As you embed yourself into Lehigh’s social scene, you will encounter many beverages along the way. Here’s a look at ten of the more popular beverages you’ll see around Lehigh. While we cannot condone going against the current drinking age statute, we can educate you should you choose to ignore such an archaic and ignorant law. Without further ado, here are your top ten Lehigh beverages:

10. Root Beer – Beverages don’t have to be alcoholic! For the teetotalers in the crowd, slamming back a few Barq’s is a great way to relax. The supple taste of a good can of Root Beer is often tough to beat after a tough day of classes. Added benefit – it is the only item on this list you can find at the dining halls!

9. Wine in a bag - While your parents may not agree, there is only one way to drink wine, and that is from a bag. Though the wine bag suffers from an aversion to sharp objects, “slapping the bag” is an iconic college moment that shouldn’t be missed.

8. Natural (Natty) Ice - While the oft-rejected cousin of Natty Light can’t top the charts due to a lack of consumption, but that in no way devalues it. Natty Ice boast a much higher ABV (alcohol by volume) than Natty Light, resulting in you having to drink less of this admittedly unsavory beverage.

(more…)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WHERE YOU WILL BE RESIDING FOR THE NEXT 4 PLUS YEARS

I made my first trip to Lehigh as a high school junior. I was traveling with my parents and we arrived on campus from the road that goes over the mountain. It’s the way that the website encourages, probably to prevent parents and potential students from getting lost on some scary street in South Bethlehem, and because it’s a nice view. Although, I can remember thinking that it didn’t look very nice to me at the time. My first glimpse of Bethlehem was of the old dilapidated steel mill. I remember thinking that it looked like a dump and that it made the town look like a dump. I couldn’t imagine why anyone would be drawn to an environment of post-industrial waste. That was my first impression of the place.

Judging from my own ignorance I had as a first-year, I assume many of you freshman have no real idea of what kind of town Bethlehem is, or where it’s been and where it’s going. I’m certain many of you have heard stories from friends and relatives who have gone here, but to truly understand a place is to live there. Rising and sleeping every day and night in the same locale gives one a sense of home that many at Lehigh soon come to appreciate and feel for themselves. There’s plenty to know, see, and visit in this city of the Lehigh Valley.

(more…)

Even though the 2010-2011 school year is just beginning, Student Senate has been hard at work preparing for a productive year. The executive board has been planning and organizing all summer and is very excited to get the ball rolling. In the past few years, Senate has accomplished a lot and Senate hopes to continue this success. Improvements have been seen in safety on campus, transportation, and relations with Bethlehem residents. These topics along with others are always prevalent in the discussions that Senate has and the activities that Senate helps bring to campus.

In just a few weeks, Senate will have the fall retreat in which the main planning for the year takes place. This is the time when the Campus Life Improvement Projects are discussed and chosen and when the Standing Committees make their goals. The retreat is a great time for bonding between Senators and is an extremely productive and important time. The retreat sets the tone for the rest of the year and the executive board has been working hard to make sure that the retreat is extremely worthwhile.

(more…)

Lehigh University is well-known for its strong academic programs in engineering and business and is often ranked as one of the best in these respective fields. Notably, Lehigh was once the number one school for accounting and earned the number eight position for its graduate engineering programs. Of course, an important tradition at Lehigh University is the ease with which students may cross between majors or change schools with almost no red tape. This means that there is plenty of room to try different programs at Lehigh as well as the opportunity to change your mind with minor or even no consequences! Of course, if you are happy with your current academic program and find something else you enjoy, you could do both! However, sometimes this doesn’t work out and you could be forced to choose between two or more things you love. What should you do? What can you do? At Lehigh, we have a solution to such a problem.

Various departments have come together to offer interdisciplinary or other special educational programs which offer students a greater breadth of education than a traditional degree program. Lehigh offers many of these programs for just about every combination one can imagine, ranging from full-on degree programs to exceptional out of classroom experiences. No matter what they are, all offer a unique and exciting academic experience. There are tons of excellent programs avail¬able to Lehigh students, but here are just a few:

(more…)

THE LEHIGH VALLEY HAS A LOT TO OFFER, IF YOU KNOW THE RIGHT PLACES TO LOOK

As a student of Lehigh University, you are now officially a citizen of Bethlehem and more broadly the Lehigh Valley. The Lehigh Valley is located in Northeastern Pennsylvania roughly 15 minutes from New Jersey and two hours from New York. Bethlehem is the central city of the Lehigh Valley metropolitan area including Allentown and Easton. Most often, the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton conglomerate goes by the Lehigh Valley or ABE as the region airport is titled. This region is similar to most the suburban United States, meaning you need a car to get anywhere. That means if you want to leave Bethlehem, you most likely will have to bum a ride off an upperclassmen, unless you find a good spot to hide your car. However, Bethlehem is still a city, and that means you still have to worry about crime. My advice: don’t carry your valuables alone at night, and use common sense.

HEROES OR VILLAINS? IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK, BUT HERE’S OUR SIDE OF THE STORY.

To be sure, the Patriot has been subject to a great many distinctions throughout its existence. Lehigh professors have said that we produce the best news and commentary at Lehigh. Just last year, a Lehigh administrator accused the Patriot of trying to “tear the [Lehigh] community apart.” Many of the articles published by the Patriot have received both ridicule and praise. Just in the past few years we’ve tried to tackle almost every controversial subject that relates to Lehigh and its students. We can, and will, be a source of controversy both this year and beyond. To be honest, we would not have it any other way.

The Patriot began as an operation run from the dorms (sorry, Residence Halls) of a few Lehigh students back in 2003. Initially, the project was titled “The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” in homage to and in mockery of idea that such a conspiracy actually existed. The goal of the VRWC was to serve as a forum for students who felt that the dialogue within Lehigh was limited too severely, specifically due to a left-leaning administration and faculty.

Over time, the group of students who felt a need for such a forum continued to grow, and so did the VRWC. In 2004, The VRWC gained national publicity through a piece on some artwork in Maginnes that displayed President Bush several cabinet members in highly unflattering positions. Fox News, and various other news organizations picked up the story, which provided the VRWC with support a great deal of exposure to alumni and outside organizations. In 2005, the VRWC was rebranded as The Lehigh Patriot, in an effort to become a more inclusive organization on campus.

(more…)

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.