the car.  It also requires these drivers to have an orange sticker on their license plates to mark them as teenage drivers.

This bill is the brainchild of former New Jersey Governor John Corzine.  It was pushed through Trenton without the backing of the people of New Jersey.  It is quite obviously a very controversial and unpopular bill.  Not only does it create an aura of criminality around younger drivers, it also creates unnecessary inconveniences for families with younger drivers.  Many of these people will have to risk a $100 fine in order to travel anywhere in New Jersey after 11 PM.  Teenage drivers will now be marked, making them clear targets for whoever wants to interfere with someone who is underage and clearly not with an adult.

Many Lehigh students will soon fall into the bracket of people directly affected by this law, significant because of its lack of popular support.  Trenton is essentially legislating to the people of New Jersey without their feedback.  There are over 8,000 protestors to the bill on Facebook alone, and many of those aren’t teenagers.  There exist numerous protest websites that have been receiving a great deal of traffic lately.  The largest and most well organized is http://stopkyleighslaw.org, a professional-looking site with a well organized layout that has links to important information including the lawyer in charge of the work to overturn the legislation.  There is firepower behind this cause.  On the other end, there are currently fewer than 800 signatures on the official petition to uphold Kyleigh’s Law and many of those are actually people who have voiced disparaging remarks about the measure and question its degree of constitutionality.

New Jersey’s Kyleigh’s Law gives Lehigh students an intimate sense of how overburdening legislation can directly impact our lives.  However, a much more ubiquitous and powerful example of American governing bodies trying to rule over rather than for is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. right now.  The health care legislation recently passed in Washington will be remembered for years as sloppy legislation.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President should direct legislation?  In the last ten years, the office of the Presidency has grown far more powerful than this nation has ever seen.  New heights were reached by President Bush with his curious penchant for signing statements.  It is commonly known that Bush only vetoed two bills during his tenure.  A far less known fact is that he signed hundreds of bills into law with pseudo-legal documents known as signing statements.  These are essentially legal statements explaining how the President plans to enact the legislation.  This could mean that the President plans not to enact the legislation.  Word of this underhanded yet powerful legal technique became known after Bush’s usage of the bill against John McCain’s anti-torture bill.  President Obama has also made use of signing statements, although before taking office he had promised not to do so.

Obama has taken a different approach in advancing the authoritarian nature of the Presidency.  He took it upon himself to personally direct the health care reform legislation.  Perhaps it is old-fashioned or antiquated thinking, but maybe Americans should keep the separated parts of government separate?  It is the President’s job to veto or sign a bill, not help it along especially when there is so much opposition to it.  It discredits the President’s authority to get knee-deep in the legislative process.  If most of Americans are opposed to a bill — which, with the health care bill, they are — then the Congress shouldn’t pass it.  The theory behind our representative system is that our delegates and representatives present and fight for our interests in Washington.  By following the word of the President rather than the American people, our legislatures are failing to uphold their part of the contract.

The passage of this latest health care reform bill is a bodes poorly for all Americans, not only because of an increasing tendency toward socialist institutions, but also because of the way the bill was forced through.  It is no accident that the Attorney Generals of 14 states are currently suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the bill.

It is sad to witness, but it is increasingly apparent, that our governing institutions are straying from a traditional democratic model.  Legislatures should fight for what their constituents want.  This practice of enforcing unpopular laws will breed resentment and will lead to a system curiously resembling that of a dictatorship.

Sources:

http://stopkyleighslaw.org/

http://www.trautmann.com/gdt.htm

http://news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=245274&position=2&news_type=news&rand=73317905

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/james-p-pinkerton-deem-pass-democrats-congress/

A private university has fewer obligations than the Government or public institutions in terms of free speech.  Lehigh states that they support a student’s right to free speech. In some respects it has. But recent discussions on campus suggest that free speech ought to be curtailed in certain cases. In the adjacent column, my colleague makes the claim that Lehigh is better served by having restrictions placed upon speech. 

The realm of actual speech we are discussing is admittedly narrow. The vast majority of dialogue on campus is wholly unrelated to what any speech code does or does not curtail. Similarly, no one is suggesting that anyone at Lehigh condone openly hateful speech.

So what speech are we discussing? There’s plenty. In  between everyday speech (obviously good) and hateful speech (obviously bad) there is a small but vital zone of discussion. For ease of reference, we’ll call it “controversial speech.”

Controversial speech covers a wide range of things. Cartoons, jokes, expressions of opinion, or ideas on politics, religion or life in general often fit into the realm of controversial speech because people don’t agree. While such speech can be uncomfortable at times, it is  unquestionably the backbone of progress for society by allowing the difficult issue(s) to be faced, instead of ignored.

