Category: Editorial

The University prides itself on its extremely high alumni salary ranking: fourth among liberal arts schools across the nation, according to the Huffington Post. In many senses, it is doing what it is designed to do in a social context—prepare students to succeed in a capitalist culture. Why, then, are they implementing rules and regulations to degrade this dynamic?

In a recent study conducted by University seniors Chandler Hoopes and Morgan Beeson, a direct correlation between socializing and post-graduation income levels was found. These findings leave us to wonder why the administration would continuously attempt to minimalize the Greek presence—the most prevalent social outlet on campus—and to make stricter rules against holding parties on campus.

While we are not saying that students should go out every weekend and binge drink, we are saying that going out on a Friday or Saturday night does, in fact, cultivate important life skills. In light of this fact, The Bucknellian staff cannot help but notice an exponential increase in busted parties this past school year.

What’s more, this increase certainly does not reflect students’ actions; Public Safety has grown more aggressive, but students have not become more obvious. For example, a Greek date party should not be busted for reasons such as, “we heard clinking bottles” (over the loud music of the party? Really?).

Even though the house is registered, Public Safety still possesses the power to come in and break up a social event that without a doubt teaches students valuable lessons about interacting with people. That is something they will need later in life just as much as knowledge of engineering or biology.

With the heightening of these strict policies, the administration is only harming itself. In an effort to cleanse this university, it is in fact watering down the life skills students will learn.

Consider the school ranked as number two on the alumni salary list, Colgate.  According to collegeprowler.com’s college report card, Colgate’s Greek life receives an “A+.” It also provides comparable Greek life in other schools. First on the list reads “Bucknell University, A+.”

Clearly, there exists a strong relationship between socializing and success in the real world. We are not implying that students should forgo studying for partying, but they should be allowed to go out on the weekends without endless pursuit from police and Public Safety.

The University needs to ask themselves soon what is actually important, and what its role really is in developing students. Is it to impose totalitarian order, or is it to prepare students for success? The answer is easy, but the administration has become too powerful to accept it.

The new proposal to allocate athletic merit based scholarships to Patriot League football programs has many on The Bucknellian staff worried about the direction of the University. First and foremost, we know it is not primarily the University’s decision to add these scholarships, and we understand that the impact will not necessarily have a huge impact on our school. With that said, we do worry about the image of our school if we add even more athletic scholarships than we already have.

This university aspires to be known as one of the most academically challenging and prestigious universities in the country—in fact, every Patriot League school does. The Patriot League was built for scholarly institutions, in the image of the Ivies, which begs the question: what is motivating this move to add scholarships?

Of course, as is the case with everything, we find the answer in capital. The better the football team, the more money a university (and the league that school is in) brings in.

In this endeavor, the Patriot League is clearly favoring money over what is truly important in a university setting: an education.

As President Bravman said in an email sent out to the faculty, “I believe … that there will be a decisive majority vote to permit football scholarships. Should the Presidents’ Council reach this conclusion, it likely will become unavoidable for Bucknell to add merit-aid scholarships in football.”

It seems at this point the fate of our school’s sports programs is undeniable. If we add three to five scholarships in football, we will be forced to add to other sports because of Title IX requirements. What’s more, that money will have to come out of academic based scholarships, decreasing the value put on academics at the University, ultimately decreasing the value of a Bucknell University degree.

More than just the material losses the University will suffer, it will also be overshadowed by its athletic program, and change the meaning of what it truly means to be a University student-athlete. Faculty and students alike have expressed their fear that what it means to be a student-athlete here will change—no longer will that person be a student, who also happens to play sports.

While there is no problem with a university who specializes in sports over academics, we simply don’t see this university as that place. We see this university as one that prides itself with work ethic both on the field and in the classroom, where a student can’t hide behind his or her athletic abilities.

We sincerely hope this new rule, if it gets passed, does not diminish the standards of the University. And, if negative impacts are seen, we hope the University will take steps to improve the status of the student-athlete on our campus.

The recent changes made to the University’s Greek system have elicited much debate amongst The Bucknellian staff. On the one hand, we feel compelled to commend the administration, as well as the Panhellenic and Interfraternity Councils, for their role in actively trying to improve such a vital portion of the University’s social foundation. At the same time, we feel we must question the policies that they are putting in place to make those changes.

By changing the P4P requirements, the University has, theoretically, improved the way we as students view community service and guest lecturers. Now we will go to these opportunities because we want to, not because we have to, and we will get more out of it.

The problem with this logic is twofold. First, we are college students, which means we are busy with schoolwork, with clubs and with all sorts of activities. Although some students may want to go to speakers or community service events, they may not go if they are not forced to, simply because they want a break in their busy day or want to finish their homework before midnight.

