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

Start a conversation with a Jewish student at Lehigh on the topic of Israel, and the ensuing moments will look a lot like the movie Flubber. No one will really know what they’re talking about, spectators will suffer whiplash trying to keep track of what’s going on, and more than a few delicate objects will end up broken.

So when the Berman Center for Jewish Studies brought Israeli writer and director Ari Folman to campus to screen and discuss a much different film: his acclaimed, yet controversial anti-war epic Waltz With Bashir, the debate was sure to be fierce.

Bashir is Folman’s account of his role as a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force during the 1982 War in Lebanon. Years after the events took place, the film follows its writer, director and protagonist as he tries to recover suppressed memories from the 20 year-old conflict.

Specifically, Folman has a recurring nightmare about the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps (Google it). In one of the film’s most powerful and thought-provoking moments, Folman draws an equivalency between the actions of IDF soldiers and those of Nazis during the Holocaust. Both, he posits, stood by idly as thousands of innocent men, women and children were systematically executed.

The juxtaposition is startling, but for Folman, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, the shadow of that experience inevitably frames the discussion of all subsequent history. Yet many American Jews have a similar background, so it’s troubling that Israelis are free to engage in such unrestrained self-critique, yet external criticism of Israel is often dismissed as anti-Semitism in America.

To be clear, Bashir hardly touches the political dimension of this particular incident or Israeli foreign policy in general. The film focuses on the human consequences of war – especially its psychological impact on adolescent men who are tossed into a world of bloodshed and violence. In Israel, where military service is mandatory and conflicts occur at a tragically consistent rate, each generation is bound by the shared experience of the crucible of war.

In America, no such binding agent exists, which could go a long way in explaining why our political debate is marred by suspicions of bad faith and insidious motivations. At Lehigh and in the American press, the discomfort was palpable as Bashir raised issues that are usually considered off-limits. Rather than engaging the substance of Folman’s critique, some viewers simply dismissed its validity because they couldn’t be inconvenienced to amend their half-baked positions based on new information. It’s not that this film demands that every viewer radically shifts his or her perspective, but it does challenge the dangerous popular disdain for critical reflection.

Ironically, it was the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that published a scathing review on the eve of the Oscars (Bashir was nominated for best foreign film in 2009), slamming Folman for his too-delicate treatment of the IDF. When the Berman Center brought another Israeli speaker a few weeks later, he remarked on the high level of implicit censorship in America as compared to Israel. Of course, the internet makes it so that anyone can say anything, but political, social and institutional norms define the legitimacy of specific arguments while excluding others. For instance, in 2008, the Israel lobby and mainstream media outlets pounced on then-Senator Barack Obama’s mere recognition of Palestinian suffering. This statement was soon diluted to attribute that suffering exclusively to the failure of Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel as a state.

With these subtle constraints on dialogue in America, it’s even more remarkable that a film as critical as Bashir was financed entirely by public money from the Israeli government. As that government moves farther to the right under hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vigorous debate over Israel’s direction as a Middle Eastern democracy will ensue. We can’t count on Americans to ask the tough questions, so it is even more important that the vibrancy of Israeli public discourse remains.

Public transportation is often seen as the answer to a variety of issues and has become popular in the eyes of environmentalists, urban planners and traffic-haters.  There is a drive to create more all-encompassing and better mass transit.  Although it looks good on paper, public transportation is failing to show real potential to solve societal problems.  Trains, for the most part, and government-run busing are two forms of mass transit that have repeatedly shown their inability to save society money, let alone save the environment.

As a resident of New Jersey, I have plenty of first-hand experience with the initiative to make transportation cheap and public.  The government-sponsored transportation company, NJ Transit, is the product of years of government efforts to further prop up a system that does not fulfill any of the state’s dire needs.  The state of New Jersey pours billions of the taxpayers’ dollars into mass transit with little to show for it.  I’ve been on New Jersey’s infamous buses and trains and it’s quite a sad sight.  Most trains operating are cost-centers, which are considered crowded if barely half the train is full.  The only way NJ Transit stays in business is through the state’s fiscal support.  The CATO organization notes that, “The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.”  This is especially evident in New Jersey.  Secaucus, New Jersey, is home to another fine example of government’s ineptitude and the failure of mass transit.  Senator Frank R. Lautenberg built an eponymous rail hub there, with federal subsidies, in 2003.  The site cost $609 million to complete and only attracts 5,600 daily riders.  There is no parking nearby, despite its location just off a major interstate.  The atrocious cost of building this monument to the Senator’s ego, incompetence and myopia is almost criminal when one considers how few people actually use the station.  At the current rate of usage it will practically never be paid off.  If it is any consolation to the fine people of New Jersey, I can note with firsthand experience that the station is immaculate, although that is probably not attributable to it being well maintained.  A more likely reason is that it is perpetually empty.

