Gary Johnson - Rogue Politician

It may actually be Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Triathlete. Yes, that’s right: politician and triathlete. Seriously, who does that?  Sure, you’ve probably never heard of him, but he is one of the most refreshing politicians out there today. As the profile on him (link below) states, he is currently considering running for President in 2012. To some, he may be classified as a Ron Paul copycat with no chance of success, but realistically the man has some good ideas. Here are some highlights from the article:

“The fact that we are arresting 1.8 million people a year — and to what end? We have had virtually no effect on this in decades of pursuing current policy. I don’t know why we can’t accept marijuana use similar to alcohol.”

“It’s never been a consideration that I would enlist the services of a prostitute, myself personally,” he says. “But if I were to do that, where would I want to enlist that service? Well, it would probably be in Nevada, where it’s legal, because it would be safe.”

“I have not watched Glenn Beck. I don’t watch him.”

“Johnson laments that the nation is “bankrupt” and adds that the current level of national borrowing is “catastrophic.” He blames both parties for this sorry state of affairs. Johnson’ s prescription is plain: “slashing spending,” especially with regard to “the Big Four: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense.”

And the best quote of the bunch:

“I don’t think you’ll ever hear me invoking God in anything I do.”

This country, and the GOP particularly, need a leader who can unfetter them from the draconian members of the religious right. It also needs someone who can make the tough choices with regard to fiscal policy, and who will actually stand up and say that we are not going to expand the government. It needs someone without the ego of our last few Presidents. It needs “The most interesting politician… in the world.” Here’s to you, Gary Johnson.

Read more about Gary Johnson here.

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 campuses are often havens for some interesting advertising campaigns. Since most campus organizations have a market limited to those who visit campus, there is a variety of creative and cost-effective ways to reach a large percentage of campus. We have all had the mass e-mails, seen the flyers and, of course, diligently read the Lehigh daily announcements.

However, all those methods have become quite mundane by now. Things only get interesting once organizations become increasingly desperate for attendance. Campus “chalking” is perhaps the most common example.  To most, there is a certain loss of respect for those who get down on their knees right in the middle of University walkway to spread a message. Is Asian Pacific American Culture Heritage Month Kickoff, or any other chalked advertisement really that important?

Recently though, desperation has been taken to a new level. Cue the Office of Student Leadership and their Altitude Leadership Conference. The conference is “student run,” and costs $50 for a full day of conferences in scenic… Bethlehem. Really, it is mind-boggling that they are so desperate for attendees, but it is the case. How desperate are they? Well, the best way to judge that is through their marketing techniques.

Over the past week, 24” by 12” posters have made their way into every classroom on campus. Yes, every single one of them. The assault on classrooms on campus sets a curious precedent. Classrooms primarily serve as places where students are educated, and advertisements certainly counter-act that purpose. Fortunately, our friends in Leadership Lehigh seem dead-set on bucking such an archaic ideal about something as trivial as “learning.”

Indeed, classroom advertisements are welcome for those students who look to do anything but pay attention in class. With Leadership Lehigh’s bold steps, classrooms no longer need to direct focus on the professor. By this time next year, students can be mesmerized by the 12-foot banner over the chalkboard reminding them to attend the Vagina Monologues instead of listening to their professor drone on about “numbers, theories, and crap” as one anonymous student put it.

While the verdict is still out on Leadership Lehigh’s most controversial advertising technique, some of their other methods have produced interesting results. Personally, I have received no less than eleven e-mails already reminding me to apply for the conference. It was not until the fifth one that I updated my spam filter to catch anything containing both “Altitude” and “Leadership.” It was one of my best decisions of the week.

In addition to classroom posters and mass e-mails, there seem to be a literally endless supply of desktop flyers floating around. We have found some of them in some bizarre places, quite a testament to the advertising masterminds within Leadership Lehigh and the Office of Student Leadership. Check out some of our favorite flyer locations on page 22.

Leading by example, Leadership Lehigh has informed us that the best way to provide the campus with meaningful programming is to provide best in class advertising. Posters? Colored and glossy. Flyers? Too many to count. Website? Produced by Lehigh’s International Multimedia Resource Center.

