Introduction: Among the feedback I received for my last piece, “A Case Against a Chief Diversity Officer,” I was asked to propose a better system for institutional inclusion and excellence.  I now present my proposal in the form of a narrative fable.  The following is hypothetical, and while some source material is used (and cited), the following is a work of fiction – all named parties did not say or do anything of what you will soon read…

Fable:

“Call Sharon, we’re going to need her for this!” exclaimed Alice as she bid farewell to Bradley and the children.  It was time – for Lehigh’s own “Gang of 8” to meet and discuss the future of the university, using Asa Packer’s top secret pensive to see into the future.  The team – composed of President Alice Gast, Provost Pat Farrell, Development head Joe Kender, deans Meltzer, Brown and Wu (of the Arts & Sciences, Business & Economics and Engineering & Applied Science colleges, respectively), Vice Provost John Smeaton and Dean of Students Sharon Basso – met every other semester to discuss the future of Lehigh, aloof of the trustees, faculty and students.  

Alice strode past the creepy painted woodshed in the grove on the hill by ATO, where a sculpture garden once stood – here was where the Gang of 8 met.  Standing over the pensive, Alice ceremonially plunged her head into the cauldron.  John Smeaton blew pixie dust into the air while the 7 circled Alice and the pensive, slowly chanting “Chronicle… Chronicle” in reference to their sacred text, The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Sparks leapt gracelessly out of the pot – Smeaton stepped back, to avoid his robe catching spark.  “Chronicle… Chronicle…”  The chanting grew louder… stronger….  Suddenly, a blast of purple fog emitted from Smeaton’s mouth as he cocked his head back, shaking violently.  Figures from Lehigh’s past, present and future flew out of the opening and around the grove in a frenzy – Joe Kender dove out of the way to avoid being struck by class of 2009 President Scott Wojciechowski.  The infamous words of W. Deming Lewis’ 1974 Presidential Address echoed in tremolo.  “…and I think we are an elite university…”

. . .“Ben, let’s go!”  We were late – later than usual, in fact, for this week’s Patriot meeting.  Among the agenda items, a summary review of the new diversity infrastructure implemented by the administration.  Radical changes had taken place – the resource rooms disappeared, with their respective groups changing over to Senate-recognized, student-run organizations.  Some resource room heads were re-used in the restructuring; others left or were asked to leave.  These were considerable changes, and the Patriot had to comment.  Ben jumped down the stairs, skipping every other one while avoiding the remnants of one of his “extracurricular meetings” from the night before.

“So what’s our angle?” I asked.  “I really see this being one of the few things we can stand behind – the problem is, there’s so much misinformation out there.  If I have to walk through one more protest… I swear…”  Ben cut me off – “…I’m sick of it, too, but what else can they do?  They think they’re crippled without their resource leads – they’re like a computer who lost its hard drive, they can just beep and stop functioning.”  “i.e. protest and boycott class…” I followed.  I held the door for Ben as we found our usual meeting space in Packard.  Ben set up the projector, bringing up coverage from The Brown & White, while I found a chair.  “Don’t forget to bring up the org chart!” I reminded him.

As the meeting began, Ben opened by reading one of President Gast’s legendary staged emails.  “Lehigh has traditionally been a place for new beginnings,” the letter began.  “I recognize that we have been in a state of limbo since the restructuring, so let me make myself perfectly clear.  We are working to gain neither national attention nor recognition, though such has come upon us as an aside.  We are working to create an individual environment – one school, many voices.  Each of you may now stand for something, be it social change or self-liberation.  We come to college to find ourselves, but we must now leave college having found one another.  I believe that Lehigh has taken the necessary steps to start not one but many dialogues.  Our new model of centralized diversity leadership, working groups and student leadership for special interests will allow Lehigh to lead the way for 21st century diversity excellence.”

“Strong stuff.  Now – as Trevor asked me on the way over – what’s our angle, team?”  said Ben.  Managing Editor Brandon Sherman, ’10 was the first to speak – “I’d like to cover how students are doing, now that the resource leaders and dedicated spaces for The Women’s Center, LGBTQIA Services and the M-Room, to name just a few, are gone.”  I broke in next, “I can follow Brandon’s piece with a discussion about how the ‘victim’s row’ hall on the second floor of the UC is being converted into an extension of The Dialogue Center.  Also – does anyone know what they did with the old Rainbow Room?”  Associate Editor Matt Keim, ’12 chimed in, “It’s VP for Equity Henry Odi’s office.  He picked it because of its high visibility, and the fact that it’s location encourages students to pop in and start a conversation.”

“What about staff?  Who’s still in?  Who’s gone?” I asked.  “Since Matt broached the topic of the VPEC position, let’s see an assessment of the renewed org chart.”  Ben brought up the chart.  “Looks like Ja’mel Hodges is still here – his position is ‘Deputy to the VPEC: Dialogue Captain.’  What’s that?”  “I think they basically gave him a new title as a glorified conversation starter.  He’s a good moderator and he breaks the ice really quickly – I’m sure as long as he doesn’t expand the speech codes we’ll be fine,” I added.  “Wait… which one of the Women’s Center directors was moved to work over at the Health Center as a special liaison for sexual violence prevention?” I asked.  The organization chart didn’t have a name next to the block yet; the Patriot staff settled on the conclusion that we weren’t through the woods yet with the death of red tape.  “Someone make sure we get that name before we go to print,” Ben added.

“Did anything happen to the outreach for the Rainbow Room?  Who’s doing Safe Zone now?”  asked Associate Editor Alyssa Gerety, ’13.  “Alyssa, I think it’s also under the new Health Center liaison.  They decided to decouple the politics from most of the outreach from all of the resource rooms, and most of the sexual health stuff went over to be a part of Dr. Kitei’s team.” I noted.  “Incidentally, Brandon, did you interview any of the protestors yet?”  Before he could speak, Ben cut both of us off.  “Wait a sec, I forgot to scroll down on the Gast Press Release – looks like she addresses the protestors here.  Let me read what it says.”

“We must reinforce the idea that diversity means everyone.  To this end, the abolition of certain resource rooms as fixed institutions on this campus will allow the natural progression of free markets to enter the conversation.  The new Women’s League organization, ALGBTQIAS [Association of LGBTQIA Students] and incorporation of certain legacy M-room events into the Black Student Union, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers and other existing diversity and activism groups led by student on campus will allow you, the students of Lehigh to have a say in the course of events as we move forward.

To address the civil unrest that has occupied the front lawn of the UC for the past two weeks, I ask you – put down your signs, stop raising your voices, and listen.  Your ideas, your concerns – these are the fruits of a great discussion and a healthy dialogue.  Reserve a room in the new conference area of the UC and host a brown-bag discussion.  Write an editorial to one of our campus newspapers.”

