Even with the Copenhagen climate change summit fast approaching, the average American could care less about the environment or related legislation. If Americans did care, the United States would already have extensive legislation to promote sustainability. The reason for this apathy is the same reason that most Americans don’t vote – they have no interest or benefit from acting.  They have not witnessed the detrimental effects of a deteriorating environment. Topping the carelessness, the scientific community is fighting discord on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

That is not to say that global warming does not exist or that the environment has not been harmed by unsustainable habits. In a discussion held on October 21^st, professors at Lehigh discussed the very real effects of pollution and unsustainable habits. Professor Fennel talked of China’s environmental agency finding 45% of its waterways unsuitable for human contact, some of which are used as drinking water. Numerous professors discussed the recent rise of precipitation events in the U.S., the use of groundwater mining to satisfy growing demand. This process pumps more than ten times more water out of the ground than is naturally being replaced.

Apathy toward the environment is fueled by various controversies surrounding climate change, including recent data contradictory to the “hockey stick” theory.  There is no consensus.  Northern Hemisphere climate variability is still actively being researched. This data has enormous implications for further legislation, because data on climate variability will help determine the earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions.²

These findings are not tangible to the average American, creating a disconnect between fact and public concern. Most Americans are blind to global patterns and environmental issues. Unless the stream in their backyard turns to sewage, Americans cannot be bothered with sustainability legislation.

In this way, the average American and Lehigh student share a lethargy for all topics relating to environmental sustainability. Small minorities of Sierra Club or Green Action members may recognize unsustainable habits, but they have little power to bring sweeping legislation to their respective institutions.

Change must come from a higher entity – like a global climate treaty. International efforts towards sustainability seem to indicate that only a very gradual approach is politically realistic. In the future, this incremental process may be the same tactic the university will utilize in curbing student and faculty environmental footprints.

It remains to be seen whether this legislation will triumph over apathy – coaxing more environmentally friendly habits – or will stir direct opposition caused by adherence and comfort in the status quo.

For now, it seems the American public and businesses need not worry about this legislation inconveniencing their lives or forcing change. Hopes have turned grim for a new energy bill. Politicians fear capping carbon emissions will cause economic hardship to an already hurting electorate. Internationally, Europe, the U.S., China, and developing countries harbor contrasting goals and levels of commitment. Many are wary that action will be possible from the climate conference in Copenhagen, though it does present a global stage and opportunity for change.³

1)               http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-2c

2)               November 6^th Jason Smerdon, Storke-Doherty Lecturer, Columbia University “Spaghetti Plots, Hockey Sticks, Pseudo-Realities and Congressional Oversight: A decade of attempts to reconstruct the climate of the last millennium and where we stand now”

3)              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09caucus.html?_r=1

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.

I am no logistics major, or heck even a good driver, but there is something wrong with the transportation system here at Lehigh. While on the topic of transportation, the ever-present parking issue ought to be brought up as well.

Before discussing its flaws, however, some of the better qualities of the transportation system should be pointed out. First off, it exists. Except in cases of extreme snow, ice or injury, it is very possible to walk anywhere on the Asa Packer campus. The fact that the University realizes the value of students’ time and shuttles us around is definitely something to commend. Secondly, it is free. If you plan on living in an urban area after college you will most likely have to pay for others to drive you around. According to Transportation and Parking Services’ web site (They have a very informative website!), some of the cost of bussing is “funded by parking fees.” But despite some positive elements, this system leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, there is something being done about it.

Every year, Student Senate forms committees dedicated to solving problems on campus. A committee focusing on the bus system has been reestablished almost every year as the Senate continually sees a need to improve transportation on campus. So far, this year’s 8-member committee has compiled a long list of transportation related issues they would like to address this year. Much harder than rattling off grievances, however, is discerning which projects can actually be done. Thus, a substantial portion of the committee’s activity involves bringing issues to the attention of administrators and collaborating to devise ways to improve the services provided.

