The Patriot editorial staff would like to welcome all new students to Lehigh, as well as welcome back all returning students! As a special service all Lehigh students, but especially Lehigh freshmen, we have compiled our first-ever “Freshmen Issue” of the Lehigh Patriot!

A Sneak Preview! What's inside? Find out later this week!

It’s filled with all the stuff you won’t hear during orientation: the best beverages floating around Lehigh, the real information on dining on campus and in the surrounding area, some advice for surviving your first year at Lehigh, and much more!

While we had hoped to have it ready for the Lehigh community at the club fair today, we were a little delayed through the publishing process. Nevertheless, we’ll be getting it to you later this week, so keep an eye out for it in the common rooms and dining halls! Additionally, all articles will be available here for comment, as well as a .pdf of the issue, so check back here once you’ve read it, and let us know what you think!

If you are interested in joining the Patriot, and didn’t find us at the club fair, just shoot an e-mail to: editor@lehighpatriot.com and we’ll keep you in the loop. We’ll also be posting info about our first meeting of the year here on the website, so feel free to show up!

Again, welcome to Lehigh, and enjoy your first day of class!

LehighPatriot.com will be undergoing website maintenance from Monday, July 26th until Tuesday, August 10th. During that time, this site may not be available, and will be undergoing considerable changes. In the mean time, all pages will be made available in a stable version of the site at http://www.lehighpatriot.com/backup/. However, no new content will be posted, and no comments will be saved on that site. The Patriot will be up and running for the 2010-2011 academic year, so check back in a few weeks for brand new content!

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.

In reference to the Lehigh bookstore manager’s alleged destruction of several Brown and White’s:

“… Free speech took a big step backward because someone didn’t like it when a student dared speak out against what he saw as a discriminatory policy. Just because something makes you or your company look bad doesn’t mean it should be silenced or negated. Take a look at some comments on the Brown and White’s Web site for evidence of that.”

Interestingly, and hypocritically, The Brown and White does not allow comments to contain links to any outside websites (or “Web sites” if you are the B&W edit board) in a clear attempt to restrict the dialogue on campus. The Patriot was unable to find any reputable news source with a similar policy. This, in addition to the Brown and White’s policy of screening comments before they are posted combines for a much more egregious violation of the spirit of the First Amendment than a book store manager allegedly ripping up a few Brown and White’s.

From the latest rehashed editorial bemoaning printing usage at Lehigh:

“But this is not a privilege we should abuse. We are all guilty of it because it’s not something we usually think about, but next time you go to print, think about how much paper you waste.

Sure, we are used to having a copy of our assignments in front of us when we read, but is it so bad to have to read from a screen? Between our computers and televisions, we spend most of the day in front of a screen anyway. What’s the difference?”

While the Brown and White calls on you to ‘think before you print,’ the Patriot editorial board would like to ask the Brown and White to ’think before you write.’ Since you can easily read all of the Brown and White’s articles online, there should not be any reason for an actual paper copy of the Brown and White according to this editorial. We would be very interested to know how much paper is used in printing several thousand copies of the Brown and White each week, and why their editorial board feels justified in killing so many trees.

Lehigh’s practical jokes still lack sophistication.

“Most of campus fondly remembers awakening on Flagpole day to find a Nazi flag firmly planted atop the flagpole.”

Fifty-two years ago, The Brown and White had a much more relaxed approach to swastikas appearing on campus. Such an event today would likely evoke about eight e-mails from President Gast and her administrative cohorts, a town hall meeting to “heal the community,” a police investigation, and various demands from various special interest groups around campus.

The question posed to our editorial staff was: In our ever-changing society, people have defined “equity” and “community” in many different ways. How do you define these terms and what are their implications of equity and community for our 21st century society?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

The definition of equity has been butchered, egregiously, in recent decades to suggest that somehow we can make everyone the same. The liberals butchering ‘equity’ see a wonderful world where everyone is the same. Everyone is equally intelligent, or unintelligent. It does not matter how intelligent because as long as everyone is equally able or inept, no one is jealous and everyone is happy. Everyone has the same amount of money, so there is no reason to be greedy or jealous. When any kind of contest is held, everyone ties – thus no one is marginalized, no one scarred, no one loses. Reports are that there are unicorns and fairies prancing around in this world, and when someone sees a rainbow, they always reach the end and find a pot of hallucinogenic drugs – sustaining ‘Equityland’ a while longer.

