In response to the recession, Lehigh has decided to launch a $20 million study to find ways to reduce wasteful spending.

“Alumni and students alike have urged us to exercise fiscal restraint in these tough times. For them, I am proud to present this new plan,” said the newly appointed Director of the Office of Fiscal Responsibility, Mark Simonson. The newly created Office employs 50 experts full time to monitor all costs at Lehigh. “Our purpose is to spend every dollar we get to find ways to save money,” Simonson remarked.

Instead of using available office space around campus, the plan provides for a special addition to the Alumni Memorial Building to house the new Office. Due to poor weather and an unreliable construction company, the project is already millions over budget, but that doesn’t deter the bright spirit of Simonson. “To properly do our work, we need a special, stress free environment and quite simply that just doesn’t exist on campus right now. But I am confident once we get to work then we quickly start cutting costs.” Currently, the staff of the Office is on university payroll but cannot begin work till the addition is completed, as stipulated by their contract.

In addition to monitoring all University expenditures, the plan entails interviews with every member of the teaching and administrative staff. The records from these interviews will then be destroyed and the interviews run again. “We’re hoping that the first round of interviews will be like a ‘trial run’ and the second time we will get more accurate results,” Simonson explained. “It is really important to be thorough, and that means sparing no expense to find ways to make the campus and overall education experience more affordable for the average student.”

Though most people expected the savings from this study to aid tuition costs for struggling families, Simonson assured the administration that this was not so in an open meeting between Simonson and the rest of the department heads last week. “Students can obviously meet the demands of a tuition that puts them in a life time of debt or they wouldn’t be here, why would we change that?” When asked what the hypothetical savings would go towards, Simonson did say there were some definite options on the table. “Right now Lehigh is really struggling with ways to pay for the new monolithic STEPS building which is running at least $7 million over budget at $62.1 million. We are also looking at ways to fund this study because right now we are running way over budget. The truth is, despite Lehigh’s award winning endowment and above average tuition, we simply do not have the money for simple things like a 135,000 square foot building such as STEPS.”

Despite Lehigh’s current policy of raising tuition at least three percent every year, many students are convinced the University has their best interest in mind and will lower tuition. “I’m glad the University is doing this study,” one sophomore said. “The University is going to save tons of money and tuition will have to go down. It’s simple economics.”

Parents are equally excited by the new study. “I took out a second mortgage on my house to help pay for my son’s education, so I am relieved to see that it is going towards a good cause,” said one parent. Another parent remarked, “I am always agitated when I hear more money is being spent on stupid things like financial aid and scholarships. This is finally something that has a practical application for us normal people.”

Though formal meetings are pending on the completion of their office, Simonson claims he and his associates have several ideas for cost-saving measures. “One of the biggest expenditures comes from residence hall’s power usage so it was obvious to us to start there. Right now we are looking at cutting supply power to the residence areas during quiet hours. That saves energy, saves money, and helps to enforce quiet hours: win, win, win. It’s progressive ideas such as that one that we are aiming for in this study.”

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Lehigh should be factually and intellectually honest when it comes to sustainability. Currently, most of Lehigh’s efforts to become more sustainable revolve around small changes – things that cost little and accomplish even less. The one notable exception to this is the new Steps building, which is extremely costly and still does not accomplish much in terms of making Lehigh “greener.” Everything Lehigh does accomplish is made highly visible. Even Rauch’s test of a “new eco-friendly printer” received a feature length article in the Brown and White.

So Lehigh can keep making highly visible, cost-effective changes that have little effect on the environment or Lehigh’s carbon footprint. But that is the easy way out; it’s like turning in your younger brother’s algebra homework to your calculus professor and then patting yourself on the back. Certainly, we do not want Lehigh to be in that business. To be intellectually honest, Lehigh has two options: make transformational changes to Lehigh so that it truly is environmentally friendly, or admit that cost is what really drives their decisions and that it really does not matter how environmentally friendly campus facilities are.

Given that choice, Lehigh should do both, since the two philosophies do not contradict each other. Lehigh can look to be a leader in innovating sustainable products and systems. Doing so has several benefits. Lehigh can bring in research funding, researchers, institutional renown, and all of the things that Lehigh needs as an institution. It will provide students interested in such subjects the opportunity to be involved in research, and provide them with opportunities not otherwise available. Lastly, it has a chance to lead to a breakthrough that will lead to large advancements in sustainability in the future.