This philosophy ought to hold true for Lehigh as well. The status quo should be challenged, conventional wisdom should be challenged, press outlets  should be challenged, and certainly the Patriot should be challenged as well. This creates open dialogue, and allows for progress.

So is this what we have at Lehigh? The answer, quite apparently, is no. Here it has become a trend that as soon as a controversial point is raised, someone, without fail,  says that they are “offended” or that claims are “ignorant.” Most often, the claims made are neither ignorant, nor offensive. Recent examples of this are plentiful on the Brown and White’s web forum.  Most recently, multiple students were troubled by a lifestyle article entitled “Couple Conundrums.” The image shown with the article is of a generic man and woman stick figures holding hands. Oh my! The reason, that such a biased picture was deemed “offensive” is that it was “too heteronormative,” and that the article did not take any time to contact couples that didn’t consist of a man and a woman.

The “offensive” label is thrown about all too often around Lehigh, and it is due to the atmosphere that Lehigh has created over time. Students, faculty, and staff can, and have, simply claimed  offense or harassment simply when  they don’t want to hear a certain point of view. Lehigh’s policies encourage this. With a very broad harassment policy, almost anything can be labeled as offensive, harassment, or a bias-related incident. 

This atmosphere does not create the polite community desired by everyone. Instead, it breeds animosity between people of differing views through inhibiting open conversation. Meaningful dialogue on serious issues requires everybody to say things that others might not agree with – earlier deemed “controversial speech.” By creating a campus climate where someone who disagrees or is offended is seemingly always given the benefit of the doubt, Lehigh is telling everyone not to say what they really think, and to go with whatever is  accepted by Lehigh’s standards.

This theory is proven in two ways. First, this policy can  actually build resentment between groups that really need to have an open dialogue. The contentious comment thread on the “Couple Conundrum” article demonstrates this in one case, though there are other examples. This causes different communities within Lehigh to become more isolated and self-segregated.

Second, it leads to a campus full of people who are absolutely terrified to express their own view. Personally, I cannot even tell you the number of times that I’ve been speaking with someone, even casually, and they make sure to tell me that this is “off the record.” Based on what I’ve seen, this is a common theme throughout Lehigh, and not an issue with myself. Through its policies on speech Lehigh has created a culture of cowardice that covers the entire campus.

It may seem innocuous at first glance, but this culture is harmful to Lehigh in many ways. The Patriot will continue to be an open forum for anyone who wishes to combat this misguided philosophy.

College is a good time for arguments – of all types.  Small classes encourage a civil dialogue on academic topics.  The politically minded have opportunities to air their views in print and in private conversations.  And if you’re only interested in the social science of Greek life hierarchies, there’s a place for you on CollegeACB.com.

In all cases, the process of constructing and reconstructing beliefs in arenas from the philosophical to the trivial is the most important part of the college experience.  Ideally, we emerge after four years of dialogue having developed a strong constitution of beliefs that have been thoroughly challenged and either amended or reinforced.

If you look a little closer though, it seems that our arguments are not really about what we say they’re about.  On a national scale, we just saw a debate over health care reform that completely neglected to, you know, substantively mention health care.

At Lehigh, the threshold for what constitutes a campus-wide argument is low, but there are a few issues that have consistently incited loud opinions throughout my four years here.

One example should be familiar to any regular reader of this journal: a few persistent conservative libertarians love to point out the grave threat to their First Amendment rights posed by the liberal establishment. 

Many writers for this publication see The Patriot as a vehicle with which to attack the rising tide of political correctness emerging at Lehigh and on college campuses generally.  But this perspective isn’t the exclusive province of any particular group of individuals; it is spread evenly throughout every corner of the campus.

To a certain extent, it’s a good point: people are sensitive.  You really can’t make jokes or critical statements referencing race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other privileged cultural category without undergoing a sociological prostate exam.     

Many of these controversial ideas are discounted not on their merits, but on-face, and this reactionary tendency ultimately works to the detriment of intellectualism and the vibrancy of our campus discourse.  Accepting the politically correct solution as universally correct is the wrong answer if we want to learn anything from the synthesis of diverse perspectives.

Still, I’m not convinced that this particular debate is productive, nor do I believe it’s really about the free expression of ideas.

It’s troubling that we have yet to hear an iteration of these arguments that don’t explicitly target a particular minority interest group or all minorities in general, presuming their efforts for empowerment on campus are superfluous, contrived and somehow a threat to the mainstream.  