Liberals still have not been able to realize Equityland in the material world. To many of us, it is obvious why: all humans are naturally greedy, jealous, envious and selfish to some extent, so society still faces many conflicts of interests. Liberals willfully ignore this revelation so that their dreams of utopia stay intact.

Because human nature cannot be the cause of society’s woes, they need to find something to blame. To do so, they perceive inequities and social injustices all around them, and make it their life mission to right these wrongs. Welcome to “ADM 101: Administering at Lehigh.”

President Gast’s language in her Martin Luther King week address demonstrates Lehigh’s commitment to this philosophy. To quote, ”Those events [of a year ago] still haunt us, and compel us to redouble our efforts to change our own community. The Council for Equity and Community is leading our efforts but they cannot do it alone. Comprising dedicated staff, faculty, and students, the council is charged with preparing for, and sustaining, the next generation of diversity and equity initiatives at Lehigh.”

The truth is, get ready for this, Lehigh is equitable. We all start with a GPA of 0.00. We all have access to the same labs, classes, equipment, news sources, dining halls, and non-academic organizations. Everyone has the same opportunities to be happy, to be successful, and to enjoy his or her time here. By promoting the idea that Lehigh is inequitable, President Gast and the administration are working against their second stated goal: building Lehigh into a better community.

What is ‘community’? A community is a group of people who share common experiences and hold a mutual respect for all other members of that community. Lehigh currently houses hundreds of small communities that exist within the University. Each major, living unit, group of friends and student organization serves as a community within Lehigh.

The divisions within the University community arise from three main problems:
1. Conflicts of interests between communities.
2. Lack of commonality between communities.
3. Administrative policies that target specific communities.

The administration mainly has control over the third problem, and to a lesser extent the first two. Generally, a entity should not have obvious favorites and scapegoats within its various sub-communities. However, some of Lehigh’s policies and rhetoric on many issues such as Greek life and diversity clearly do just that. Examples include painting all Greeks with one brush, as they did in cancelling Greek Week, the creation of the CEC, and subsequent attempts to give in to every ‘demand’ made by a group of concerned students. Indeed, requiring Lehigh applicants to answer an idiotic question like this is a direct result of that.

By favoring some communities and attacking others, Lehigh creates animosity between communities. It drives some communities away from other communities. This leads to a lack of commonality between those groups, hence making Lehigh less of a community as a whole.

Looking at the “21st century society” at Lehigh, the definitions of equity and community should be altered. The goal cannot be to eliminate vices from Lehigh, but find a way to minimize their impact. The sooner Lehigh makes this shift, the better a community Lehigh will be in the 21st century and beyond.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010
Equity (noun): The equal dispersion of consequence among parties, without subjection to judgment solely on an aesthetic or medical quality.
Community (noun): A place where people live and work together.

The implications of these terms are subject to the conditions by which they are approached. For example, it is unfair to say that one is violating the concept of equity for criticizing a gay pride parade, as the parade and behaviors taking place within it are actions, and actions are always subject to judgment, regardless of one’s opinion of homosexuality as a genetic (nature) or a lifestyle choice (nurture). It is equally unfair to state that equity is being violated when criticizing the behavior of an individual on the basis of a cultural tradition.

I personally experienced a first-hand understanding of these definitions during my formative years of schooling in the Strawberry Mansion section of North Philadelphia. Here, I had approached life as a platform of equals, figuring that my interactive behavior would be a basis for complaint, not my appearance. However, while walking to the subway in my school uniform (a blue blazer, tie and khakis), I was attacked by youths with a knife, which tried to steal my belongings. When I reported this to the authorities, I was told that my outfit “made me a target,” and that I was “asking to be mugged.”

Looking back on the situation, it is clear that the experience I had was a case of cultural mismatch – what was comfortable for me was not comfortable for others. However, when I came to Lehigh, I was frustrated to learn that passing judgment on an individual who dresses like they plan on robbing a 7-11 is a “bias-related incident.” This confused me – we profile in interviews for jobs, airports in Israel have avoided terrorist attacks by profiling their passengers, and this question is profiling Lehigh students – so what’s wrong with what I have to say?