“I guess some things never changed,” chuckled Ben as he editorialized by adding in his best Gast voice, “Just get off my damn lawn – it’s almost candidates weekend, and we need our plants and trees to look picture perfect.  Brickman needs to mulch soon…”  The room laughed, but I had to break the mood, “Wait – Ben, this org chart… there’s a lot of stuff missing here.  It looks like some things got absorbed into Office of Special Projects, but almost everything under Dean Allison Gulati is gone, except the Clubs & Orgs people who help Senate manage the 140+ student-led organizations on campus.  In fact – I can’t even see Gulati’s name – where did she go?”  Ben smiled, “I knew you’d notice that.  Check this.”  Ben brought up a copy of The Brown & White’s Crime Report, where it noted that, “…a female employee was escorted off campus recently for behavior that served no purpose.”

“I heard about that!” interjected staff writer Will Thode, ’12.  “She was in Upper, screaming at the workmen who were dismantling the old ‘victim’s hall,’ saying ‘you’re tearing this community apart!’ over and over.  It was nuts.  I think they towed her car.”  The staff roared with laugher, as Ben logged off the room’s computer.  “You know,” I started, “we all know that I was the last possible person you might think would’ve supported some flavor of a Chief Diversity Officer on this campus.  But the fact is, Lehigh’s made a clear commitment to demonstrating that diversity really means everyone – a point I’ve been making for…” Light laughter.  “…well, forever.  They’ve trimmed the fat, cut back on staffers, opened a hall for universal student use and I think made a great step in starting some penetrating conversations on this campus.  Plus, if anyone should be VPEC, Odi’s clearly the best choice.  And – we didn’t hire anyone new!  I mean, that’s the best thing of all… this is a cost-neutral move that signifies both economically and symbolically that the school really is committed to open discussion.  And while the media spotlights us for ditching the resource room leads who were let go rather than focusing on the big picture, the fact is, those leads were diluting the conversation.  By speaking on behalf of their representative groups, they were like lawyers who tipped the scales in favor of one point of view over another – a situation that’s historically divided Lehigh more than it has united us.  It’s like, if MSNBC and Fox ditched the pundits and let the people think for themselves…”

“Hold on now, Trevor,” said Brandon.  “I have one more question – these leads tackled issues as they arose.  That is, if Lehigh experienced a hate crime today…”  I cut him off.  “Brandon, you know I don’t believe in hate crimes, and…” Brandon retorted, “…regardless, say a situation arises where one of these special interest groups experiences a rash of, say, vandalism with their posters.”  I replied, “This would be a situation for both the VPEC to handle in conjunction with a temporary ‘working group’ – a cohort composed of faculty, students and administrators who represent a fair cross section of Lehigh to assess what steps should be taken.  Why retain these resource rooms for a situation that arises perhaps once, if ever in the course of a year?  It’s much more action-oriented to form a committee – which I note would loose the bias that the resource room head would have.  I’ll counter your example, Brandon – say there was an incident where a transgendered person was harassed in a bathroom.  Now, no one here would ever defend harassment, but look at the situation closer… what would harassment constitute?  The LGBTQIA head now might insinuate that you have the right to enter a gender-segregated bathroom of your choice based on ‘how you feel that day.’  This is radical, in my humble opinion, but more so, it’s a dimensioned issue that impacts both the transgendered community and the heteronormative community.  Just like that individual doesn’t have the right to be harassed, I don’t either – and I find that someone of the wrong gender in my bathroom is sexual harassment.  In short – it’s a highly faceted issue that deserves a full evaluation.  That’s something a resource head could never provide.

But with the working groups,” I continued, “Lehigh has the opportunity to bring all respective angles to the table to have a conversation.  That moves us more forward than any complaint-based system, or worse – the risk that a resource lead would demand some kind of skewed solidarity for their interest.  After all – remember what we talked about the incentives?  They spend their time evaluating the issues that plague the communities they claim to support.  It’s like, I go to CPAC every year – a conservative convention.  If I spent my whole life listening to people who speak at just CPAC, I’d only get one side of the story.  I’d see the world as a very scary place, and fail to realize the breath of what’s around me.  But these leads, they are very much in-tuned with the special interests they defend.  And because of this, they are the last people who should be in a position to lead a ‘crisis’-based response to any issues that arise on campus.”

I was on a roll.  I couldn’t stop now.  “Finally – and this is back with the incentives – what resource lead will ever step down?  This whole thing, it’s about money and power.  Money and power entrench their necessity more than anything else.  Do you think that there would be a day when one of these leads walked out of their office, handed a letter of resignation in and said ‘I’m no longer needed here’?  No!  Their ‘research’ will always lead them back to the conclusion that the world is out to get them and their constituents, and being that their job is essentially to carry out this research in addition to tending to student programs and directives, and occasionally teach – frankly, when you couple in the highly political nature of their work, I feared that they’d never go away.

Remember what we said about dialogue.  Simply telling students that their views are antiquated and oppressive – that just breeds internalized resentment, and that’s the favorite tactic of these resource rooms.  I always feared that my children would someday go to college, and in their first day or two, they’d have to undergo some kind of ‘sensitivity training,’ where they learned that – perhaps unintentionally, they were consistently offending and oppressing individuals.  Now, at Lehigh, the fist thing students are told at orientation is that..”  Ben cut me off.  “Wait, Trevor, I’ll pull up the document…”  Ben was referring to Lehigh’s new Diversity in Discussion pledge.  “Here it is, I’ll read it.

We the students commit that as members of this university, we challenge ourselves to never close our minds to an idea.  Ideas are the basis of humanity’s finest hours – ideas may be challenged, loved or hated, but they must never be quashed, quieted or censored.  As such, we understand that college is about the free and open exchange of ideas.  Some may be more comfortable to us than others.  We understand that discomfort from an idea does not constitute harassment.  We further acknowledge that the root of ideas is a dialogue.  Dialogue demonstrates to us as individuals which ideas will stand the tests of time, and which shall fall.  No one student, professor or administrator has the right to destroy an idea, be it at birth or gestation.  Lehigh has committed itself to this through our office of Equity in Community, a permanent cabinet-level position whose role is to start and moderate conversations – not to control the flow of dialogue (and ideas), but rather, to challenge and maintain order.”

“Ah, words to live by, eh Ben?” I asked, calmer now.  “I’ll be curious to see how this all holds up nationally – the VPEC report itself stated that we are moving towards a new epoch in diversity, and I believe it.  We are the children of the first generation, and we have been raised under radically different standards than those who necessitated the resource rooms in their early years.  Now, we can proudly say that we’ve moved past this piecemeal approach, tackling the challenge of diversity in education with a holistic, singular vision dedicated to dialogue and the free and open exchange of ideas.  Sounds rather Platonic, doesn’t it, Ben?”

…Lifting her head from the pensive, Alice stepped back.  The Gang of 8 cracked their fingers and necks, and chatted quietly amongst themselves for a moment before Alice broke the murmur.  “I think we all know what needs to be done.  I’ll call a meeting with the board – we’ve got work to do!”

Tuesday, January 12, 2010, tremors rock Haiti, 15 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince, the capital city. Shaking with a force of 31.6 megatons or 31 small-nukes, Port-au-Prince crumbled. Buildings once vertical lay shattered across the landscape. Devastation spread as the poorest country in the west lost its entire power grid. 