One of the committee’s biggest projects is improving T.R.A.C.S., as they believe something needs to be done to make it safer and more efficient. According to Lehigh’s transportation website,

“The Escort Bus Service, sometimes referred to as the T.R.A.C.S. (Take a Ride Around Campus Safely) Bus Service, provides transportation between University buildings and student residences…During the academic year, two vans operate from 10:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., Sunday through Wednesday, and 10:00 P.M. – 3:00 A.M., Thursday through Saturday, and follow a scheduled route in and around the Asa Packer campus.”

While this looks good on paper, many students cite spending eternities waiting outside the library for a T.R.A.C.S. van to meander over. Additionally, with the temperature dropping and finals on the horizon, this is bound to become an increasingly common frustration. Several seniors have reported remembering their freshmen days when T.R.A.C.S. was willing to stray from its route to bring you exactly where you wanted to go, and then simply hop back onto its scheduled route. Easy enough, right? The Escort Bus Service’s schedule has since become stricter, preventing drivers from taking 2 minutes to bring students within a safe distance of their off-campus houses. Even worse, rumors are circulating that administration discourages drivers from picking up visibly intoxicated students.

The Student Senate committee is also trying to improve the daytime bus system to make it more user-friendly.  One suggestion that would be very easy to implement would be to have busses leave on the “5”s instead of on the “10”s. The reasoning behind this is that the students that get out of class early can get, say, the 12:05 bus, while the kids getting out a little later or with farther to walk could catch the 12:15 bus. This would alleviate the mass of people at the bus stop come 12:10, which can pose a problem because many students living on the hill have only an hour for lunch.

A project that the committee has carried over from last year is its effort to try and get more covered bus stops put on campus. Some of their other projects include identifying ice problem areas, promoting the ride board on portal, and improving parking.

Limited parking is a difficult thing to fix, due to the finite amount of space on campus. However, there are many ways it could be improved. For starters, most of the meters on campus, in addition to only taking quarters, only go up to one hour. So a student with a three hour class or lab is fated to get a ticket. An impending $50.00 fine is probably not what you want on your mind while trying to pay attention in class, take a test, or experiment with chemicals. Another flaw is that if your car is not registered with the university, but gets ticketed, there is nothing Parking Services can do to enforce collection. Tickets are distributed with the intention of making sure the spots are free for people who paid for the permit to rightfully park there. As the parking web site puts it, “[by] enforcing parking on Lehigh’s campus, we ensure that there are adequate spaces available for faculty, staff, students, and visitors who have registered their vehicles and/or paid for their parking. When people park on campus illegally, it means someone with a valid permit loses out on a space.” But this person who loses out on their rightful space is forced to park somewhere else, and thus get ticketed as well, but also have to pay it. It is also hard to ignore that there is a problem when the University Announcement e-mails unfailingly includes titles such as “NO PARKING – in front of Building X, 12/12/09.”

Unfortunately, despite the aforementioned issues affecting students on a daily basis, they have little to no ability to personally enact change. The administration must be contacted; they are the only agent capable of implementing any changes. And while the administration appreciates hearing the Senate committee’s constructive ideas and plans, the fact remains that it is a challenge to get money allocated towards making improvements. Yes, an obvious way to better the T.R.A.C.S. system would be to add another van or five, but the cost of gas for four or five hours of non-stop driving, and wages for a willing driver add up. Thus, a current focus for the committee is coming up with cost-effective solutions.

Despite the fact that many students are frustrated with the current transportation system here at Lehigh, Transportation and Parking Services has done nothing wrong. They have done their part to inform students of what services they can and cannot offer. The administration is not ignoring the transportation system’s shortcomings either; there just are not ample funds allotted towards getting any given student from A to B at 2:19 A.M. on a Saturday. So if blame must be allocated, go with the scapegoat du jour and blame it on the recession, and know that people are working to improve upon the situation.

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.

On Friday, hackers infiltrated the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and posted hundreds of documents and emails regarding CRU’s research, climate models, and publications.

While main stream news sources have tried to downplay this, there is no hiding the incriminating evidence contained within. Currently, all signs point to the emails being authentic. While the hacking of CRU’s server is a crime, what it exposed is even worse.