And that brings us to the Altitude web site. The conference promises to help “participants summit the many faces of the leadership mountain throughout the day.” What does that even mean? Beats me. But it clearly goes along with the theme of “Branching Out: Growing Within and Outside of Your Organization.” It’s almost as if they didn’t realize that logically their theme could just be replaced by one word: Growing. But, if my years in Leadership Lehigh taught me anything, it’s that there’s no reason to do something in one simple step (or word, in this case) when you can do it in nine convoluted ones.

Most of us, as mortal Lehigh students, simply are not able to comprehend a lot of this complex leadership jargon. According to one expert though, their web site’s two-paragraph overview comes to us in colloquial English as: “We are people with no real credentials who are going to reuse ambiguous leadership jargon until you believe that we believe that we know what we are talking about. Please send us money to support our cause.”

As Altitude continues to search for enough victims…err…attendees to offset the significant cost of the event, they have provided a great example of desperation advertising that the rest of us would do well to never repeat for the sake of both ourselves and everyone around us.

We all know that Lehigh has secrets hidden all around campus. There are those many passageways and underground tunnels that you’ve heard about. There are the rooftop access points, hidden stairwells, and some of those rooms you never knew existed. Personally, I am still hoping to find Asa Packer’s secret bathroom before I leave Lehigh, but such a monumentous discovery  seems unlikely at this point.

Nevertheless, I was able to find something almost as good. There is, in an undisclosed but highly public location, a panel reading “Radiation Control Valve,” shown below (click on image to enlarge).

Shouldn't this be a little more secure? And NOT WIDE OPEN?

What is Lehigh planning? There are a few possibilities:

1. Becoming Green – building a nuclear reactor would make Lehigh carbon-emission free, which would definitely make them stand out among peer institutions.
2. Preparing for the apocalypse – We know the Mayans were on to something going down in 2012, and Lehigh is making sure that its equipped to protect its students, and fight off any zombies that may come calling during the apocalypse.
3. Balancing the budget – Spending $51,00o of tuition per student each year is a challenge. That is, unless you build a nuclear reactor on campus just for kicks.
4. Mislabeling – unfortunately, it is possible that this panel hides a radiator control valve, and that all the valve does is control the heat in the undisclosed building.

Have you found any of Lehigh’s secrets? If so, submit photos or stories to editor@LehighPatriot.com, and let your fellow students know about what Lehigh is hiding. Particularly, if you do hear rumors of Asa Packer’s secret bathroom, please let us know immediately.

Recently, a group calling themselves “Students for Workers” has surfaced here at Lehigh. Under that name, they submitted a letter to the Brown and White which looked to galvanize support amongst Lehigh students for Sodexo employees to join the SEIU (Services Employees International Union).

Who are these students? Well, it’s tough to tell from the letter. One thing we do know though – these students obviously think that they are quite important. Despite having absolutely no role in the Sodexo-Employee-SEIU triangle, they felt it was appropriate for them to make demands of the other bodies. To quote:

“In order to improve the situation, we wish to hold a meeting in which students, faculty, staff, and workers can speak openly without Sodexo management present. We feel that their presence would only serve to intimidate workers. We request that you issue a written statement to all Sodexo workers at Lehigh, informing them that in the interest of upholding free speech on our campus, you endorse campus workers’ right to discuss their working conditions at our open meeting. Due to the severity of the problem, we implore you to take action quickly. We respectfully request a response to this letter within the coming week.”

There’s no doubt that these students feel righteous in their support for the abused and alienated workers that Sodexo employs. And that’s great for them. However, it creates several issues which need to be addressed.

First, the condescension of these students is insulting to Sodexo employees, and should be insulting to the rest of us, as fellow Lehigh students.

Once the letter was published, several Sodexo employees immediately commented online. One employee, identifying himself as Paul wrote:

“WE, the general employee staff at Lehigh, are sick and tired of Austin (that’s the little twerp bothering people everywhere on campus) and his pathetic gang constantly badgering us about union this, union that. Enough’s enough. When is it going to end?”