The already fragile infrastructure was now broken. Combined with, “poor infrastructure, landslides, vulnerable neighborhoods, no strict building codes, [and] a high density population,” recovery seemed hopeless.1 

And then came relief! Obama promised a “swift, coordinated and aggressive” effort.2 The Red Cross and U.N. rushed to provide relief as U.S. and international charities followed. Philanthropic Americans started new causes and poured money into the country. 

However, that is not the whole story.  Interwoven in the epic relief effort is a narrative of corruption, scam and politicization of crisis. 

Starting at the top, the over 3,000 NGOs have taken most of the donations to effectively pay their employees. The America Red Cross has already admitted to financing their debt with donations. After nearly two month relief efforts and $354 million collections, almost half of the 1.3 million homeless don’t even have a tarp for the rainy season.3 More substantially, not even one-third of the collected money has been spent on relief. Instead it stays stagnant in the bank accounts of large NGOs. 

Even worse is the bottom feeders of the crisis, out scam the average Americans. According to Symantec Corp, maker of Norton Antivirus, the first scam e-mails about the Haiti earthquake appeared only two days after the quake.4 Scammers send e-mails requesting money for children in Haiti, when they are actually routing your relief money to pay for their child support! 

So, what has Lehigh been doing about the earthquake? 

Lehigh has been using Haiti issues as a source of free publicity and program subsidies. Three programs in specific are have used this crisis as a source of publicity. 

Starting with the publicity stunts, the Brown and White took a non-Haiti related speaker on campus, Ellen Gustafson, and painted her speech and the associated program as a Haiti only front cover news issue. Ellen came to Lehigh to speak on leadership through her experience as founder of FEED Projects, LLC and the Feed Foundation. This event, hosted by the Leadership Initiative at Lehigh was student run program that brought together students across campus from all majors to learn about leadership. However, the Brown and White did not cover any part of that story. Instead they took out of context, a mention Ellen causally made about Haiti and turned it into a front page picture.  

Continuing with the sources of program subsidies, both the Hawks for Haiti program and the DanceFest 2010 have used the Haitian discourse to conjure interest for their events. According to Tyrone, organizer of DanceFest, only 70 percent of the proceeds go to Haiti related donations. The rest of the money goes to the host. Similarly, Hawks for Haiti is organizing a carnival for Haiti. However, there is no mention of how much money or support they actually plan to give to Haiti related organizations. 

Together crisis politicians at Lehigh have agreed to donate all of the money raised to the Red Cross, the corrupt organization mentioned above. In a conversation with the Community Service Office, I was told that the director researched the best place to put the money. It is clear this research did not take in to account any in-depth analysis of charity effectiveness. 

In the treachery of charity for Haiti, what can you do to help? How can you avoid scams?

There are two ways to do the right thing: 

(1) avoid scams 

(2) be informed. 

The Christian Science Monitor recently published five tips to avoid scams.5

The top three things that have to say are: 

(1) be cautious with online donations.

(2) check out the charities.

(3) donate to organizations not individuals. 

If you ask for all of the facts and call the charity you can learn a great deal about where your money goes. 

Furthermore, it is important to be informed. You should read technical information sources that are non-biased. For example the U.S. Geological Survey measured 16 earthquakes above 6.0 on the Richter Scale in the last 3 months. Some of these earthquakes were more than ten times as powerful as the Haitian earthquake.6 It is also important to consider the opportunity cost of your donations. If you donate to Haiti, you are not donating to help HIV/AIDS in Africa or the earthquake in Chile or poverty in Bethlehem. Therefore, when looking at donations through a systems lens, it is important to think about where you can give for the most impact and the most need.

Sources

1 – http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2434299

2 – http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=9547609&page=1

3 – http://www.sfbayview.com/2010/red-cross-under-fire-where%E2%80%99s-the-money-for-haiti/

4 – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/HaitiEarthquake/story?id=9561420&page=2

5 – http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0115/Five-tips-to-avoid-Haiti-relief-scams

6 – http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/

Editor’s note: Sarah is an undergraduate student at Lehigh University. She made the choice to depledge from her Sorority. This is her story.

“Thursdays are fucking mandatory.” It was only a text message, but I could hear the shrill words of my pledge master ringing in my ears. What bullshit, I thought, as I often do after reading almost any text message that is sorority-related. I wasn’t going anywhere; I erased the message without responding.

I lay in bed, waiting for the rest of the text messages to arrive. The classic, “Where the fuck r u?!” or the standard, “ I don’t know why you think pledging is optional.” I think pledging is optional because I am sick. Very sick. Although I don’t even bother telling people that again, because they don’t believe me, let alone ask how I’m feeling. “ We’re all sick. Jill has a stomach virus and she’s still here. Just get here NOW!” Stomach virus? That’s all I need to catch. Of course I’m not going. And Jill shouldn’t either.

I don’t know if it’s because I am older then the rest of my pledge class, or more mature, or experienced, but I do know that jeopardizing your health, or the health of those around you is just stupid. Go home, Jill. And Erica, if you’re all sick, then don’t go out every night and binge drink. It’s just common sense.

I used to not see the difference between freshmen, like those in my pledge class, and real people. Now I do. I am not a freshman. I know this because unlike the rest of my pledge class, I already know myself. I know how to drink…and when to stop. I know that I cannot go out partying until all hours of the night, every night, and still expect to keep up the grades I know I’m capable of. (Dana, if you’re failing two of your classes, then maybe you should consider sitting tonight out.) I know how to handle stress without bashing in the faces of those in my general vicinity, which brings me to another distinction: social grace. Mine is a finely tuned instrument, which I play fluently, and beautifully. Their social grace, if capable of sound, would bring most back to the days of elementary school band concerts, where children pitifully struggled to play the three notes of Hot Cross Buns.

“Look hot tonight,” is the next text I receive. If hot means dressing like the rest of the girls, then count me out. If hot means wearing a shirt as a dress and forgetting underwear, then forget me dressing hot tonight. If hot means getting up on tables and waving my arms in the air, oblivious to the fact that I went commando, then no, I will not look hot tonight; I’ll wear jeans.

I often wonder why I even bother with pledging. It is certainly not the sisterhood that I need. My mother blessed me with two sisters, whose unconditional love for me is ever supportive. Where they lack, my real friends fill in. Friends, who when I’m sick, don’t order me out of bed, but bring me soup and take my temperature without my asking. Friends, who hold me up in the shower when my fever hovers around 104 degrees and I’m unable to stand. Friends, who don’t turn their heads, pretending not to see me around campus, but scream my name and wave their arms around like lunatics to get my attention. Friends. Sisters. That’s not why I’m joining a sorority.

Some girls dream of living in a sorority house, complete with chef, communal showers, and forced triple rooms. I do not. In fact, I have no intention of living in a house with forty other women. I. Would. Die. Between the drama, the cat fights, the trash talking, the fat talking, the raging eating disorders. I cannot live in the house. In fact, I already have specific plans to not live in the house. I signed the lease for my off-campus townhouse months ago. Complete with queen size bed, walk-in closet, and private bathrooms.