Going hand-in-hand with the aforementioned strategy for making real progress, Lehigh should come out and say that research and a high-quality education is Lehigh’s priority. In doing that, Lehigh should throw all of the silly token-environmentalist acts by the whey side. President Gast should be working to establish energy research here, not signing silly climate commitments. She should disband panels like LEAG, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, and let these professors and administrators worry about – here is a thought – teaching and administrating. Instead of posting signs asking students to shower less, they could work on finding a better way to recycle the water that we do use.

According to the Lehigh’s strategic plan, Lehigh is looking to stand out. While some in academia may view this policy as hypocritical. However, some would appreciate the honesty in the statement. The only reason any school actually enacts green policies is a) save money or b) brag about being green. Lehigh should expose this policy, and reject it. Lehigh should work for big advancements and innovations, and not play the political correctness game of “my green is better than your green.” In the end, it will be a net positive for Lehigh, its students, and the environment.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

Sustainability. It sounds good, doesn’t it? And it’s a win-win, too… or so they say. After all, what could be wrong with using less – waste not want not, and of course, we save money, which is good, right?

Give me a break. The single largest fallacy held by a mass of people in unison, aside from balloon boy, is the notion of environmental sustainability. Anyone who participates in the green movement at this moment, and believes that they are making any sort of difference because the university doesn’t turn a blind ear to their thoughts is deluded and ignorant.

This “movement” is a purely aesthetic concoction, bent on economic sustainability more so than environmental. And rightly so! Lehigh is competing (as staffer David Gritz, ’12 so acutely noted previously) with schools for research dollars, undergraduate (read: cash flow) students, and quality names for pie-in-the-sky academic movements that produce graduates who gross enough income to “sustain” the continued existence of this institution.

LEAG, STEPS, and Green Action are poster projects. And while I can’t deny that valuable biological and physical research will likely arise from the STEPS initiative, the new facility shares something in common with its grandfather, Iacocca Hall: both will transition into expensive architectural obsolescence. Back in ’59 when architectural powerhouse Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, conceived Iacocca it too featured innovative environmentally friendly notions like the reflecting pool, which was piped with condenser coils to exchange heat from the air conditioning system.

The problem was, this seemingly elegant system was both inefficient and costly to maintain. In 1986, when Lehigh acquired Iacocca (then called the Homer Research Labs) from the Bethlehem Steel Corp, one of the first things VP of Facilities Planning Anthony Corallo did was decouple the reflecting pool and install modern condensers, leaving an 8-foot deep, 1.5-million gallon pool full of rusty pipes. Sadly, even water-feature-friendly Lehigh couldn’t save the fountain (an insurance hazard), and in 2006 when the Alumni Memorial Parking Garage was constructed, much of the backfill from the excavation ended up in the fountain, filling it in and sealing its fate.

Sound familiar? STEPS is supposedly festooned with special “energy-saving” features like wind generators, electromechanical louvers to control natural light glare, and the famous grass roof (where no one can toss a Frisbee). I’d put money on it that in 25 years, when I come back for my class’s reunion, that roof will be leaking, the generators will be a giant ornament, and the louvers will have long-since been disabled due to scarcity of parts and repair talent.

It’s not an outright bad thing to care about the environment so much that you’d buy fair-trade products (which ironically carry a heavier carbon footprint than run-of-the-mill produce and coffee), compost in your back yard, sell your car, and bitch & moan to all of those who pass by (on Open House day, no less, Green Action!) with a half-hearted protest expressing your arrogant distaste for the university’s reluctance to capitulate to your every whim and will.

However, know that you have become a PR tool for the university to use in marketing its campus to other students who think they have found their cause. Know that the “no tray” policy was a cost-saver for Sodexo/ Wood Dining (hence why they didn’t eliminate it in the a-la-carte Upper UC café), and that neither Dining Services, nor the University truly deeply cares about your cause.

This movement, much like actual real global climate change (a natural, cyclic occurrence) happens in cycles. In the 1970s, so-called “global cooling” and an abundance of yuppies with disposable income created the first green movement; this is no different. Many so-called “green” products and ideas are less than such– like washing glasses rather than using disposable paper cups. I will never pay some sketch “fund” to “offset” my carbon, I do not support cap and trade (read: anti-capitalist) bills, and I am not so naïve as to think that this university, nee, the thinking, air-breathing public gives a damn about sustainability.

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Lehigh needs to move incrementally in order to become more sustainable. The STEPS building is a huge investment in sustainability, however it reflects the university’s reluctance to disturb the status quo. Students and faculty alike will be pleased with a shiny new building – as the administration opts to construct sustainability rather than curb the habits of faculty and students.