The root of the problem with mass transportation is that nobody wants to use it.  It appears to be a great idea but this façade is proved to be incorrect in light of the reality that very few people actually use the trains and buses that the government provides us through Amtrak, NJ Transit and other companies.  It becomes clear why so many opt not to use government-run trains once you see the state in which they are kept and operated.  Often trains are dirty and are very inconvenient to use.  They run late and they make you bend your schedule to fit their often s   skewed time frames.  It is much more convenient (and in most places cheaper) just to drive wherever you want to go.

My home state jumps to my mind when the issue of mass transit comes up just because I have plenty of personal experience with it there.  New Jersey, however, is not the only place this is an issue.  It has been shown over and over again how ineffective mass transit is, especially when it’s government-run.  The CATO Institute points out that the last 25 years have taught this country a great deal about mass transit and its shortcomings.  Public transportation is odd because it has consistently received governmental support despite its obvious failures.  It has been said that mass transportation provides the poor with available options of travel, cuts down on pollution, reduces traffic, saves energy and revives urban centers.  All of these claims are false.  Only 7% of trips made by the poor are on mass transit and therefore do not benefit impoverished areas.  Due to the low use of mass transit, it does not reduce pollution.  In fact, usage is so low that a doubling in patronage would still have a negligible effect on air quality.  The fact that trains have not diverted a significant number of travelers from the roads means that the traffic problems we had 30 years ago are even worse today.  Mass transit doesn’t save energy either.  According to CATO, “because of the low average number of passengers per bus, energy consumption per passenger mile for public transit buses now is greater than that for private automobiles and far exceeds that for car and van pools.” Buffalo is a good example of a city that was not ‘revived’ by spending on mass transit.  After investing billions of dollars in a major rail network, Buffalo’s downtown area is losing businesses at an even more rapid rate than before the rails were implemented.  Mass transportation looks good on paper and therefore legislators are willing to support it.  People like the idea of a train, but in reality it actually costs more money and more energy than would private transportation.

Private bus lines, like Trans-Bridge in the Lehigh Valley, run where the demand is great.  They make money.  Government-run buses and trains are propped up because they lose money servicing lines that are generally untraveled.  I can recall seeing many NJ Transit buses on local roads in my area with an abysmally low number of passengers.  It makes me cringe when I consider that I am paying for the absurd amount of gas being used to transport two people three towns over.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York City, the city run organization that runs the subway, is broke.  The New York City subway is a good example of how the economics of trains do not always play out as we would hope.   The MTA has nearly $2 billion in service debt.  The subway beneath the streets of Manhattan is one of the most widely used rail systems in the world.  New York probably couldn’t function today if there were not some sort of mass transit system in place.  The debt incurred by the MTA is one that New York is willingly to support, as it should be.  Cities understand the necessity of systems like subways.  However, what should be taken from this example is that the economics simply aren’t there to justify mass transportation, especially trains, as a viable means for people to travel.  When the most traveled train system on the East Coast is losing money, how do governments justify propping up rail lines that are 80% empty?  NJ Transit is perpetually in debt, just like the MTA.  Unlike the MTA, however, NJ Transit is not a needed resource for the people of New Jersey.  It would be cheaper, in terms of gas and immediate cost, having a private bus line replace all of NJ Transit’s current train lines.  Let the market decide which line is worth keeping.   The state ends up wasting more energy and money trying to support these rail lines because people won’t use them.  They are inefficient and wasteful examples of government’s meddling and pandering to environmental propagandists.

The Brown and White r an an article in its November 6th issue discussing whether a train line from Lehigh County to Somerset County, NJ, is feasible.  Hopefully, the authorities behind this proposed project will do their research well and understand that their train will lose money and waste resources.  As for me, I’ll be taking Trans-Bridge Bus Lines home.

