Author: Rob Duffy

The University’s chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity (SAE) has been accused of hazing and illegal alcohol and drug use. The University, which claims to have accumulated substantial evidence against SAE, is threatening the chapter with either suspension from the University or criminal charges. We support the University’s “zero tolerance” anti-hazing policy and hope that, if the allegations against SAE are true, the University acts harshly and justly in response.

Considering the huge number of policies the Greek office creates but doesn’t effectively enforce (for example, the “no unregistered parties” rule, the “no mixers” rule, and the wristband rule for registered parties, among many others), we are happy to see the administration taking action on this problem. We are especially happy to see the problem being addressed before someone has gotten badly hurt.

We suspect that hazing is much more rampant at this University than administrators formally acknowledge. As is evident from the widespread binge drinking that takes place approximately three times a week, many students have a habit of being reckless, apparently assuming that nothing bad will happen to them. At least some students seem to apply this dangerous attitude to the concept of hazing as well.

The student body has no excuse not to know what hazing is, especially considering all of the educational programs that members of the Greek system are forced to attend. However, peer pressure reinforces whatever systems are already in place. Even students uncomfortable with what is going on find themselves in a lose-lose situation: if they speak up in objection, they risk alienating themselves and being ostracized from their desired group of friends. Although we may question why a student would want to be friends with a group insistent on hazing, having to find an entirely new group of friends is a formidable task that is much easier said than done. It is unsurprising, then, that students might prefer to endure hazing than risk this other option.

For this reason, change realistically must come from the group level rather than the individual level. Organizations that haze, including non-Greek students as well, must rethink their procedures and reevaluate their priorities. Students must reaffirm a commitment to actually caring about the people they are ostensibly initiating as friends. Such a commitment is completely incompatible with hazing.

We applaud the Greek office and University administration for taking action, because students need a wake-up call. Hopefully this can be that wake-up call; hopefully we won’t need to see a body.

In the past week, allegations have surfaced accusing best-selling author Greg Mortenson of fabricating parts of his book “Three Cups of Tea” and mismanaging funds intended for his nonprofit organization. This controversy is making the University confront two difficult questions: first, whether the book should still be used for next year’s first-year reading experience; and second, whether Mortenson should be brought to campus to speak in the Bucknell Forum as originally planned.

In regard to the first question, we do not think that the controversy undermines the value of “Three Cups of Tea” as a first-year reading experience, and we suspect that, if anything, it might even enhance it. Is the value of a book necessarily fundamentally changed by the fact that it may not be strictly true? Must controversies regarding a book’s author necessarily taint the message of a book? We’re not so sure; we suspect that what the reader gets out of the book might be what really matters.

The controversy surrounding “Three Cups of Tea” will open up whole new possibilities for topics of discussion among first-year students. Discussions can still center on the actual content of the book, but now they can include additional intriguing topics such as ethics, morality, and academic dishonesty. Even the topic of whether the book should have been used can now be a legitimate point of discussion. Furthermore, the scandal might compel students to pay more attention to the book than they might have otherwise. Even if their ultimate judgments are critical, they can be taught how to make these criticisms in academically useful ways. At any rate, controversy often makes a book more interesting, so we should take advantage of this opportunity to capture student interest.

The question of whether to have Mortenson speak in the Bucknell Forum is more complicated because doing so would be not merely using his book, but directly honoring him. It would implicitly link him with the renowned and highly-respected speakers who have appeared at the Bucknell Forum in the past, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jody Williams, Twyla Tharp, Niall Ferguson, and most recently Brian Greene. As a University, we must carefully consider whether we actually want to do that.

It’s not as if the Forum hasn’t also welcomed controversial speakers in the past. For example, it allowed Doris Kearns Goodwin to speak in September 2008 despite the accusations of plagiarism that she faced; it also allowed Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak in March 2009 despite widespread debates about the way in which she characterized Muslims. However, these weren’t among the University’s most positive moments, so we can’t recommend that they consciously be repeated. Furthermore, if—as was demonstrated last fall—first-years can’t even maintain respect for someone like Howard Gardner, forcing them to attend a talk by Mortenson may be asking for trouble.

Still, Mortenson’s message is positive and powerful, even if he may not live up to it himself. We don’t think that the message should be completely forgotten because of largely unproven allegations. But we do hope that the University holds him up to the same standards as it would any other major speaker.