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.

Corporate advocates and wall street watch dogs all have their own political machines armed and ready for anything in the 2010 “Obama agenda.” With the formation of a Consumer Protection Agency to reform the financial marketplace, the wall street dogs are ready for a heyday. Meanwhile, corporations are doubling their lobbying budgets and moving their operations and conferences to Washington D.C.
With all the employed enlarging their loudspeaker to the ears of lawmakers, there is no voice for the unemployed. While Obama might say his focus will be jobs for 2010, he has no idea how to start. The following list, far detached from the intentions of Obama, is a set of well rounded suggestions.

1. Draft the unemployed. Instead of a liability, our unproductive workforce can be asset. Clinton era national service programs including AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and Peace Corps were created to help revive America. By diminishing work-loss benefits and payouts, the government can effectively “draft the unemployed” to serve America. A roughly ten percent hole in the economy can be revised to help rebuild infrastructure, strength diplomacy, and improve education.

2. Legalize gambling, prostitution, and drugs. Artificially limiting livelihoods is a sure way to cut the number of jobs. If congress made accounting illegal to practice next week, we would not only incriminate our auditors, but we would cut millions of jobs. The same thing happened in 1920 when America experimented with prohibition. From the start of 1920, when alcohol related livelihoods were legal, to the end of 1921, unemployment in the United States more than doubled. Conversely, the end of prohibition has a near perfect correlation to the economic recovery after the Great Depression. Once again, with U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration created in 1973, the unemployment rate almost doubled again.1 Therefore we can greatly increase the supply of jobs by eliminating legal restrictions on “sinful” industries.

3. Remove minimum wage. Any economist would tell you that rent ceilings to protect low-income workers will inevitably leave more people homeless. The same concept applies for minimum wage. Wage floors prevent demand from being met. If an employer is willing to pay two workers five dollars an hour and you tell him that he has to pay each worker seven per hour, he will only hire one more productive worker leaving the worker unemployed.

4. Legalize organ sales. In the words of Levitt and Dubner, authors of Super Freakonomics, Iran has more economic sense than America in regards to human organs. One major drag on the economy is the amount of long-term care patients, of which transplant waiting-list patients make up more than 100,000. 2 This enormous drag on the economy, established with the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, could be repealed to cut medical costs and save lives. As a result of repeal, doctors would have more surgeries to perform and lawyers would have more malpractice cases to deal with, increasing net amount of doctors and lawyers.

5. “Drill baby drill.” In the words of Sarah Palin, we need to increase oil drilling at offshore platforms and in environmentally protected areas including ANWR. The more we drill here the less we drill in the Middle East. It is zero sum. Instead of funding terrorists and Saudi princes we should allocate our money to desecrating America soil. The more we drill from the U.S. the more jobs we will create and less depen dent we will be on oil from instable governments that don’t believe in human rights. Right now we spend $200,000 per minute on oil imports, that’s like giving a Ferrari to Hugo Chavez every minute or buying a private jet for Nigerian identity thieves every hour.

6. Bring back the uranium. According to George Kuczynski, executive at PPL, “We have been planning to build a multi-billion dollar nuclear power plant for years, but regulations have halted progress.” Instead of pontificating about sustainability and renewable energy, Congress should act now. By loosening regulations on nuclear power plants and passing a carbon tax, Congress can encourage a green and more radioactive future. With most of our energy infrastructure over 35 years old, a major crisis could cripple America. Therefore, we should be proactive and create some serious high-paying nuclear engineering jobs by encouraging energy companies to go “green”.

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.

Does the man who is handed a fish reap the same satisfaction of the man who caught his fish? In the general sense, do people who receive the end result appreciate it as much as those that work for it? Equality is not an issue simply between races and ethnicities; equality involves ensuring all people, regardless of origin or creed have the same opportunity to succeed in their own way.

In modern America, an amalgamation of tax credits, welfare, and social services create a culture of perpetual poverty and downward social movement amongst many Americans. Instead of relying on an antiquated patchwork of social services cobbled together over many years, I propose an overhaul of Federal Services to implement a safety net to protect all citizens.

Equality should not be limited to state of mind; it should extend to opportunities granted to all citizens. All people, regardless of origin or creed should have the ability to live with a roof over their head, adequate food and suitable living conditions to raise a family.

The first area of focus to change the face of the United States is in reforming the tax code. The United State’s tax code has become patch-worked and convoluted to the point that average Americans are at a loss in deciphering the intricacies of it. This gives a significant reward to people who can navigate the system of financial penalties. Tax credits attempt to encourage growth in facets of life the Government supports, but these largely benefit people well enough off to take advantage of them.

The other issue with the current US tax system is based in the progressive nature of it; by increasing one’s self worth, one will be taxed an additional amount. In extreme cases, this results in the government taking more money than your increased salary. The marginal tax rate1 harms the country by decreasing worker productivity and ensures people remain in poverty to the detriment of all.