More telling is the fact that these claims have a clear rhetorical inspiration in the Tea Partying Fox News style of argumentation.  Denouncing well-intentioned initiatives as dastardly plots to undermine everything that’s great about Lehigh based on broad appeals to efficiency, cost-control, liberty, freedom or other nebulous ideas is hardly an original or intellectually rigorous strategy.

In reality, efforts to empower and institutionalize the representation of minority interest groups on campus are not only necessary, but also insufficient in their current form. 

The math is fuzzy, thanks to an applicant’s ability to choose not to report his or her ethnicity (I wonder what that could mean), but admissions department profiles of the most recent incoming classes indicate that Lehigh is somewhere around 85% white.

Consider that staggering number in combination with the prevailing campus discourse – the way we talk about issues, the way we view ourselves superficially, the way we position and categorize people.  Without institutionalized protections for diversity, the space for the expression of those interests would be drowned out under the guise of “neutrality.”

The argument in favor of objectivity too often serves as a proxy for more insidious beliefs.  It’s not that it can’t be made rationally, citing evidence and in a way that appeals to reasonable people, but it ultimately engenders deeply problematic, even hateful consequences.

The situation closely parallels a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case in which a contingent of Neo-Nazis planned a march through the town of Skokie, Illinois – a heavily Jewish area whose residents included some Holocaust survivors. 

When the ACLU successfully defended the Neo-Nazis’ right to freedom of assembly under the First Amendment, it was a rational, principled and legal defense of a disgusting and inhumane act.

The logic of that case, that hate speech ought not be excluded because of its moral implications, is frighteningly reminiscent of the debate we’re having at Lehigh.  One side seems to think that any organization or administrator tied to a diversity initiative is a threat to their particular vision of a University’s proper role.  They simply don’t care that these steps might make Lehigh a more welcoming and inclusive place for a significant chunk of students and a more ethically defensible institution for those of us who care.

So this debate is not one between those who want the University to play an activist role in reshaping the campus culture and those who think our wasteful pursuit of that end is better left to market forces.  Those in the latter category seem to have a more unfortunate and selfish agenda.

They’d rather defend the kid who carved a swastika into a campus building (it was clearly a harmless prank!) than stand with those who were offended and intimidated by that action.  In doing so, they’ve chosen empty ideology over the moral integrity of the University and the interests of their fellow students.

The question posed to our editorial staff was: Which aspect or provision of the healthcare bill will have the greatest impact on Americans?

Read their responses below.

Matthew Keim, Class of 2012

The real effect that healthcare will have on people of this generation and future generations is the way large and comprehensive legislation is passed through Congress. Instead of passing several smaller bills where the nuisances of the reforms could be debated and improved upon, an all-or-nothing strategy where a monolithic, textbook sized bill was put to a vote. If it had failed, the past years worth of healthcare reform would have failed on one day. Let us assume there is a part of the healthcare bill that both sides of the aisle agree upon. By tying all of the reforms into one bill, a failure would mean that nobody gets what they want; where as breaking the bill down would mean that while some parts might fail, some parts would pass. The shrewd political move of consolidating a bill to get it to pass is an old one, but not one that screams bipartisan. Remember: the only bipartisan part of this bill was the opposition.

While liberals and supporters of the healthcare bill may be pleased that they have had their day after a yearlong debate, the political tides in Congress and the White House will change, as they always have and will. Maybe in 10 or 20 years a Republican supermajority with a Republican president will attempt to push through a 2000+ page bill, chocked full of special favors and pork spending. Public support will decline with time and the Democrats will reject the bill based on ideological grounds. Grandstanding will carry on for a year as the political majority pulls in every favor they can while Congressional Whips will scramble for votes close to the voting day. Is this the way controversial and divisive legislation is to be passed from now on?

Healthcare reform has passed, and the debate on its Constitutionality and implementation will continue for some time. However, the effectiveness of backroom deals and special favors has once again proven to be effective but on a scale never seen before in this country. The real impact on Americans is the way this legislation was passed and what it means for bills in the future.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

With close to 2000 pages of verbose declarations, the recent health care bill is simply too long for a brief yet in-depth analysis. Indeed, based on what I have seen, the bill’s greatest impact isn’t held within those pages, but rather can be seen in the bloody aftermath of the brawl surrounding it.

Partisanship is nothing new. Democrats blame George W. Bush for the escalation of it. That’s true to a degree, but would the country have honestly been any less partisan under President Gore as he crusaded against invisible gases? It’s unlikely. The split that has come between us has been a result of both parties, and their battle for the minds, or more appropriately the hearts, of the American public.