It is possible, however, for the administration to implement changes that will be small enough not to disturb students, as well as, foster sustainable habits. First off, the printers in every building and dorm should be calibrated for automatic double-sided printing. Students and faculty should have to seek out settings for single-sided printing, not the other way around. When replacing water fixtures in any building the university should consider low flow options. While evaluating transportation options available to students, the university should not only look for the most efficient routes, but also consider replacing old vehicles with alternative fuel transportation. In the dining halls, locally grown or organic food options are not only environmentally friendly, but also delicious. These are all relatively minor changes that the administration should look to implement in the near future.

Though there are much more drastic measures that could be taken, small incremental actions such as these will create a more sustainable university without too much disruption to, or outcry from, students or faculty.

David Gritz, Class of 2012

Lehigh can increase its sustainability and decrease its carbon footprint by abiding two principles of leadership:

(1) Don’t Micromanage – Contrary to the lessons of big bureaucracy, finding small problems and supporting the average student at the cost of the overachiever is not a goal of sustainability. Instead of focusing on individual energy consumers like students or charging for printing privileges, administrators and policy-makers should look at the entire system.

Starting with a systems map of all power consumption, GHG production, and resource use will allow the University to see what is happening. Using this map, a Pareto chart should be created to find the largest consumers. The chart will identify how the university can make large-scale changes and large-scale impacts. Instead of spending money on building “greener” individual specifications for the STEPS building, Lehigh might be better off building a geothermal cooling system for the buildings like Yale.

Furthermore, less time can be wasted and less people can be upset if we consult sustainability professionals. These professionals will focus on implementation of changes and not university politics. For example hiring a professional like Andrea Wittchen of iSpring Associates, sustainability group, would be more effective than tasking a group of volunteer professors in a green group.

(2) Think big – In order to substantially effect the course of sustainability on a national or global scale, Lehigh cannot limit its thinking to internal causes. If we want to make an impact, we have to help other people that are major consumers of energy and producers of toxins. Expansive change can be executed through centers of excellence and student support.

By supporting the Enterprise Systems Center’s creation of a National Center for Sustainable Manufacturing, Lehigh can make a large step towards setting national standards and providing applied research to the biggest users, companies and governmental organizations. Lehigh should not take an ad-hoc approach of a council here or a department there. We should make a unified approach that is connect to real world problems.

Similarly, students should be given the authority and legitimacy to act along with faculty as partners and not subjects. Student organizations should rise to the occasion of national action. By partnering with larger organizations like EcoEarth or Second Nature, students can cause changes nationally. Students could offer free education seminars to the residents on how to reduce energy costs or help local business with their sustainability efforts.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The sustainability movement must first be realistic about its goals. Opponents justifiably bristle at the suggestion that we can save the environment, lower tuition and overtake the Ivy League just by switching to fluorescent light bulbs. In this regard, Professor Dork Sahagian was wrong when he told the Brown and White, “It’s our impact on the world that matters.” Steps that make our campus more sustainable or climate-friendly have no global consequences. We should be instrumentalists regarding the environment – seizing the mantle of sustainability to enhance student experience.

Thus far, the administration’s approach to this issue has been utterly incoherent. There are at least three campus environmental groups, including the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, the Environmental Coalition and the Environmental Initiative. All of these efforts fly under the radar at best, or worse, they make the University look ineffectual and incompetent. High profile projects, like the STEPS building, are far more effective. If the University takes the lead and puts its money where its mouth is, students will be far more responsive.

Put sustainability in terms that Lehigh students will understand. Don’t tell us we can save the environment by walking instead of driving to class. Remind us that we can be the billionaires of tomorrow if we invent, engineer, or finance green technology. Recruit professors who are passionate about finding practical solutions to the energy crisis – not professors who are going to rant about how we’re all going to drown when the sea levels rise.

Piecemeal steps like those currently being peddled as a sustainability strategy won’t result in any progress. Big ideas and the execution of those ideas will be necessary to bring about the systemic changes that will define our future. If Lehigh is serious about contending in the global marketplace, we must realize that sustainability begins at Lehigh, but the focus should be on the bigger picture.

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.

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

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.

Dear Readers,

The December issue of the Lehigh Patriot is available at various locations around campus, just in time for finals. Articles will be posted online this weekend, but until then feel free to discuss the issue here. Thank you for reading, and good luck on your finals!

Benjamin Mumma

Editor-in-Chief, The Lehigh Patriot