If people are put into an economic state to succeed, safeguards should be created to allow citizens to experiment and fail without failing permanently. The two critical human necessities are food and housing, both of which would be the pillars of any system of safeguards. The federal government utilizes two programs to provide housing and food; housing projects and food stamps. Both of these programs have shortcomings because of the social stigmas and abuse associated with them; housing projects are considered to be bastions of poor and drug lords, while food stamps have been woefully underfunded to the point of being unable to adequately feed anyone. The answers to both of these issues are subsidized rental properties and increased value of food stamps by the government. Additionally, food stamps should have heavier restrictions and an emphasis on staple, rather than luxury food.

The last component to economic well-being is a means of advancing one’s social position. Quality education at both a primary and secondary level is vital at ensuring equality extends to all people, and not simply those privileged enough to be given it. Although reforming education is important, creating a strong technical education program at the post-secondary level is vital to national well being and social welfare. Traditional trades and crafts have fallen by the wayside in the wake of a rush to America’s colleges; professions have been marginalized by the concept of college elitism.

Free, public trade schools that offer quality education in a career path beyond “gas station attendant” gives everyone the chance to improve social standing. The other component to meaningful social well-being is basic employment; all people deserve to have an available job, regardless of circumstance. Beyond simply receiving money, public improvement projects give all people that choose to be employed employment. Jobs at or below minimum wage, coupled with housing and food assistance will create a gainful base-line of social well-being that all members of society can attain.

While this system sounds similar to welfare or government handouts, both of which are disconnected from equality, the opposite is true. In 21st Century America, Economic Freedom is invariably linked to social well-being; in the governmental sense, all people have achieved equality under the law. The difficulty comes in creating economic opportunities that all people can benefit from to break the cycle of poverty and despair.

Each year, there comes a time to discuss the topics of diversity, equality, and justice. These topics are critical to our future as a nation and as a society.

To begin, what is diversity? Common sense would suggest a definition describing an abundance of variety within a group. In a social sense, this meaning may be expanded to reference the state of having a wide variety of different people with different ideas, backgrounds, and experiences all coming together and representing themselves as equals. Few would disagree that this arrangement is representative of a diverse society. Yet for such a simple idea, why does it seem that the ultimate paradigm of social diversity constantly eludes us? This answer lies deep within our social fabric.

It is important to note that there seem to be significant differences in the various ways diversity is interpreted. Diversity is acceptance of and respect for others regardless of whether one agrees with another’s thoughts and actions. Once phrased in these terms, diversity can be described as a respect for man’s natural right of freedom. Mankind has received no greater gift than that of freedom, a right granted by nature and inalienable by any other force. Only recently has the opportunity arisen for people to escape the will of despots and tyrants to live in a state of at least partial freedom. As such, I would consider it a terrible crime to unjustly deprive another person of his or her natural rights. It is here, where diversity and freedom intersect, that the greatest dangers to our natural rights exist.

Oppression has plagued societies throughout history, and there are even contemporary instances of oppression in the United States and abroad. From injustice, a hierarchy of leadership arises in the form of special interest groups, who strive to restore natural rights to their oppressed constituencies. It is through such advocacy that rallies are formed, speeches are given, and the creation of diversity positions in schools, businesses, and governments occur. By itself, this is not inherently bad, as it may indeed serve its purpose as intended. However, one must consider the cost of such activism when left unchecked. It is easy for unbridled activism to diverge from its original purpose and move towards the oppression of their perceived former oppressor through unrealistic demands.

For this reason, it is imperative that the progression of diversity through activism and advocacy be checked with prudence. Care must be taken to ensure that both the immediate and long-term consequences of our actions serve to benefit society as a whole and do not merely further segmentation and oppression. The reasoning for this is simple: special interest groups are, by definition, specific concerns within society, which tend to seek measures which not only ensure their own liberties, but which also occasionally advocate the recession of natural rights belonging to those they consider their oppressor. Such a mindset is based in the concept that an advantage to one must result in a disadvantage to another, a belief which is simply not true. There is no reason why everyone cannot enjoy their natural rights together, as this is the true meaning of diversity.

As a conservative thinker, I have been labeled as racist, prejudiced, unjust, immoral, sexist, intolerant, and even evil in the past, an experience shared by many conservatives. After hearing these accusations, I always question whether I am actually racist, a good person, or if my beliefs are wrong. These are difficult questions to ask but after long and hard consideration, my answer became clear. My friends emigrated here from various countries around the world, subscribe to a wide variety of political views, differ in sexual orientation, practice different religions, and are of varying ethnic backgrounds. In this respect, I embrace the differences in others around me to improve on the diversity of my life. In my mind, such a realization begs the questions: who is really intolerant, the man who believes in every person’s inalienable rights or the special interest group that divides society, pushes our differences to the forefront, and calls for the alienation of others in order to further their own interests? It is good to seek diversity, but prudence must dictate our course when dealing with something as sacred as our natural rights. Our freedom is both the most powerful and delicate possession we have as human beings, and as such it is imperative that we seek change and improvements in the diversity of our society, but we must take care to let our actions to be guided by the wisdom that all of society must progress without fear of further division and oppression.