Category: Editorial

The University ramped up its efforts to strengthen town-gown relations with its recent purchase of the Campus Theatre. Already this year the Barnes & Noble Bookstore at Bucknell University opened downtown, and the University acquired both the post office and the DeWitt building. With these additions in mind, we believe that the University is making positive strides toward a stronger partnership with Lewisburg, but that it should also be wary of its actions becoming too imperial.

Integrating the campus with Lewisburg of course has its benefits. Purchasing the downtown buildings allows the University to help renovate and preserve several historic structures. In addition, the University’s plans to move several offices into the purchased buildings will increase student traffic downtown. With more visitors in the area, local businesses could see higher sales and revenues. Further integration could also change the very nature of downtown Lewisburg in terms of selection of goods and services and operating hours, making it more marketable to current and prospective students as well as townspeople.

The strengthened partnership could also foster mutual respect and understanding between University students and Lewisburg citizens. Having more students and townspeople interact could help erase the invisible barrier that separates the campus and the town.

In the case of the Campus Theatre, the University is assuming financial control over the building, increasing its involvement with Campus Theatre Organization Ltd. from assistance to ownership. While the purchase will now qualify the organization for state economic development grants, we are also concerned that ownership will place the Campus Theatre at the mercy of the University’s will. The Campus Theatre organization is supposed to maintain control over programming and film scheduling, but the potential for financial constraints to morph into other programming restraints still exists.

Likewise, the University’s potential ability to exercise control over the town is troubling. If the University continues to procure much of the downtown area for its use, Lewisburg could become a college town in its own right rather than a town that contains the University. While a college-town atmosphere may bolster the University’s marketability, it also further threatens the quaint, small-town way of life in Lewisburg.

In addition, while some will benefit from increased business, others have been and will be forced out by corporate entities like the Barnes & Noble bookstore. While we are in favor of greater integration, we believe it can be accomplished without conquest. The University should not wield control without giving due consideration to the greater Lewisburg community as well as the future of the University and its students.

The degree of integration is also a point of contention. For many, the downtown area serves as an escape from the stress of campus. Extending the campus’ reach to town will expose students to life outside the “bubble,” but it will also mark a fundamental change in the campus culture. There is a limit to how integrated the town and the University should be, and we believe that the limit will soon be reached.

Two years ago, Obama and McCain political propaganda swamped campus in a sea of red, white and blue. Posters, signs and stickers covered bulletin boards from top to bottom, and students donned supportive buttons. Chalked messages on sidewalks encouraged people to vote, while student activists marched through dormitories, knocking on doors to persuade other students to register to vote.

The same political organizations that so ardently promoted their candidates on campus made no similar campaign in the 2010 midterm elections. In fact, if it weren’t for the political ads on TV and the briefly advertised election panel discussion on Oct. 21, most students would have had no idea the election even occurred. The lack of interest in voting signals to us a failure of many students to become engaged and informed citizens.

While many may argue that the propaganda from two years ago spawned conflict and provided no real information, we believe having at least some information is better than none. Placing posters, signs and pamphlets in prominent locations around campus reminds students to take part in the democratic process. It also encourages students to conduct research and practice their analytical skills when deciding which candidates’ positions align best with their own interests.

Moreover, in the past, these organizations helped students register to vote in Union County. This time, many underclassmen were uninformed about how to register. Others didn’t know enough about the candidates or where they could even vote. While the political groups may have their own agendas at election time, they are usually successful in increasing voter awareness and turnout. Their absence this year was felt at the polls on campus.

The overall lack of information about the election on campus was disconcerting. Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) even held an open forum on campus on Oct. 12, but the event was not well publicized.  Some professors mentioned the election during their classes, but few were able to convey the importance of the outcome on students’ lives. Many students believed their votes would not matter.

Still, we cannot fault political organizations alone for a subdued effort.  We as students are given the right to vote and we should exercise that right. If we are unwilling to go out of our way to gain more information about the election and its candidates, that is really no one’s fault but our own. It is unfair for people to arbitrarily choose names on a ballot, but it is also a travesty that we will not make a substantial effort to understand the policies that will undoubtedly affect us in the future.

Lack of respect is a growing concern on campus that affects students, faculty and the greater academic community. Students bully each other online and leave hurtful comments on anonymous gossip sites. Others send text messages or surf the Internet in class and during guest speaker presentations.

Now, recent reports of sexual assault and violence at the University have attracted the attention of the administration and faculty, prompting the formation of several committees and movements to address the issue of our declining campus climate.

Despite of the attention the issue has garnered, we ask whether the University’s response is effective enough.

In response to the high number of sexual assault incidences, the University has implemented initiatives at the administrative and student levels. This month, President John Bravman announced the formation of a Campus Climate Task Force. The Interfraternity Council issued its Declaration Denouncing Sexual Assault. Many students joined a Facebook group entitled “Movement4Manner,” and others participated in this year’s Take Back the Night / March for a Better Bucknell.  Meanwhile, the Women’s Resource Center and V-Day Bucknell have been working continuously to prevent and stop violence on campus.

While we applaud the efforts, we believe many students still do not take the issue of sexual assault seriously. At the March for a Better Bucknell, some students complained about how pointless the event was. These students do not realize how big of a problem sexual assault is on campus. In 2008, The Bucknellian reported that the number of reported sexual assaults had increased during the fall semester, but that many reported cases go unpublished in the Public Safety Log. Assaults have persisted since, as indicated by the 2009 sexual assault survey conducted by faculty and students at the University.