The healthcare battle brought to the forefront every ugly feeling that our political parties have been inspiring over the past twenty-plus years. We have seen and are still seeing accusations of malicious intent and utter stupidity being flung from both sides. Partisans, quite simply, are blind with rage.

Personally, I think it is an atrocity that this bill will become law. It increases government spending at a time when we simply cannot afford it. It requires U.S. citizens to purchase a product or service. It creates needless bureaucracy. It blatantly purchased required votes by sending hundreds of  millions of dollars from some states to other states.

But just as I can point out the bills many flaws, proponents of the bill can claim many benefits: restrictions on denial of service due to “pre-existing conditions,” and expanding coverage through subsidies to low-income individuals. These differences don’t make anyone crazy. It just makes us different people with different priorities.

But this isn’t the world we live in anymore. The days of civil discourse in politics have been dying for a while now. This bill, for several reasons, has become a tipping point. It has, by my estimation, taken us almost to a point of no return – where the politics of the left and the politics of the right are forever separated. That divide, as most of us can hopefully understand, is extremely dangerous to our society and extremely difficult to break down. Ultimately, this divide will have a greater impact on Americans fifty years from now than any of the provisions in this bill. 

Michael Caffrey, Class of 2012

The most profound and furthest-reaching impact of the 2010 Healthcare Reform legislation has nothing to do with the trillion-dollar cost.  Nor does it have anything to do with requiring care, or student loans, or anything regarding the text of the legislation itself.  The most important part of the legislation was the manner in which it was approved and a dangerous precedent for the future.

The 1998 decision of Clinton v. City of New York established “the U.S. Constitution did not authorize the President to enact federal law of which both houses of Congress had not previously approved the text.”  Turning to the healthcare legislation recently enacted, neither house of congress had actually passed the same legislation.  Instead, through compromise legislation, corruption, and reconciliation, a bill was presented to President Obama that did not meet the requirements of Clinton v. New York.  While this legislation may be controversial, the door it opens is far more overbearing.  The Constitution establishes a clear structure of how our government can work, and giving more power to the legislature, which has historically had lower approval ratings than the president. 

“statutes may only be enacted ‘in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure” – Justice Stevens 

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Healthcare will propel about 30 million people to get healthcare in the coming years, creating the most change for the currently uninsured.

Aside from the shear numbers who will have to obtain healthcare, the bill’s effects will impact people differently according to their wealth, gender, and profession.

The wealthiest Americans will see increased taxes as the part of the bill impacting them the most. The lowest income Americans will benefit from the simply ability to obtain health care. Middle-class Americans may see regulations tighten resulting in better coverage such as the ban on excluding those with pre-existing conditions.

In terms of Americans looking for care, the bill will infuse around 30 million new customers into the health care market and there could be a strain in the ability of the system to handle these new customers. For patients this means less time with doctors. For doctors this means an increased demand for care and more patients especially in areas that are currently underinsured.

For women the bill outlaws the discrimination of coverage and premiums based on gender. Insurance companies now cannot charge women more for the same coverage they give to men for a lower price, a practice known as ?gender rating?.

How you categorize yourself – as a woman, a patient, a taxpayer, a middle-class citizen – will determine the aspect of the bill that will have the greatest impact on you.

Earlier in the semester, avid readers of the Brown & White might have noticed an editorial written by the “Lehigh University Students for Workers” and “Lehigh Valley Students for Workers” which made various claims concerning the Sodexo employees at Lehigh University. Some of these claims accused Sodexo management of threatening employees who were considering unionization, as well as accusing local Sodexo management of threatening Lehigh students for speaking with Sodexo workers. The response from Sodexo workers was quick and fierce, in the form of various letters sent to the Brown & White which denied many of the claims found in the Lehigh University Students for Workers and Lehigh Valley Students for Workers’ original article. It is interesting to note that shortly after the hysteria began, it suddenly ended (as often occurs with sensitive issues on college campuses) with no final determination regarding the events in question. In my opinion, it is not right that such an important issue be ignored for no reason other than to prevent real, controversial, and sensitive topics from being considered on Lehigh University’s campus. With this in mind, I began researching exactly what had happened with this unionization mayhem.

My research initially led me to look at the current state of unionization in American labor. Currently labor unions in the United States are facing a major crisis in terms of heavy membership shortages. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently about 124 million employed workers in the United States, of which 12.3% are unionized. This is a sharp decline from the nearly 22% that were unionized in 1980. As a result, labor unions are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain large memberships and maintain the support of a significant proportion of American laborers. With this background in mind, the current state of affairs in the organized labor sector becomes increasingly clear.