Recently, Lehigh invited Paul Gorski an interesting academic concerned with the issues of social equity and justice that face our schools today. Be satisfied that this was not another counselor’s lecture on the importance of equality or cultural awareness. Rather, students and faculty were treated to an aggressive, no nonsense style that cut nicely through the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds the pursuit of social justice. Mr. Gorski delivered sound killing arguments to a few educational traditions that are outmoded and detrimental to the cause of social justice.

Events celebrating diversity or cultural competence initiatives attempt to educate majority populations about the existence and distinctness of minority populations celebrating diversity. The trouble, as Mr. Gorski points out, is that institutions use these events to cover their obligation of promoting diversity and equality while sweeping its own bias under the rug in a celebration of what are ultimately pithy and stereotypical minimalizations of ethnic minorities. The result is a classic example of treating the symptom not the problem.

Mr. Gorski also notes an approach he describes as the human relations approach, which seeks to bridge cultural and sociological barriers with structured opportunities for learning and dialogue. A common example of this might be to gather groups of different minority and majority ethnicities, differing genders, or different orientations together to confront the issues faced by the disadvantaged group. Though this approach represents an improvement over the more superficial methods mentioned earlier, it does not address the more deep-seated issue of institutional bias.

Mr. Gorski then moved to talk about a differing model of diversity development, which can be characterized as institutional awareness and activism. Where the other options present us with bottom up approaches of students or employees being educated to diffuse bigotry, this approach sees the best opportunity for progress to come from top down direction of the institution. Mr. Gorski outlined three main points which build on this second plan:

1. Institutional commitment to creating an anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. agenda and atmosphere.
2. Continual assessment of circumstances, instead of the passing interest shown by most institutions.
3. Full guaranteed access to cultural, social, political opportunities for all students.

These goals, while apparently imperative as read, are generally enacted half-heartedly by institutions which find that these goals come into conflict with their own goals and interests. Institutions have a number of reasons for resisting these goals which vary in terms of their validity but should all be understood to be blocking the progress of social justice.

From a standpoint of fundamental right and authority, an institution gets into trouble by taking a stance of hostility towards bigots in creating a non-discriminatory campus. The institution finds itself toeing the very rule of openness and equality that it claims as motivation for such enforcement. While it can be generally agreed that there can be no sympathy for discrimination, the institution still is sluggish to act in a way that may be self-contradicting. As the university would be treating people differently based on their beliefs it finds itself walking into a catch-22. This is most notable in the case of gay rights where the freedoms of religion and expression come into conflict. However, it is also a concern with any social justice concern where there is some justification for the actions or opinions of both parties.

To prosecute these directives to the extent prescribed by Mr. Gorski the University will also be willfully creating conflict over an issue where before there was the appearance of health and good feelings. Even though there may be ethnic or gender based tensions, as long as there is no complaint or scene the University assumes a ‘don’t fix what isn’t broken’ policy. Although such action is a blatant ignorance of the actual situation for minority groups on campus, to the university’s credit, such a policy does reduce the risk of increasing tension or discomfort through misbegotten action which could be detrimental to both minority and majority populations.

These policies also can conflict with the university’s stated goals. The second point Mr. Gorski outlined was brought up in reference to the importance of creating a more socially just campus as a constant strategic objective. The issue is that this ultimately consumes administrative resources that could be otherwise put toward improving the institution for all students in much the same way as prosecuting policy to make the campus anti-bigoted would consume university resources. When faced with such a decision of committing resources to the campus as a whole or to the equality issues of the minority it’s not surprising that the universities stop treatment of bigotry as soon as the symptoms disappear.

This brings us into what is probably the biggest problem for an institution when it comes to prosecuting social justice with the effectiveness of which Mr. Gorski speaks. Mr. Gorski admirably addresses this problem head on saying, “Achieving social justice cannot be democratic.” The problem of social justice in modern society is mostly about the awarding of rights and power to minority populations who do not have the political power under a fully democratic system to gain such rights. Mr. Gorski’s argument, in defiance of every establishmentarian, is based in the idea that though some popular action will come about to right the most egregious wrongs of our society, those that do not present themselves publically but instead are apparent to only the minority they subjugate will go untreated. Mr. Gorski supports this assertion with the statistic that “in 1919, the year before women were awarded the right to vote, a survey found that 34^% of the American Population and 42^% of women supported women’s suffrage.” This statistic faces us with significant moral implications: that despite their best interest a minority population would willingly refuse a right such as voting indicates that the challenge of social justice may be nearly as much a matter of changing the minds of the minority as the majority.