Michael Caffrey, Class of 2012
Equity doesn’t mean simply being tolerant of others; rather, it means attempting to understand and see the world from another’s eyes. Community takes this concept of mutual equity to another level, as everyone shares the same experiences; the human experience.

The common culture all people experience is what brings us together. Despite coming from states and countries around the globe, people who attend Lehigh share a sense of common purpose; to learn and understand, to face challenges and beat them.

The difference between tolerance and understanding is vast; staying away from “offensive” words may be good enough, but actually crossing the boundary and embracing someone of a different ethnicity or race the same as one would embrace a friend is the true key to establishing equity.

Despite our personal differences, everyone should reach a mutual understanding of each other; respect should replace hatred on both our campus and the world. Hateful actions distract us from the real reason we are here; education.

Crafting an environment in which the greater Lehigh community understands its members may take time. However, the effort is well worth it, as a diverse academic and social community creates additional opportunities to learn outside of the classroom, truly preparing Lehigh graduates to be leaders in the global world.

Even though we printed our environmentally-friendly copies of the Patriot already, you may not have received one. If that’s the case, The Lehigh Patriot now offers a convenient and environmentally conscious solution: print your own right on Lehigh’s free printers!

Sure you can just view it on your computer, but who reads stuff like that?

Printing a Patriot is quite easy: visit www.LehighPatriot.com/pdfs/DecemberFinal.pdf and hit print! Make sure you only print one-sided though, duplex messes up the page order.

This message is sponsored by The Lehigh Patriot, and the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG)*.

*: Not really, that part of the message is parody.

Here at the Lehigh Patriot, we have tremendous respect for our colleagues at the Brown and White.  They provide the Lehigh community with a biweekly feast of the news and analysis that keeps our campus dialogue informed and vibrant. Professors, administrators and prospective Lehigh families alike view the Brown and White as a window into the minds that make up our student body.  For better or worse, they speak for all of us.

It’s a small miracle, then, that the Brown and White was there to give us 800 words to describe the operating hours of a new off-campus deli.  From this thrilling investigative piece, we learned the following:

Samantha Petner, ’11, is a frequent patron of Dave’s Deli.

“I am kind of boring, I just like turkey on a Kaiser roll, but Dave’s really has the best sandwiches,” Petner said.

Kelly Sprague, ’11, goes to Dave’s Deli about once a week and is a big fan of the Chicken Ranchero.

Hannah Gobetz, ’11, does not consider herself a regular at Dave’s Deli, but she said she found the Chicken Caesar Wrap to be quite delicious.

This intrepid reporter didn’t stop there.  She managed to use “the internet” to uncover a startling fact:

Part of the deli’s secret, according to its Web site, is that it uses “the best” meats and cheeses.

While the news division of the Brown and White works to hold local establishments accountable to the highest standards of deli meats and cheeses, the lifestyle section reliably churns out impeccably sourced universal claims about the social lives of Lehigh students.  In a recent issue, they even tracked down an expert financial analyst to talk about the bar scene:

Brooke Wiener, ’10, said the current economic conditions haven’t impacted the bar scene.

“It’s not necessarily about the economy,” she said. “It’s just being smart about your money.”

In addition to economic issues, the Brown and White is always there to cover Lehigh’s attempts to be environmentally friendly. One such story gives us a great deal of detail about a “new eco-friendly printer” to be used in Rauch. If you are not excited yet, you should be:

Buskirk called Lehigh’s acquisition of the trial a rare opportunity. Few other universities have access to the ColorQube’s unique technology.

In case you were wondering, the ColorQube has other benefits:

In its brochure, Xerox says that the ColorQube can print up to 85 pages per minute…

For the printer aficionados in the crowd, the article continues to explain all of the gory details about printing technology that most of us never thought to ask:

“The ColorQube’s ink blocks only leave behind a small black spot of biodegradable wax that resembles a Necco wafer,” Buskirk said.

For all of its heady intellectualism, the heart and soul of the Brown and White is found on its editorial pages.  Here, the senior editors demonstrate that conventions of grammar, diction and syntax are merely obstacles to telling a unique and heartfelt story about how sad they are to be leaving Lehigh.  Some variation of the following statement (from the 10/20/09 publication) can probably be found in every Brown and White Edit Desk dating back to 1894:

The end of this magic experience is on the decline, and I for one am going to find all means of using Lehigh to get the best experience possible. I hope you all do the same.