Put in the simplest of terms, labor unions are at war with each other, with each union fighting for memberships. Under normal circumstances this would not elicit major problems, except that for some reason the labor war has recently polarized and focused – a dismaying turn of events for both employers and employees. Here’s how it’s happening: large unions such as the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and Unite Here are competing for membership so that they can increase the strength of their respective organizations. Furthermore, in order to attract members, it is much easier to absorb already unionized workers than it is to convince non-unionized workers to unionize. As such, there has been a recent trend over the past several years in which large unions absorb small, local unions in order to adopt their memberships. Currently, the SEIU is the most active participant in this game, with nearly 2.2 million members. The SEIU is currently spending vast amounts of its funds to take over other unions and muscle workers into their union rather than others. As a result, other unions such as Unite Here have stood up against the SEIU and tried to turn workers against the SEIU in the hopes that they will join Unite Here instead. Following suit, the SEIU has responded with the same policy towards potential Unite Here members.

So, what does this all mean? This means that these unions are spending membership dues in order to expand their influence in comparison to other unions, rather than assist the workers they represent. What does this have to do with Sodexo? The answer is simple, Sodexo has been targeted by the SEIU as a large source of new membership potential, and the strategy is straightforward: misinform the public about Sodexo labor policies to incite workers’ passions and encourage them to join the SEIU before they can consider joining Unite Here or other unions. Targeting Sodexo makes sense, considering that Sodexo is one of the largest food service providers in the United States. With nearly 120,000 employees (the majority of which are in food service) and approximately 45,000 new employees hired yearly, Sodexo is a tempting target for any labor union looking to expand.

Looking back at the Brown & White editorial, it is clear that not only is the information presented about Sodexo misleading, it is also consistent with the misinformation campaigns utilized by the SEIU to gather popular support. In order to sift through the misinformation, I spoke with Sodexo’s Director of Public Relations, Ms. Monica Zimmer and received an official statement on the labor issue in question as it pertains to Lehigh University. According to this statement, more than 15% of Sodexo employees have chosen to unionize, twice the national average! These employees are happily protected by the unions of their choice with no harassment from Sodexo administration. In addition, this statement reaffirms Sodexo’s commitment to serving its employees and respecting their rights to unionize or not unionize based upon their own free will.

As a result of these events, it is evident that these are trying times for Sodexo and its employees, who are frequently hounded by the SEIU and other union representatives trying to subvert their competition rather than protect their existing members.  This is not an isolated incident of Sodexo management abusing employees as some would believe, but a skirmish in a larger war fought against the good employees of Sodexo as well as against all other unionized and non-unionized employees. Rather than support these unions, which are looking to help only themselves, let’s dedicate ourselves to helping the employees of Sodexo by respecting their opinions, acknowledging their rights, and understanding the full story before jumping to conclusions.

Sodexo’s Statement

Sodexo is a target of the SEIU’s campaign, which spreads misinformation about the company’s labor practices, misrepresents its record on a variety of issues, and attempts to force the company into dealing with the SEIU to the exclusion of UNITE HERE and other unions. The SEIU’s tactics include loosely combining a host of unrelated issues affecting the economic conditions of workers, including the national health care debate and the lingering effects of a historic recession, and somehow blaming the impact of these issues on Sodexo.

Sodexo employs more than 120,000 workers, most of them in the food service industry, at nearly 6,000 client accounts throughout the U.S. We hire more than 45,000 workers annually. Our workforce is more than 15% unionized, which is more than twice the national average. Sodexo has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements with labor unions across the nation, and has very good relationships with other unions that represent its employees. We respect the rights of our employees to unionize or not unionize, as they choose.

It’s unfortunate that the SEIU is promoting untrue allegations against Sodexo to further its own interests and attract new members during its ongoing dispute with rival unions.

• Our benefits eligibility is the most liberal in the U.S. service industry. We are the only company that does not count prescription drug costs against medical benefit limits; we offer a separate prescription drug limit. We also are the only company to offer long-term disability benefits to hourly employees. Despite the economic slowdown, Sodexo recently expanded its 401k plan and the company matching benefit to reach more employees—both hourly and salaried—than ever before.

• We believe the choice of whether or not to have a union represent them is important to our employees.  We strongly believe that when faced with making a decision regarding union representation, our employees have the fundamental right to hear all sides of the issue and want to ensure that the process allows our employees to make a free and informed choice without harassment, intimidation, or coercion, and that the rights of all of our employees are safeguarded.

• Sodexo stands by the results of any valid secret ballot election that is monitored by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and is free of objectionable conduct.