The second problem lies in the fact that “Greeks” do not know exactly what will happen if they don’t meet a certain number of community service hours. Though the hours are no longer required, the administration could still hold a chapter accountable for not doing them. The Bucknellian staff hopes this is not simply a “test” from the administration in hopes of getting chapters in trouble, and eventually minimizing Greek presence on campus.

Finally, we feel the new six-week plan to educate first-years on Greek Life contradicts the administration’s stance from the past semester. It seems as if the University has frowned upon the importance of Greek Life on campus, and would like to see it become a less significant portion of the social reality here. If this new Greek education class is implemented, it seems the importance of fraternity and sorority life to first-years will be amplified. This class will make Greek Life a bigger deal than it already is.

We appreciate the steps the University is taking to improve the atmosphere of this campus, but we also must question the steps it is taking to accomplish its goals. Unfortunately, the recent changes may look good theoretically, but could prove detrimental in practice.

There is no doubt that Kathy Fedorjaka was successful in her 15 years as head coach of the women’s basketball team. Her three 20-win seasons and her two NCAA tournament appearances mark fantastic achievements for the coach of a school as small as this one. Her sudden “resignation,” therefore, brings up a lot of questions and even more speculation. Why would a coach—someone who has dedicated her livelihood to her players—quit in the middle of the season, the night before a game, without any explanation?

The timing of the series of events that unfolded on Friday, Jan. 13 seems to us to be more than suspicious, and the lack of stated motivation for her departure only adds to the campus-wide speculation. With that said, speculation within the University population rises per day due to the lack of information that we, as students, pay to receive.

Nobody can deny the massive sum of money that our parents, or in many cases students, send to the school each year so that we can enjoy the fantastic education offered here. But with that education, we also have paid for the right to know why the personnel—whose paychecks are made possible by our tuition and the donations of alumni and current and former parents—leave the school. Why, then, is this information hidden from students and alumni?

The University seems to have set a double standard in many ways with its handling of Fedorjaka’s sudden departure. First, it seems to have contradicted itself with the discourse that it spreads through our campus. President Bravman has said many times in correlation with the Campus Climate Report—specifically when talking about protecting the “brand” of the University—that high-functioning organizations do not sweep their problems under the rug. Why, then, in light of these intelligent words from our President, does the Athletics Department withhold information? By definition, they are covering their problems up, sweeping them under the rug.

The second double standard stems from what Athletic Director John Hardt told the players the night they found out about Fedorjaka’s resignation. He made sure to emphasize that they should refrain from talking extensively about the situation outside the locker room to avoid adding to the speculation, according to a few players that were at the meeting. If the Athletics Department is so worried about this speculation, then it should inform the students, the people upon whom its jobs rely, of what is really going on. This way, it could stop the speculation before it even gets started.

All in all, no matter what the reason for Kathy Fedorjaka’s resignation was, we at The Bucknellian believe that the manner in which the Athletic Department responded is flawed. We understand that the information is sensitive, but to have a well-established coach leave her team in the middle of the season without any warning or explanation seems to have only made the problem worse. If all sides had only waited until the end of the season, this situation would seem understandable, and the speculation would be almost nonexistent. Unfortunately, with the way the events panned out, everybody is asking the same question, reaching their own personal conclusion, and the result is staining the brand and legacy of not only this university’s women’s basketball program, but the entire Athletic Department and the University.

It is ingrained in our minds upon entering the University that BSG is a very important part of campus. However, we can’t help but feel that BSG, or the administration for that matter, advertises exactly what BSG is doing in a manner that grabs student attention.

Student Government elections were recently held in order to fill positions for next semester. The elections were not well advertised and consequently, when the election results were announced, some of us were surprised to find out that elections were even being held. What’s more, some students don’t see the importance in voting for student government officials because they believe BSG does not do anything of major importance in the first place. Other students simply don’t care.

These are two major problems. How can BSG and the administration advertise what they are doing more successfully and how can the University encourage students to become less apathetic about their student government?

BSG holds open forums every week where students are allowed to sit in and voice their opinions about a variety of issues. While this is a great idea, very few students are aware that this option even exists for them. BSG should make more of an effort to let students know this is an option. But with a mostly apathetic student body, how can BSG spark interest? It’s a bit hard to make people start caring about things when they portrayed little interest in the first place.

BSG did a great job of advertising the campus climate talks earlier this semester. News was all over campus and almost everyone knew it was happening. BSG should advertise more along these lines, even if these advertisements are for issues of smaller importance. It’s the only way to get the word out and it definitely cannot hurt the cause.