Finding it was a miracle. I’ll live with the girl who I did not pay to be my social support system. The girl who asks what I have been doing – interested, as opposed to telling me what I should have been doing, apathetic to any reality beyond sorority events. So, why pledge? I don’t like to go out every night like the rest of the girls in the “sisterhood”. I don’t want to. I’ll admit it. There are times when a few glasses of wine, and the boy of the moment are all I need to fulfill my desires of the night. But every so often, I’ll get that urge. That urge to wear a little extra makeup. That urge to throw on my shortest dress, and my highest heels. That urge to drink to get drunk. To dance on bars, and kick people’s drinks over without a care in the world. Ever so rarely, I’ll get that urge to go out. And when I do, I don’t want to roam the Hill, listening for the loudest music, or looking out for the slightest signs of a party. I want to have somewhere to go every night of the week and someone designated to drive me there. Plus, it really alleviates any competition when girls are expected to back off when I have some frat boy wrapped around my fingers, drooling. And having an entire house of girls pledge not to give any of my past love interests the time of day, just to screw them over, is pretty reassuring after a breakup.

So, why didn’t I pledge? Because Thursdays are not fucking mandatory, and I am more than capable of confidently going to a party without the protection of a social security blanket

On January 21st, three days after President Gast publically announced her desire to hire a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) at Lehigh, (an event already embedded deep within an email sent to the campus at large concerning the Martin Luther King Day celebration), the student body received word of a hateful incident that happened sometime “in the past week.” For students interested in the details of the event, President Gast’s correspondence was a disappointment. The hateful incident involved an undefined “hostile and racist symbol” in an unidentified elevator.

Five days later, the Brown and White was able to piece together a bit more about what happened. The symbol was a “swastika approximately the size of a fist” found by an unidentified Lehigh employee. Since the announcement, Lehigh removed the swastika, but would still not identify the building where it was found. The reasoning behind the secrecy was, “so as not to bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that [vandalized] building.”

Meanwhile, the real story in all of this is has largely been missed. How the administration, most notably President Gast, launched a major reaction to a relatively minor event paints a clear image of President Gast’s current views on Lehigh and her agenda for the future. As I will demonstrate below it is apparent that President Gast leveraged the incident to support for her push to hire a CDO.

Why so much attention?

The evidence for this motive is widespread. First, looking at the incident itself, there were many responses that were clearly more pragmatic. Most notably, a more functional response would be to say nothing publically. It is well documented that people who engage in behavior like this are doing so for attention of some kind. By obliging, President Gast only made it more likely that subsequent events could occur (Indeed, recent e-mails from within the I&SE department confirm that someone is still drawing swastikas). Additionally, she devalued what an e-mail from President Gast means. National tragedies used to warrant a letter from Alice. Now students may receive e-mails that start:

“Recently, an offensive phrase was found in the third stall from the left in Taylor Gym’s second floor men’s locker room. As a community, we need to reinforce that…”

If the incident itself was the sole motivation, then President Gast would have both satisfied the perpetrator, and devalue her future communications with the student body. Such a response is too shortsighted, especially for someone in President Gast’s position. It is quite unlikely that she would so easily play into the perpetrator’s plan and change the standard for Presidential communication at Lehigh without additional factors being in play.

Why so much mystery?

Second, President Gast’s e-mail had clear evidence that it was written to elicit attention, generate discussion and news coverage from the Brown and White. As discussed earlier, the administration was very careful to shroud the entire incident with mystery. The typical questions of “Who, what, where, when, and why?” were all left unanswered. Ambiguous information or lack thereof is designed to create chatter, rumors and publicity. Marketers do it all the time with that new product or movie that no one knows about. Tiger Woods did the same thing inadvertently last fall, leading to an incredibleamount of discussion because he withheld information.

But President Gast’s response was not like those of Tiger Woods. Assuming she had the facts at the time, there was no reason for withholding them. What would have been the harm of telling us that the ‘hostile and racist symbol’ was a swastika, and it was found on Tuesday? Indeed, providing specifics would make it easier to identify the perpetrator.

Additionally, the response of the administration when asked where the incident occurred, “so as to not bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that building,” shows the continued use of the secrecy principle, even after the initial announcement. With hundreds if not thousands of people entering each of our academic buildings on a given day, that response is nonsensical at best. The administration’s entire response was designed to be mysterious and generate publicity.

Alice’s Agenda

While the response does not stand alone as a logical reaction to the alleged bias incident, add President Gast’s desire to hire a CDO into the mix and the storyline makes sense. Publicizing the incident would now provide evidence of racism and sexism at Lehigh, and the more coverage the incident received the more powerful her argument would be. Indeed, publicity of hate or racism at Lehigh benefits her agenda by demonstrating for her that Lehigh needs more diversity initiatives, more sensitivity training and more administrators. In this case, she took advantage of the actions of a single person, and implied that Lehigh has serious problems that need to be fixed.

The assumption underlying all of President Gast’s actions is that Lehigh is an unfair, unjust, racist, sexist institution. Her actions thus far in creating the CEC as a means to steamroll her agenda across the campus, adding a question to the application for admission on equity and community to profile students and now looking to hire a CDO demonstrate her adherence to this philosophy. That is the Lehigh she sees. Her response to this incident displays that she is willing to subject others to this view in order to accomplish her goals.

The Two Lehighs

Is Lehigh that place? Is Lehigh really awash with racism and sexism? In an article I wrote a year ago, in light of the isolated racial incidents last January, I analyzed what it would mean for Lehigh if we experienced 12 independent hateful incidents in a year – much more than what we hear about. The result would be that well over 99 percent of Lehigh students, while far from perfect, do not engage in hateful activity. Certainly, there are other students at Lehigh who are not entirely welcoming of differences and diversity and some more students who are prejudiced in one way or another. But is it a widespread problem that requires an expensive fix, or is it more a reflection of statistical certainties – that within a given population you will have some people with undesirable qualities? I think the evidence for the latter case is compelling.

President Gast clearly disagrees with this assessment. That is well within her right, as is her pursuit of a CDO. However, her methods of pursuit, especially in this instance, have troubling consequences. By overreacting to incidents like this, she perpetuates a view of Lehigh as an institution with widespread biases. While that benefits her agenda, it damages Lehigh by generating more expenses, restrictions, and requirements for everyone in response to the actions of a few. The large investment required for her diversity initiatives should not be based on isolated incidents perpetrated by a mere handful of Lehigh’s 6,000-plus community members. Unfortunately, if her response to this incident is any indication, that is exactly what she plans to do.

Diversity is a word with dichotomous meaning, based on the individuals engaged. In the specter of life, as it should be – that is, true to meaning, diversity refers to the inclusion and accepting of difference, be it ideological, physical, sexual, racial, religious or otherwise. I truly do not believe that Lehigh harbors many, if any students who would oppose this point of view; those who grew up in circumstances much like mine have not been lacquered with a veneer of intrinsic hate – we do not relegate individuals to inferior positions based solely on any of the stated criteria above.