Yes.  Everybody, please do…that.

—

(Editorial Correction:  The printed version of The Patriot incorrectly stated that the Brown and White Edit Desk referred to in this article was published on 11/13/09.  The correct publication date is 10/20/09.  The editorial staff regrets this mistake.)

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Lehigh should be factually and intellectually honest when it comes to sustainability. Currently, most of Lehigh’s efforts to become more sustainable revolve around small changes – things that cost little and accomplish even less. The one notable exception to this is the new Steps building, which is extremely costly and still does not accomplish much in terms of making Lehigh “greener.” Everything Lehigh does accomplish is made highly visible. Even Rauch’s test of a “new eco-friendly printer” received a feature length article in the Brown and White.

So Lehigh can keep making highly visible, cost-effective changes that have little effect on the environment or Lehigh’s carbon footprint. But that is the easy way out; it’s like turning in your younger brother’s algebra homework to your calculus professor and then patting yourself on the back. Certainly, we do not want Lehigh to be in that business. To be intellectually honest, Lehigh has two options: make transformational changes to Lehigh so that it truly is environmentally friendly, or admit that cost is what really drives their decisions and that it really does not matter how environmentally friendly campus facilities are.

Given that choice, Lehigh should do both, since the two philosophies do not contradict each other. Lehigh can look to be a leader in innovating sustainable products and systems. Doing so has several benefits. Lehigh can bring in research funding, researchers, institutional renown, and all of the things that Lehigh needs as an institution. It will provide students interested in such subjects the opportunity to be involved in research, and provide them with opportunities not otherwise available. Lastly, it has a chance to lead to a breakthrough that will lead to large advancements in sustainability in the future.

Going hand-in-hand with the aforementioned strategy for making real progress, Lehigh should come out and say that research and a high-quality education is Lehigh’s priority. In doing that, Lehigh should throw all of the silly token-environmentalist acts by the whey side. President Gast should be working to establish energy research here, not signing silly climate commitments. She should disband panels like LEAG, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, and let these professors and administrators worry about – here is a thought – teaching and administrating. Instead of posting signs asking students to shower less, they could work on finding a better way to recycle the water that we do use.

According to the Lehigh’s strategic plan, Lehigh is looking to stand out. While some in academia may view this policy as hypocritical. However, some would appreciate the honesty in the statement. The only reason any school actually enacts green policies is a) save money or b) brag about being green. Lehigh should expose this policy, and reject it. Lehigh should work for big advancements and innovations, and not play the political correctness game of “my green is better than your green.” In the end, it will be a net positive for Lehigh, its students, and the environment.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

Sustainability. It sounds good, doesn’t it? And it’s a win-win, too… or so they say. After all, what could be wrong with using less – waste not want not, and of course, we save money, which is good, right?

Give me a break. The single largest fallacy held by a mass of people in unison, aside from balloon boy, is the notion of environmental sustainability. Anyone who participates in the green movement at this moment, and believes that they are making any sort of difference because the university doesn’t turn a blind ear to their thoughts is deluded and ignorant.

This “movement” is a purely aesthetic concoction, bent on economic sustainability more so than environmental. And rightly so! Lehigh is competing (as staffer David Gritz, ’12 so acutely noted previously) with schools for research dollars, undergraduate (read: cash flow) students, and quality names for pie-in-the-sky academic movements that produce graduates who gross enough income to “sustain” the continued existence of this institution.

LEAG, STEPS, and Green Action are poster projects. And while I can’t deny that valuable biological and physical research will likely arise from the STEPS initiative, the new facility shares something in common with its grandfather, Iacocca Hall: both will transition into expensive architectural obsolescence. Back in ’59 when architectural powerhouse Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, conceived Iacocca it too featured innovative environmentally friendly notions like the reflecting pool, which was piped with condenser coils to exchange heat from the air conditioning system.