While this is just one example (there are others in the same comment section), it highlights an important and obvious fact: these students have little idea what they are talking about. Employees live their lives everyday, and many of them have been doing so since long before any of us arrived at Lehigh. They know how things work, and some like it, some don’t. You will find that at any job, but with all students having seen some of the same smiling faces this year that we saw as freshmen, it should be apparent that working at Sodexo isn’t that horrible.

Ultimately, it is up to the workers to decide that. From the responses so far, it is apparent that the “Students for Workers” organization wanted to see an inequity, found one, and started a crusade. In the meantime, they are completely disregarding the (quite valid) opinions of Sodexo employees such as Paul who don’t want the SEIU butting into the conversation, let alone a gang of ignorant students. It is quite evident from this is that these students feel that they are more competent not just to act for Sodexo employees, but to think for them as well.

Students at large should also be insulted by these “Students for Workers.” The unionization of Sodexo employees would likely drive up operating costs for Sodexo, and in the process drive up Lehigh’s already questionable dining prices. While these students may be willing to pay more to dine, they are campaigning for everyone else at Lehigh to do the same.

All of this is being done in the name of the typical liberal mantras of unionized workers creating a paradise for the working class and finally having a society with “social justice.” What they miss though, as usual, is reality. Unions are the same overbearing oppressive entities that liberals see corporations to be. Unions create agendas, bring politics into the workplace, and in general create more problems than solutions for everyone involved. They drive up unemployment by restricting the labor supply through their demands for higher wages.

Are unions worth it? That’s a case by case decision, and everyone has his or her own opinions. Specifically with Sodexo and the SEIU, neither you nor I knows if it is a good fit for a union. Ultimately though, it must be the employees choice to take action. By “intervening,” the “Students for Workers” organization has displayed both condescension and ignorance. Sodexo employees are more than capable of taking care of themselves, or asking students for help if needed. Unsolicited “help” which openly disregards some Sodexo employees’ wishes is extremely disrespectful to our dining staff, and a disgraceful display of arrogance by these supposedly intellectual students.

On January 21st, three days after President Gast publically announced her desire to hire a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) at Lehigh, (an event already embedded deep within an email sent to the campus at large concerning the Martin Luther King Day celebration), the student body received word of a hateful incident that happened sometime “in the past week.” For students interested in the details of the event, President Gast’s correspondence was a disappointment. The hateful incident involved an undefined “hostile and racist symbol” in an unidentified elevator.

Five days later, the Brown and White was able to piece together a bit more about what happened. The symbol was a “swastika approximately the size of a fist” found by an unidentified Lehigh employee. Since the announcement, Lehigh removed the swastika, but would still not identify the building where it was found. The reasoning behind the secrecy was, “so as not to bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that [vandalized] building.”

Meanwhile, the real story in all of this is has largely been missed. How the administration, most notably President Gast, launched a major reaction to a relatively minor event paints a clear image of President Gast’s current views on Lehigh and her agenda for the future. As I will demonstrate below it is apparent that President Gast leveraged the incident to support for her push to hire a CDO.

Why so much attention?

The evidence for this motive is widespread. First, looking at the incident itself, there were many responses that were clearly more pragmatic. Most notably, a more functional response would be to say nothing publically. It is well documented that people who engage in behavior like this are doing so for attention of some kind. By obliging, President Gast only made it more likely that subsequent events could occur (Indeed, recent e-mails from within the I&SE department confirm that someone is still drawing swastikas). Additionally, she devalued what an e-mail from President Gast means. National tragedies used to warrant a letter from Alice. Now students may receive e-mails that start:

“Recently, an offensive phrase was found in the third stall from the left in Taylor Gym’s second floor men’s locker room. As a community, we need to reinforce that…”

If the incident itself was the sole motivation, then President Gast would have both satisfied the perpetrator, and devalue her future communications with the student body. Such a response is too shortsighted, especially for someone in President Gast’s position. It is quite unlikely that she would so easily play into the perpetrator’s plan and change the standard for Presidential communication at Lehigh without additional factors being in play.

Why so much mystery?

