Author: Elizabeth Bacharach

Joshua Haywood

Contributing Writer

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is overreaching its authority as a regulatory organization when it comes to students’ conduct off the field, specifically in the realm of social media. Two recent suspensions handed down by the organization acted as a response to two players’ posts on Twitter and have started a controversy over what role, if any, the NCAA should play in monitoring player conduct in the social media arena.

It played out similar to a case of states’ rights versus federal authority in which each individual university represents a state in the union who has established their own unique set of rules. The NCAA acts as the federal government, which can place sanctions on organizations, as well as individual players who break rules set forth by the organization’s by-laws. Recently, Lehigh wide receiver Ryan Spadola and Stony Brook linebacker Matt Faiella were suspended over a tweet that Faiella, whose account at the time was set to private, posted that Spadola subsequently retweeted and happened to contain a racial epithet. The tweet was not directed at anyone in particular but was rather a response to Faiella’s friend, in regard to an opposing player supposedly talking trash. The NCAA determined this comment to be inappropriate, thus suspending the involved students.

“This was a very unfortunate incident, but racially insensitive characterizations are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The offensive language of this nature by Mr. Spadola, whether intentional or not, was unsportsmanlike and discredited the championship overall,” the NCAA said.

Monitoring this behavior does not seem to be appropriate. The issue should have been left up to the school. I agree with the NCAA that the content of the tweet was inappropriate, but disagree with the suspensions because I feel as if the organization overextended its control into a player’s life off the field. There seems to be a lack of personal privacy on behalf of the NCAA, as the punishment should have ultimately fallen in the schools’ hands. Interesting enough, the NCAA does not have any official policy that establishes rules for social media use and has stated that it does not plan on establishing such rules any time soon. This being said, nothing could have changed the outcome other than the NCAA reversing its decision as the organization’s power supersedes any university’s set of rules.

The NCAA is setting a dangerous precedent as the ruling monarch of college athletics. It seemingly opens Pandora’s Box as to how much power the organization has over college athletics and a player’s right to freedom of expression, as well as defining what level of personal privacy is to be expected. The ruling in this case was not based upon a set guideline, but rather on the organization’s discretion. The NCAA is trampling over a university’s right to control their own students and is totally unwarranted in their suspension of the two players, leaving more questions than answers. What if people in the situation changed and the players involved had been of the other race? Would the event’s final outcome been different? Who is the NCAA to even define what players can and cannot say off the field, and what is their justification behind it? What will this mean for future student athletes who are active social media users?

When all the dust settles and the smoke clears, the precedent set by the NCAA is too overpowering and takes away the ability to determine proper conduct from the university. I am not condoning what was tweeted in any way, but I do believe that the right to free speech and privacy greatly outweighs the NCAA’s control over player expression.

By Connor Small

Contributing Writer

On Feb. 7, proponents of same-sex marriage won another victory, as the California State Court of Appeals overturned Proposition 8 by a 2-1 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry in California. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Washington D.C. are the only other states to recognize same-sex marriage. While this decision is a step in the right direction, it has only reignited the debate.

In his dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith states same-sex marriage laws are to be treated in the same manner as laws regarding bestiality, incest and polygamy, saying, “Gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class” and are thus not entitled to the courts’ increased scrutiny of laws that affect them. In the opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins say that Proposition 8 “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

While I am inclined to agree with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins, I can understand where some of the opposition comes from. Much of the antagonism to same-sex marriage comes from the fact that it conflicts with many sacred laws (the most prominent being that of Christianity) that argue that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. While this may seem legitimate to religious groups, any argument against same-sex marriage that is argued from a religious standpoint should be moot because it conflicts with constitutional law and also goes against many of the teachings of these religions.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Therefore, any line of reasoning against same-sex marriage based on religious grounds should be defeated. But this is not the case, as gay-rights activists still struggle to push through legislation in the majority of the United States.

