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

From the vantage point of the Lehigh administration, minimization of risk and maximization of student experience should be the focus of any policy conversation. Considering these metrics, Lehigh should adopt the following three approaches to reduce instances of underage drinking abuse “on campus”.

1) Prevent the worst instances – Using the broken window theory, Lehigh can target the outliers and worst offenders to reduce the net effect of the whole problem. By targeting students involved in recurrent hospital trips, drunken driving, and acts of public disturbance, Lehigh enforcement personnel can cut the worst out of the system. This focused policy will discourage students from engaging in the worst underage activities. Also, reducing the standard variance of underage offenses will discourage students from “breaking all the rules” because the perceived risks are much greater.

2) Use resources for next-best alternatives – Spend some of the extensive enforcement and correctional budget on exciting and extraordinary activities. If Lehigh students had other experiences that were just as “pleasurable” as drinking, they might spend their time on next-best alternatives. For example, if Lehigh offered free scuba diving lessons, showed movies in theaters, or took students on weekend adventures to different cities around the country, students would choose those alternatives. Administrators should spend less time making rules and more time making experiences.

3) Push drinking away from campus – With Lehigh’s “not in my backyard” mindset, controlling consumption can be as easy as pushing it away from campus. By monitoring underclassmen dorms on campus instead of patrolling off-campus houses, the university can save resources and push drinking away from campus. By creating a circle of control, the university will ensure that less students drink on campus.

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

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

When discussing alcohol and kids, I think one really needs to evaluate the situation from two hypothetical angles: the real world, and the perfect world. This is key to understanding why Dr. Alice Petry Gast won’t sign the Amethyst Initiative.

In the real world, the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18 essentially passes the responsibility of handing transition-age young adults from college to high school. If you give a damn about the state of education in this country, (which I know most Lehigh students do not, as most of us, myself included, went to very expensive preparatory schools and public districts where students can read at their age-appropriate level, and can’t fathom a situation where individuals struggle to attain mediocrity), you would understand that the last thing that improving and needy district administrators need is another coming-of-age issue for their older, bigger, and more difficult students.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, talk about the perfect world, in which Lehigh students get their wish, and nearly 100% of the campus is legally able to piss away part of their savings (or their parent’s) to Pennsylvania’s sketch liquor monopoly called Wine & Spirits. Lehigh students have been spoilt, insofar as most universities have barred their student organizations from procuring alcohol on campus-sponsored establishments. In plain speak, the Greeks would probably have to go dry, and those of age (now, everyone) would likely be prevented from keeping alcohol in their dorms. Why? Too many dangerous incidents.

I’ve heard, time and time again, the argument that Lehigh students do the asinine things they do under the golden influence in an effort to hide or conceal their presently illegal actions from the big scary Lehigh police and their Janet Reno tactical assault squads, which surround innocent law-abiding residences and set the children afire. I’ve heard that the reason people “pre-game” (read: binge drink prior to casually drinking) so often and with such force is to avoid being caught by the police; in short, drink the liquor before the police can take it from you. I’ve also heard that students who enjoy themselves too much are afraid of seeking help, because they run the risk of being caught.

Frankly, and more importantly, objectively, this situation is so absurd I have trouble discussing it seriously. Why does the illegality of drinking encourage people to drink more and, thus, put themselves in danger? So, if everyone can now consume legally, does this mean that the side effects of drinking past moderation (sexual and physical assault, property damage, the need to baby-proof sharp corners) will cease to be?

Think about it. At least, at the moment, Lehigh can claim that the incidents where students reenact the bacchanal excesses that only Tyco executives could pull off in their little clubhouses, the administration can say that the situation was a breach of the law, and thus any side effects are merely grace notes to a misdemeanor. Once that layer of absolution is gone, there is nothing to prevent the school to reverse its policy.