Despite the American mainstream media’s ambivalence on the subject, this is big news. Many media outlets in other countries still understand that. For analysis on that, see the Telegraph’s commentary on the news story.

For analysis on the various documents contained, much is still being uncovered from the massive amounts of information held within the files. However, the Herald Sun in Australia has some very good analysis on what this means for IPCC lead author Dr. Phil Jones.

Many blogs are leaping on this story, detailing a lot of the troublesome quotes from the emails. One blog details a lot of the quotes that show severely unethical practices.

While I won’t detail the extent of the comments, I will leave you with one quote from an email sent by Dr. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

What does this mean for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? That is for you to decide. Take a look at the evidence and make up your mind.

If you are so inclined, the .zip file containing the documents and emails can be found here.

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.

On Sunday, May 4th, 2003 a group of junior and senior girls gathered to participate in an unsanctioned school game of Powder Puff football. These girls from Glenbrook North High School, Illinois, met at a forest preserve wearing their jerseys. However, instead of playing football, the event changed course and resulted in a nationally publicized hazing incident. During the hazing, the junior class participants were covered in paint, urine, feces, animal innards, shot with paintball guns, kicked, slapped, and otherwise injured as the senior class continued with their ritual that had been going on for decades.

Kelly O’Keefe, ’10, a freshman during the incident said, “This was not a onetime thing, and it had been going on for years.” I was only thirteen when the Glenbrook North hazing occurred, however, being only twenty minutes away from that high school, it affected our community. The result was a lot of freaked out parents watching the Oprah special on “Glenbrook North Hazing.” Since then, hazing has caught the nation’s attention and has enforced a sense of obligation to crackdown and counter hazing rituals.

Glenbrook North, a case caught on tape, pushes the limits of cultural acceptability. It made society question the limits of group fanaticism. And, it showed the world what is really happening. This event begs the question, what is hazing? Can one event revise the nation’s perspective on young adult rituals?

Last month, Lehigh University participated in National Hazing Prevention Week with the goal of educating students about hazing. Their education session featured a definition so broad that anything could be reported as hazing. They said, “Hazing is any action taken or situation created, whether on or off campus, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule.” Although they give inclusive examples of “brutality of physical nature, such as paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics,” there is no clear threshold as to what constitutes hazing.

Is forcing a rookie to go buy you a sandwich hazing? According to Lehigh University, yes, it certainly is. It will be enforced through Lehigh’s anti-hazing compliance, as well as the state of Pennsylvania’s law against hazing, and the NCAA policies for sports related hazing. Therefore, it is crucial to educate students on the fine lines between hazing and initiation.

Using Lehigh’s mental or physical discomfort standard, the following situation can be tested as hazing. If I ask a freshman to go get a sandwich for me from the Goose, is that putting a person in physical discomfort and hazing them? If so, I am violating a Pennsylvania anti-hazing statue as well. This law states the punishment as a misdemeanor of the third degree, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. The NCAA has adopted similar policies and rules for college athletes, stating in their handbook, “Any act committed against someone joining or becoming a member or maintaining membership in any organization that is humiliating, intimidating or demeaning, causes emotional anguish or physical discomfort or endangers the health and safety of the person.”

In an attempt to reach some clarity with regard to this zero-tolerance rule, I met with Julie Sterrett, director of student leadership development. Sterrett asked a roomful of student athletes, “Is initiating a freshman acceptable or unacceptable?” The students responded with confusion. According to Julie, the definition of hazing with respect to athletics specifically, “…is making someone feel uncomfortable,” which sums up Lehigh’s policy too. However, what pushes the limit when it comes to uncomfortable, or what exactly qualifies as uncomfortable? Julie explains, “It is a controversial subject; hazing has a negative connotation to it. [It is]…in a sense seen as an extreme, and often misinterpreted. It is not a one size fits all [dynamic], and [requires] educating athletes to develop relationships so that teammates understand what makes them comfortable and uncomfortable so that there are no assumptions. Assumptions are what can get people in trouble.”