Second, President Gast’s e-mail had clear evidence that it was written to elicit attention, generate discussion and news coverage from the Brown and White. As discussed earlier, the administration was very careful to shroud the entire incident with mystery. The typical questions of “Who, what, where, when, and why?” were all left unanswered. Ambiguous information or lack thereof is designed to create chatter, rumors and publicity. Marketers do it all the time with that new product or movie that no one knows about. Tiger Woods did the same thing inadvertently last fall, leading to an incredibleamount of discussion because he withheld information.

But President Gast’s response was not like those of Tiger Woods. Assuming she had the facts at the time, there was no reason for withholding them. What would have been the harm of telling us that the ‘hostile and racist symbol’ was a swastika, and it was found on Tuesday? Indeed, providing specifics would make it easier to identify the perpetrator.

Additionally, the response of the administration when asked where the incident occurred, “so as to not bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that building,” shows the continued use of the secrecy principle, even after the initial announcement. With hundreds if not thousands of people entering each of our academic buildings on a given day, that response is nonsensical at best. The administration’s entire response was designed to be mysterious and generate publicity.

Alice’s Agenda

While the response does not stand alone as a logical reaction to the alleged bias incident, add President Gast’s desire to hire a CDO into the mix and the storyline makes sense. Publicizing the incident would now provide evidence of racism and sexism at Lehigh, and the more coverage the incident received the more powerful her argument would be. Indeed, publicity of hate or racism at Lehigh benefits her agenda by demonstrating for her that Lehigh needs more diversity initiatives, more sensitivity training and more administrators. In this case, she took advantage of the actions of a single person, and implied that Lehigh has serious problems that need to be fixed.

The assumption underlying all of President Gast’s actions is that Lehigh is an unfair, unjust, racist, sexist institution. Her actions thus far in creating the CEC as a means to steamroll her agenda across the campus, adding a question to the application for admission on equity and community to profile students and now looking to hire a CDO demonstrate her adherence to this philosophy. That is the Lehigh she sees. Her response to this incident displays that she is willing to subject others to this view in order to accomplish her goals.

The Two Lehighs

Is Lehigh that place? Is Lehigh really awash with racism and sexism? In an article I wrote a year ago, in light of the isolated racial incidents last January, I analyzed what it would mean for Lehigh if we experienced 12 independent hateful incidents in a year – much more than what we hear about. The result would be that well over 99 percent of Lehigh students, while far from perfect, do not engage in hateful activity. Certainly, there are other students at Lehigh who are not entirely welcoming of differences and diversity and some more students who are prejudiced in one way or another. But is it a widespread problem that requires an expensive fix, or is it more a reflection of statistical certainties – that within a given population you will have some people with undesirable qualities? I think the evidence for the latter case is compelling.

President Gast clearly disagrees with this assessment. That is well within her right, as is her pursuit of a CDO. However, her methods of pursuit, especially in this instance, have troubling consequences. By overreacting to incidents like this, she perpetuates a view of Lehigh as an institution with widespread biases. While that benefits her agenda, it damages Lehigh by generating more expenses, restrictions, and requirements for everyone in response to the actions of a few. The large investment required for her diversity initiatives should not be based on isolated incidents perpetrated by a mere handful of Lehigh’s 6,000-plus community members. Unfortunately, if her response to this incident is any indication, that is exactly what she plans to do.

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.

Cornell is similar to Lehigh in many ways, and the former is considered to be an “aspirational peer,” of Lehigh – a gentle way to admit academic superiority to another school without damaging one’s own ego.

The “aspirational peer” technique has been one of the ways that Lehigh has looked to justify the creation of a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO), as evidenced in Lehigh’s VPEC benchmarking report. While Cornell wasn’t a school included in the report, they have gone through a similar process.

Cornell created the office of Chief Diversity Officer in 2007. The result? From the looks of things, they have created both a University Assembly (equivalent of our Student Senate) and a school paper so terrified of Free Speech that they would each suggest willingly that Cornell should not have such freedoms.

For commentary on that story, check out the Cornell Review’s post on the subject, which also links to the editorial of the Cornell Daily Sun which so stunningly denounces free speech.