Lately, same-sex marriage has been a growing issue around the world. While same-sex marriage is legally recognized in a number of countries such as Canada, Argentina, South Africa and Spain, many countries in Africa and the Middle East uphold severe penalties for engaging in same-sex relations, such as life in prison or even the death penalty. While such penalties seem horrific to Americans, it is sadly just a way of life in these countries.

Some opponents argue that homosexuals should be allowed to enter in civil unions, saving marriage strictly for heterosexuals, but civil unions do not grant all of the rights marriage does. While marriage is recognized in all states, this is not the case for civil unions, which are recognized by some states, but not others. Couples in civil unions are also unable to file joint tax returns, allowing for certain tax breaks which are only afforded to married couples.

At the risk of sounding like a hippie, in my opinion, this issue comes down to two main points: freedom and love. I believe that everybody, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation should be afforded the same rights. If all men are created equal, then why can’t two men have the same rights as a man and a woman? Why should two people who love each other, who want the same rights as everybody else, not be given them just because they are the same sex? It’s time for the intolerance to stop.

By Sarah Morris

Writer

It’s hard to believe that an organization so powerful for the heath of women everywhere, like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, would ever pull funds from another organization (Planned Parenthood) that works to keep women safe from health issues. It is easy to understand why the public was outraged that the money was pulled due to political issues surrounding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood offers a number of health services to women everywhere who might not be able to afford them otherwise. They offer STD screening, contraceptive methods, pregnancy and prenatal services, family practice services, abortion and, of course, cancer screenings. The last two listed were the main issues for the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

It actually infuriates me that anyone would stop the support of an organization that gives so much help to women simply because they offer a few politically controversial options in their services. I have not had to use Planned Parenthood for anything health related yet, but I have many friends who have gone there for advice on birth control methods and breast cancer screenings. I imagine if I found out I was pregnant, Planned Parenthood would be a service I would be happy to get information from about my options.

Despite the public backlash faced by the Susan G. Komen Foundation after the announcement, the organization remained strong, at first supporting its decision. Recently, though, the Komen Foundation has released a statement declaring the pulling of the funds will be reversed and Planned Parenthood will still be able to apply for grants from the breast cancer foundation. 

This is what is right. Any group that wishes to apply for grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation should not be based on political banter that occurs in America. The issue here is women’s health, and it is good to see the Komen Foundation realized that. Planned Parenthood is an organization we should be proud to have alongside the breast cancer foundation. It shows our dedication to keeping women healthy everywhere against the risk of this killer disease.

By Molly Brown

Contributing Writer

Here at the University, students have copious opportunities for learning, both in and out of the classroom.  From guest lecturers and film screenings to concerts and artistic showcases, there is always something to go see.  Despite the immense opportunities, students do not embrace these occasions as much as they should, or even at their own free will.

Recently I attended a poetry reading by Mark Doty in Bucknell Hall.  Much to my surprise (and delight), it was packed full of students, faculty and members of the Lewisburg community.  As I sat down next to an acquaintance of mine, she turned to me and conversationally asked, “What class are you here for?”  When I responded that I was there by choice she looked astounded.  I surveyed the room and then asked, “Are all these kids here for classes?” The answer was, unfortunately, yes.

I understand that professors require their students to attend lectures outside of class, and this is not a complaint against that but rather a comment on the relative apathy of students to attend academically or artistically-based extracurricular events.  The fact that the common sentiment at one such event is “my professor’s making us go” is deplorable.  The only time there seems to be heavy student involvement is when the scheduled event has a sort of degree of prestige attached to it, like the recent John Legend concert or Herman Boone’s appearance last semester.  As a frequent attendee of events at the Weis Center for the Performing Arts, the John Legend concert was the only time I have seen it at full-capacity, despite the fact that the Weis Center for the Performing Arts brings in some of the highest-caliber artists week after week.

Students at the University are highly motivated, but that motivation should not be limited only to the classroom.  There should be an equal balance of work and play, but we as students are here to learn.  The University is bringing in a wide variety of opportunities for us to broaden our studies, and they are included in our tuition.  At the end of our time here, how wisely will we have spent the hefty sum if we, as a collective body, do not take advantage of these writers, thinkers, innovators and artists?  How can we succeed if we do not take example from those who have and follow their examples?

