Is Greek Week really cancelled? For the spring of 2010 Greek Week was initially cancelled by the administration, but recent news from The Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, the Panhellenic Council and the Interfraternity Council, as well as, from Tim Wilkinson, director of fraternity and sorority affairs, points to a leniency and concession on the part of the administration as plans have been made for a smaller, reevaluated replacement event for the spring.

Freshman pledges are buzzing over the idea of a weekend devoted to Greek Week-esqu activities. Seniors are eager to have a celebration of their last year at Lehigh on par with years of the past. While plans seem to be in the works for a shorter, smaller, pseudo-Greek Week celebration, what does the administration’s acquiescence reveal of the Greek system and the administration’s approach toward reprimanding it?

On one hand, many believe Greek events such as Greek Week need to change, be less unruly, without bias-related incidents, nudity, etc. Tim Wilkinson has been quoted saying there is “There is a clear need to re-evaluate and assess the goals, purpose and outcomes of Greek Week for the fraternity and sorority community, as well as the Lehigh Community as a whole.” After the behavior and events last year, administrators, but also students both outside and within the Greek community see the need for change.

The event this spring is supposed to transition to and precede a Fall 2010 Greek Week. Both events are hoped by the administration to bring more unity rather than the competition between houses of the past. Hopefully, this focus on unity and community building will foster more upstanding behavior.

With the cancellation of the Week, the administration seemed to be taking a firm stance against the rowdy and at times unacceptable behavior stirred by Greek events. With the plans to create a replacement activity, leniency and hope for progress, rather than punishment seems to be the administration’s new agenda. Greek, student, and administrative leaders strive to revamp the Week’s activities and purpose to curb unruly behavior and incidents, but also to instill a greater sense of community and solidarity at Lehigh. This will give new pledges and seniors an experience similar to Greek Week they would be otherwise missing if the administration did not allow for a replacement activity. Also, the charity and community service aspects of the event will continue to be incorporated, benefiting not only Lehigh, but the community surrounding it.

Overall, the approach of allowing an event similar to Greek Week to take place after the administration cancelled it, is lenient and not very demanding of the students to take responsibility for their individual or collective actions as a house. However, it allows for celebration, as well as, stimulates change and progress in the Greek system – bringing it to more respectable behavior – without punishing the entire Greek community.

The Brown and White eagerly described ten days worth of events honoring Martin Luther King Jr, but excluded many details that those that those in attendance would be quick to point out. While events such as convocation and the oratorical contest were summarized, the Brown and White failed to report on the underlying issues and concerns associated with these events. The large majority of students who did not attend any of these functions now may have a broad description of what occurred, but still cannot understand the meanings and implications of these events as well as someone who had attended.

In relation to MLK events, the paper has clearly given up any effort to analyze events or discuss possible controversies. The Brown and White covered the MLK oratorical contest but failed to mention the lack of Lehigh students, excluding contestants, at the event. Their article merely reiterated contestants’ views for Lehigh, failing to report low attendance. Yes, a few professors, as well as, Dean Washington attended, but the contestant winner himself called for the student body as the basis for change at Lehigh. The Brown and White missed the critical issue. With such low attendance; how the change contestants hoped for possibly become reality?

Our school’s newspaper is still missing one very important piece in the administration and student body’s push for equality and social justice on campus. Mario Paredes, winner of the oratorical contest, calls for Lehigh to be “a place of community and inclusiveness.” During the student rally, Darius Callier, Vice President of the Black Student Union, voiced his belief that in regard to violence based on sexual orientation, marginalized ethnicities, or persecution, “Lehigh is not immune to, or apart from any these challenges.” The Brown and White missed an opportunity to report real issues, this time by ignoring the effort by Lehigh’s administration, specifically the Council for Equity and Community, to remedy the problems and cultural issues articulated throughout campus by various speakers during MLK week.

President Gast and the administration are actively pursuing the CEC’s request for a chief diversity officer at the level of vice president (VPEC). The administration hopes that this position will better administer efforts to promote social equality and diversity on campus while simultaneously boosting prestige and admission numbers. Why has the Brown and White chosen to not report on this vital affair? Is it for fear of the controversy and opposition that may arise? Possibly, but why not educate students on the advancements happening on their campus instead of worrying about remaining in lockstep with the administration. Lehigh students are suffering because of the Brown and White’s refusal to cover controversial issues on campus.