No one is advocating hateful speech, or harmful discrimination, but Free Speech is a cornerstone of our society and, quite ironically, journalism. Cornell has clearly done a good job on crafting a student body and especially a journalism wing so inline with school policy that they would openly denounce the first amendment.

With President Gast seemingly following this path as quickly as she can and with our dear Brown and White seemingly unwilling to go near controversial issues, it seems we could see a similar Lehigh within a few short years.

N.B. This article was not actually censored in any way. The message is in parody of what might happen to things written at Cornell in a year or two.

Each Sunday, the Patriot will provide a look at some of the news issues that you should know about. We know it is tough for college students to keep up-to-date on current events. The Patriot’s Sunday News Beat is your answer to that. This week’s column will be mainly an aggregation of links, due to time constraints.

George Will describes the Demorat’s attempts to prematurely end a school choice program in Washington D.C. designed to help lower income families, and how it demonstrates the Democrat’s consistent approach to make citizens dependent on the government. Article here.

Walter Mead takes a look at the New York Times attempt to cover the latest climate controversies, and details the extensive level of bias reporting within the article which leaves readers still without an adequate scope of the issues at hand. Article here.

Salena Zito takes a look at the current Congressional landscape, and discusses the crucial role that many Pennsylvania races are poised to play in 2010: Article here.

Mark Landsbaum of the Orange County Register has the most comprehensive list of falsifications and scandals perpetrated by climate “scientists.” There will be more to come on this later in the week. Article here.

Additionally, The Times (UK) covers the research of Dr. John Cristy, former head of the U.N. IPCC. His research has found that much of the warming reported at multiple stations worldwide was due to issues in the immediate area, and do not serve to explain the climate at all. Article here.

Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick, of the Washington Post, expose the fact that the Obama Administration has preferred killing terrorists to capturing terrorists in overseas operations. They discuss some of the possible reasons for this radical policy, as well as the possible implications: Article here.

In addition to all of that, the Winter Olympics have begun in Vancouver, Canada. Unfortunately, the start of the games was marred by the horrific death of a luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died while making a practice run on the course. Samantha Shields of the Wall Street Journal describes some of the aftermath of the terrible death: Article here.

You can follow the results of the 21st Winter Olympics at: http://www.nbcolympics.com.

That’s everything for now. Until next time, have a good week.

As a service to both conservatives and liberals, the Patriot is proud to provide accurate commentary on some individuals who position themselves as Conservative thinkers but are, in fact, anything but. One of those polarizing figures is Sarah Palin, or “Failin” if you prefer.

While Palin is idolized by an undue number of conservatives, the blunt truth is that this woman rarely has any idea what she is talking about. Despite that this has been demonstrated virtually any time she talks, some people still refuse to admit that she is a walking disaster.

So, while we will eventually get around to detailing some of her past displays of incompetency, we thought we should begin with a current one, to be labeled Case #001 by the Lehigh Patriot. This is Palin answering a question at the Tea Party Convention about how Congress should change.

In this clip, Palin says that elected U.S. leaders ought to become “god fearing” again, and “ask for divine inspiration” to help make the U.S. safe and prosperous again.

As effective as that may be, this is a woman positioning herself for a run at the White House, and her answer to our problems is to ask her American God to give us some miracles to solve health care, immigration, deficits, unemployment, excessive taxation and Middle East turmoil?

Better yet, pictures taken during the event show she was reading off of her hand while answering the question, and photos taken by the AP clearly show the notes on her hand. That brings us to a quick session of “Life Lessons with Sarah Palin.”

How to answer questions from the “Gotch-ya” Media by Sarah Palin

Step 1: Wink, Smile, and talk about God. Step 2: Know questions in advance.

Step 3: Write notes on the inside of my hand.

Step 4: "Discretely" read the notes off of my hand.

(Photos 1 and 2 AP)

(Photo 3 http://tweetphoto.com/10644777)

If Palin used notes to identify the three things this country should do to improve, we may finally have an answer to how she finally received her degree in communications. For those who don’t know, it took Palin almost six years at four different colleges to eventually obtain her degree in communications finally from the University of Idaho. Based on these revelations, it seems the University of Idaho should investigate whether or not Palin used this technique during some of her exams.