Gorski’s position here is also troubling as non-democratic decision making, though more efficient and often more enlightened, often fails to account for the more nuanced preferences of the population which it seeks to serve. Gorski speaks often of the necessity of making people and institutions uncomfortable for the sake of change on these issues. He is right that the question left unanswered is when such initiatives should be pursued. But how many people must hold a belief to constitute a defendable minority? How offended must one person or group be before their rights are officially trespassed? Traditionally these questions are answered by the provisionally democratic administration. But if they are not to approach these issues democratically, then how should they fairly judge such matters? The questions are not easily answered, but should not be reason to dismiss Mr. Gorski’s position, as they do not reflect wrongness on his part. These questions instead should challenge us to consider the issue in a new light, for further democratic discussion, as we know no better way.

Lehigh’s Environmental movement has finally realized that organizations and committees are not enough to change the world. Their first noticeable step towards changing Lehigh is a simple, hard plastic sign which can now be seen by visitors to Taylor Gym. The sign, brought to you by SustainabLehigh, advises gym goers that “showers here are a privilege” and to “conserve water by taking shorter showers” in order to “protect the environment.” In a few simple sentences, this display brilliantly exposes the arrogance, hypocrisy, and ignorance of Lehigh’s Green movement, which mirrors the same flaws of its national counterpart.

The arrogance of the Green movement is the easiest flaw to see, and the most important. Since the late eighties, those intimately involved with the effort to “combat climate change” have engaged in smear campaigns, strong-arm tactics, manipulation of data, and unethical use of the media. All of these tactics serve to place anthropogenic climate change as fact instead of the hypothesis that it is. In doing so, people skeptical of climate change have been equated to holocaust deniers¹. Data inconsistent with climate models has been ignored and thrown out². Models have been purposely distorted for the purpose of scaring the general population³. Finally, some media outlets portray this issue as scientific fact despite hundreds of qualified voices saying otherwise⁴.

The drowning out and denunciation of rational opposition is arrogant. The level that it has reached on this particular issue is astounding. Arrogance by the leaders of a movement trickles down to its followers and adjacent groups, which brings us to Taylor Gym. Because the Al Gores and Barack Obamas of this world seem so sure that humans are destroying the planet, SustainabLehigh (a branch of the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group) is able to feel justified in telling people their showers are too long. Importantly, SustainabLehigh sees showers as a privilege for Lehigh students – something that could legitimately be taken away. Low-flow shower heads, timers, or the removal of showers are implied to be potential reactionary steps with a discourse that indentifies showers as gifts, and not a service covered by tuition.
The extremism of the Green movement inevitably lends itself to hypocrisy as well. As Al Gore lectures on the doom that our planet is about to suffer due to carbon emissions. He is also heating four large houses across the country and flying around in a private jet ⁵. If CO2 emissions are so harmful, and Al Gore has humanity’s best interests in mind, as he claims, then why isn’t Al living as a dimly lit beacon of sustainability?
We must assume one of two things. Either Al does not believe a word that comes out of his own mouth, or that he considers himself above the rules he sets for others. Given the arrogance we discussed earlier, let’s assume he considers himself above what he preaches – certainly not a stretch for any politician. In addition to being arrogant, this is hypocritical. He tells others what to do and how to live, while completely ignoring those rules when they inconvenience him.
This characteristic also trickles down to Lehigh. SustainabLehigh clearly sees showers at the gym as a privilege, and a harmful one at that. Given that showers are harmful, the morally consistent thing to do for people who subscribe to that belief would be to shower as sparingly as possible. Somehow, I think that many involved with the Green movement are still concerned about their social standing and what their significant other thinks. For that reason, they probably prioritize cleanliness over their obligation to the environment. Even so, they still feel justified in telling others about how showers are a privilege, and how long or short their showers should be.