The problem was, this seemingly elegant system was both inefficient and costly to maintain. In 1986, when Lehigh acquired Iacocca (then called the Homer Research Labs) from the Bethlehem Steel Corp, one of the first things VP of Facilities Planning Anthony Corallo did was decouple the reflecting pool and install modern condensers, leaving an 8-foot deep, 1.5-million gallon pool full of rusty pipes. Sadly, even water-feature-friendly Lehigh couldn’t save the fountain (an insurance hazard), and in 2006 when the Alumni Memorial Parking Garage was constructed, much of the backfill from the excavation ended up in the fountain, filling it in and sealing its fate.

Sound familiar? STEPS is supposedly festooned with special “energy-saving” features like wind generators, electromechanical louvers to control natural light glare, and the famous grass roof (where no one can toss a Frisbee). I’d put money on it that in 25 years, when I come back for my class’s reunion, that roof will be leaking, the generators will be a giant ornament, and the louvers will have long-since been disabled due to scarcity of parts and repair talent.

It’s not an outright bad thing to care about the environment so much that you’d buy fair-trade products (which ironically carry a heavier carbon footprint than run-of-the-mill produce and coffee), compost in your back yard, sell your car, and bitch & moan to all of those who pass by (on Open House day, no less, Green Action!) with a half-hearted protest expressing your arrogant distaste for the university’s reluctance to capitulate to your every whim and will.

However, know that you have become a PR tool for the university to use in marketing its campus to other students who think they have found their cause. Know that the “no tray” policy was a cost-saver for Sodexo/ Wood Dining (hence why they didn’t eliminate it in the a-la-carte Upper UC café), and that neither Dining Services, nor the University truly deeply cares about your cause.

This movement, much like actual real global climate change (a natural, cyclic occurrence) happens in cycles. In the 1970s, so-called “global cooling” and an abundance of yuppies with disposable income created the first green movement; this is no different. Many so-called “green” products and ideas are less than such– like washing glasses rather than using disposable paper cups. I will never pay some sketch “fund” to “offset” my carbon, I do not support cap and trade (read: anti-capitalist) bills, and I am not so naïve as to think that this university, nee, the thinking, air-breathing public gives a damn about sustainability.

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Lehigh needs to move incrementally in order to become more sustainable. The STEPS building is a huge investment in sustainability, however it reflects the university’s reluctance to disturb the status quo. Students and faculty alike will be pleased with a shiny new building – as the administration opts to construct sustainability rather than curb the habits of faculty and students.

It is possible, however, for the administration to implement changes that will be small enough not to disturb students, as well as, foster sustainable habits. First off, the printers in every building and dorm should be calibrated for automatic double-sided printing. Students and faculty should have to seek out settings for single-sided printing, not the other way around. When replacing water fixtures in any building the university should consider low flow options. While evaluating transportation options available to students, the university should not only look for the most efficient routes, but also consider replacing old vehicles with alternative fuel transportation. In the dining halls, locally grown or organic food options are not only environmentally friendly, but also delicious. These are all relatively minor changes that the administration should look to implement in the near future.

Though there are much more drastic measures that could be taken, small incremental actions such as these will create a more sustainable university without too much disruption to, or outcry from, students or faculty.

David Gritz, Class of 2012

Lehigh can increase its sustainability and decrease its carbon footprint by abiding two principles of leadership:

(1) Don’t Micromanage – Contrary to the lessons of big bureaucracy, finding small problems and supporting the average student at the cost of the overachiever is not a goal of sustainability. Instead of focusing on individual energy consumers like students or charging for printing privileges, administrators and policy-makers should look at the entire system.

Starting with a systems map of all power consumption, GHG production, and resource use will allow the University to see what is happening. Using this map, a Pareto chart should be created to find the largest consumers. The chart will identify how the university can make large-scale changes and large-scale impacts. Instead of spending money on building “greener” individual specifications for the STEPS building, Lehigh might be better off building a geothermal cooling system for the buildings like Yale.

Furthermore, less time can be wasted and less people can be upset if we consult sustainability professionals. These professionals will focus on implementation of changes and not university politics. For example hiring a professional like Andrea Wittchen of iSpring Associates, sustainability group, would be more effective than tasking a group of volunteer professors in a green group.

(2) Think big – In order to substantially effect the course of sustainability on a national or global scale, Lehigh cannot limit its thinking to internal causes. If we want to make an impact, we have to help other people that are major consumers of energy and producers of toxins. Expansive change can be executed through centers of excellence and student support.