However, the definition of hazing as making someone uncomfortable is just ridiculous. People can get uncomfortable in all sorts of situations, and with such a broad definition of hazing, it puts sports teams under the impression that they’ve essentially initiated teammates to unify the team, and it turns out they’ve actually hazed them by Lehigh’s broad description.

In order to seek out more truth, I interviewed a freshman on the women’s volleyball team, Margaret Acton. When asked what her view of hazing was, she replied, “Doing stuff to freshman…or picking something embarrassing or annoying for those people to do.” Every year the incoming freshman have to perform a skit for the sophomores, upperclassmen, coaches, even the trainer, which incorporates every single person on the team in Lehigh’s Fight Song. According to Lehigh’s definition of hazing, that skit could potentially harm the mental well-being of those freshmen, causing embarrassment and ridicule. However, as Margaret explains, “No it’s not embarrassing, it brings the freshman and the team closer because it makes the freshman think about every member of the team and incorporate them in the skit.” This is a perfect example of a potentially infringing hazing situation; an initiation for freshman, the skit is required, and one’s mental state after performing a skit in front of said team could lead to possible psychological damage or discomfort.

Last year, I was a freshman on the volleyball team, and there were established rules and duties that had to be preformed every day before practice. Freshman, as a rule, were required to pick up and drop of the team’s laundry before practice every day. Failure to do so, resulted in negative consequences: the team would not have clean practice clothes and gear. However, in the context of the current frenzy, making a freshman pick up your laundry could be interpreted as hazing, which is a bit dramatic. Making freshmen follow the rules and participate in their duties is not damaging to their mental or physical health. Sure, it might be annoying to pick up laundry, but overall it creates a sense of obligation and respect for your teammates. I’m not saying other classes such as sophomores do not have duties; everyone does, but to single out freshmen and point out that getting laundry could essentially be hazing is absolutely ludicrous.

Hazing has become too broadly defined to accurately pinpoint what hazing exactly is. The lack of clarity in Lehigh’s and the NCAA’s anti-hazing policy allows too much misinterpretation and could lead to anything being considered hazing. What needs to be established is a conscious understanding that hazing is indeed harmful and detrimental to people. However, forms of initiation could prove to be beneficial in uniting groups, especially in athletics. Using common sense to evaluate whether or not a certain activity is hazing obviously isn’t working with the policies that have been established. The definition of discomfort is just too vague.

My wife and I came to Lehigh University from Pakistan just a few months ago on a Rescue Fellowship, which was sponsored by the International Institute of Education (IIE). Pakistan has been in the international news frequently these days due to the war against terrorism. In the wake of terrorist attacks all over the country and growing lawlessness, President Asif Ali Zardari and his administration seem totally helpless. Let me share some of my experiences working at a Pakistani university so that you might be able to understand what is actually going on in post-fundamentalist Pakistan.

Amnesty International and The Human Rights Commission Of Pakistan publish documents every year detailing the human right abuses in Pakistan. They mention that the state of Pakistan still fails to provide adequate protection for women and the working class. Despite making up almost 51 % of the population, women continue to face a discriminatory status in Pakistani society. There is a great tide of violence against women since 9/11. Hundreds and thousands of innocent women are victims of honor killings, acid throwing, rape and murder. In post-colonial Pakistan, gang rape and other barbaric traditions are used as a form of criminal punishment. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Pakistani women have already suffered gang rape in the name of honor or tribal revenge. Last year, five women were buried alive in Baluchistan. Human rights groups and civil-rights activists organized protest demonstrations all over Pakistan. It is the most shameful and barbaric crime of the 21st century.

I was teaching as an adjunct lecturer in the English department at Bahauddin Zakria University Pakistan at that time. My wife, Shirin Haider was professor and chair of the English Department. She asked me to organize a peaceful protest demonstration against the barbaric killing of the five innocent women. We organized a rally in which hundreds of female students very actively and voluntarily participated. They shouted slogans against barbaric tribal laws and feudalism. My wife announced the declaration of war against barbaric and criminal traditions against women by founding the Revolutionary Women’s Action Committee (ReWAC), a platform for women’s liberation and revolutionary struggle. It was one of the biggest organized rallies in the history of Multan, which, with its feudalism and religious shrines, is one of the most backwards and traditional cities in Pakistan. In places like Multan, women are not allowed to participate in politics because of chauvinist pseudo-religious dominance.