Finally, SustainabLehigh’s shorter shower movement is ineffective, and an ignorant appropriation of resources. The amount of water that can be saved by shorter showers at the gym is negligible on the Lehigh scale, let alone the national or worldwide scale. Even if such a sign changes the behavior of gym-goers, the cost savings will still be almost nothing. Certainly, SustainabLehigh knew this, yet they posted the signs anyway.
Perhaps this was an attempt by Lehigh to parody the climate bill in Congress, which similarly attempts to impose unnecessary restrictions on the masses in order to “save the planet.” Both the bill and SustainabLehigh’s parody of it result in negligible changes to the environment, while providing unnecessary burdens on others. Both organizations are trying to do something that it isn’t their job to do. Congress is supposed to serve the United State’s best interests, and Lehigh is supposed to serve its student’s. Instead, wings of each create arbitrary guidelines that they feel others should follow. In doing so, they exert far more effort and carbon than they save by controlling the lives of others.
At the end of the day, the signs at Taylor Gym are simply pieces of plastic. However, there is an obligation for students to respond. The university is spending money on this either from our tuition or alumni donations. While the hidden incentive may be to save money on the water bills, the idea behind it still highlights the illogical behavior of the Green movement. These signs won’t make Lehigh or this planet any greener. Without voices of dissent, the student body’s tacit consent will signal to the University that they can discourage, limit, or take away more, all in the name of going “Green.” Lehigh needs to know that its students want their money spent on tangible goods and benefits, not warnings at a shower near you.

Sources:
1. Ellen Goodman, “Deniers of global warming harm us,” The Boston Globe.
2/9/2009.
2. Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008.
3. Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Lawrence Bender
Productions, 2006.
4. Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
12/11/2008.
5. Peter Schweizer, “Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe”,
USA Today. 12/7/2006.

Let’s be honest: students in search of the quintessential Lehigh experience will go Greek. Those who move onto The Hill after freshman year will tell you they wouldn’t have done it any other way. Those who go it alone might not have any regrets, but they’ll certainly feel as if a significant part of our campus is walled-off.
For too long we’ve taken in stride that there’s something inherent to Greek organizations that makes the decision to pledge so pivotal in one’s college lifecycle. That joining a fraternity or sorority is widely considered the only way to have a social life is a major blemish on Lehigh’s character.
Students should choose Greek life based on its merits, not because there simply isn’t a decent alternative. For all the grumbling about the demise of The Hill, Greek life will remain Lehigh’s social bread and butter until drastic changes are made. This is because Lehigh’s policies are a deliberate form of social engineering masquerading as neutrality. In reality, fraternities and sororities dominate our social scene because Lehigh stifles social activity everywhere else.
For instance, Greek houses are the only residences on campus without Gryphons. In other words, fraternities and sororities are effectively exempt from the enforcement of regulations that ensnare the rest of us. According to Lehigh’s social policy, 10 people in a room with alcohol constitutes an unregistered party. A gathering that size would go unnoticed in the privacy of a fraternity house – but try it in one of the Sayre apartments. With a nod and a wink, Lehigh gives Greek sophomores and juniors the exclusive right to party. The decision to pledge, then, isn’t made based on the merits of the Greek system – it’s a lifestyle necessity.
This situation would be ameliorated if unaffiliated groups were able to host viable campus-wide events, but social policy also prohibits alcohol consumption in any non-residential campus buildings. The Hawk’s Nest, originally recommended by the Strengthening Greek Life Task Force as a non-Greek social alternative should fill this void. But the task force erred in assuming students would trade a night of partying for a night of waiting in line for chicken fingers. Now that most parties have been pushed below Packer Avenue, there is even less of an opportunity for non-Greeks to establish a presence on campus.
The barriers don’t end there. Our increasingly labyrinthine and unwieldy social policy makes it cost-prohibitive for any unaffiliated group to serve alcohol at an event. Increasing occupancy requirements, a general obsession with recruitment numbers and the recent attrition of several fraternities has increased the average size of each Greek house. Only organizations that collect substantial membership dues and have the financial backing of the University can afford to hire the layers of security and University personnel now required to make a party legitimate.
To solve this problem, Lehigh should encourage the establishment of co-ed social organizations modeled loosely on Princeton University’s “Eating Clubs.” Eating Clubs function as dining halls, communal recreation spaces and hosts to social events. At Lehigh, these clubs would be attractive to students who like the idea of joining a social organization, but not the idea of pledging their souls to one.
Ideally, eating clubs at Lehigh would also lose the characteristic tribalism of Greek organizations. Membership could be determined by lottery, providing an incentive to host open events that draw a more diverse cross-section of the campus community.
The administration has made overtures towards this vision of social life in its recent push for more special interest housing. But their approach buys into the same divisive pattern of social organization that has plagued us for years. Lehigh needs a more inclusive social space, not more pronounced boundaries between different interest groups on campus.
It’s time to debunk the notion that social segregation at Lehigh is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The University’s policies privilege Greek life above all others, and many freshmen pledge reluctantly just because it seems like ‘the thing to do.’ This translates into dissatisfied students in and outside of the Greek system. Students should demand real alternatives to this state of affairs, and the resulting competition will improve campus life for everyone.

