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.

The recent senatorial election in Massachusetts resulted in what some have described as the most important political upset of the century. The revered seat of Ted Kennedy, the so-called Lion of the Senate, fell into Republican hands on January 19, 2010. Senator Kennedy held a prominent position in the Senate for decades before succumbing to brain cancer on August 25, 2009. Ironically, the law mandating a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts was established to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from replacing Senator John Kerry with a Republican in the event that Kerry won the 2004 presidential election. An extremely influential Senate seat that was in Democratic hands since 1953 fell to the Republicans with a resounding victory for Scott Brown.

The significance of this issue cannot be overstated. The race itself received a tremendous amount of attention from political leaders on both sides of the aisle. President Obama campaigned for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, and Mayor Giuliani threw his support behind Brown by campaigning in Boston for the Republican cause. A climactic moment of the election occurred during a debate when moderator Devid Gergen asked Brown why he would oppose health care reform while holding the “Kennedy seat.” Brown replied, “It’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.” This notion of an election for the ‘people’s seat’ became a rallying cry for the Brown campaign. An election that the Democrats initially thought would be a proverbial walk in the park turned into a major upset that will seriously change the political climate and focus in Washington.

The reaction from some major political leaders is clear evidence of the effect of this historic election. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – N.Y.) declared, “I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.” When Democratic representatives are openly discussing the death of their legislation on the grounds of a single election, it is clear the election must be significant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, made reference to the passionate nature of the election as a reprisal against the Democrats. “We will all be making a mistake if we believe that the message that was delivered in Massachusetts last night was unique to Massachusetts,” he said. “That anger was directed, frankly, at all of us.” Republicans responded in a more positive, but equally passionate, manner. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky recognized the frustration of the American people in response to a year of Obama-driven legislation. “There’s a reason the nation was focused on this race,” said McConnell. “The American people have made it abundantly clear that they’re more interested in shrinking unemployment than expanding government. They’re tired of bailouts. They’re tired of the government spending more than ever at a time when most people are spending less. And they don’t want the government taking over health care.” Even Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a moderate who had voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the health care bill said, “I never say anything is dead, but I think that clearly they’re going to have to revisit the entire issue. I think that was true from the outset. I think there were a lot of concerns that ultimately, collectively manifested themselves in yesterday’s vote. The American people are rightfully frustrated and they should be. This process is not becoming of this institution, the United States Congress. You can’t drive a policy that doesn’t have the support of the American people.” Her admitted hesitation about the health care issue as a result of Brown’s election is a factor that supporters of health care reform must come to terms with.

This dramatic response from both parties cannot be ignored. Even if the significance of Brown’s election turns out to be more ephemeral than substantial in the long run, it at least has had the effect of jarring Washington out of its stupor. President Obama himself recognized how the election would change his priorities and referenced it in his State of the Union Address as an example of how the election year to come would be a time of trials. Washington clearly sees Brown’s election as being significant, but how does it affect us at Lehigh?

Clearly health care will be thrown off schedule because of Senator Brown, which in all likelihood will be a good thing for America and our generation, specifically. The health care legislation that Congress and Obama have been trying to push through, if passed, would essentially be another tax with a goal of income redistribution. It is a classic example of having a few pay to support many, just as social security “works” today. Health care is just one example of the legislation that Obama will have to rework with Brown’s presence in the Senate. Obama will have tone down his priorities and really work for a bipartisan arrangement on many issues.

In the recent Presidential election, our generation was a bastion of support for Obama. We were largely responsible for electing him with a promise of hope and change. Is it true that a year after his inauguration, we are no better off? Many Americans, specifically those who elected Brown, see the Obama illusion as fleeting. They see Obama’s messianic message as a promise of the campaign trail only. In the last year, Obama has accrued a Nobel Peace Prize (whilst overseeing two foreign wars), a large national debt, and no foreseeable solution to the economic crisis.