The next day, our rally was covered in the news. All the local and national newspapers ran headlines with images of women demanding their legal rights. We started consciousness-raising groups and seminars on gender and social awareness, and the response was very positive. Within a few months, hundreds of female students joined our organization. We organized another protest rally, this time inside the campus, against gender harassment and violence against women. Despite threats from the Taliban and the conservative University administration, our female activists organized the rally. In that part of the country, this was deemed a progressive and revolutionary move. It heralded the feminist uprising within the campus. Our democratic and revolutionary initiative was a great success; it gave strength to oppressed and humiliated female students.

Critical revolutionary activism of female students was a breath of fresh air in the stifling environment of Southern Punjab. However, the reactionary and conservative University administration, sponsored and influenced by the feudal lords, local fanatic groups and traditionalists felt threatened by the revolutionary activism of female students. Our activism was a spark of life and hope for the oppressed women who are denied basic human freedoms and rights. Our activists tried to organize a musical evening on the campus to promote awareness of sexual harassment, which is rampant in all state-run universities. Recently, a female faculty member at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad was burned with acid at the hands of a fanatic professor. In another incident, two female students experienced harassment at an examination centre at Zakriya University in Multan.

The Vice Chancellor of our University demanded an immediate explanation from Professor Haider for launching ReWAC. Like a ruthless dictator, he banned all activities linked to ReWAC. Our activists were coerced through harassment to give up their membership in ReWAC, and were threatened with expulsion if they resisted. I was immediately terminated from my position. The Vice
Chancellor very ironically thought that I was plotting a political rebellion for social change against the government with female students. I was banned from even stepping foot on the campus. It was an assault on my freedom and an insult to my pedagogy, so I protested with my wife and students. The very next day Professor Haider was removed from her position as chair of the English Department. I was arrested at the main gate of the University as I was going to my residence inside the campus. My wife was manhandled, and I was sent to police station where I was brutally tortured by the police for three days. Then, I was sent to jail and was released on bail after 14 days.

During my detention, my wife, along with female students and activists were psychologically harassed and humiliated by the University administration. During my detention, I started a hunger strike which lasted for 54 days. On the eve of the 54th day, I pinned down nails in my feet and left hand as a symbolic protest. I was treated like a war criminal; they forcefully undressed me and struck my lower back with 17 lashes. They asked me to cry and beg for mercy, but I refused. They kept hitting me harder and harder until I fell unconscious. They later threw cold and filthy water on me. During torture, one of the police officers pressed my genitals and scornfully laughing, checked my circumcision. I have seen the naked brutality of Pakistani state. I have also experienced the hypocrisy of intellectuals and professors. I have witnessed malicious opportunism and the betrayal of middle class friends and colleagues.

After this experience, I realized that one of the main reasons Pakistan is fast becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism and terrorism is because of the oppressive and decadent education system based on class stratification inherited from British imperialism. Pakistan is a failed state, although paradoxically it has nuclear weapons for people’s destruction. It has a very powerful corporate army, which is mainly responsible for harboring and preserving socio-political decadence, lawlessness, violence and corruption. There is a very strong police force, which is used for political victimization, harassment and torture, and the judicial system is inhumane and corrupt.

Pakistan is a long-term strategic partner of the United States and the most faithful ally in its war against terror. Now, the US Congress has approved the Kerry-Lugar bill of $1.5 billion to facilitate non-proliferation, faithful implementation and commitment towards war against the religiously faithful terrorists. I think the grant will only add insult to injury. It will further aggravate political tension and will sabotage the political and democratic process of Pakistan. Pakistan needs immediate social surgery, because the tumor of religious extremism and terrorism is getting more and more dangerous for global peace and security.