Basic human rights have always been defined as simple things – life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  However, none of these four principles are possible without one other key element:  the ability and willingness to defend oneself.  In today’s day and age, defending oneself becomes possible only through the possession and use of a firearm, in one of its forms.  Contemporary complacency has sidelined the role of firearms in maintaining these rights.  However, firearms are necessary in reclaiming them.

Although contemporary culture is kept in line through the rule of law, and by extension the government, what keeps the government in check? Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Someday, this tree may need to be watered.  At that point, the defense of house and home, the usurpation of a dictatorship to renew a democracy will require both the will of the people and the firearms in peoples’ possession.

In a world without firearms, governmental tyranny will be allowed to continue ad infinitum, because the opinions of the masses will be silenced by the opinions of the men with guns.  Turning to contemporary examples of places such as China or Tibet, the oppression of the proletariat by the ruling classes eliminates the right to life, liberty, property and happiness by constraining opportunities for advancement and speaking out.  By limiting the access to firearms, it becomes possible for those in power to oppress those without power.

The concept of life, liberty and property as essential human rights is derived from the Declaration of Independence, a document penned by Thomas Jefferson, but solidified by the blood of the patriots who desired freedom above all else, even their lives.  The time will come again when liberty must triumph over tyranny, where freedom overthrows a dictatorship.  When that day comes, Americans must be willing to stand up for what they believe in, and they must also to have the tools at hand to become a new wave of minutemen, responding to the crisis of the modern age at a moment’s notice to defend the liberty of those that have none.

Provisions restricting the possession of firearms can be categorized into three broad areas; age-related, location-based, and firearm-based.  Each of these areas constitutes a grave threat to the safety of our nation and the people within it, and the relevant legislation must be revised to allow Americans to secure their rights.

The first of these areas, age-related firearm legislation makes sense only in the most absolute of vacuums.  Enabling gun ownership allows the youth of our nation to protect themselves and their property.  While anti-gun advocates will insist that prohibiting gun ownership among youth is a protectionist measure that saves lives, people will always have the means to kill others.  Access to firearms may expedite the process, but weighing that against the benefits of gun ownership clearly shows society better off with firearms than without.  Furthermore, the current set of laws is ineffective; it is illegal to buy handgun ammunition when you are under the age of 21.  However, you are allowed to buy long gun ammunition, even if it is an identical cartridge.

The second of these groups, location-based prohibitions constitute the most dangerous and egregious firearm-related laws.  The most well-known of these laws is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act.  The Act prohibits the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.  Despite the best intentions of lawmakers in safeguarding our youth, the Gun-Free School Zones Act simply enables people that seek to do harm to do so without restraint.  When incidents like the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre occur, the perpetrators do not obey the rule of law; rather, they violate federal statutes by bringing firearms into an educational institution.  The shooters at Columbine were then able to shoot without regard for personal harm; as the Federal government had stripped their classmates and teachers of the ability to shoot back.  An even more extreme example of a gun-free zone massacre took place in a mall in Omaha, Nebraska in December of 2007[MJC1] , where eight people were murdered and five more were wounded.  The mall had a prohibition on concealed carry of firearms, meaning that outside of the uniformed mall security, the shooter was the only person with a firearm.  This incident is more notable because the shooter was not stopped by mall security, but an off-duty police officer who was in the mall and broke the law by keeping his gun on him.

Firearm based provisions are the final facet of legislation on the subject.  Current federal law bans outright many of the most terrifying weapons available in this world.  However, as preposterous of a notion as it seems, legalization of all firearms, whether they are fully-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, or one of the other prohibitively restricted firearms under current federal statutes is necessary for supporting democracy in our country.  Although the current single-shot and semi-automatic weapons commonplace among American homes have the potential to aid in usurpation of an overbearing government, fully automatic weaponry will allow Americans to truly secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.

