Month: October 2012

Elaine Lac

Staff Writer

The foreign policy debate this round focused on several key countries and the United States’ relationship with them: Libya, Syria, Iran, Israel and China. In this last debate, President Barack Obama had to redeem himself after two lackluster debates against Mitt Romney. I believe he proved himself in his foreign policy expertise.

The current issues in Libya began with an attack on Sept. 11, where armed Islamic combatants entered the U.S. Consulate in the city of Benghazi. In the attack, a U.S. ambassador and three others were killed. Obama focused on his success in Libya. There was an effort to secure American safety, liberate Libya and assist rebels affiliated with the United States. He displayed more tact than Romney, and even though Obama could have been criticized for his response to the attack and intelligence failure, Romney didn’t press the issue.

On the issue of Syria, Obama has made it clear that he will provide assistance to rebels, but no arms. Romney, on the other hand, supported arms, but there was no clear evidence why he felt this way. Obama cautioned Romney and described him as reckless. Romney had little to respond with and merely repeated the need for arms distribution.

The Iran argument centered on Obama’s lack of crippling sanctions and military involvement, as well as getting rid of nuclear weapons. Romney criticized Obama on not placing sanctions on Iran, and once again Obama successfully countered by explaining that those sanctions on Iran were crippling. He also managed to get other countries to agree with these regulations which made them more powerful. Romney was left without a counter, and for the most part agreed with Obama’s stance.

Both candidates agreed that Israel was America’s greatest ally in the Middle East. When a hypothetical situation was brought up where Israel was about to bomb Iran, Romney refused to reveal his actions in the matter. He strongly believed that he would never be put in that situation. Romney’s refusal to answer showed me his inability to respond to high-stress situations, and made me doubt him more about this ability.

China became an opportunity for the two candidates to bring up economic policies again. Obama stated that China was to be treated as an ally and an enemy. They need to start following trade rules, and the import of Chinese goods needed to stop in order to create jobs. Romney tried to counter and say that cheap goods would save Americans money. Obama countered, saying that by stopping Chinese production of goods, there would be more American jobs created, which is the ultimate goal. Obama further criticized Romney for shipping jobs overseas because it was a cheaper alternative to the domestic workforce. He highlighted Romney’s contradictory business practices.

This debate ultimately did little to highlight the candidates’ differing policies. Romney lacks experience in foreign policy and focuses on touting his business expertise instead. While he may have this, he lacks well-roundedness on all of the duties of a president. During most of the debate, he agreed with Obama and only seemed to differ slightly for the sake of creating an argument. Obama has more consistency in all of the debates, and especially on topics of foreign policy. He was constantly fact-checking Romney and calling him out for discrepancies. I trust Obama more with the country. He knows what he’s talking about, and he has more experience considering his past term as president. Romney only appeals to me because he claims that he knows how to work with Democrats and Republicans to create policy. This is the type of change needed in the legislature, but how much of that is true? Only the election will tell, but as of now, Obama seems to have the clear advantage.

Elaine Lac

Staff Writer

Affirmative action is well-intended, but it undermines the ability of hard-working Americans. It was meant to help historically discriminated and disadvantaged races gain footing in higher education and better employment. Minorities tend to come from lower economic backgrounds, blocking them from opportunities and perpetuating their economic status. To level the playing field, many universities, for example, are partial to minorities during admission processes.

The recent, heavily debated Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas will likely redefine higher education preferential racial policies. Current policies allow universities to count race in admission policies holistically. This was previously determined by Grutter v. Bollinger after it was ruled that race could not be a quantified factor in admissions. In other words, affirmative action was overruled, but racial preference in admissions was not.

America was founded on the idea of equal opportunity for all. Affirmative action contradicts this by providing certain races an advantage over other races. It undermines the hard work of all students.

Affirmative action also often places students from lower class backgrounds into entirely different and unfamiliar surroundings where most students are from middle- to upper-class upbringings. This creates issues of integration, and students might struggle socially and make them feel isolated and depressed. Is it worth it?

Introducing diversity is an important goal for many institutions. For many students, college could be the most diverse place they are exposed to. Students from diverse backgrounds provide different perspectives that would be otherwise ignored in homogenous campuses. Students may not understand the issues of people outside of their social class, and understanding these issues allows people to be productive and sympathetic members of society.

The University tries a great deal to introduce diversity through multicultural events, the Posse scholarship program and the like. This is a much needed goal for its development. The University is an excellent educational institute, but the students primarily attracted to the school come from the same backgrounds and areas. Affirmative action seems like a good solution at this point.