Many students will use the timing of these events as reasons for their nonattendance.  Many students wish to socialize and have fun after fulfilling their academic duties in class, and these events may take place during the evenings in the prime party times.  It should be noted, however, that most of these events take an hour to an hour and a half at most.  If a lecture starts at 7 p.m. on a Wednesday night, there is still ample time to go out after the event.  The same is true of a performance on a Friday or Saturday evening–they rarely go past 9 or 9:30 p.m.

The flyers promoting the lectures, films, concerts, and readings are not plastered throughout campus because the administration is in want of wallpaper.  They exist to alert the student body to events that carry merit, whether academically, artistically, socially or spiritually, and students need to be aware of this.  If students only attend these events to preserve their letter grades, is this the same mentality in which they plan to live their future jobs and lives, only doing the bare minimum and not seeking to reach their fullest potential?  The choice is up to you.

By Nicole Della Cava

Contributing Writer

Ever wanted to know what it takes to become a model? There’s “America’s Next Top Model.” Do you want to know what it’s like to go to rehab? There’s “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew.” If you really think that becoming a guido or guidette is your next calling, then start watching “Jersey Shore.”

There are reality TV shows that seek actresses, singers, daredevils and dancers, but what real talent do the stars of “Jersey Shore,” “Say Yes to the Dress,” “Hoarders” or “The Real Housewives” really have? Honestly, none of these TV shows really express talent or an importance; what they do have is a real understanding of what drives our generation today.

The directors of the reality TV shows have done their research to find out what our generation finds stimulating and entertaining. In order for a reality TV show to become popular, it must play to the needs, desires and emotions of its viewers. Seeing that the media and entertainment worlds are dominated by the youth, directors know exactly who to attract. Our generation is less conservative and reserved compared to older generations. Reality TV has taken advantage of this fact and turned entertainment into a world of possessions, gossip and dirty humor. People are obsessed with strangers’ relationships, as demonstrated in “The Real Housewives,” embracing a new life during difficult times such as in “Teen Mom,” and competing for the prize in “Survivor.” Who wouldn’t want to be titled the toughest individual, both mentally and physically, on reality TV? Simply stated, our generation today is hooked on reality TV shows like these.

These shows demonstrate that our generation is competitive, imaginative and most importantly, bold. I think, as a general rule, our generation wants to be the best, brightest and most unique in what they love to do. Reality TV humiliates people and shows weaknesses, but in the end, there is always redemption and success that intrigues the audience. That is what our generation today sees in reality TV. If you look at “Teen Mom,” many adults think that their children should not be watching it, for it is about a foolish girl who messed up her life. That girl struggles and through her several mental breakdowns, she is forced to grow up faster than most teenaged girls. “American Idol” transforms ordinary people into famous artists, similarly forcing young adults to grow up in a world of challenges and hard work. 

When our generation looks at these TV shows, they see what it takes to be bold, which enables them to reflect that drive and ambition that they see on TV into their daily lives. Besides, anyone who watches “Jersey Shore” knows that they would never want to act like Snooki or “The Situation,” as they roam around bars and skip out on work. Yes, it is incredible funny to watch, but our generation is smarter and can truthfully say, “Who would ever want to live like that?”

By Jen Mok

Contributing Writer

Our school has set out to better the climate and is making a great effort to address issues such as sexual harassment. Among the many concerns of our campus is the possibility of a romantic relationship between faculty members and students.

Last week, “The Bucknellian” featured an article addressing the new policy presented by the Faculty and Academic Personnel Committee (FAPC) that stated: “Any sexual or romantic relationship between a faculty member and a student may damage the integrity of the academic and living environment at Bucknell, and is therefore strongly discouraged.” This new policy clearly expresses disapproval of and opposition to any sexual affiliation between a faculty member and student.