The argument that alumni will stop donating is moot – those that would aren’t of the caliber that it would matter, and those that matter are likely not too concerned about today’s students’ opinions – for them, 30 years ago is all that matters, and what Lehigh did for them. Likewise, the demand for admission is far more based in the prestige that a Lehigh education gives – not the amount of colored stripes someone can get at a rainbow party.

Oh, and as for the Lehigh police – don’t get me started. I was at the Hawk’s Nest late one evening, when I witnessed four boys coaxing their friend through male purging (they were asking for hot towels – it was like a birth was taking place), a girl asked me if she could borrow my key card to get into her building (and was too drunk to know that Brodhead isn’t Dravo), and a boy in a near state of paralysis was slumped over and walked in front of a car in front of four police officers – clearly under the influence, and none of them lifted a finger or batted an eyebrow.

My advice is simple – don’t push for Amethyst. Keep tabs on your peers – I have no problem with underage drinking. I have a problem with having my car keyed, or having to babysit my friends. What it comes down to is responsibility – something that, if practiced, might actually make these nonsense pass.

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

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

For Lehigh, the difficulty in this situation lies with the fact that it has a fully-accredited police force, sworn in by the state of Pennsylvania. As such, they are required to enforce the laws of the state over any policies that the University sets with regard to underage drinking.

With that said, Lehigh’s goal should be to create a system where underage students can drink responsibly without fear of legal troubles. Certainly, Lehigh does need to react to and set consequences for drinking that is dangerous to the individual in question or others.

From my point of view, the issue that students and administrators do not see eye-to-eye on is what drinking is defined as dangerous. I am reminded particularly of one conversation I overheard in a finance recitation last semester. I won’t belabor you with the details, but one girl was wearing the same dress as the night before, and she was the one person involved in the conversation who did remember what happened.

Certainly, the administration would see drinking enough to black out as dangerous to the individual, others, and to Lehigh’s reputation. But to students, this practice can be commonplace in some social circles. Students, to some extent, have a distorted view of what is responsible drinking, and what should be prevented. Lehigh has several interests that merge at this point, which can make things difficult to handle properly: student safety, state law, and Lehigh’s reputation are all affected by how administrators handle this issue.

So how does Lehigh measure up? When all of the issues at hand are considered, they do fairly well. Sure, they’ve messed things up. The frequent “busting” of fraternities is often unnecessary. It drives parties off campus into a less-safe environment, and only makes the hill seem more dangerous and less attractive to students. As students, we can certainly list a great deal of times when we have perceived the University to have erred on alcohol and safety matters.

That being said, there are things they can do to improve the way they deal with alcohol. President Gast should sign the Amethyst Initiative, and Lehigh should join the push for a drinking age of 18. Such a law would make it incredibly simple for Lehigh to deal with alcohol issues on campus.

Second, administrators should work with the police and Lehigh security to establish set reasons for fraternities to be “raided,” and set a policy that police must knock on the door before they enter. While Lehigh owns the houses can enter them at any time, the police should, as a state-run service, have to notify a house’s occupants before entering. This is something Lehigh could set in place, and would provide a more fair system as opposed to cops being able to enter a building for no reason.

Even with these changes, Lehigh can still monitor irresponsible and reckless drinking, and work to control that. The current system though is inefficient at doing that, because time is inevitably spent dealing with people who were drinking responsibly, but were in the wrong place. Signing the Amethyst Initiative and establishing how and why Lehigh Police enter residences would improve the alcohol situation at Lehigh.

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

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

Two words: Public option.  Note that this modest, hardly even progressive measure does not amount to a “government takeover” of health care.  Actually, I wish it did, but it doesn’t even come close.  Save for curbing some of the most outrageous abuses of the private insurance industry, President Obama’s health care plan will leave this market largely unchanged.

A public insurance option accomplishes two indispensible goals of reform by lowering costs and increasing coverage.  If every American had the option of a public insurance plan, private insurers would be compelled to lower their premiums in order to remain competitive.  Compared to the rising cost of premiums in the status quo, this measure would provide an effective tax cut for all Americans.  The choice of public insurance would also provide coverage for many of the 30 million Americans who currently can’t afford it.