It is difficult to consolidate students from diverse backgrounds and academic merit. Students with similar academic credentials tend to have the same upbringing whether they are minorities or not. Racial preference should not be done away with completely, but there needs to be an understanding between those admitted and those rejected. Minority students should be clear about the conditions of their acceptance. Was their race a factor? How do they compare academically? Will they be happy?

The gap between the admitted minority students and non-minority students’ academic performance should be closed. This can be justified either by the quality of their extracurricular activities or potential. Was it comparatively more difficult for one student to achieve honors than another student from an advantaged background? Does this equal harder work?

The Supreme Court will probably reform affirmative action, but not do away with it. It is valuable for diversity, albeit contradictory to American ideals. Sometimes exceptions have to be made for the greater good. In the interest of enriching the overall development of collegiate students, racial preferential policies are needed in higher institutions.

Spencer Ivey

Writer

Do you want good grades? There’s a pill for that. Adderall is an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug that is becoming increasingly known to be a remedy for more than just this ailment.

If increased academic performance and Zen-like focus is as simple as swallowing a pill, then why not? The underlying issues here, which many 4.0-seeking college students might not choose to consider, pertain to unfair advantages and unclear medical consequences. The widespread availability of ADHD drugs like Adderall, in conjunction with a highly competitive college environment like the one on campus, is suppressing many students’ sense of good judgment.

To illustrate the ethical issues behind this matter, let’s take a look at the recent issue of Lance Armstrong with doping. Armstrong was taking performance-enhancing drugs on a regular basis and was able to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Of course, this is completely illegal and Armstrong is now suffering the consequences. The unsanctioned use of ADHD drugs to get ahead in schoolwork raises similar red flags, but colleges can only do so much to try to prohibit this behavior. Students who complete their work under their own power can do nothing but compete against the cheaters. Furthermore, kids and adults are now prescribed these drugs at an increasing rate, which creates widespread availability on college campuses. When the work piles up, as it often does, many students consider ADHD drugs to be the go-to study aids rather than a quiet, distraction-free study environment. Unfortunately, intense academic competition at the University can drive students to resort to these extremes.

Beyond ethical concerns, we must also consider the physical consequences of using ADHD drugs without the consent of a doctor. These drugs can cause both physical and mental addictions, and the scientific community has yet to complete many conclusive studies on the effects of their long-term use. Students without prescriptions waste a great deal of money buying these medications and may even go as far as faking a disease to get a prescription.

In the short term, students might get great grades using ADHD drugs and feel perfectly content with their decision to participate in this illicit activity. However, this approach seems shortsighted to me. I believe that these students will regret their decision in the long run when they are struggling to find a natural way to complete their work. Yet, the use of ADHD medications without a prescription to get ahead in school will not fade easily. The reward is too enticing, and a school with the University’s prestige is not going to ease up on academic rigor anytime soon.

El McCabe

Writer

Fall at the University is not only the time when academics are heating up, but it is also a time of beautiful trees, leaves and brisk air. When walking around campus, it is impossible not to notice the numerous shades of the rainbow in the leaves of our picturesque trees. After all, the University is ranked among the most beautiful colleges in the nation. There are also perks to living in the town of Lewisburg itself this fall season.

For example, Ard’s Farm is an opportunity unique to Lewisburg. Ard’s Farm is a restaurant, mom-and-pop shop, pumpkin patch, corn maze and market all in one. There are shuttles from the University that take students to the farmer’s market every Friday, making it an easy and perfect way to start a weekend. You can purchase pumpkins to carve for hall bonding or even just to decorate your room. Finally, Ard’s Farmer’s Market is a fun change of pace and offers an easy way to take a break from Caf food. The menu features delicious pulled pork sandwiches, fresh burgers, shepherd’s pie and countless other delicious items.

Additionally, downtown Lewisburg offers many fun fall- and Halloween-themed events. This Saturday there is a “Rocky Horror” showing at the campus theatre–admission includes a prop bag–and the ticket itself is only $10. This event highlights Lewisburg’s spirit during fall and excitement towards Halloween.

Lewisburg is the ideal place to live this fall because of the town’s dedication to and appreciation for the arts. Between performances at the Weis Center for the Performing Arts by musicians, singers and groups, and art galleries in town and along the Poetry Path, it would be an understatement to call Lewisburg “cultured.” Not many college towns offer such diverse ranges of expression in the arts, and students should definitely take advantage of what our town has to offer.