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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

http://stopkyleighslaw.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sodexo’s Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Ignorance, or apathy?” I asked myself just weeks after transferring to Lehigh University, with regard to environmental awareness.  Looking back at the past semester, during which I contrasted Lehigh to my former institution in Vermont, I decided that it was a bit of both, and I thought about who might be to blame: the students, who did not know any better, or the establishment, who failed to take action?

Lehigh: a private, affluent university.  This was made clear to me during orientation, when a tour of the campus brought me past a few of the University police officers. They were riding brand new, ten thousand-dollar Segways. Segways? Of course, I had to ask about these presumably useless vehicles. It is no secret that Lehigh is a campus with steps, and Segways do not climb steps. “To make Lehigh green,” was the response from my orientation leader.  Coming from a school that took great pride in its high environmental rating, I knew what it meant to make a campus “green”, and knew that Segways were not the answer.

So I did what I could. I joined the Green Action Club and attended a few meetings, but it was a disappointment.  There was not one meeting during which I saw more than fifteen faces, and that high number was at the meeting to elect club officers. Even those in the club admitted that they were there for a resume booster. “It’s a small club, so I can probably get a officer position. And it doesn’t really matter if you’re just in a club,” said the kid next to me. That was all he was there for. I asked him what he was going to bring to the club, what he thought we should be doing to green-up the school. He had no ideas. “We recycle,” he said, as if that was even close to enough.

I suggested composting, which I had already looked into. Rathbone and Lower UC separate the food waste before cleaning the dishes, so it would just be a matter of collecting and storing the food. I was told by the current Green Action president that it would be too expensive. Fundraising? “No,” she said. A demonstration, to make environmental problems visible? “No,” she said. Every idea I had was shot down. I suggested making the club bigger—holding the meetings in a more public place would surely attract more people. “No,” she said, “ Maginnes at seven in the evening is fine.” Fine is not enough. But to those in Green Action who were there for their resume, fine was fine.

After that meeting, I saw the members hop into their SUVs to climb the Lehigh mountain. I walked. I always walk. Because when I chose Lehigh, I knew that I was choosing a campus on a mountain. I wonder if my fellow classmates were not aware of this, as many of them see driving as the only way to get around. With all the weaving roads, and one ways, I have proven that it is faster to walk than it is to drive, so I know it is not a matter of time that convinces students to choose gas over calves.

The only other answer I can think of is apathy. At a top ranked business school, I am sure that the oil crisis, and its effect on the economy do not go unnoticed. And yet, our campus continues to be littered with cars: carrying people back and forth to class, carrying people to the dining halls, carrying people to the gym. (Ironic?) Why drive? It is not faster. It is not more efficient. It is not better for the environment.  And wherever you park, you are sure to get a ticket. There is just no reason to drive around the Lehigh campus.

Another major difference that I saw between Lehigh and The University of Vermont was the use of water bottles. I, personally, do not leave my dorm without a reusable water bottle in tow. It is hard to tell what disgusts me more, the trash left behind by the one-time use bottles, or the fact that in the twenty first century, we are still using them. The number of Poland Springs, and Deer Parks, and Fijis I see littered around campus each day is appalling. Not to mention the use of disposable coffee cups. Looking around my environmental studies class, I see students sipping out of paper cups while simultaneously learning about the clear-cutting methods used to produce them. In Vermont, I literally would have been asked to leave class for such ignorant behavior.

“Why,” I ask myself on a daily basis, “do people here not care?” Is it the lack of outdoor activities available, which in turn does not allow people to fully appreciate the environment in which they live? No. Sure, one might argue that there is not skiing from November to April like in Vermont, but that has not yet stopped me from getting outside. I still manage to find places to hike, and enjoy the basic elements of nature. I can still appreciate and revere. Why not the rest of Lehigh?

My blame is directed at Lehigh University, the institution of higher learning, which fails to acknowledge the importance of sustainability. We have English requirements, and math requirements, and social science requirements. What about environmental sufficiency requirements? At a school which takes pride in its near Ivy League standing, all of its students should be well aware of the issues that limit our growth as a people. We should all be taught that whichever direction we decide to take our lives, our paths are all fenced in by our resources – our environment. So, ignorance or apathy? At Lehigh, we certainly have both.

Yesterday’s vote was, indeed, as President Barack Obama put it, answering ‘the Call of History.’ Unfortunately for him, it was, in the eyes of every House Republican and a significant portion of House Democrats, the wrong answer.

The run up to the vote, complete with suspense and drama, was well covered by the New York Times, culminating in an article today¹ which provides a wealth of pundit-fodder on both sides. Democrats, basking in their victory, sling hyperbole left and right: the bill heralds “a new day in America”² (yes, today is called Monday); the program will “improve the quality of life for millions of American families”³ (ok, maybe that’s not hyperbole; we’ll ask these families again in ten years); “the Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century”⁴ (I have yet to see people in the same numbers marching around Washington claiming “I have a dream” about Health Care); the bill is “liberating legislation”⁵ (liberation from what? Responsibility?).

Of course, several Republicans got in their unhelpful jabs at the bill, calling it “a fiscal Frankenstein,”⁶ “a decisive step in the weakening of the United States,”⁷ and “one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States.”⁸ While these descriptions may be accurate, they aren’t going to help clean up the mess created by President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress.