By supporting the Enterprise Systems Center’s creation of a National Center for Sustainable Manufacturing, Lehigh can make a large step towards setting national standards and providing applied research to the biggest users, companies and governmental organizations. Lehigh should not take an ad-hoc approach of a council here or a department there. We should make a unified approach that is connect to real world problems.

Similarly, students should be given the authority and legitimacy to act along with faculty as partners and not subjects. Student organizations should rise to the occasion of national action. By partnering with larger organizations like EcoEarth or Second Nature, students can cause changes nationally. Students could offer free education seminars to the residents on how to reduce energy costs or help local business with their sustainability efforts.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The sustainability movement must first be realistic about its goals. Opponents justifiably bristle at the suggestion that we can save the environment, lower tuition and overtake the Ivy League just by switching to fluorescent light bulbs. In this regard, Professor Dork Sahagian was wrong when he told the Brown and White, “It’s our impact on the world that matters.” Steps that make our campus more sustainable or climate-friendly have no global consequences. We should be instrumentalists regarding the environment – seizing the mantle of sustainability to enhance student experience.

Thus far, the administration’s approach to this issue has been utterly incoherent. There are at least three campus environmental groups, including the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, the Environmental Coalition and the Environmental Initiative. All of these efforts fly under the radar at best, or worse, they make the University look ineffectual and incompetent. High profile projects, like the STEPS building, are far more effective. If the University takes the lead and puts its money where its mouth is, students will be far more responsive.

Put sustainability in terms that Lehigh students will understand. Don’t tell us we can save the environment by walking instead of driving to class. Remind us that we can be the billionaires of tomorrow if we invent, engineer, or finance green technology. Recruit professors who are passionate about finding practical solutions to the energy crisis – not professors who are going to rant about how we’re all going to drown when the sea levels rise.

Piecemeal steps like those currently being peddled as a sustainability strategy won’t result in any progress. Big ideas and the execution of those ideas will be necessary to bring about the systemic changes that will define our future. If Lehigh is serious about contending in the global marketplace, we must realize that sustainability begins at Lehigh, but the focus should be on the bigger picture.

Dear Readers,

The December issue of the Lehigh Patriot is available at various locations around campus, just in time for finals. Articles will be posted online this weekend, but until then feel free to discuss the issue here. Thank you for reading, and good luck on your finals!

Benjamin Mumma

Editor-in-Chief, The Lehigh Patriot

The question posed to our editorial staff was: How should Lehigh’s administration deal with underage alcohol consumption?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

For Lehigh, the difficulty in this situation lies with the fact that it has a fully-accredited police force, sworn in by the state of Pennsylvania. As such, they are required to enforce the laws of the state over any policies that the University sets with regard to underage drinking.

With that said, Lehigh’s goal should be to create a system where underage students can drink responsibly without fear of legal troubles. Certainly, Lehigh does need to react to and set consequences for drinking that is dangerous to the individual in question or others.

From my point of view, the issue that students and administrators do not see eye-to-eye on is what drinking is defined as dangerous. I am reminded particularly of one conversation I overheard in a finance recitation last semester. I won’t belabor you with the details, but one girl was wearing the same dress as the night before, and she was the one person involved in the conversation who did remember what happened.

Certainly, the administration would see drinking enough to black out as dangerous to the individual, others, and to Lehigh’s reputation. But to students, this practice can be commonplace in some social circles. Students, to some extent, have a distorted view of what is responsible drinking, and what should be prevented. Lehigh has several interests that merge at this point, which can make things difficult to handle properly: student safety, state law, and Lehigh’s reputation are all affected by how administrators handle this issue.

So how does Lehigh measure up? When all of the issues at hand are considered, they do fairly well. Sure, they’ve messed things up. The frequent “busting” of fraternities is often unnecessary. It drives parties off campus into a less-safe environment, and only makes the hill seem more dangerous and less attractive to students. As students, we can certainly list a great deal of times when we have perceived the University to have erred on alcohol and safety matters.

That being said, there are things they can do to improve the way they deal with alcohol. President Gast should sign the Amethyst Initiative, and Lehigh should join the push for a drinking age of 18. Such a law would make it incredibly simple for Lehigh to deal with alcohol issues on campus.