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.

As the Dow marked a psychological rebound at 10,000, few analysts were quick to verify this achievement. With an unemployment rate heading for 10% and no clear connection to revenue, the 10,000 mark might just be an artifact of a much bigger picture.

Internationally, the dollar is suffering, exchanging at only €0.67, almost a split from a 2001 high of €1.20.¹ Nationally, banks are still suffering, with Bank of America reporting a one billion dollar loss; real estate demand is dwindling with record lows in rent; and companies are only exceeding earnings by cutting costs.

In this climate of rising futility, weak markets, and unpredictable demand, companies are becoming increasingly cutthroat in their competitive strategies. Businesses are responding to decreasing market size with more aggressive strategies to demolish their competitors through hostile competition, mergers and acquisitions, and unethical behavior. A look into a few companies emphasizes this point.

Head-to-head, Amazon and Walmart are engaging in airline style price wars with books. Cutting bestsellers from the typical $25 to $10, Amazon thought they could out-price Walmart. Think again. Walmart, known as a cost leader, cut the price to $9, and when they were matched by Amazon, went down another penny to $8.99 a copy.^{2 In the same context, Microsoft sought to challenge Apple in the retail arena by opening two Microsoft retail stores. These stores will function as near replicas of Apple stores, selling high-tech gadgets and software packages licensed by Microsoft. They will even copy the Genius Bar, Apple’s signature customer service and repair center at the back of every store.3}

Top-to-bottom, Oracle offered to buy Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in order to compete directly with IBM as a one-stop-shop for big business IT solutions.⁴ Bloomberg bought BusinessWeek to expand its information clutch on the magazine channel.⁵ These big buys were financed by the industry of continual mergers: banking. With JP Morgan connecting with Chase and TD enveloping Ameritrade and Commerce, it’s hard to get anyone’s name straight.

Unethically, Toys ‘R’ Us is under FTC review for using market forces to hike the price of strollers and breast pumps.⁶ Likewise the SEC has recently identified the largest insider trading ring in a century.

In this environment of ultra-competitive forces, companies and watchdogs need to step back and observe the long-term results of their actions. Will this competitive behavior end the recession? Is it best for us and our customers?

In most cases the answer is a clear ‘no.’ In the long run, consumers and producers will both lose. As companies increase cutthroat competitive tactics, they will decrease long-term profits. If you make the seas red, no one wins. Customers will lose choice and quality while companies will lose capital and positive PR.

In the case of book selling, Walmart and Amazon will have to sell below cost and will discourage publishers from selling through their channels. For Microsoft, they will create channel conflict with their nearby retailers and increase costs for the customers, since retailing is not their core competency. Oracle will minimize the functional number of customer combinations from nine (e.g. IBM + Oracle, Oracle + Other, or IBM + IBM) to two: either IBM or Oracle. This will decrease the market capacity for their software product while increasing the risk of gaining market-share since Sun + Oracle is not a well-established combination. Finally, the losers will lose – unethical business practices never get companies ahead. Toys ‘R’ Us will end up paying in the jugs for their breast pump price fixing.

In this zero-sum game, there is only one way to get ahead and win in the long run: ignore the rules. Instead of buying into the U.S. magazine market, Bloomberg could offer a hybrid terminal with a magazine feel. This would create a “blue ocean” of uncontested market space. Instead of trying to find more ways to sell products with bugs and overheating Xboxes, Microsoft should focus on developing an operating system that is not vulnerable to viruses. Banks might even be able to do more than clean their balance sheets by offering investment products to small companies.

Taking this theory out to the market, analysts see a bleak future because companies are hollowing out. They are trading cost-cutting strategies for revenue-building approaches. Instead of expanding their intellectual property they are selling it below its true value. When we can learn to step off the battlefield, our market will stabilize.

Sources:
1 – http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/graph120.html
2 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477050954174722.html
3 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125582090441392365.html
4 – http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/15/ellison-oracle-wont-be-seventh-in-services/
5 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473382444906054.html
6 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125573656435491057.html