Costs will only come down, however, if health reform includes an individual mandate – a requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance.  This rubs many libertarians the wrong way, but it shouldn’t.  Even those who are convinced of their invincibility will fall ill.  Those individuals push the cost of their care onto the rest of society, and their absence from the ranks of the insured hurts the bargaining power of individuals to demand lower premiums from their insurance providers.  Even then-Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney advocated the implementation of an individual mandate as a matter of “personal responsibility.”

If these measures bring down costs, increase choice and competition and compel Americans to exercise greater personal responsibility, why is there so much opposition on the right?  Easy.  Republicans are using the playbook from 1993 – the last time they killed health care reform.  As in the case of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare-state programs inherently undermine the GOP’s knee-jerk “no-government-is-good-government” position.  In 1993, opposition to health care reform was shrewd political strategy.  In 2009, the situation is no different.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question posed to our editorial staff was: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Read their responses below.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Last year, Greek week was a week-long period of perpetual drunkenness for some, and near perpetual drunkenness for others. Understandably, this resulted in several inappropriate acts which the administration deemed sufficient to order the cancellation of Greek Week for 2010.

Was this fair? Absolutely not. By all accounts, the inappropriate behavior was exhibited by two or three of Lehigh’s twenty-plus Greek organizations. Canceling Greek week is a sanction that punishes all of the fraternities and sororities who participated, many of whom did nothing wrong.

However, everyone can also agree that last year’s Greek week was not ideal. It is the job of the office of fraternity and sorority affairs to try to fix that. Apparently, they felt that two years was needed to do this. If that is the case, canceling Greek week could be justifiable to avoid a repeat of last year.

Was this justified though? Absolutely not. We are looking at a situation with an easy remedy. Make the punishments clear, and let everyone know that certain behavior could result in an individual’s or an organization’s immediate removal from Greek week. If necessary, ban last year’s guilty parties from participating this year. Replace events that may encourage inappropriate activity with other events. This process shouldn’t take two years, it should be done by now.

Clearly, the cancelation was designed to be a statement and indictment against the Greek community, and was excessive based on what actually happened.

Therefore, the Greek community should respond. If the Lehigh is going to continue to tie Greeks down with unnecessary regulations and punishments until the system dies off, Greek life might as well go out with a bang, and this is the year to do it.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Last year, Greek week was a week-long period of perpetual drunkenness for some, and near perpetual drunkenness for others. Understandably, this resulted in several inappropriate acts which the administration deemed sufficient to order the cancellation of Greek Week for 2010.

Was this fair? Absolutely not. By all accounts, the inappropriate behavior was exhibited by two or three of Lehigh’s twenty-plus Greek organizations. Canceling Greek week is a sanction that punishes all of the fraternities and sororities who participated, many of whom did nothing wrong.

However, everyone can also agree that last year’s Greek week was not ideal. It is the job of the office of fraternity and sorority affairs to try to fix that. Apparently, they felt that two years was needed to do this. If that is the case, canceling Greek week could be justifiable to avoid a repeat of last year.

Was this justified though? Absolutely not. We are looking at a situation with an easy remedy. Make the punishments clear, and let everyone know that certain behavior could result in an individual’s or an organization’s immediate removal from Greek week. If necessary, ban last year’s guilty parties from participating this year. Replace events that may encourage inappropriate activity with other events. This process shouldn’t take two years, it should be done by now.

Clearly, the cancelation was designed to be a statement and indictment against the Greek community, and was excessive based on what actually happened.

Therefore, the Greek community should respond. If the Lehigh is going to continue to tie Greeks down with unnecessary regulations and punishments until the system dies off, Greek life might as well go out with a bang, and this is the year to do it.

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

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

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

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

Question: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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