Second, administrators should work with the police and Lehigh security to establish set reasons for fraternities to be “raided,” and set a policy that police must knock on the door before they enter. While Lehigh owns the houses can enter them at any time, the police should, as a state-run service, have to notify a house’s occupants before entering. This is something Lehigh could set in place, and would provide a more fair system as opposed to cops being able to enter a building for no reason.

Even with these changes, Lehigh can still monitor irresponsible and reckless drinking, and work to control that. The current system though is inefficient at doing that, because time is inevitably spent dealing with people who were drinking responsibly, but were in the wrong place. Signing the Amethyst Initiative and establishing how and why Lehigh Police enter residences would improve the alcohol situation at Lehigh.

David Gritz, Class of 2012

From the vantage point of the Lehigh administration, minimization of risk and maximization of student experience should be the focus of any policy conversation. Considering these metrics, Lehigh should adopt the following three approaches to reduce instances of underage drinking abuse “on campus”.

1) Prevent the worst instances – Using the broken window theory, Lehigh can target the outliers and worst offenders to reduce the net effect of the whole problem. By targeting students involved in recurrent hospital trips, drunken driving, and acts of public disturbance, Lehigh enforcement personnel can cut the worst out of the system. This focused policy will discourage students from engaging in the worst underage activities. Also, reducing the standard variance of underage offenses will discourage students from “breaking all the rules” because the perceived risks are much greater.

2) Use resources for next-best alternatives – Spend some of the extensive enforcement and correctional budget on exciting and extraordinary activities. If Lehigh students had other experiences that were just as “pleasurable” as drinking, they might spend their time on next-best alternatives. For example, if Lehigh offered free scuba diving lessons, showed movies in theaters, or took students on weekend adventures to different cities around the country, students would choose those alternatives. Administrators should spend less time making rules and more time making experiences.

3) Push drinking away from campus – With Lehigh’s “not in my backyard” mindset, controlling consumption can be as easy as pushing it away from campus. By monitoring underclassmen dorms on campus instead of patrolling off-campus houses, the university can save resources and push drinking away from campus. By creating a circle of control, the university will ensure that less students drink on campus.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

When discussing alcohol and kids, I think one really needs to evaluate the situation from two hypothetical angles: the real world, and the perfect world. This is key to understanding why Dr. Alice Petry Gast won’t sign the Amethyst Initiative.

In the real world, the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18 essentially passes the responsibility of handing transition-age young adults from college to high school. If you give a damn about the state of education in this country, (which I know most Lehigh students do not, as most of us, myself included, went to very expensive preparatory schools and public districts where students can read at their age-appropriate level, and can’t fathom a situation where individuals struggle to attain mediocrity), you would understand that the last thing that improving and needy district administrators need is another coming-of-age issue for their older, bigger, and more difficult students.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, talk about the perfect world, in which Lehigh students get their wish, and nearly 100% of the campus is legally able to piss away part of their savings (or their parent’s) to Pennsylvania’s sketch liquor monopoly called Wine & Spirits. Lehigh students have been spoilt, insofar as most universities have barred their student organizations from procuring alcohol on campus-sponsored establishments. In plain speak, the Greeks would probably have to go dry, and those of age (now, everyone) would likely be prevented from keeping alcohol in their dorms. Why? Too many dangerous incidents.

I’ve heard, time and time again, the argument that Lehigh students do the asinine things they do under the golden influence in an effort to hide or conceal their presently illegal actions from the big scary Lehigh police and their Janet Reno tactical assault squads, which surround innocent law-abiding residences and set the children afire. I’ve heard that the reason people “pre-game” (read: binge drink prior to casually drinking) so often and with such force is to avoid being caught by the police; in short, drink the liquor before the police can take it from you. I’ve also heard that students who enjoy themselves too much are afraid of seeking help, because they run the risk of being caught.

Frankly, and more importantly, objectively, this situation is so absurd I have trouble discussing it seriously. Why does the illegality of drinking encourage people to drink more and, thus, put themselves in danger? So, if everyone can now consume legally, does this mean that the side effects of drinking past moderation (sexual and physical assault, property damage, the need to baby-proof sharp corners) will cease to be?

Think about it. At least, at the moment, Lehigh can claim that the incidents where students reenact the bacchanal excesses that only Tyco executives could pull off in their little clubhouses, the administration can say that the situation was a breach of the law, and thus any side effects are merely grace notes to a misdemeanor. Once that layer of absolution is gone, there is nothing to prevent the school to reverse its policy.