Moreover, even though the event may not dissuade people from performing sexual assault, its turnout should show support for victims of violence on campus. It should also reiterate the importance of respect.

Still, showing support may not be enough to end the violence. The disparity between thought and action remains large. It is one thing for students to sign the wall “for a better Bucknell” in the Elaine Langone Center and an entirely different matter for students to actually implement change.  Similarly, signing a declaration to not tolerate sexual assault or wearing an “I (Heart) Consensual Sex” button to promote a message is different than truly reforming behavior.

What we need is a change in mindset that no committee or movement can accomplish alone. Students on and off campus must learn to treat each other as human beings. We need a culture in which non-alcoholic events are at least viable, if not superior, alternatives to partying and drinking. We need a culture of basic respect—of body, of mind and of each other.

The efforts in response to sexual assault and violence have good intentions and are fairly ambitious, but they are only the first step. In order to enact real improvements in our campus climate, we need students to change fundamentally their mindset and truly commit to change.

The recent forum presenting the conclusions of the Special Committee on the Strategic Role of Athletics and Recreation at the University raised important questions about the future of athletics on campus. Created to address the role of intercollegiate and intramural athletics, the University’s membership in the Patriot League, the school’s Division I status and the granting of merit aid for athletes, the committee has brought to our attention the need to reaffirm the importance of athletics and its relation to academics at the University.

At the University, sports and athletics are important in most students’ lives. The University’s involvement in the Patriot League and Division I athletics provides student-athletes with the chance to excel in both academics and athletics, while also drawing sports fans and other spectators to campus. Athletics thus foster a sense of community, build the University’s reputation and constitute a source of revenue for the University. Many students who are not varsity athletes also live active lifestyles, participating in intramural and club sports, or frequenting the gym.

Still, fostering opportunities for sports and recreation is not the sole goal of the University. The stated mission of the University is to educate “men and women for a lifetime of critical thinking and strong leadership characterized by continued intellectual exploration, creativity and imagination,” according to the University’s website. Certainly athletics may enrich education, but when evaluating the reallocation of funds for athletic merit scholarships, we believe it is important to keep a focus on academics in mind.

Membership in the Patriot League is supposed to promote “opportunities for students to compete in Division I intercollegiate athletics programs within a context that holds paramount the high academic standards and integrity of member institutions, and the academic and personal growth of student-athletes,” according to the Patriot League website. If the University decides to allocate more money to provide merit aid for student-athletes, it runs the risk of becoming too sports-oriented. Merit aid scholarships could attract students who are gifted athletically, but who may not uphold the academic standards on which the University prides itself.

Of course qualified student-athletes should receive merit aid. Student-athletes enrich life at the University by providing diverse points of view in class, by contributing to the cultural atmosphere and by creating contests, events and causes around which the campus community can rally. Student-athletes are an integral part of the campus culture, and they should be rewarded for their talents. The model of superior academics and outstanding athletics is what differentiates the University from most other schools.

Currently the University policy is to spend $3 of merit aid on non-athletes for each $1 spent on merit aid for athletes. The policy as it stands seems fair for the time being. Student-athletes and non-athletes alike should receive merit aid, but as the University re-evaluates its policy in reaction to proposed changes in the Patriot League, it should ensure the student body stays representative of academic talent. We cannot and should not prioritize athletics over academics and arts at the University, no matter the financial or reputational incentives of doing so.

Moreover, if the University decides to spend more money on merit aid for varsity athletes, it should ensure that the decision does not divert resources away from non-athlete students. Non-athlete students still deserve to enjoy the benefits of clean athletic facilities, and policies that favor student-athletes over non-athletes should not be enacted.

Last Saturday’s Fall Fest was supposed to be a day of wholesome fun. Inflatable obstacle courses and jousting rings occupied Sojka lawn, along with a dunk tank and several tables sponsored by student organizations and campus organizations. Carnival-type foods like snow cones and popcorn added to the festive autumn atmosphere. Then, Na Palm performed on the Fall Fest stage, seeming to undermine the spirit of the event.

Na Palm, also known as Craig Steven Palm, is a rapper from Chicago whose electronic hip-hop songs are laced with expletives. His lyrics typically feature drug use, excessive drinking and partying. They also disrespect women.

In light of recent discussions on campus about sexual assault, respect for one another and proper decorum, we are concerned about the decision to allow Na Palm to perform at this year’s event. His performance and the lifestyle he represents through his music seem to perpetuate the problems the campus is trying to eliminate.

Na Palm opened for Sam Adams, whom the Campus Activities and Programs (CAP) Center and Activities and Campus Events (ACE) booked for the event. Na Palm was not mentioned in the Facebook event or posters around the University announcing Fall Fest.

What bothered us most about his performance was not the offensive content of his music. Each day we can hear similar tunes on the Internet or on the radio (though even broadcast radio must comply with regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission). The real issue was the inappropriateness of the performance for the setting.

Fall Fest is an annual event open to the entire campus community. Faculty, students and staff are able to participate. Since children were in attendance, we were especially worried about Na Palm’s obscenities. Moreover, we believe that since Fall Fest took place in a very public setting, it was unfair that so many people were subject to hearing the vulgarities. The sound carries well in the open air, and even those in the surrounding vicinity could hear the music. Many students at the event seemed uncomfortable or nervous during the performance.

Na Palm’s musical stylings were unexpected at the event this year. We do not question people’s right to listen to such music, nor do we condemn their taste. We simply believe that in this case, since Fall Fest’s entertainment was so prominent,  attendees were not given enough information to be able to make informed choices about whether to subject themselves to Na Palm’s potentially offensive performance.