Two articles to stimulate your interest:

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

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

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

Fable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversity is a word with dichotomous meaning, based on the individuals engaged. In the specter of life, as it should be – that is, true to meaning, diversity refers to the inclusion and accepting of difference, be it ideological, physical, sexual, racial, religious or otherwise. I truly do not believe that Lehigh harbors many, if any students who would oppose this point of view; those who grew up in circumstances much like mine have not been lacquered with a veneer of intrinsic hate – we do not relegate individuals to inferior positions based solely on any of the stated criteria above.

Sadly, in the academic landscape – a sea, awash with hard-line “social justice” mavericks, burned-out activists and agenda-driven administrators engaged in a perpetual pissing contest against the elite Ivy 7, diversity has taken on a very different meaning. In my four years working for The Patriot, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and engaging a diverse (in the former sense of the word) group of individuals: administrators, students, and faculty – with questions pertaining to their motives, ways and means. What I’ve uncovered has tainted the stated cases that key people will make to you in the coming days. As Lehigh’s premiere state-run media outlet, The Brown & White will report in a chipper piece cobbled together by a sophomore writer in the coming months, Lehigh will very likely hire a Chief Diversity Officer, and leverage the dichotomous nature of the word to guilt those who raise opposition.

My opposition to the very nature of a CDO was forged in the bowels of Lehigh’s administrative organization chart – the findings of which I will present shortly. However, a good deal of tangent information came to light in my fact-finding, which has acted to galvanize the core thesis of this text. Whatever your position may be on a CDO, I believe that any high-dollar change to Lehigh (be it a person, building, or other noun) deserves scrutiny. College costs have placed the yearly average burden of a Lehigh education at $50,050, and I believe that students should make themselves aware of where every penny of that pot goes. For many students, myself included, a Lehigh education is a privilege, and it would be foolish for any enterprise to squander the hard-earned dollar of any student without understanding the full picture. The case for a CDO has been summarily rammed down our throats through Alice’s emails and subsequent media coverage of alleged “hateful incidents” and “bias-related crimes” – this is the rest of that story.

A Recent Fad

Having read through Lehigh’s Vice President for Equity & Community (VPEC) Benchmarking Report, the interested student will learn that Lehigh is penis-measuring against other schools to assess the so-called “need” for what has been referred to colloquially as a Chief Diversity Officer. The report essentially boils down to three key arguments: (1), other colleges are doing it, (2) Lehigh is an isolate among elite universities for our lack of a CDO, and (3) Lehigh should basically capitulate and cop Tufts University’s plan, at an approximate cost of $1-2MM, so that we can play, too. Yes – the report really is that simple, and I encourage all those reading to read the full report online, as well, and see for themselves.

On December 1st, a group of cowardly individuals calling themselves “concerned students” emailed a vintage club officers’ distribution list noting that the university still has not capitulated with their request (set forth at the infamous CEC Town Halls last year) for a CDO, who is “…someone who can act as a liaison between students and the president’s cabinet and can effectively dedicate their time to the betterment of the University.” Yes – that’s the entire job description. Never mind the fact that Lehigh presently has 107 key contact people in the event of a “bias-related incident,” with more than 40 individuals under “Student Affairs” with the title of “administrator,” “coordinator” or “leader” – all who liaison with students on a daily basis. Of those, 8 are core positions dedicated to diversity.

Reviewing the VPEC report, Lehigh plans on spending between $250,000 and $450,000 on this position for salary alone.

Unless we’re planning to sack a considerable amount of the existing special interest diversity defense positions, I cannot see from a business standpoint what one more administrator will do to improve student/administrative liaison, which the VPEC report directly demonstrates a preexisting competency by its very existence.

Additionally, while researching the institutions that have adopted some flavor of a CDO, it is apparent through press release dates that more than 50% have added their CDO position within the past four years alone.

The argument has been made that Lehigh must implement this position in order to stay competitive within the academic landscape; I believe we could do just as well by using that same pool of money for additional scholarships and faculty reinvestment.

Not So Diverse

One of the secret ironies about the CDO position concerns, ironically enough, diversity. Of the universities against which Lehigh has chosen to benchmark, more than 67% of CDOs are black. 16.5% are Hispanic,
the remainder being white or Asian. Lehigh has often been cited for a supposed lack of diversity in the context of ethnicity, with 74% of students being “white, non-Hispanic”; if this constitutes a lack of ethnic diversity, than America’s top colleges have obviously failed in the vetting of CDO candidates.

“Academic Culture”

If one factor pervades truth and openness from entering the discussion about diversity and the present state of academic culture, it is academic culture itself. In academia, there is no award for bringing in the most international students, and few are concerned about political and socio-economic diversity in the thought patterns of their students. Based on the nature of the dialogue, the characterization of the CDOs studied for this article (and the departments from which they came), in addition to an interview I held with Lehigh’s own former Joint Multicultural Program head, it would seem that the gold standard for diversity at college is really the black standard.