The argument that alumni will stop donating is moot – those that would aren’t of the caliber that it would matter, and those that matter are likely not too concerned about today’s students’ opinions – for them, 30 years ago is all that matters, and what Lehigh did for them. Likewise, the demand for admission is far more based in the prestige that a Lehigh education gives – not the amount of colored stripes someone can get at a rainbow party.

Oh, and as for the Lehigh police – don’t get me started. I was at the Hawk’s Nest late one evening, when I witnessed four boys coaxing their friend through male purging (they were asking for hot towels – it was like a birth was taking place), a girl asked me if she could borrow my key card to get into her building (and was too drunk to know that Brodhead isn’t Dravo), and a boy in a near state of paralysis was slumped over and walked in front of a car in front of four police officers – clearly under the influence, and none of them lifted a finger or batted an eyebrow.

My advice is simple – don’t push for Amethyst. Keep tabs on your peers – I have no problem with underage drinking. I have a problem with having my car keyed, or having to babysit my friends. What it comes down to is responsibility – something that, if practiced, might actually make these nonsense pass.

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Last year, President Gast voiced her concerns with signing the Amethyst Initiative, leaving the administration with fewer options involving cooperation with the Student Senate on the issue of underage alcohol consumption. Vice Provost of Student Affairs, John Smeaton, has acknowledged that the administration takes note to “separate abuse from use”, but it remains to be seen whether this view will be carried out in new policies and events undertaken by the administration. Minimal backlash from students will be seen if the administration assumes this viewpoint in its implementation of policy to curb underage alcohol consumption. The administration must focus on alcohol abuse and the dangers it poses to students, rather than alcohol’s overall use by Lehigh’s underage population.

The Student Senate seems willing to offer student input, and more importantly, wants a more active role in creating discussion and events designed to educate the student body and promote safe and healthy drinking habits – and the administration should grant them this responsibility. Student to student discussion and education will prove far more useful and effective than executive orders by President Gast or harsh University-wide sanctions. The administration should utilize the Senate as an important tool of connection and communication to the student body.

Overall, the administration and the Student Senate must move past the hindrance of signing the Amethyst Initiative and focus on the issue of underage alcohol abuse. The administration should work with the Senate because their cooperation will be key in implementing a solution that both the student body and the administration can appreciate. Together their goal should be to educate the students with safety as a priority, rather than the impractical focus of eliminating underage alcohol consumption altogether.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The drinking age debate is doomed. The most passionate advocates for reform have three years to make their case. Then one day, they miraculously stop caring, or worse, they join the opposition.

Attrition is not the only problem, of course. There are no new arguments to be made. Compelling statistics overwhelmingly support a 21-year-old drinking age, and the political will for change is non-existent.

However, that the drinking age is and will remain 21 does little to rationalize the way the law has been enforced here at Lehigh. The administration is in the precarious situation of trying to reform our ‘party-school’ image while somehow retaining it – because, well, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

If candor were the order of the day, President Gast could express skepticism about strictly enforcing a 21-year-old drinking age. Most 18-20 year-olds at Lehigh drink regularly, and the law is hardly a deterrent. But Lehigh is under the yoke of two separate but overlapping police forces: the LUPD and the Bethlehem Police Department. In recent years, the Bethlehem Police have received grants from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Those grants provide the money to pay the small army of cops on bikes that patrol the South Side each fall.

As such, it is difficult for the University to find the right tone with which to address this issue. A more progressive attitude could create the illusion of amnesty for underage drinkers or risk undermining the authority of the police.

To walk this tightrope, the administration should reiterate that its primary concern is the safety and security of Lehigh students – safety from alcohol abuse, to be sure, but also from a tarnished permanent record and from the physical dangers of South Bethlehem.

The LUPD should coordinate with the Bethlehem Police so that underage-drinking citations are handled through the University disciplinary system – not a kangaroo court above a video rental store. The University should then scale back the severity of the punishment for first-time offenders so that students stop fearing the police. With this ironclad partnership between students and law enforcement in place, maybe the Bethlehem Police Department will turn its attention to some “real” problems – like plasma TVs with legs.