So there you have it. It is officially inappropriate for students and faculty to engage in intimate relationships. Some of you may be disheartened by this formal declaration, but I completely agree and am content with the committee’s decision.

I personally view professors as adults who have extensively studied their specialties and are mentors who are there to provide both academic and moral guidance. They are people who I have immense respect for and truly appreciate. I would never, no matter how incredibly intelligent, handsome, witty or irresistibly alluring a professor may be, act upon any romantic impulses in order to keep my respect for him first and foremost as my teacher.

I am also against dating a professor because of the inevitable biases and conflicts that would arise. The most crucial detail of a relationship between a professor and a student is that no matter what, the professor is still a teacher. It is highly likely, no matter how unfair, that the student involved would receive extra help due to the nature of the relationship. In addition, a romantic relationship would alter the advice or guidance normally given by the professor and therefore ruin the nature of a teacher-student relationship.

I am also against the age/generation gap between the two individuals. A young professor may be around his late 30s or even early 40s. As a first-year, if I were to date my professor there would be at least an 18-20 year gap. This means that when I was born, my beloved or lover would have already graduated from high school. Can we all think about this for a minute? The numbers clearly show that this is a highly inappropriate relationship. When I was a baby, wearing diapers and sucking on my thumb, my professor was already attending frat parties and researching possible careers. Does that not seem odd?

Popular TV shows such as “Gossip Girl,” “Pretty Little Liars,” “One Tree Hill” and “90210” all have featured some sort of romantic teacher-student relationships. These may have skewed our views by making the professor more charismatic or seductive and making the whole scenario a bit more sexy, dreamy and normal. But as stated above, the realities are far from what is presented on television. Besides, how many of these unrealistic romances actually survived or even concluded on a positive note? You might want to think about that the next time you start crushing on a professor.

By Jasmine King

Contributing Writer

The “BucknellU” Facebook page has started posting an abundance of pictures under the album titled, “Bucknell in Love.” Of course, being the avid Facebook user that I am, I sign on to see at least one new picture a day of cute couples who both attended the University. The various techniques used in each set of pictures and the very attractive people standing in front of our own Rooke Chapel makes you wonder: why would a student not want this for the rest of their lives? College is a place where people can be themselves and be accepted for who they really are; it is no surprise that a lot of students find “true love” here. Not to mention that we are secluded in the “Bucknell Bubble,” making it hard to extend our outlooks anyway. Seeing all of the couples walking around campus, being with someone for the next four years, having fun with their mates here at the University and all of the myths surrounding the concept of “Bucknell in Love” (for example, if you sit on the stone benches in the quad and watch the sunset with someone, you will marry them), a student could feel pressured to find a fellow classmate to spend their life with.

For this writer, this is not the case. I do not feel pressured at all to find a fellow student to serve as my soul mate. In my opinion, it is all overrated anyway. I have been dating the same guy for a little over five years now and he currently attends Penn State. From this, I feel no pressure to find another boy to fill the void. It is possible to find a guy who is not of the same “breed” as that of a University student. But this is overshadowed, as the students here are very similar in the way that they act, dress and their interests in general. To be sucked into our culture is a very easy thing to do and then your entire life revolves around the University. But, then again, true love does not care which school you graduate from or even if you went to school. Students should love whom they want and not worry about the label that comes with it. Most importantly, be happy with the person you have, whether it’s a fellow Bucknellian or your best friend.

By Joshua Haywood

Contributing Writer

There seems to be an orchestrated assault on the middle and lower classes by the GOP, which primarily represents the upper class and special interest business groups. Social mobility appears to be an object of the past as more and more middle class families are being stopped at the door to a better life. I see several things happening on Capitol Hill that signify the GOP’s open opposition to the middle class: the recent rash of anti-union bills in several states and the party stalling until the last minute to extend the payroll tax.