What are some Lehigh students saying about Scott Brown’s election? I’m sure many haven’t even heard of him. The average Lehigh student who elected Obama should learn Brown’s name and fear the effect he will have on Obama, both real and psychological. Levi Bissell, ’12, a Lehigh student and resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, laid out his thoughts on the Brown election, “It’s a hopeful sign for the U.S government in general that we’re getting back to the two-party system, especially for a very blue state like Massachusetts.

It will push a lot of issues back into the open.” Another Lehigh student, Caleb Raddens, had a more somber thought on the election, “It’s sad that things are going to be deadlocked. I want to see progress.” Both students bring up good points. Brown’s election does make it clear that Obama does not have free reign to override Republican interests. And whatever your opinion of the health care debate, it is disappointing to see legislation that so many worked so hard for to be defeated. It makes one wonder if Congress can really do anything, even though perhaps the real question should be why the President thinks he has the prerogative to direct legislation. Regardless, Democracies are wonderful things. People speak through elections in republics, and the people have certainly spoken in Massachusetts.

The vast majority of you reading this column will never need this information. My aim is to provide comprehensive information for students involved in the Lehigh University judicial process, as well as my opinions about how the system works. But this column may be useful for those students who become involved in the campus judicial system.

However, nothing in this column is meant to constitute legal advice. This column does not constitute a solicitation or formation of a lawyer-client relationship. More importantly, nothing I tell you here should be taken as more than my opinion about the process and your rights as listed in the Code of Conduct. If you find yourself in a disciplinary situation, you should know your rights and consider speaking with your friends, family, or a lawyer.

The Code’s jurisdiction encompasses any activity that affects the university, university members, or the pursuit of Lehigh’s goals. That means that for as long as you’re enrolled as a student if you engage in conduct anywhere in the world that violates Lehigh’s rules, you can be charged with and found responsible for a violation of the Code. This is true even if civil or criminal authorities have already acted, or if they refuse to act.

Lehigh states that the University has an interest in providing fundamental fairness in all conduct matters. Personally, I disagree with this statement. The university has an interest in covering its ass, and getting its problems away from campus, but providing true fundamental fairness…not likely. It’s far too difficult and costly to provide true fundamental fairness; instead, the university just gives a carefully designed list of rights to accused students that they “strive to provide” and calls it fundamental fairness. So what should you know?

Accused Right to Silence: If you’re accused, you do NOT have to answer questions posed to you, either at a hearing or in the investigation phases. Do not let university administrators try to convince you that as an accused student you are required to make statements or answer anything. Because you may still find yourself criminally liable after some Code violations, the university cannot take away your right to silence. You CAN still be found responsible for a violation, but you can’t be forced to speak.

Witness Right to Silence: You have none. If you are a witness, the university can require you to make statements under the Code, and can punish you if you refuse to cooperate. Think of it as a preemptive obstruction of justice, complete with the ability to punish the witness if the witness admits to doing something wrong in their forced statement.

Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. This means that to find you responsible the hearing panel “must believe that it is more likely than not, based on the information presented at the hearing, that the student is responsible.” You should note that this is the lowest burden of proof that can be provided, meaning it’s very easy to be found responsible, even in “he said, she said” cases.  Because you can be found responsible by pure majority vote, it only takes three of the five panelists to find you responsible.

Challenges for Bias: You will have no opportunity to explore the bias of panel members in anything but a cursory manner. Before a hearing, parties are asked if they know panel members or have any reason to believe they might be biased. That’s it. You have no opportunity to ask them questions before a hearing to determine if the member has any biases or reasons they shouldn’t sit on the panel. However, you do have an explicit right to be heard that includes the right to “ask questions of anyone present at the hearing.” You can try to use this to explore possible panelist biases, though the Conduct Officer and the panel may refuse to allow you to pursue this approach. In addition, you also have the right to challenge hearing body members for reasons such as a personal bias toward a participant or preformed judgment. Though panelist removal is by majority vote of remaining members (meaning it’s highly unlikely to ever remove a panelist by challenge, particularly if the panelist is a professor) it is still a useful tool to use to preserve the record for a later challenge. And because your Conduct Officer attends your hearing to “advise hearing panels regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of conduct procedures,” you may be able to question and challenge your Conduct Officer if something egregious occurs. If you get in a situation where you’re concerned about bias but are being prevented from asking questions, explicitly verbalize these two rights in connection to each other to try to get some leeway. Worst case scenario, it’ll make the university look really bad in the formal record, which may be helpful to you later in challenging a verdict.