Sadly, in the academic landscape – a sea, awash with hard-line “social justice” mavericks, burned-out activists and agenda-driven administrators engaged in a perpetual pissing contest against the elite Ivy 7, diversity has taken on a very different meaning. In my four years working for The Patriot, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and engaging a diverse (in the former sense of the word) group of individuals: administrators, students, and faculty – with questions pertaining to their motives, ways and means. What I’ve uncovered has tainted the stated cases that key people will make to you in the coming days. As Lehigh’s premiere state-run media outlet, The Brown & White will report in a chipper piece cobbled together by a sophomore writer in the coming months, Lehigh will very likely hire a Chief Diversity Officer, and leverage the dichotomous nature of the word to guilt those who raise opposition.

My opposition to the very nature of a CDO was forged in the bowels of Lehigh’s administrative organization chart – the findings of which I will present shortly. However, a good deal of tangent information came to light in my fact-finding, which has acted to galvanize the core thesis of this text. Whatever your position may be on a CDO, I believe that any high-dollar change to Lehigh (be it a person, building, or other noun) deserves scrutiny. College costs have placed the yearly average burden of a Lehigh education at $50,050, and I believe that students should make themselves aware of where every penny of that pot goes. For many students, myself included, a Lehigh education is a privilege, and it would be foolish for any enterprise to squander the hard-earned dollar of any student without understanding the full picture. The case for a CDO has been summarily rammed down our throats through Alice’s emails and subsequent media coverage of alleged “hateful incidents” and “bias-related crimes” – this is the rest of that story.

A Recent Fad

Having read through Lehigh’s Vice President for Equity & Community (VPEC) Benchmarking Report, the interested student will learn that Lehigh is penis-measuring against other schools to assess the so-called “need” for what has been referred to colloquially as a Chief Diversity Officer. The report essentially boils down to three key arguments: (1), other colleges are doing it, (2) Lehigh is an isolate among elite universities for our lack of a CDO, and (3) Lehigh should basically capitulate and cop Tufts University’s plan, at an approximate cost of $1-2MM, so that we can play, too. Yes – the report really is that simple, and I encourage all those reading to read the full report online, as well, and see for themselves.

On December 1st, a group of cowardly individuals calling themselves “concerned students” emailed a vintage club officers’ distribution list noting that the university still has not capitulated with their request (set forth at the infamous CEC Town Halls last year) for a CDO, who is “…someone who can act as a liaison between students and the president’s cabinet and can effectively dedicate their time to the betterment of the University.” Yes – that’s the entire job description. Never mind the fact that Lehigh presently has 107 key contact people in the event of a “bias-related incident,” with more than 40 individuals under “Student Affairs” with the title of “administrator,” “coordinator” or “leader” – all who liaison with students on a daily basis. Of those, 8 are core positions dedicated to diversity.

Reviewing the VPEC report, Lehigh plans on spending between $250,000 and $450,000 on this position for salary alone.

Unless we’re planning to sack a considerable amount of the existing special interest diversity defense positions, I cannot see from a business standpoint what one more administrator will do to improve student/administrative liaison, which the VPEC report directly demonstrates a preexisting competency by its very existence.

Additionally, while researching the institutions that have adopted some flavor of a CDO, it is apparent through press release dates that more than 50% have added their CDO position within the past four years alone.

The argument has been made that Lehigh must implement this position in order to stay competitive within the academic landscape; I believe we could do just as well by using that same pool of money for additional scholarships and faculty reinvestment.

Not So Diverse

One of the secret ironies about the CDO position concerns, ironically enough, diversity. Of the universities against which Lehigh has chosen to benchmark, more than 67% of CDOs are black. 16.5% are Hispanic,
the remainder being white or Asian. Lehigh has often been cited for a supposed lack of diversity in the context of ethnicity, with 74% of students being “white, non-Hispanic”; if this constitutes a lack of ethnic diversity, than America’s top colleges have obviously failed in the vetting of CDO candidates.

“Academic Culture”

If one factor pervades truth and openness from entering the discussion about diversity and the present state of academic culture, it is academic culture itself. In academia, there is no award for bringing in the most international students, and few are concerned about political and socio-economic diversity in the thought patterns of their students. Based on the nature of the dialogue, the characterization of the CDOs studied for this article (and the departments from which they came), in addition to an interview I held with Lehigh’s own former Joint Multicultural Program head, it would seem that the gold standard for diversity at college is really the black standard.

There exists an overt fixation on black – in particular, African-American students. This is a fact, reinforced by the considerable conscription of CDOs from Africana Studies departments, the makeup of CDOs profiled for Lehigh’s VPEC report, and the fact that almost all of Lehigh’s
“concerned students,” in addition to the loudest of the diversity noisemakers and mouthpieces on campus are African-American. Not African nationals, not Caribbean refugees – African-Americans. They’re like Pokémon cards for admissions – you’ve gotta catch ‘em all.

In the reading circles of higher-ed, where publications like The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed prevail, a landmark 2006 article authored by U-Virgina’s own CDO, Damon Williams sheds some light onto just how vague this position really is. Among the key tenets listed for a good CDO, #7: Understanding the Culture of Higher Education is listed. Never mind the fact that I, in addition to most Lehigh students could fill the shoes of a CDO based on Mr. Williams’ description (“Team-building” and “charisma”? Please…); the CDO is a loaded weapon for the American university to forward its bureaucratically dominated agenda of thought-control through administrative expansion (or bloat, as the case may be), and the splintering of students through special interest defense groups.

Academic culture likes code-words – women’s studies is a crude extension of NARAL, LGBTQIA services is destined to put someone of the wrong gender into my bathroom, “social justice” means equity on an East Germany shades-of-gray level, and Africana Studies really only graduates people who will go on to teach Africana Studies and eventually get promoted to Chief Diversity Officer. It’s a vicious cycle.

Recently, an insider at Kutztown University who did not wish to be named gave me an inside look at higher education wielding the newly minted tool of CDO. “You can’t do anything without passing it through the Equity chair,” said my source. “No question may be asked, no candidate may be considered for a job until the Equity chair gets its review.” Looking at higher education’s track record of incoherent ideological suppression, with universities concocting free speech gazebos, freshman first-year student indoctrination with invasive programs about sexual identity and environmentalism, and asinine questions requesting one’s definition of equity and community (an easy opportunity to profile candidates’ ideological characteristics), it is clear that CDOs will likely have extensive reach within an organization, be it a university or place of business.

Conclusion

If one singular fact should strike you, dear reader, with any sense of urgency, it should be the lack of definition that has accompanied Lehigh’s push for a CDO. Hiring a CDO, at the very least, is a significant financial commitment for a school with an extensive preexisting diversity structure of administrators and their staffs. Coupling this with the nature of academia, and its radically skewed vision of diversity and what it means, (deifying degenerate culture and offering it as a class, while using terms like “bias related incident” to silence critics), the magnitude of what’s at stake should be clear.

Lehigh should absolutely be committed to diversity – authentic diversity. Students, be it a pro-life female, or underprivileged African-American male should feel comfortable and welcome on Lehigh’s campus. Good learning, like good business, requires honest criticism and having one’s ideas challenged – something that may be novel or uncomfortable to students and professors. However, adding a nanny position with far-reaching power to silence some while enabling others, particularly with historical precedent in mind, is a grave mistake.