Like every student government, there are drawbacks. BSG is spearheaded by the administration. It can be extremely intimidating for students to complain about the administration to the administration. We can see how this perhaps would have been a problem in the past, but President Bravman has been doing an outstanding job of encouraging students, faculty and staff to talk to him about how things are currently done at the University, be it good or bad. If students have concerns they want voiced, now is the time to do it.

First, BSG needs to make themselves more visible to the student body. Otherwise students will remain apathetic and we will get nowhere; all of BSG’s work to improve the University will remain unnoticed.

We feel a bit like a broken record here at The Bucknellian. A large amount of our editorials pertain to sexual assault, the recent campus climate issues and the debates they stir. However, after President Bravman’s rousing speech last week during the “Take Back the Night” assembly, we began to rethink things.

Like most other students on campus, at first we thought that the recent talks on campus climate and the issues they bring forth reflect our University in a bad way. It is important to understand, however, that our campus is not the only one experiencing these issues. Sexual assault on college campuses is an issue that is, unfortunately, quite prevalent all over the country. President Bravman, in his speech to students and faculty last Thursday, expressed the importance of talking about these issues and not letting them go unnoticed. That is why there is a so much debate about these issues as of late. We are being forced to talk about them and bring them to light, which is not at all a bad thing.

However, there are always speakers that come to campus and events that address important issues, but that is where it ends. For the most part, the only students that go to these events are Greek members (give or take a few people who are genuinely interested) and the only reason they go is to obtain community service hours or because it is mandatory by the organization. For a change to occur, students need to care. They need to have a desire to attend these events or speakers because they personally want to change things. Right now, we get the impression that a select few members of the student community truly care about whether or not the campus climate changes. First and foremost, this needs to change in order for things on campus to change.

In a previous editorial from this semester, we asked what the point was in talking about sexual assault and other negative things that happen on campus. We questioned whether or not it would actually change the things that happen. We, frankly put, were being naive. How can we ask that question when we don’t have any past proof to support out claims? What makes these past few semesters different than previous ones is the leadership the University has been under.

President Bravman, unlike some of our previous presidents, is refusing to ignore the negative things that happen on campus. The issues we have on campus now are the same ones we have had in the past. That is probably the reason the student body is apprehensive towards the idea of “making changes” and “moving forward.” Things haven’t changed in the past so what makes us believe they will now? But we are doing something positive already. We are acknowledging these bad things, which is definitely a step in the right direction and a step we haven’t previously taken. What do we have to lose by talking about this?

Despite the monumental historical impact of the Holocaust, Ann Weiss’ discussion on Kristallnacht, held Tuesday in Trout Auditorium, was not well attended and not many people on campus even knew it took place.

Obviously the Holocaust was an extremely important event in the history of humankind. Why, then, was the discussion on Tuesday so poorly attended? Exactly two months ago marked the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Members of the University and campus communities spoke to a packed auditorium. Students, faculty and Lewisburg community members spilled out the door in an effort to show their support to all those affected by the events that took place.

Clearly it is much easier for students on campus to feel a connection to the events that took place surrounding the Sept. 11 since all of us were alive and, for the most part, witnessed first-hand the events and aftereffects of that tragic day. Is that why students perhaps don’t feel as strong of a connection to the Holocaust? We all know of its importance and there exist many students and faculty who have lost grandparents, or great grandparents because of it. However, is it because we cannot form a direct emotional connection to what happened in the mid 1940s as easily as we can to what happened in 2001?

In addition, the anniversary of the Sept. 11 took place on a Sunday this year, which allowed for many more students to attend the remembrance. It is much easier for a student to put aside time to attend a speech or a ceremony on a weekend than on a weekday because busy schedules simply won’t allow some students the time to do so.

Advertisement is also an issue. Bucknell Hillel put flyers around campus to alert the campus of the speaker but there weren’t many other forms of easily accessible advertisements. This is not a dig at the administration or anyone involved in planning the events. However, should more emphasis be put on a speaker addressing issues of the Holocaust or a speaker discussing the importance of recycling and food waste?

Should we as students care more about the Holocaust than we currently do? As can be shown by the meager turnout, we all apparently have better things to do on a Tuesday night than go to Ann Weiss’ lecture. This is upsetting because, if we keep this up, opting out of learning about the implications of the Holocaust, its meaning might be forgotten.

The recent global and environmental crises have shed light on the many problems we as a culture create for our environment. The University has been actively trying to reduce the footsteps our community leaves on the planet. This past semester alone, the University has taken giant steps towards creating a more eco-friendly campus. The simple elimination of trays in the cafeteria as well as University-based competitions where students can reduce the amount of power they consume serve as examples of how the campus is trying to save the environment.