Right to Assistance, but not Counsel: You have a right to advisory assistance. But this assistance cannot be by someone who is an attorney. Lehigh goes out of its way to prevent anyone with legal knowledge from seeing how it runs its judicial proceedings. The only way you can have an attorney present is in cases “where there are pending criminal charges.” Note that it says “pending” and not “pending or potential” and “criminal,” not “criminal or civil.” If you find yourself facing an accusation that might lead later to civil or criminal charges, or that has led to pending civil or criminal charges, you should speak with an attorney far in advance of your hearing date and you should try to have that attorney present at your hearing. Do not let Lehigh intimidate you out of protecting your legal interests, and don’t let them hide behind ridiculous policies.

Your advisor (whether attorney or not) will NOT be allowed to ask or answer questions or argue for you. They are just an observer. The advisor’s job is to ensure that the process is as fairly run as possible and to provide you with support. To that in, make sure if you have a non-lawyer advisor that they are a friend or someone you trust. Their role is also to ensure fair process, so you want someone who would testify for you. Make sure that your advisor brings an audio or video recording device to ensure that you have an immediate copy of the proceedings, and fight Lehigh on this if they try to stop you from recording.

Do NOT ask Lehigh to appoint an advisor for you. You don’t need to risk any intentional or unintentional delay on the university’s part, and you don’t need the stress of waiting. Your advisor is meant to help you prepare, so use all the time you can. In addition, in sensitive cases (where the university might anticipate a lawsuit resulting) the university could ask your university-appointed advisor to communicate with the school about your advisor conversations to get an idea about your case strategy or your plans.

Right to Information: You have the right to information. What this means is that you have a right to review available information, documents and witness lists. You should make copies of EVERYTHING. Copies will not be provided to you, and making copies will ensure that no unreviewed documents are used against you. Making copies will also allow you to familiarize yourself with specific issues to ensure that you are receiving a fair hearing and to better prepare to argue your case. Finally, you’ll want these copies if you want to pursue an appeal or a legal challenge.

Note that this rule says nothing about panelist research. If you’re not aware, the panelists are given information on the case beforehand to familiarize themselves with the issues. This allows the panelists to conduct research on the issues that might arise before the hearing. Panelists can consult materials that the accused never has a chance to see or prepare against, and panelists can bring this outside evidence into the hearing to use against a party. The accused and accuser have NO right to see any of this evidence beforehand, because the university can argue they had no reason to know about that evidence, so they had no obligation to provide it to the parties. Because you have no right to inquire into the panelist’s knowledge of the case (at least until the hearing starts) you have no way to know they’ve done this research until you’re already in the hearing, preventing you from effectively responding to it, if you even find out about it. After all, Lehigh won’t stop the hearing so you can get on your laptop to try to find contrary information. And because panelists often conduct much of the questioning, this allows your judges to become advocates against you, using information that they personally researched and that you’ve never seen before.

Right to Admit “Relevant” Information: This is a very vague right because the decision of what is relevant is subjective. To Lehigh, evidence is admissible when it is shown to be relevant to the factual issues of the case in the opinion of the majority of the panel. However, the panel decides what they will take into account, and so their biases matter. But some information will never be allowed, such as an alleged victim’s sexual history with the accused in a sexual misconduct case (even if consent is at issue), a rule contrary to every state’s criminal laws. Other evidence is always admissible; for example, if university officials search you or your property “in accordance with their duties” that evidence is always admissible, even if the search would be 100% illegal under the 4^th Amendment.

Open Hearing: Hearings are generally closed, but you have the right to request an open hearing. However, the Conduct Officer can deny your request, and also has the power to close your hearing to the public at any time. As such, your ability to get an open hearing in a matter is tenuous at best. But if you can stand your friends and peers hearing the details, you may want to try an open hearing in serious cases. Their presence will give you a host of witnesses to call about any procedural deficiencies or problems that occur.