There exists an overt fixation on black – in particular, African-American students. This is a fact, reinforced by the considerable conscription of CDOs from Africana Studies departments, the makeup of CDOs profiled for Lehigh’s VPEC report, and the fact that almost all of Lehigh’s
“concerned students,” in addition to the loudest of the diversity noisemakers and mouthpieces on campus are African-American. Not African nationals, not Caribbean refugees – African-Americans. They’re like Pokémon cards for admissions – you’ve gotta catch ‘em all.

In the reading circles of higher-ed, where publications like The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed prevail, a landmark 2006 article authored by U-Virgina’s own CDO, Damon Williams sheds some light onto just how vague this position really is. Among the key tenets listed for a good CDO, #7: Understanding the Culture of Higher Education is listed. Never mind the fact that I, in addition to most Lehigh students could fill the shoes of a CDO based on Mr. Williams’ description (“Team-building” and “charisma”? Please…); the CDO is a loaded weapon for the American university to forward its bureaucratically dominated agenda of thought-control through administrative expansion (or bloat, as the case may be), and the splintering of students through special interest defense groups.

Academic culture likes code-words – women’s studies is a crude extension of NARAL, LGBTQIA services is destined to put someone of the wrong gender into my bathroom, “social justice” means equity on an East Germany shades-of-gray level, and Africana Studies really only graduates people who will go on to teach Africana Studies and eventually get promoted to Chief Diversity Officer. It’s a vicious cycle.

Recently, an insider at Kutztown University who did not wish to be named gave me an inside look at higher education wielding the newly minted tool of CDO. “You can’t do anything without passing it through the Equity chair,” said my source. “No question may be asked, no candidate may be considered for a job until the Equity chair gets its review.” Looking at higher education’s track record of incoherent ideological suppression, with universities concocting free speech gazebos, freshman first-year student indoctrination with invasive programs about sexual identity and environmentalism, and asinine questions requesting one’s definition of equity and community (an easy opportunity to profile candidates’ ideological characteristics), it is clear that CDOs will likely have extensive reach within an organization, be it a university or place of business.

Conclusion

If one singular fact should strike you, dear reader, with any sense of urgency, it should be the lack of definition that has accompanied Lehigh’s push for a CDO. Hiring a CDO, at the very least, is a significant financial commitment for a school with an extensive preexisting diversity structure of administrators and their staffs. Coupling this with the nature of academia, and its radically skewed vision of diversity and what it means, (deifying degenerate culture and offering it as a class, while using terms like “bias related incident” to silence critics), the magnitude of what’s at stake should be clear.

Lehigh should absolutely be committed to diversity – authentic diversity. Students, be it a pro-life female, or underprivileged African-American male should feel comfortable and welcome on Lehigh’s campus. Good learning, like good business, requires honest criticism and having one’s ideas challenged – something that may be novel or uncomfortable to students and professors. However, adding a nanny position with far-reaching power to silence some while enabling others, particularly with historical precedent in mind, is a grave mistake.

It’s not often that I find something on campus so disturbing that I have to stop and think about it.  I’m not *that* type of conservative…

…oh come on.  You know what I mean – I’m not of the book-burning, poster-tearing, art-vandalizing ilk.  I believe that if something warrants such action, it’s worthy of discussion, and when someone tears/burns/vandalizes something, they’re trying to *stop* that discussion – liberals and conservatives alike.

These touchy issues – the ones that stop a dinner conversation or casual dialogue and make things “parents-having-sex” awkward, are the ones that deserve a proper forum.   With regard to abortion, I feel that I cannot be alone when I state that a party is certainly not that forum.

Abortion Party

So it goes that when I stumbled onto this sign several days ago (mind you, it’s still hanging on – no one, not even OneSource, has removed it), I was taken aback.  Surely even a pro-choice individual understands the complexities of an issue like abortion deserve more respect than… a party?

Now – my pro-choice friends, I can already predict your response.  ”But… it says Roe v. Wade Anniv. Party.”  Like that makes any difference…  Roe v. Wade was more than a trial – it was a woman, and her difficult decision.  Regardless of where one stands on that decision, it was a sobering one, evocative of (on the left) coat hangers, bloodied sketchy abortionists operating out of dark hotel rooms and alleyways.  On the right, it conjures images of tiny hands and feet, barely the size of a quarter, but still in the image of an unborn life.

I’m not trying to start an abortion debate right here, right now.  This isn’t about abortion rights, this is about good taste – class, decency, and understanding.  All traits that the host or hosts of this “party” certainly lack.

UPDATE: As it turns out, Lehigh’s own Women’s Center was behind this affair. Issues of political neutrality and teal and purple stars aside, this evidence only furthers my conviction that those who claim to speak for women’s rights and women’s issues at Lehigh have a cavernous disconnect from reality. Even Muhlenburg faculty who declined the invitation on Facebook noted that students should “celebrate for me.” Celebrate? Absolutely disgusting… Note that Don Cunningham was on the guest list.