Ever since I started at the University, each trip home convinces me the environment is bleak. I come from Barberton, Ohio, which is right outside of Akron. What upsets me upon return is that I see an increased number of people stuck in low-paying jobs with no hope for social mobility. There is a total lack of opportunity and those who do make it out face a new enemy: the Republican-run state legislature and House of Representatives. My home area used to be filled with jobs in the steel mills or automotive assembly lines, but those establishments have rusted up and blown away with the Lake Erie wind. My town is not unique; there are thousands of towns just like it, some better off and some worse. The country politically has been going in the wrong direction for a long time now and is just starting to get on track. Middle-class citizens are being attacked on the national and state level and the people are getting tired of it.

The first attack is on state workers’ right to collective bargaining, in which they negotiate work conditions such as pay, benefits and hours. The GOP-led initiative of seeking to limit the power of unions in Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin are all examples of the party’s attempt to silence the middle-class worker’s voice in labor. The measures would essentially dismantle union membership for workers in the public sector, which is nothing less than criminal, as it robs the middle class one of its few advantages over the GOP. The lower classes spilled blood fighting for labor rights in the early 20th century and will not tolerate such abhorrent initiatives. If the GOP has not noticed, the middle class is in troubled times trying to make ends meet as it is and will not stand to see its pay disproportionally cut in comparison to that of the wealthy.

Nationally, the attack widens in the wake of House Republican’s acquiescence to the working class over the passage of pay roll tax extensions. The GOP-run House of Representatives initially refused to even increase taxes of those making $1 million a year by a dollar, and were more than willing to let the cuts expire, which could have taken $1,000 a year out from the 160 million in the middle class. Thankfully the GOP heard the voice of reason and decided to go against their un-American stance. Where is the justice in making the people who physically work the most pay more in taxes while the wealthy are free to count their cash? The GOP is destroying itself from the inside because it has lost touch with reality becoming more radical in their attempts to maintain the status quo of middle class domination.

Money is power and power is the control of money. This is what the GOP has mastered over the years thanks to big business and anti-labor lobbying groups. Middle class support for the GOP is declining and will continue to do so at an exponential rate if the party keeps attacking the people who it is supposed to represent. With elections rapidly approaching, the Republican Party better step up its game if it wants to collect kickbacks in the White House any time soon.

By Jen Mok

Contributing Writer

Valentine’s Day – What’s the big deal?

I am by no means against Valentine’s Day. I am simply baffled by the concept of a national holiday dedicated to love. In simple terms, I just do not understand. And no, it is not because I am single or even a dark individual consumed with hate for the very concept of relationships and love. I just do not understand.

What exactly about Valentine’s Day do I not understand? The chocolate, the flowers, the cards, the excessive amounts of red, the lingerie, the extravagant dates or the cultural need for a day devoted to the sentiments of love? The most bothersome of those listed above is undoubtedly our society’s need to dedicate one specific day for those in love.

Valentine’s Day is a blatant reminder, one that is marked in red on everyone’s calendar. It’s a day dedicated to reminding us about our spouses: both literal and imaginative. We are caught fixating on what is (and for those single perspectives, what would be) so wonderful about our better half. Couples claim that the hardships of relationships spawn from the very simple idea that love is difficult. They find it challenging to remember how to rekindle that first spark, that twinge of love, that began it all. Magically, Valentine’s Day (shared by every other couple in the world) is seemingly the perfect time to compromise, forgive, and love.

But isn’t being in love and in a relationship all about conquering those difficulties and staying true to what each other feels? Isn’t every day supposed to be dedicated to the one you love? Valentine’s Day seems to be used as an obligatory peace-offering day. It is as if the other 364 days of the year are spent in discontent with one another and this one day is utilized to show each other affection through, may I add, materialistic objects. I find it a bit upsetting that we need a holiday to remind us to be gracious to those we love and express feelings of appreciation for one another. The very concept of and theology behind love is that we are able to cherish and pour upon our beloved, gracious amounts of admiration and adoration each and every moment. So why have a single, isolated day specifically dedicated to such an act?

The contradictions within the very concept of Valentine’s Day are beyond bewildering. This cultural phenomenon of reuniting couples on a particular date dismisses the very fact that every other day can and should be treated as Valentine’s Day.