Right to Appeal: If you are found responsible, you do have a right to appeal. However, the appeal is most likely just an opportunity for the committee to rubber stamp the hearing panel’s decision, especially since you can’t attend the appeal. Appeal is limited to only three grounds: that new information that could reasonably be expected to have altered the outcome is now available that wasn’t available at the time of the hearing, that university disciplinary procedures were violated in a way that adversely affected the case outcome, or that the sanction was unduly harsh. Due to these subjective limitations, it is very difficult to prevail on appeal.

In order to file an appeal, you have seven days from the date you receive your outcome letter. These timeline holds fast even if you receive your letter before a holiday period, so be sure to be on top of the deadline. Also, the conduct office will not make you copies of the hearing tapes or the evidence used at your hearing, so you will have to go to the conduct office in order to get that information. If your case concerns a serious enough issue and you didn’t make your own audio copy, immediately after your hearing you should go to the conduct office and try to transcribe the hearing tapes so you have a copy. Do your best to get the names of every speaker. You should provide a copy of the transcript to your lawyer if you have one, as they may find sufficient problems with your hearing to assist you in getting a new hearing or a settlement.

The Conduct Officer: If you find yourself facing a judicial conduct charge the Conduct Officer on your case will be your liaison between you, your accuser, and the office of judicial conduct. They’re also not your friend. I should repeat that just in case you didn’t get that fact. Your Conduct Officer is NOT your friend. They do not have your best interest at heart, because they work for Lehigh. They have Lehigh’s best interest at heart. That’s not to say that they’re out to get you and that they don’t care, but it does mean that you should be smart about your actions.

The Conduct Officer is the one who investigates the charge against you. That means it’s their job to gather the evidence that will either find you responsible or not responsible. It also means that they’ll only do what they think is sufficient to prepare for your hearing. There is no requirement for how in-depth an investigation they have to do, and you can’t be sure that the Conduct Officer hasn’t reached a decision about how they want the case to turn out and that their decision guided their investigation. So it becomes your job to do their job, just to ensure that you have the best chance to present all your evidence. As such, you should stay in continuous contact with your Conduct Officer to find out what they’ve done, so that you know what you need to do.

If you lose your case and challenge the procedure, then the Conduct Officer becomes an advocate against you during the appeal process. It becomes the Conduct Officer’s job to respond to your appeal and explain why the process you received was fair. Not only that, but the Code allows the Conduct Officer to “assist students in preparing appeals.” So, if this situation wasn’t funny enough, if you don’t know how to properly file an appeal to the conduct procedure, you can get your Conduct Officer to assist you in preparing your appeal challenging them, which they immediately get to respond to and deny.

So, what should you do when you are summoned in to meet with a Conduct Officer? If this is the first time you’re meeting with them, and you have no idea what the meeting is about DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. Listen to what they tell you, make basic responses, but don’t say anything about the substantive nature of the allegation. Don’t admit it. Don’t deny it. Don’t say anything until you have a chance to think on the matter, learn your rights, and talk with your family, friends, or an attorney. Do not give a statement. Do not tell your Conduct Officer of any potential witnesses. If this is not your first meeting, listen, respond only with what’s necessary or not at all, and take notes of everything that was said at the meeting immediately after the meeting ends to ensure their admissibility in potential legal challenges. Remember, your Conduct Officer is not your friend; they represent your accuser just as much as they represent you, and their main loyalty is to Lehigh.

Again, nothing in this column is meant to be legal advice. It’s simply my attempt to share my opinions from what I’ve learned and observed about the campus judicial process. Know your rights, don’t be afraid to talk to your friends, family, or a lawyer, and be safe. Good luck to all of you in the school year, and enjoy your time at Lehigh.

The academic world is inundated with discrimination, oppression, and hate crimes. Nary does a day go by when these atrocities are not discussed, decried, or otherwise defamed. However, one kind of abuse is rarely mentioned: religious. Sometimes the persecution of Muslims is disparaged, but these critiques are usually more politically than religiously motivated.