The Brown and White eagerly described ten days worth of events honoring Martin Luther King Jr, but excluded many details that those that those in attendance would be quick to point out. While events such as convocation and the oratorical contest were summarized, the Brown and White failed to report on the underlying issues and concerns associated with these events. The large majority of students who did not attend any of these functions now may have a broad description of what occurred, but still cannot understand the meanings and implications of these events as well as someone who had attended.

In relation to MLK events, the paper has clearly given up any effort to analyze events or discuss possible controversies. The Brown and White covered the MLK oratorical contest but failed to mention the lack of Lehigh students, excluding contestants, at the event. Their article merely reiterated contestants’ views for Lehigh, failing to report low attendance. Yes, a few professors, as well as, Dean Washington attended, but the contestant winner himself called for the student body as the basis for change at Lehigh. The Brown and White missed the critical issue. With such low attendance; how the change contestants hoped for possibly become reality?

Our school’s newspaper is still missing one very important piece in the administration and student body’s push for equality and social justice on campus. Mario Paredes, winner of the oratorical contest, calls for Lehigh to be “a place of community and inclusiveness.” During the student rally, Darius Callier, Vice President of the Black Student Union, voiced his belief that in regard to violence based on sexual orientation, marginalized ethnicities, or persecution, “Lehigh is not immune to, or apart from any these challenges.” The Brown and White missed an opportunity to report real issues, this time by ignoring the effort by Lehigh’s administration, specifically the Council for Equity and Community, to remedy the problems and cultural issues articulated throughout campus by various speakers during MLK week.

President Gast and the administration are actively pursuing the CEC’s request for a chief diversity officer at the level of vice president (VPEC). The administration hopes that this position will better administer efforts to promote social equality and diversity on campus while simultaneously boosting prestige and admission numbers. Why has the Brown and White chosen to not report on this vital affair? Is it for fear of the controversy and opposition that may arise? Possibly, but why not educate students on the advancements happening on their campus instead of worrying about remaining in lockstep with the administration. Lehigh students are suffering because of the Brown and White’s refusal to cover controversial issues on campus.

Many students have no idea of the university’s plan, and probably have many questions about the CDO position. Why does the CDO need to be at a Vice President’s level? The answer to this question can be found in the VPEC’s Benchmarking Report assembled by Lehigh’s CEC: “Over the course of the information gathering, it became obvious that perception of one’s title makes a big difference. If the VPEC/CDO’s charge is merely a segment of the institution, a diversity initiative will not be as effective. But when the VPEC/CDO’s charge encompasses the entire institution, everyone will be engaged.” Or how much would the CDO get paid? According to Lehigh’s research, “among American colleges and universities, the average annual salary of CDOs/VPECs is $250-$300,000.” Will there be a tuition increase to account for this new position’s salary? If not, what parts of the internal budget will be allocated for the CDO?A cycle has emerged where Lehigh students fail to attend key events and are truly unaware of the pulse on campus. Meanwhile, the Brown and White fails to help these students become informed by avoiding any and all controversy and simply not present divisive topics. Critical changes are happening on campus, such as the pending appointment of a CDO and having a majority of students unaware of that is a problem on many levels.

President Gast has been out in front of a number of initiatives designed to finally rectify some of Lehigh’s old Achilles’ heels (ahem, diversity) and push the University towards new heights of academic prestige and national significance.

Of course, creating the impression of imminent academic superstardom is mostly a platitude designed to attract the most qualified high school applicants, but there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, this place could probably use a bit more academic chest-thumping.

In the business and engineering schools, our reputation for post-graduate job placement is highly touted, and successful students usually work hard enough to justify the accolades. But Lehigh should work to create a reputation for rigor across the University. More specifically, it’s time to require a series of intense core classes for all undergraduates. I’ll leave the specific content of the core to better pedagogical minds than mine, but Columbia College’s legendary Core Curriculum should serve as a guide.

At Columbia, students spend the bulk of their first two years as undergraduates completing core requirements in the sciences and humanities. Columbia’s Core is, however, infamous for its level of difficulty. There is a case to be made in favor of the flexibility offered by distribution requirements, but that doesn’t mean the current system is anywhere close to ideal. By picking out the most salient aspects of the Core Curriculum, we can have the best of both worlds.

The first step ought to be the implementation of a foreign language requirement. Lehigh’s “Strategic Plan” is accompanied by the slogan, “Advancing our intellectual footprint.” Inarguably, that footprint can only grow so much if Lehigh’s graduates are marching in boots that only speak English. Proficiency in a foreign language is not only an easy way for job applicants to distinguish themselves from a pack, it’s a way for Lehigh to situate itself on the cutting edge and get out in front of the competition.

Another important course, entitled “Contemporary Civilization,” is a survey of religious, political and social thought designed to provoke discussion and cultivate better-informed citizens. The syllabus includes everything from the political philosophies of Plato through Locke to The New Testament and The Qur’an. If Lehigh is serious about attracting and outputting the best and the brightest, it should entrust its students to internalize and carry on the intellectual traditions that constitute the foundations of human civilization.

Columbia’s “Literature Humanities” course also offers a model to be emulated. An excellent University ought to be more than a utilitarian means to employment – it’s a vital cultural sustainer. Still, too many students are startlingly ignorant when it comes to the most profound and enduring achievements of the human race. College should be a crucial rite of passage in which our rich literary heritage is passed onto a new generation. With that in mind, a survey of “great books” should replace the current freshman year English requirement.

The current incentive structure actually discourages the strongest English students from actually studying English at Lehigh. Someone who enters college with high verbal SAT scores or AP credit would place out of the required English classes. Pursuing an ambitious major or concentration, completing distribution requirements, and attempting to branch out academically while maintaining a high GPA might easily preclude that student from ever stepping foot in an English classroom.

Even worse, the rest of the freshmen are robbed of the chance to interact with the strongest students who would raise the bar for class discussions. Those who wish they could leave dense reading and paper-writing behind for good will be rudely awakened by the barrage of cover letters, graduate school entrance exams and business memos that beckon in a few years. Conversely, a challenging mandatory English curriculum would position students to breeze through those mundane tasks while developing much-needed capacities for critical thought, reading and writing. All these skills are applicable to any profession, but only in college can we immerse ourselves in and concentrate on them as ends in themselves.

Certainly this isn’t an exhaustive list of potential ingredients to constitute Lehigh’s core curriculum, but the idea is simple: a series of rigorous mandatory courses to develop critical skills and encourage introspection to guide the student in his or her choice of a major and improve the quality of work within that ultimate concentration.

All of this would require only a modest investment from the University in exchange for significant returns. Foreign language instructors don’t even have to be professors to be effective, and graduate students or young assistant professors are the best candidates to lead candid discussions on politics, society and the humanities. As for the benefits, they aren’t hard to imagine…

In the kerfuffle over Lehigh’s issues with diversity and inclusion, much focus has been visited upon ways to amend the first year experience. Among the options being considered is a mandatory course in diversity sensitivity training. The idea isn’t terrible, considering the preponderance of students arriving at Lehigh fresh out of a homogeneous suburban bubble. But such a heavy-handed approach isn’t likely to be effective, and the very idea has prompted a strong backlash from some students.