The minutemen of Lexington and Concord started a noble tradition of usurpation of an unfair government; a tradition only made possible by the climate surrounding guns in Colonial America.  In our current political climate, grave threats to our freedoms have been orchestrated under the notion of “security.”  When the day comes, Americans must be able to have the ability to take control of their own government once again.

---

[MJC1]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

We’ve all witnessed heart wrenching losses when athletes walk away in defeat, coaches shake their heads wishing the game had gone their way, and fans sigh with disappointment.  In these dire moments, we need something to unite us, someone to step up, a “go-to” player that can raise the intensity and bring Lehigh one step closer to a win.  What we need is “Team Excitement.” This fall, Lehigh Athletics developed a program in which students “Get paid to watch Lehigh sports!”  Team Excitement is a work study program designed to enhance crowd participation and bring Lehigh PRIDE to the next level.  Lehigh “PRIDE” is a leadership program that helps student athletes build a support network of faculty, staff and peers, but also has turned into a Lehigh Athletic slogan to promote student athlete unity and school spirit.

Whether you desperately need the beer money, want to improve your resume, or feel like playing an important role in bringing the Lehigh community closer, Team Excitement needs you.  But in what sense do paid fans create a better Lehigh environment?  In fact, it may be more damaging to the morale of our athletes than anything else.

Travis Spencer, the founder of Team Excitement, said this program is designed to “create a more energetic Lehigh PRIDE environment surrounding our athletic events.”  So far, Team Excitement is targeted towards football and basketball games, which are the attendance-driven sports, but Travis hopes that over time, Team Excitement will branch out and spread the cheerleading and positive energy to more sports.  “We need a buzz to win during the playoffs, and that involves creating a better energy,” Travis explains.  The bottom line: Lehigh is not showing enough PRIDE lately, and the individuals who rise to the challenge and apply to Team Excitement are going to make that difference between winning and losing.  In another view, students are getting paid to sit on the sidelines and cheer for a couple of hours.  It might seem a bit tiring, but think of the athletes who are actually playing the game.

So far, only two students have applied for Team Excitement, but hopefully people will realize that if they are energetic, enthusiastic, and passionate about Lehigh Athletics, there is a spot for them!  Not to mention, this position speaks volumes on a resume.  Indeed, being on Team Excitement does improve your resume; you could simply say you got paid to cheer for the school you’re passionate about.  Doesn’t that show potential employers all the valuable skills and capabilities you hold?  At the very least, they will know that you’re capable of uniting a crowd of spectators in cheers (maybe inebriated ones, but spectators none the less).

It’s not all fun and games though; there are rules.  Lehigh has a zero-tolerance policy toward engaging with the opposing team or fans in an inappropriate manner, otherwise just keep it classy, and try not to make the cheerleaders jealous of your incredible cheering skills.  Lehigh is always striving to improve campus unity, and with Team Excitement, everyone will cheer and chant together making Lehigh an even closer community.  Soon, by the end of every game, all will stand and sing “Kum Bah Ya” or the Lehigh fight song.

As an athlete at Lehigh, knowing there are paid fans sitting at my game is a little degrading.  Any athlete should be disappointed that this absurd program is so disrespectful towards what we are passionate about.  I certainly don’t know of any other schools that pay their fans.  Maybe if Lehigh used the money for more scholarships, there would be a stronger athletic program and the “buzz” problem would take care of itself.  Team Excitement is making the joke of “you pay your friends to hang out with you” into a reality.

Team Excitement has a long road ahead of drawing in those dedicated cheerleaders or sports fanatics who just crave that intense atmosphere.  But even if these fans scream their heads off, student athletes are still essentially being mocked. When the team loses, the fans don’t share in the agony of defeat.  They take their eight bucks and move on.  At the end of the game, it is not about Lehigh PRIDE, it is more of a degrading experience for the student athletes.

If the current economic crisis leaves behind a substantial legacy, it will be embodied in lost educations. These educations will primarily be lost to minority and low-income students now that many colleges, including Lehigh, are quietly eliminating the practice of “need-blind” admissions. In other words, at the margin, admissions counselors will distinguish between two qualitatively identical applicants based on each one’s ability to pay full tuition. And while discrimination is a fact of life at private universities, we should not tolerate the same from the federal government.