Many students have no idea of the university’s plan, and probably have many questions about the CDO position. Why does the CDO need to be at a Vice President’s level? The answer to this question can be found in the VPEC’s Benchmarking Report assembled by Lehigh’s CEC: “Over the course of the information gathering, it became obvious that perception of one’s title makes a big difference. If the VPEC/CDO’s charge is merely a segment of the institution, a diversity initiative will not be as effective. But when the VPEC/CDO’s charge encompasses the entire institution, everyone will be engaged.” Or how much would the CDO get paid? According to Lehigh’s research, “among American colleges and universities, the average annual salary of CDOs/VPECs is $250-$300,000.” Will there be a tuition increase to account for this new position’s salary? If not, what parts of the internal budget will be allocated for the CDO?A cycle has emerged where Lehigh students fail to attend key events and are truly unaware of the pulse on campus. Meanwhile, the Brown and White fails to help these students become informed by avoiding any and all controversy and simply not present divisive topics. Critical changes are happening on campus, such as the pending appointment of a CDO and having a majority of students unaware of that is a problem on many levels.

Hillary Clinton shared a laugh this week with Saudi Arabian college students over the prospect of Sarah Palin being elected president. If Palin was elected, Clinton declared she would not emigrate to Canada, but would, in fact, visit often.
NYT Article: Clinton Enjoys a Laugh Overseas About a Palin Presidency
While it may be entertaining to envision Palin as president, why are Americans not more unnerved at the proximity Palin achieved to the vice presidency in 2008?

Even with the Copenhagen climate change summit fast approaching, the average American could care less about the environment or related legislation. If Americans did care, the United States would already have extensive legislation to promote sustainability. The reason for this apathy is the same reason that most Americans don’t vote – they have no interest or benefit from acting.  They have not witnessed the detrimental effects of a deteriorating environment. Topping the carelessness, the scientific community is fighting discord on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

That is not to say that global warming does not exist or that the environment has not been harmed by unsustainable habits. In a discussion held on October 21^st, professors at Lehigh discussed the very real effects of pollution and unsustainable habits. Professor Fennel talked of China’s environmental agency finding 45% of its waterways unsuitable for human contact, some of which are used as drinking water. Numerous professors discussed the recent rise of precipitation events in the U.S., the use of groundwater mining to satisfy growing demand. This process pumps more than ten times more water out of the ground than is naturally being replaced.

Apathy toward the environment is fueled by various controversies surrounding climate change, including recent data contradictory to the “hockey stick” theory.  There is no consensus.  Northern Hemisphere climate variability is still actively being researched. This data has enormous implications for further legislation, because data on climate variability will help determine the earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions.²

These findings are not tangible to the average American, creating a disconnect between fact and public concern. Most Americans are blind to global patterns and environmental issues. Unless the stream in their backyard turns to sewage, Americans cannot be bothered with sustainability legislation.

In this way, the average American and Lehigh student share a lethargy for all topics relating to environmental sustainability. Small minorities of Sierra Club or Green Action members may recognize unsustainable habits, but they have little power to bring sweeping legislation to their respective institutions.

Change must come from a higher entity – like a global climate treaty. International efforts towards sustainability seem to indicate that only a very gradual approach is politically realistic. In the future, this incremental process may be the same tactic the university will utilize in curbing student and faculty environmental footprints.

It remains to be seen whether this legislation will triumph over apathy – coaxing more environmentally friendly habits – or will stir direct opposition caused by adherence and comfort in the status quo.

For now, it seems the American public and businesses need not worry about this legislation inconveniencing their lives or forcing change. Hopes have turned grim for a new energy bill. Politicians fear capping carbon emissions will cause economic hardship to an already hurting electorate. Internationally, Europe, the U.S., China, and developing countries harbor contrasting goals and levels of commitment. Many are wary that action will be possible from the climate conference in Copenhagen, though it does present a global stage and opportunity for change.³

1)               http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-2c

2)               November 6^th Jason Smerdon, Storke-Doherty Lecturer, Columbia University “Spaghetti Plots, Hockey Sticks, Pseudo-Realities and Congressional Oversight: A decade of attempts to reconstruct the climate of the last millennium and where we stand now”

3)              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09caucus.html?_r=1

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

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

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

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

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

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