Instead of such thinly-veiled finger-pointing, a core would give students the opportunity to constructively share ideas in a non-confrontational setting. Many students settle into their social comfort zones within a few weeks or months of arriving at college. An extended core would maintain an imperative of diverse interaction through the first two years, fostering a more welcoming and integrated social and academic community.

Some have argued that the distribution requirements in the College of Arts and Sciences are an ad equate way to produce well-rounded students and that anything more stringent is overkill. But distribution requirements are just a convenient way for students to find the easiest courses in each department. Ironically, these requirements reflect the fact that a given discipline is essential to a complete education, but students have an incentive to sacrifice the essential for the expedient when selecting courses.

This phenomenon contributes to grade inflation- meaning that it’s just too easy to pad a Lehigh GPA. Employers and graduate schools are fond of comparing applicants to the mean or median performance at their particular institution. That makes the choice between challenge and success a zero-sum game. If you choose to push yourself academically, you risk losing out to those who would rather coast.

Even though a core curriculum would do a great deal to improve the Lehigh experience, the impact on those who aren’t here yet and those that have just departed would be even more pronounced. For conscientious prospective students, Lehigh would compare more favorably to alternatives, while the intellectually disinterested might stay away. In the crucial (no matter what anyone tells you) US News and World Report rankings, Lehigh is consistently dragged down by weak assessments from peer-institutions, which is worth 25% of the total score. Bolstering our “intangibles” through the introduction of a challenging core would give those reviewers a reason to take a second look.

Employers and graduate schools, too, would recognize the rigorous crucible that all Lehigh students must pass through. This could very easily improve post-graduate opportunities across all majors, but chances are, the students will speak for themselves.

President Gast’s tandem of emails to the student body at-large last week simply reeked of political maneuvering. With everything that is going on in Washington D.C. right now, it’s hardly a surprise that our President has decided to play a similar game here at Lehigh to pass her agenda: hire a Chief Diversity Officer.

She made this clear in her email, entitled “Martin Luther King Celebration 2010.” After a brief remembrance of Dr. King, she moved onto more important things, like transforming Lehigh from the racially and sexually biased campus that she currently sees, and in the process building her resume. In the email, she outlined her plan to hire a CDO to fix the University’s aforementioned woes. In doing so, she decided to bring up the alleged events of racial name calling, which have not been mentioned in any official campus dialogue or in the Brown and White for eleven months. Curious timing to say the least. Sure, those events are relevant to what Dr. King worked for and accomplished in his lifetime. But in celebrating his work, why not focus on the positive, that the events were isolated, and nothing similar has occurred in the past year.

Perhaps this contradictory behavior became apparent to the administration. Cue Thursday’s announcement that hateful incidences have returned to Lehigh. This time it was in the form of a ‘hostile and racist symbol’ in an undisclosed elevator discovered by an unnamed Lehigh employee. The convenient timing of the event, along with the vagueness of the wording in the email, prompts several questions. Before President Gast starts allocating possibly $1 million or more each year for diversity initiatives to cure this campus, we should make sure that there is an actual diagnosis. We can start by getting the answers to these four questions:

---

1. Why give this incident so much publicity?

Sure, we know the timing played into your favor. But does one symbol in one elevator really justify a campus-wide email? Whoever drew the swastika clearly wanted attention, and President Gast gladly delivered. I’m not saying the incident should be ignored. The University should clearly pursue disciplinary action if they find out who did it. But doing so quietly would have been the best approach. Additionally, it trivializes past and future campus-wide emails sent by President Gast. Are we to treat this event with the same degree of seriousness as the earthquake in Haiti, which also provoked a campus-wide email? How seriously should we take her next email admonishing homophobic phrases found inside men’s bathroom stalls around campus?

2. Why withhold the location of the ‘hostile and racist symbol’?

We still don’t know which one of Lehigh’s extraordinarily slow elevators was host to the symbol in question. Lehigh’s official response, as detailed in the Brown and White article on the subject, is that the location “will not be released so as not to bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that building.” Perhaps we could ask a Washington politician to explain that statement. Unwanted attention? A campus-wide email was sent out, clearly the administration wants people to pay attention to this event. Additionally, most buildings on campus are frequented by literally thousands of students, staff, and faculty. Say the incident occurred in Rauch, are people honestly going to say: “Oh, you go to Rauch every day, therefore you probably drew the swastika.” The answer is, of course not. This was a move to increase the mystery and intrigue surrounding the incident to generate more publicity for it.

3. Why withhold the fact that the symbol was a swastika for five days?

Thanks to the Brown and White, we were told five days after the incident that the ‘hostile and racist symbol’ was a swastika. Apparently, this information was deemed too sensitive at first, and was withheld from the student body. Was that really necessary? As adult members of the Lehigh community, we deserved to be given as many details as possible about the incident, especially as she called on us to be responsible for elevating the level of discourse within the Lehigh community. Again, withholding the nature of the symbol only increased the mystery and intrigue around the incident, which was completely unnecessary.

4. Why did the reporting of this incident correspond so well with your announcement that you hope to hire a Vice President of Equity and Community?

Yes, of course this could be a coincidence. But the two events are simply too close on a timeline to not be related to each other. With that being said, there are plenty of possibilities. Clearly, the University has already made the assumption that the goal of the swastika was to spread hate of some kind. However, it is equally possible that the symbol was drawn by someone who supports Lehigh’s hiring of a VPEC / CDO. Why’s that? Well, there are two reasons:

First, quite simply,  someone who supports a CDO has much more to gain from having a ‘hateful incident’ occur on campus, as it goes to prove President Gast’s aforementioned hypothesis about Lehigh. This incident serves that agenda very well, and someone who wants Lehigh to hire a CDO easily could have seen that bringing another ‘hateful incident’ to campus would cause an uproar similar to last semester, which would galvanize support for the hiring of a CDO.

Second, the timing is too good. We haven’t been notified of any ‘hateful incidents’ for almost a year, and then three days after President Gast makes her announcement – poof – we find a hateful incident, one which perfectly supports the need for Gast’s plan. Someone who is truly hateful always has an incentive (in their own mind) to write hateful things. However, someone who would benefit from a perceived ‘hateful incident’ has a limited period during which an incident is beneficial. Clearly, this event occurred within that period.

---

Before everyone jumps on the “Lehigh is racist, Lehigh is sexist” bandwagon, President Gast should answer these questions. She wants to hire a Chief Diversity Officer – that is her prerogative. But she used this incident to advance those claims, and launched an unfair assault on this school’s character by blowing this ‘incident’ entirely out of proportion. The large investment required for her diversity initiatives should not be based on isolated incidents perpetrated by a mere handful of Lehigh’s 6,000 students. Unfortunately, if her response to this event is any indication, that is exactly what she plans to do.

Update: Slight wording changes made on 2/13/2010

Even though we printed our environmentally-friendly copies of the Patriot already, you may not have received one. If that’s the case, The Lehigh Patriot now offers a convenient and environmentally conscious solution: print your own right on Lehigh’s free printers!

Sure you can just view it on your computer, but who reads stuff like that?