Although the administration’s creation of these initiatives is inspiring, sometimes we wonder if Bucknellians are just as engaged. Justin McKnight’s project shows us the potential University students have for creating a healthier and more sustainable campus and downtown environment.

There are a few seniors on The Bucknellian staff who have the privilege of living downtown. While living off-campus has its benefits, one of the things that we miss greatly is the easy access to recycling options that we had while living on campus. Living in dorms provided students with the means to recycle bottles, cans, paper and plastic. When living on campus, it is easy to take these things for granted.

Realtors in Lewisburg, for the most part, don’t provide tenants with easy access to recycling certain materials. It is much easier to throw away bottles and cans when the alternative is driving a few miles out of the way to dispose of them in an eco-friendly manner. Unfortunately, that is what some of us had been doing. This will all change with the initiative established by McKnight.

This initiative, though beneficial for the community, comes as a double-edged sword. Why must the desire to recycle when living off-campus become an issue of convenience? Luckily for the campus community, a graduate student has taken this issue into his own hands, making it easy for those living off-campus to take part in recycling.

While the University is making quite an effort to become “green,” as students, we aren’t quite sure of how Lewisburg is reacting to this new “green movement.” It’s refreshing to see that downtown Lewisburg also has a hand in trying to lessen our carbon footprint. Sometimes, despite Lewisburg’s close proximity to campus, the University encloses itself in such a tight bubble it is hard to break through and observe what is happening in our backyards. Whether we like it or not, Lewisburg is a reflection of the school, especially in light of recent connections the two have been making.

It is great to see students cleaning up after themselves on Saturday mornings. Everyone knows that we are responsible for the majority of recyclable waste downtown. It is responsible and mature for us as students to get our hands dirty and clean up after ourselves.

But why did it take so long for us to realize this? Why did this have to be brought to our attention by McKnight in order for us to do something? Living downtown is supposed to be a practice for the “real world,” so why are we relying on others to set these things up for us?

It’s a good thing that recycling is happening downtown, but it’s embarrassing that students took this long to do something about it.

For University seniors, the Occupy Wall Street movement could not be taking place at a more critical time. With the bleak job market and current state of the U.S. economy, leaving the University in May as graduates seems daunting.

Despite the importance of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the presence of midterm exams and mid-semester projects has led our attention as students away from current news and more toward the books. A majority of students on campus had little knowledge of the Occupy Wall Street protests prior to going home for Fall Break. Therefore, when we got back on campus last week, a lot of us had questions we wanted answered.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, originating in the financial district of New York City, started as a place for unhappy Americans to voice their frustrations over the lack of progress regarding social and economic inequality, corporate greed and the power of corporations, among other things. Since their start in mid September, the protests have grown exponentially, sprouting roots all over the country.

The University and the Lewisburg community are no exception. The campus and town populations have done a superb job of localizing an issue that is becoming more and more prominent. It is not longer something people can ignore and the fact that students are becoming involved is a real testament to the University, and also what we as students are learning and who we are becoming. We are no longer ignoring the bad state of our economy and job market.

We are popping the “Bucknell Bubble.” We need to take these issues into our own hands in order to make a change. Now, more than ever, our voices need to be heard. How can we be the future of our country without voicing our concerns? The University is taking a step in the right direction.

To the Editor:

Your front-page article on the vaccine for four of the 40 strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) didn’t include the historical perspective. As a baby boomer, I was born in 1951. The HPV virus was not epidemic then as it is now. Actually, two vaccines are being recommended now that were not offered then; the Gardasil vaccine for HPV and the vaccine for the Hepatitis B virus.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s led to the spread of more than 50 sexually transmitted diseases. Hepatitis B became widespread and needed a vaccine primarily because of the practices of the homosexual community. HPV is now a problem because of heterosexual activity.

As Dr. Robert Cantrell of the University of Virginia Medical School has stated, “the Bible is the Owner’s Manual for human life.” When we follow God’s guidelines of sexual relations only in the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman in marriage we not only avoid almost all sexually transmitted diseases, we also avoid the emotional and spiritual toll that ignoring God’s guidance brings.

If we continue in the direction we are going with increasingly immoral practices being accepted and promoted, who knows how many vaccines we will have to develop to protect us from the consequences of rebellion against God? Jesus offers to forgive our sins and to give a new direction and purpose in life to those who have already listened to the corrupt values of our day but want to change. Supposedly intelligent people look for a variety of means of ‘protection’ from the consequences of their actions rather than the obvious answer–do what’s right in the first place.

Sincerely yours,
Rev. Glen Bayly
Mifflinburg Alliance Church
80 Church Road
Mifflinburg, PA 17844