Event Sponsored in part by Lehigh Women's Center

Regrets from Muhlenberg faculty member Peter Pettit

Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningam was invited.

Question: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

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.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Question: How should Lehigh’s administration deal with underage alcohol consumption?

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.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Question: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Before I weigh in on this topic wholeheartedly, I offer full disclosure: I’ve written about the Greeks only once before – in my piece entitled Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, and it concerned the attitudes of the community towards the Technology in Society living program.  The tone of the article leaned towards the preservation of the system with the understanding that good expansion could come through special interest houses, which are (as the article explains) quite similar to Greek houses, without a set of letters.

Considering the circumstances, as I understand them, Greek Week was cancelled by the Fraternity Management Association, a conglomerate that is Lehigh-run with administration from each house on-board.  If this is not correct, I apologize.

If such is, in fact, accurate, then the dispute seems to center around motives and motivation, and not an undue action by the administration’s part.

I did not attend Greek Week last year.  I read the coverage, I made my biases, and I sort of left it to the wayside.  My understanding was that there were derogatory remarks made publically (derogatory as defined by The Brown & White, or some PC attendees), and someone may or may not have wet herself.

The fact is, the University’s attitude towards the behavior of its students has very much been characterized by the scolded, naughty child approach.  Guilt is often assumed before evidence, and the weight of opinion always seems to stand on the side that reads nicer in public relations reports (aka, the politically correct side).  I for one believe that political correctness is a means for control.  I believe that people do not intrinsically have the right not to be offended, because oftentimes, their offense offends me, so it’s an absurd, moot catch-22.  All this considered, while I’m sure some individuals said or did things that everyone would’ve dismissed had it been a private affair, clearly it was a public affair, and someone cried foul.

Should this constitute cancellation?  That’s a hard call.  If the Greeks really want to shed their reputation as entitled, underachieving, shallow beings that dominate the school’s social scene by force (I’m not saying that these descriptions are accurate or inaccurate – I’m merely restating a partial perception consensus culled from many articles, editorials, and other published works), then it would be in their best interests to rethink their approach.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

Question: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

On the eve of Ted Kennedy’s death, after I finished a glass of my favorite brut and lit some scented candles (outside the dorms, of course…), I reflected on the life and legacy of the deceased Lion of the Senate, who is now being propped-up post-mortem, like a gangly overweight puppet and paraded about as a means to finance an ill-conceived health care “reform” package that is more agenda-ridden then, well… most of the things that Teddy ever touched.

The fact is, the liberal stronghold (a figurehead of power as they’ve recently proven, with their so-called supermajority and no way to pass anything meaningful other than flag-waiving and blame-chasing resolutions) has toted their socialization of medicine package as reform, and chastised those who don’t care to see their doctor become yet another supplicant of the state as against reform.

This is both wrong and immoral.  And, incidentally, I should address morality, as I was asked a very popular question while debating this very topic at Lehigh last year.  I was asked if I put costs or means or anything else ahead of care, and given yet another sob story on someone who was “lost in the system” and died young.

I replied that, yes, I do believe in picking “who shall live,” but it’s not with government panels and legislation, but with common sense.

At present, while I agree that the scope and nature of the term “preexisting condition” needs to be reviewed, those who smoke or are overweight, or use illegal substances are subject to additional tariffs and, in some cases, die from their disorders from a subsequent inability to pay.

I’d frankly rather see the obese or maligned die in small numbers, than face a government who (in an attempt to be brutally fair) will banish snack foods, sugar, cigarettes (I like to consider them a form of blue collar population control), and of course, the lovely glass of bubbly that I’m enjoying as I push my Matchbox cars off the surface of my desk into a pail of water, reflecting again on the life and legacy of Ted Kennedy.  And I don’t want to stop those who eat to excess or smoke from celebrating their freedom and doing it, so long as they don’t force their burden onto me.

We need reform.  We need health care providers to have certain restrictions on this “preexisting conditions” crap that is so often used to prevent paying customers from receiving care, and we need tort reform to reduce the costs of that care.  We don’t need 150% Medicare-grade cost overruns and “public health initiatives” in the form of more restrictions on our foods and habits.  After all, wasn’t it the liberals who chastised me for questioning what someone can do (or eat, or smoke, as the case may be) in the privacy of their home?

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

I am not an operator inside the administration. Frank Roth, Lehigh’s general counsel, probably wakes up to copies of my emails, under some privacy-invasion clause of which the school failed to inform me, thanks in part to some of the efforts that I’ve stood behind in my time here. They [the administration] don’t care for me, but they pretend to.

I’m not raising a flag and screaming for uproarious change – in fact, I’ll state that in this letter I stand behind that which has raised more eyebrows and blood pressure rates than any other topic, beyond even race: the Greek System.

(more…)