Printing a Patriot is quite easy: visit www.LehighPatriot.com/pdfs/DecemberFinal.pdf and hit print! Make sure you only print one-sided though, duplex messes up the page order.

This message is sponsored by The Lehigh Patriot, and the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG)*.

*: Not really, that part of the message is parody.

The climate is changing. It always has been, and it always will be.  The question that drives discussion on environmental policy of late is, “What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the huge changes that some politicians support in the name of combating climate change, it is important to take a critical look at this question. While I know that you may have heard that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this question, let us take a look – you may be surprised.

Carbon and the Climate

The theory behind anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is that CO² emissions are causing a rampant increase in global temperature. Thus far, proponents of this theory have largely succeeded in making the public believe that this is an undisputed fact among the scientific community. The truth is, many notable climatologists and other scientists dispute this scientific hypothesis. To name a few:

1.     The Polish Academy of Sciences,[1] who submitted a letter discussing ten problems with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

2.     Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer[2], who testified before Senate in February that current climate models are inherently flawed.

3.     Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Nobel Prize winner [3].

4.     Dr. John Cristy, a lead author of the U.N.’s original IPCC report in 2001[4].

5.    Over 700 scientists according to a list provided by the U.S. Government[5].

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. All of these scientists provide theories of their own regarding human activity and the causes and effects of an increased level of CO² in the atmosphere. It is understandable to see so many differing views; since even the climate models that predict runaway warming cannot agree on its role.

The climate models that do predict global warming provide an estimated increase in temperature of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius by year 2100. These models require hundreds of assumptions – one of them being carbon’s role in regulating the climate. As Dr. Happer explains in his senate testimony though, about 90% of the “greenhouse effect” on earth is due to water vapor, not CO². The role of CO² is much smaller. According to Dr. Happer, it could cause at most a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. He explains:

“There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO² concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO² will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO² in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”[6]

Dr. Happer continues to explain that models currently used rely on the assumption that small increases in CO² levels will lead to increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing runaway warming. However, empirical evidence has shown this correlation to close to zero of even negative[7].

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Happer, he and other renowned scientists contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat. Indeed, even climate models disagree. Climate models which assume a positive correlation between CO² and water vapor predict a temperature increases of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius. What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the evidence, it is pretty clear that we do not know. With that being said, let’s look at the cost of the proposed legislation on climate change, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

The Waxman-Markey Bill

The Waxman-Markey bill, touted as “transformational legislation,” would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of CO² and other gases by 17 percent within the next 10 years and by 80 percent before 2050. Should the bill pass through the Senate, the government will use a “cap and trade” system to regulate the emission of CO². Essentially, the government will issue permits to emit CO², which can then be traded from companies that pollute less to companies that pollute more. The end result should be a level of emissions equal to the “cap” that is set. The main issues in this bill are the effects on the monetary system, and the effects on the climate. So before a judgment is made about this bill, let’s look at who pays, who profits, and what happens to the climate as a result.

As with most government policies, U.S. citizens will foot the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will cost the average household $175 per year, mainly from an increase in the price of carbon based fuels. Due to a series of provisions within the bill, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will actually benefit, making $40 per year due to this bill[8]. In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, the “cap and trade” system will increase manufacturing costs, and provide incentive for companies to move manufacturing plants overseas to areas with lower energy costs, which would likely result in increased unemployment.

Where does this money go? That should be obvious – to the bureaucracy! According to the same CBO report, the bill would increase federal revenue by $845 billion over the coming decade, with estimated expenditures related to the bill weighing in at $821 billion[9]. There are several interpretations of what this means. One interpretation is the creative New York Times headline that the climate bill “would trim budget deficit.” Such an interpretation is accurate if the budgeting assumptions are valid, but also terribly misleading. This bill calls for an increase in spending of $82.1 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the AIG bailout of last August was $85 billion. This bill is essentially another one of those every year so that our government can regulate the emission of invisible gases.

Now despite the large costs involved, proponents of the bill claim that the cost is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions. The climate models cited by the proponents of the bill predict a rise of anywhere from two to nine degrees Celsius over the next century. Similar models predict the impact of the House’s climate bill to be a drop of 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050[10]. Simply put, even if these climate models are indeed accurate, then this bill will do virtually nothing to change the warming trend. However, by 2050, this bill will have cost us $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) to change the global temperature increase from 3 degrees Celsius to 2.95 degrees.

Climate in the Real World

While the United States may look to self-flagellate itself through the Waxman-Markey bill, other countries will not do the same. With one third of the world’s population residing in China and India, both countries are going through rapid economic growth. Economic growth is inextricably tied to cheap energy consumption, and hence CO² emissions. China’s emissions of CO² have increased at a rate of 11% over the past five years, and are expected to continue at a similar rate[11]. These emissions will counteract any cooling effects the Waxman-Markey bill may have.

Even if we take the apocalyptic approach, the Waxman-Markey bill still does not make sense. Geoengineers have already devised several methods of cooling earth, some of which involve ejecting particles like sulfates into earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight [12]. This solution lacks appeal to environmentalists, but the result is that humans would see little effect from any warming that does occur. These methods are hundreds of times cheaper than the forced reinvention of the American economy.

In the past, the earth has been warmer, and it has also been cooler. There have been Ice Ages as well as warm periods, when Greenland was actually green. While it is easy to think that we live in extraordinary times, we do not. Our economy and our energy will become more sustainable over time, but we do not need to force the fact before it becomes economically viable.

Money and How to Waste It

For the sake of clarity, here’s what the Waxman-Markey bill does in real terms:

1. Takes a lot of money from 80% of Americans

2. Gives some of that money to the poorest 20% of Americans.

3. Uses the rest to create a huge government agency that monitors and attempts to regulate the emission of an invisible gas.

4. Creates cost incentives that will drive industry elsewhere, as unemployment continues to rise.

5. All of this is done in hopes that we can cool the planet by a 1/20^th of a degree over 40 years.

Clean and domestic energy are worthwhile goals, no one can dispute that. But, in typical government fashion, this bill goes about “achieving” those two goals in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible. This huge sum of money – about $12,000 per person – over 40 years should not be taken in the first place. The $3 Trillion could be used to directly fund clean energy research and technology. It could be used to build more nuclear power plants to provide cheap and clean electricity. It could be used to reduce the huge deficit built by President Obama and his predecessor. Instead, this bill is directly transferring wealth from citizen to citizen, and being used to fund yet another massive federal bureaucracy. To cap it all off, it will do essentially nothing to change the climate. It is but another example of political negligence.

---

[1] Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, 4/24/2009. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html)

[2] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[3] Christina Reed, Nature, 7/15/2008. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html)

[4] Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine, 5/14/2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm)

[5] Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/11/2008. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[6] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[7] Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf)

[8] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 6/23/2009. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html)

[9] Darren Samuelsohn, New York Times, 6/8/2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/08/08climatewire-house-climate-bill-would-trim-budget-deficit-83573.html)

[10] Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 5/6/2009. (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355)

[11] Univ. Of California – Berkeley, 3/10/2008. (http://www.physorg.com/news124384270.html)

[12] Jamais Cascio, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/2009. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html