Question: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

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.

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

Question: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

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. 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.

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

The question posed to our editorial staff was: How should Lehigh’s administration deal with underage alcohol consumption?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gritz, Class of 2012

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

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

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

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

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Last year, President Gast voiced her concerns with signing the Amethyst Initiative, leaving the administration with fewer options involving cooperation with the Student Senate on the issue of underage alcohol consumption. Vice Provost of Student Affairs, John Smeaton, has acknowledged that the administration takes note to “separate abuse from use”, but it remains to be seen whether this view will be carried out in new policies and events undertaken by the administration. Minimal backlash from students will be seen if the administration assumes this viewpoint in its implementation of policy to curb underage alcohol consumption. The administration must focus on alcohol abuse and the dangers it poses to students, rather than alcohol’s overall use by Lehigh’s underage population.

The Student Senate seems willing to offer student input, and more importantly, wants a more active role in creating discussion and events designed to educate the student body and promote safe and healthy drinking habits – and the administration should grant them this responsibility. Student to student discussion and education will prove far more useful and effective than executive orders by President Gast or harsh University-wide sanctions. The administration should utilize the Senate as an important tool of connection and communication to the student body.

Overall, the administration and the Student Senate must move past the hindrance of signing the Amethyst Initiative and focus on the issue of underage alcohol abuse. The administration should work with the Senate because their cooperation will be key in implementing a solution that both the student body and the administration can appreciate. Together their goal should be to educate the students with safety as a priority, rather than the impractical focus of eliminating underage alcohol consumption altogether.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The drinking age debate is doomed. The most passionate advocates for reform have three years to make their case. Then one day, they miraculously stop caring, or worse, they join the opposition.

Attrition is not the only problem, of course. There are no new arguments to be made. Compelling statistics overwhelmingly support a 21-year-old drinking age, and the political will for change is non-existent.

However, that the drinking age is and will remain 21 does little to rationalize the way the law has been enforced here at Lehigh. The administration is in the precarious situation of trying to reform our ‘party-school’ image while somehow retaining it – because, well, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

If candor were the order of the day, President Gast could express skepticism about strictly enforcing a 21-year-old drinking age. Most 18-20 year-olds at Lehigh drink regularly, and the law is hardly a deterrent. But Lehigh is under the yoke of two separate but overlapping police forces: the LUPD and the Bethlehem Police Department. In recent years, the Bethlehem Police have received grants from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Those grants provide the money to pay the small army of cops on bikes that patrol the South Side each fall.

As such, it is difficult for the University to find the right tone with which to address this issue. A more progressive attitude could create the illusion of amnesty for underage drinkers or risk undermining the authority of the police.

To walk this tightrope, the administration should reiterate that its primary concern is the safety and security of Lehigh students – safety from alcohol abuse, to be sure, but also from a tarnished permanent record and from the physical dangers of South Bethlehem.

The LUPD should coordinate with the Bethlehem Police so that underage-drinking citations are handled through the University disciplinary system – not a kangaroo court above a video rental store. The University should then scale back the severity of the punishment for first-time offenders so that students stop fearing the police. With this ironclad partnership between students and law enforcement in place, maybe the Bethlehem Police Department will turn its attention to some “real” problems – like plasma TVs with legs.

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.

Many believe that the role of art in society is to define the culture of a certain time and place. At Lehigh, such art is all around, whether you have noticed it or not. I have divided the art seen at Lehigh into three distinct categories: Art, Modern Art, and Stall Art. Their existence at Lehigh and student’s responses to them provide an interesting look at Lehigh’s culture.

Art

Traditional art consists of the paintings, stained glass windows, and other established methods of expression. Even the architecture of buildings like Alumni Memorial and Packer Chapel satisfy the definition of expressing something about Lehigh.  While such displays are everywhere, they go completely unnoticed by a sizeable portion of the Lehigh population. How often do students walk by Alumni Memorial each day, without realizing how incredible a structure it is? Can you describe the paintings on display in Rauch Lobby right now? Traditional art receives the least attention from Lehigh students. This is a sad fact, because the art is all downhill from here.

Modern Art

Chunk - The Museum of Modern Art

Lehigh, for an unknown reason, has been able to acquire a great deal of interesting sculptures that have been strewn haphazardly across the campus. These sculptures can be broadly defined as modern art. While the definition of modern art is tough to determine, I generally use a simple test which requires answering only three questions:

1. Do you think it is pretty?
2. Do you know what the artist was trying to express?
3. Did you initially wonder how you ended up at a junkyard?

If you answer ‘no’ to two out of three of the above questions, you are probably looking at modern art. My personal favorite is not at Lehigh yet, but my hope is that a generous alumnus will send “Chunk” (pictured below) from the Museum of Modern Art to Lehigh where it belongs. While “Chunk” may not provide as many drunk-photo opportunities as pieces like the model student or woman on bench, I am sure students would find a way to utilize some of its finer qualities.

Stall Art

Stall Art - Lehigh University

Lastly, we arrive at the art that Lehigh students are most intimately involved with: stall art. The public restroom has always served as a hub for news, rumors, and more. Thanks to Lehigh dining, many students spend a good portion of their day frequenting some of the many stalls around campus.

This, inevitably, leads to expressions that come directly from Lehigh students. As such, they provide the most detail about the culture at Lehigh and provide a great way for all students to learn on the job. Lessons in anatomy, philosophy, and even physics can all be found around campus.

For those freshmen who need a quick social lesson, stall art at Lehigh provides that too. A quick tour through several stalls can provide anyone with a good idea of which fraternities house the cool guys, and which fraternities no one likes. Events like Meet the Greeks and open houses are meant to be the way students are introduced to Greek life. However, stall art has allowed many savvy freshmen to form preconceived notions before they even head up on the Hill.

Stall art may not be as refined as its partners on campus are. However, no one can deny that a visit to several public bathrooms on campus would give prospective students a much better idea of life at Lehigh than a stroll down University walkway.

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

The drinking age debate is doomed. The most passionate advocates for reform have three years to make their case. Then one day, they miraculously stop caring, or worse, they join the opposition.

Attrition is not the only problem, of course. There are no new arguments to be made. Compelling statistics overwhelmingly support a 21-year-old drinking age, and the political will for change is non-existent.

However, that the drinking age is and will remain 21 does little to rationalize the way the law has been enforced here at Lehigh. The administration is in the precarious situation of trying to reform our ‘party-school’ image while somehow retaining it – because, well, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

If candor were the order of the day, President Gast could express skepticism about strictly enforcing a 21-year-old drinking age. Most 18-20 year-olds at Lehigh drink regularly, and the law is hardly a deterrent. But Lehigh is under the yoke of two separate but overlapping police forces: the LUPD and the Bethlehem Police Department. In recent years, the Bethlehem Police have received grants from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Those grants provide the money to pay the small army of cops on bikes that patrol the South Side each fall.

As such, it is difficult for the University to find the right tone with which to address this issue. A more progressive attitude could create the illusion of amnesty for underage drinkers or risk undermining the authority of the police.

To walk this tightrope, the administration should reiterate that its primary concern is the safety and security of Lehigh students – safety from alcohol abuse, to be sure, but also from a tarnished permanent record and from the physical dangers of South Bethlehem.

The LUPD should coordinate with the Bethlehem Police so that underage-drinking citations are handled through the University disciplinary system – not a kangaroo court above a video rental store. The University should then scale back the severity of the punishment for first-time offenders so that students stop fearing the police. With this ironclad partnership between students and law enforcement in place, maybe the Bethlehem Police Department will turn its attention to some “real” problems – like plasma TVs with legs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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