(more…)

The US and the Czech Republic have had a rocky alliance history, but since the defeat of Communism the two states have grown closer together. Despite the radical asymmetry in size and power, since 1989 the Czech Republic has been a valuable ally to the United States.

(more…)

This year, for Martin Luther King Day, the University put together several days of lectures and talks to consider the diversity issues of the campus and to coincide with the inauguration of President Obama. On the twenty-first of January, there was a luncheon summit with nine professors representing nearly every relevant academic department talking about their research in terms of black issues and Martin Luther King. The core of the discussion centered on the matter of opposing injustice, though it repeatedly touched on the theme of this week’s events. Perhaps the most interesting perspective on the concept of Remaining Awake came from Ziad Munson, adjunct professor of Sociology and Anthropology: “For me, being awake is making sure that we – this generation and the next generation – are well educated. We have to look at K-12 and that needs to be revised, because, at that level, if we continue to do a terrible job, then we might not see our position improve.”

(more…)

Sam Wechsler, ’08, is a soft-spoken person. You’d be surprised to learn that, at his command, is an organization that I have previously described as being the most dangerous near-paramilitary group on campus, the Progressive Student Alliance. The PSA, known for their occasionally fringe-level activism, is planning to march a mock wooden coffin from the Maginnes political science building to the Stabler Observation Tower at Iacocca Hall, to symbolize the cumulative American and Iraqi death toll, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Naturally, I was drawn to such a story. A coffin? Clearly, the symbolism made sense, but why even bother? Protests, like many long-standing traditions of the American left, have a habit of getting out of hand. Motives start innocently enough, but the consequences are what make front-page news. My concern centers around the fact that the consequences aren’t typically rally cries of support or newfound unity in a cause. Rather, someone typically gets hit with too much tear gas, or the fire hose pressure is a bit too high, and someone screams another classic battle cry of the militant left, hate crime!

What I found to be most refreshing was Wechsler’s attitude toward the whole affair. Rather than galvanizing himself in a position, donning the classic pin collection of upside-down American flags and other anti-establishment paraphernalia, and calling for direct and immediate action, he stated that, “Things take time. Up and out might not be the best strategy for pulling out of Iraq. Ending a war takes time, beginning a war takes time. What our goal is is to symbolize casualties that happened throughout the occupation of Iraq.”

So, why bother with the coffin? “It’s not like it’s completely like, gory. I don’t think it would be that shocking. It’s to bring back awareness,” said Wechsler. “…when people see the actions of others doing things like this, then they may want to participate in it themselves. And eventually you …get more people to participate, and it’s kind of a snowball effect, and that’ll carry – it can carry, all the way to the White House or Washington or whatever,” said Wechsler.

Aside from my immediate apprehension with regard to the notion of anything the left produces “snowballing,” the truth is that a coffin is nothing that the generation of overtly sexualized music and blood-smeared profane television and film couldn’t handle.

Though, if it were merely the act of a funeral procession that concerned me, there would be very little to be concerned about at all. The left would be supportive, and the right would be critical, and neither would likely incur any pragmatic visionary degree of change. Rather, such an act would merely bolster the confidences of both sides of whatever factor of the Iraq war is brought to question.

While I’d like to believe that such a march could remain peaceful, factors that Wechsler clarified lead me to muse otherwise. “We haven’t really planned dress or chants. That might happen; that might not happen. I don’t know,” said Wechsler. Such planned facets could drastically alter the nature of such an event, if properly leveraged. Yet again, my fear of discreet PSA uprising was quelled, when I began to draw comparisons to the ill-fated Diversity Signs project, which was deployed onto the lawn of the University Center last spring.

These signs, with phrases such as, “She looks like a whore,” and “You reek of Jew,” aside from crafting new bigotry that I never believed to be possible (how does one “reek” of Jew?), really only highlighted the overemphasis on false diversity that certain members of the community have been trying to push on the student body for several years now. Likewise, such a project was visually offensive, and likely distraught the visitors, one of which remarked that such signs only heighten the likelihood of latent anti-Semitism.