In denying federal tuition assistance to any student with a minor drug conviction, the government is actively discriminating against those who rely on financial aid to enroll, or remain in college. The law, passed by Congress in the 1990s, applies to any offense committed within a decade of the aid application and includes misdemeanors that are typically punished with fines and community service. This policy is substantively identical to one that would only expel students below a certain income level.

But our drug problems go deeper than this one injustice. Recent events in Mexico are revealing the full consequences of our abortive “war on drugs.” Violent conflicts between rival drug cartels have put Mexico in a league with Pakistan: at the risk of becoming a failed state, defined as the “wholesale collapse of civil government.” Considering the large, porous border we share with Mexico, this could be our most imminent national security threat.

Last year alone, the death toll in this Mexican civil war was at least 5,000 (including civilians and government officials), and the violence has already spilled over into the border states of Arizona and Texas. This violence, of course, is committed in the name of capturing a share of the black market that American drug policies have created. Legalization would shrink the cartel’s income, making it more difficult for them to continue to arm a paramilitary force just south of the border. When you combine 5,000 dead and a country teetering on the brink of collapse with the proven medicinal value that marijuana has for glaucoma and cancer patients, prohibition seems increasingly at odds with any notion of fundamental human decency.

But it’s not just prohibition that feeds the problem. Our prison systems are more proficient at producing, rather than rehabilitating, criminals and drug addicts. One-third of those in prison today are there serving time for nonviolent drug offenses. Like the restriction on federal aid, our sentencing guidelines disproportionately harm poor minorities, who are more likely to be prosecuted for drug offenses and less adept at manipulating the legal system.

Luckily, the zeitgeist may be shifting, as states from Massachusetts to California are taking steps to legalize medicinal Marijuana. Polling whiz Nate Silver (who had the 2008 election down to a science) projects that a supermajority of Americans will favor marijuana legalization in the year 2022, assuming current trends hold. Only then, he opines, will legalization be politically viable. In the meantime, however, there’s much that can and should be done to pave the way.

Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have proposed a substantial prison-reform bill, with an emphasis on addressing drug policy. Webb notes that the US, with only 5% of the world’s population, holds 25% of the world’s prison population. With $150 billion spent annually on policing and courts, almost half of all arrests are marijuana-related. I’m certain that a substantial contingent on the right, with their ranting about seven-figure planetariums and bear DNA research, wouldn’t mind if a large chunk of that $150 billion could be kept in taxpayer hands.

Conservative libertarians in the political chattering class like Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic and Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute are taking a different approach. They are advocating that public figures and ordinary citizens alike come out of the “cannabis closet,” to prove that marijuana use is widespread among productive, normal, healthy Americans – from PTA moms to soccer coaches.

Some of those Americans were probably responsible for making a question on “marijuana legalization as economic stimulus” the single most popular inquiry on whitehouse.gov. When President Obama dismissed the suggestion, he was right in the abstract. Imagine the headlines: “Obama’s Green Economy?” With more than enough political battles to fight, our overstretched President certainly doesn’t need to put his foot in this one. As a strategy of economic recovery, legalization is both politically suicidal and fiscally impotent. Reformists need not dismay, however, as Obama has spoken in favor of decriminalization outside of this politically heated context.

While decriminalization is likely to happen in individual states long before legalization becomes relevant, it’s important to note the unique benefits and potential pitfalls of legalization. Legal marijuana, subject to a substantial tax and strict regulations on marketing and distribution, could provide significant government revenue while making it harder for kids to get their hands on marijuana, which anecdotally is easier to acquire underage than alcohol and cigarettes.

It’s important not to get carried away, though. Marijuana isn’t “safe,” but neither are cigarettes, alcohol, Oxycontin, or toys from China. And no offense to those who are coming out of the “cannabis closet,” but you’re still stoners, and as relevant as the caricatures of drunkards and chain-smokers are, so will your epithet remain.

But nobler ideals are at stake than those embodied in the sanctimonious drones of social conservatives. We continue to feed a vicious piece of machinery that eats up taxpayer dollars, spits out death and destruction in our backyard, and exacerbates poverty and crime at home. For the first time in ages, there is tangible recognition of these facts, and a glimmer of sanity in the drug war debate, but how far will it take us?