But, what of the bill? What is so utterly revolting that not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill? For one, it promises to increase spending, such that the Congressional Budget Office projects it will cost the government $938 billion dollars over 10 years. It will also place the burden of health care coverage on employers and the government, as opposed to on the individual.

Many hail this as a good thing, becoming distracted from the fact that everybody can receive Health Care, but not everybody can pay for it. They fail to remember that Health Care is, like most things in the United States of America, a capitalist enterprise. Doctors are in practice to help people get better, but they also have to make a living off of what they do. Insurance companies with their (sometimes necessarily, sometimes unnecessarily) complicated procedures and tactics for delaying payment provide enough inconvenience to the average doctor; the government’s involvement in matters can only make things worse.

In fact, the biggest criticism of the Health Care bill from people who would like to see Health Care reform is that it doesn’t do enough in the right places, for example in regulating the activity of insurance companies so that they don’t ultimately fall into the same traps as the financial industry of a year and a half ago.

However, Republicans are less infuriated with the content of the bill and the measures it would introduce than they are with the politics employed to get it passed. From a completely objective standpoint, it looks suspicious that Democratic legislators have had a burning desire to reform the Health Care system for several years through a primarily Republican Congress and, when they finally gain a majority, force the reform through without a single Republican vote, meanwhile alienating several conservative Democrats (34, to be exact). The result of the vote yesterday was 219 in favor, with 212 against, a mere 3 more than the requisite “greater than 50 percent” to claim a majority.

The fact that no Republicans voted for the bill is a rather telling indication (that Democrats are busy ignoring in their victory celebrations) that bipartisan and nonpartisan politics are out the window, thanks in no small part to President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. The failure to and apparent lack of interest in involving Republicans in the legislation process is an action that has the potential to bring an abrupt end to Democrats’ majorities come November.

When all is said and done, this bill looks more and more like a small victory that Democrats can pat themselves on the back for, while ignoring the real problems and alienating almost half of the House of Representatives (and possibly their constituents). John A. Boehner, R-Ohio and the House Republican leader, noted, “The American people are angry. This body moves forward against their will. Shame on us.” Honorable Senators and Representatives of Congress Assembled, shame on you. You have, once again, failed the American people.

1 – “Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History.’ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html?hp

2 – Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio

3 – Doris Matsui, D-California

4 – James E. Clyburn, D-South Carolina

5 – Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

6 – Paul D. Ryan, R-Wisconsin

7 – Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida

8 – Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Gast recently expressed her intentions of hiring a Chief Diversity Officer; a position which would improve the standing of Lehigh University when compared to other racist institutions. Additionally, it would create another figurehead leadership position, a role that Lehigh as an institution has far too few of.

Comparing Lehigh to its peer institutions in the Lehigh Valley and around the world, there is a clear sense of “keeping up with the Jones.’” Colleges including Moravian and RIT have created this position; therefore, Lehigh must spend more money to compensate. Lehigh has a clear need to “leverage and maximize investments in diversity initiatives”1 as one of the most homogeneously white campuses in the United States.

Under President Gast, Lehigh University has embarked in a new direction. The job description: sending the most powerfully staged e-mails, inspiring fear in the hearts of racists, and evacuating emotion from the “affected minorities.” This new role must be taxing! Clearly, Gast does not have the patience to respond to bias incidents, and would rather focus on her golf game.

Lehigh University has a proud and storied tradition of over-developed efforts of threat construction. Starting with 500 people attending a town hall meeting in response to idly wasted words and continuing with editorials flooding the Brown and White, Lehigh has historically acted decisively and swiftly after the occurrence of race-based conflicts to publicize and relentlessly promote the actions of racists and stigmatize the entire campus.

A Chief Diversity Officer will have other benefits to campus. He or she will create a purpose for the Council for Equity and Community, and give them tangible results for the past 22 months. Lehigh University wouldn’t want the efforts of the noble volunteers in the Council for Equity and Community to be wasted on crafting equality now, would they?

The Chief Diversity Officer fulfills a clear, unmet need on campus. His or her role will encompass new ground, uncovered by the Council for Equity and Community, The Movement, the Black Student Union, The Women’s Center, the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Africana Studies, Women Studies, The Rainbow Room, or The Multicultural Room. The position will be a boon for Lehigh’s race-centered population and engender a healthier campus community for all involved. Furthermore, he or she will be able to dole out the copious amounts of funding that are sure to accompany his or her modest salary.

With the addition of a CDO, Lehigh gains the ability to recruit one of the most desirable demographics: minorities. An increase in minorities betters the standing of the university in the eyes of the world, increasing our rankings that have been slipping over the past few years. Peer institutions, such as MIT outpace our racial commitments many times over, and minority representation is a hallmark of a quality educational institution.

Finally, The Movement will be able to demonstrate clear outcomes from their dramatic rallies, protests, and marches on President Gast’s house. This would represent the second demand yielded to the Movement, and it would be the most indelible mark left on campus…next to the hole in President Gast’s door.2

The Patriot implores President Gast to spare no expense and hire a Chief Diversity Officer. We are amazed that this institution has survived for 155 years without an individual dedicated to ensuring equality for all on this campus. A Chief Diversity Officer will singlehandedly smite every racist and every racist thought from this campus and create a Lehigh Bubble of Equity and Community, the envy of the world.

Sources:
1. http://www.nadohe.org/
2. http://www.lehigh.edu/diversity/pdf/TownHallMtgs/11-11_town_hall_mtg_notes.pdf

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.