Said Wechsler, “They certainly invoke thought, and that’s one of our goals – to invoke thought in a person. They would probably be about as effective, however, we’re not writing things like ‘whore’ or ‘Jew,’” I followed up with the obvious: was he offended? “I was not offended by them, no,” noted Wechsler. “It depends on the people that are coming it see it, there are people who might be offended, and there are those who might think it’s funny. I would not support it if someone was seriously offended by it. If there were people that would go to whoever created it, and [the protesting group] kept it up, I would not support that. However, if people just see it and think it’s interesting and it provokes thought, then I think that it may be appropriate to do something like that. So, that’s – I guess there’s a thin line there.”

After speaking with Wechsler, I’ve come to the conclusion that he, like his organization, remains classically left of center. Motives or beliefs about the end of the Iraq War aside, his use of the verb “occupation” to describe the U.S. military presence in Iraq is disheartening and subjective. Likewise, I still cannot completely comprehend the logic of marching around campus with a coffin – I see it as being gently playful, almost absurd. It’s the sort of thing that one sees in bad music-television adaptations, and while I see his symbolism and his logic behind the mentality driving the coffin protest to fruition, I’m struck by the fact that students participating in this march, or witness to this march may not entirely find this demonstration very innocent, or may be offended, had they recently lost a loved one in Iraq. They may even see it as I do, and find it mildly amusing.

Protests are a holdover from the primitive student activism of the nineteen sixties. Even Wechsler agrees, stating, “A lot has changed since then, too, especially with the advent of the internet. Maybe some of those things don’t work so well.” Wechsler isn’t quick to make any draws between Vietnam and Iraq, which I find to be both admirable and intelligent, nor was he quick to exploit any of my questions for the purpose of furthering some browbeaten, oft-dismissed, debatable point of contention, such as the questions underlying the initial invasion of Iraq.

In my considerations, protests have never had a very high level of admiration. We have the God-given gifts of speech, of reason, and of basic communication skills. As a child, if you weren’t satisfied with the way that things went, and you approached your guardians, were you more successful when you articulated your grievances in a rational, calm manner, or when you threw things at them and yelled over top of them in a futile attempt to impose your will upon them?

The highest irony that I see is that liberals gush for protests because they see it as the apex of a means to an end. Yet, in reality, the large-scale government wrapped like a Christmas present in red tape and inaccessible to the common man is the very product that they seek to create. They won’t say this outright, but by undertaking the responsibilities of medicine, or law, or in the case of Pennsylvania, the liquor control board (and an entire market share monopolized with no reason), the government will consistently find a way to bungle management and alienate the aforementioned common man by their usurpation of power in a particular industry.

Furthermore, protesters often point fingers at the radical marches of the 1960s. They state that the civil rights movement would never have occurred, had protesters not marched upon Washington and Selma and Montgomery, and anywhere else that we’ve had branded on our frontal lobes by the American left during our primary school “social studies” courses. I truly do not believe that racism is overcome by demonstrations. Consider that the American Asian population has incurred much of the same denigration that the American Hispanic and African-American population has similarly encountered. Yet, we have very few examples of Asian uprisings in boroughs of New York City and otherwise. Why? I believe that this fact is explained by culture. The Asian population had it right – wait it out, let it pass, and prove the inequities of bigotry by behaving in a manner that has more, not less class than the elite who disenfranchise them.

People have a natural aversion to the appropriate channels of communication. They have predefined notions of the way the system should work, and when they encounter a single roadblock, they chalk this up to rationalize a protest. Ultimately, protests hinder progress, impede other neutral entities’ abilities to carry on their lives, and anger those whose lives are disrupted by them.

This planned protest seems manageable enough, particularly when contrasted to some of the direct activism that takes place at universities such as Columbia, Emerson, or Vassar. Yet, as stated before, it’s not the message that makes it into the news; it’s the consequences of that message. Will Lehigh embrace reason, or bury it altogether?