Category: Letters to the Editor

Dear Bucknell,

I want to apologize for what happened the other day when those preachers came to campus.  I am a member of the Christian community here at Bucknell.  Although we were not responsible for what happened on Wednesday of last week and could do nothing to stop it, I feel that it is our responsibility to respond.  I beg your forgiveness for some of the things said in this overall rather offensive sermon and in general for all the wrongs that have been done by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ.  Many of those wrongs have been very hurtful.

Christians are just the same as everybody else when it comes to doing bad things.  Sometimes (often) we’re even worse.  Need I bring up such awful deeds as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the people who bomb abortion clinics, the priest sex scandals of a few years ago, or the Catholic/Protestant fighting in Ireland?

I am not writing this letter to defend Christians because we have done some pretty horrible things, Catholics and Protestants alike.  The purpose of this letter is twofold:  First, to apologize for the hurt, guilt, and offense caused not only by those who were speaking on Wednesday downhill, but all the things that Christians have done that were not loving, especially here at Bucknell.  And second, to express that this is not God’s intended message for the world, for this campus, or for any one of you.  Yes, God wants us to proclaim the love of Jesus to all of you.  He wants us to encourage every person to seek an intimate relationship with Him.  He loves every one of us and a relationship with Him is not meant to be a burden on the soul, or a guilt complex. He does not condemn, but loves unconditionally.  He does not want us to send a message of superiority or hatred, which is what came across during much of the speech given on Wednesday.

In the Bible, Jesus defends those who have been condemned by society so many times.  Everyone is shocked to see him eating dinner with cheating tax collectors, talking with prostitutes in the street, and spending time with pagans and nonbelievers.  He even saves the life of an adulterous woman when everyone else wants to give her the death penalty.  Everyone was confused—wasn’t Jesus the voice of Godly justice?  Why was he standing up for such sinners?  But to Jesus, these things make perfect sense.  Nobody is completely righteous, he reminds us all the time, so why should any of us act like we’re better than everyone else?  He says, “why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matt 7:3)  He is constantly scolding the Pharisees for doing exactly what those Christians did downhill on Wednesday.  Sure, some of the people the Pharisees were sticking their noses up at were doing some pretty bad stuff—but so were the Pharisees.  So are the rest of us.

At first, when I heard about what these people were doing and saying on Wednesday, I thought Christians were being too loud.  But perhaps we’re being too quiet, not responding to this by shouting God’s message of mercy and love.

So whenever you hear a Christian speaking of fire and brimstone and threatening the world with talk of Hell, please remember that those words are coming from human mouths and that is not the message that Jesus gives to us to proclaim to the world.  They are grossly misrepresenting the things our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us.  He teaches a message of love and forgiveness, of reaching out in love to help one another, and of not judging others.  Even when we are pointing out wrongs, we are supposed to do so in a loving way (and gently, if possible), because we ourselves do plenty of wrongs also.  We Christians are pretty sloppy at carrying out that message.  We’re trying our best, though, and I believe that the incident on Wednesday is incentive to all of us to try even harder.

Again, I am very sorry for the hurtful things that were said on Wednesday.  We are all truly sorry.

–A Christian Bucknellian

To the Editor:

I write in response to your editorial of Sept. 16 regarding the Campus Climate Task Force (CCTF) Report. I am glad to see that you’ve taken these matters seriously enough to examine them critically in The Bucknellian. You raise a number of important questions, only some of which I can answer. You also make some claims that are unfounded. Critical thinking requires an adequate knowledge of the material being criticized, and so I hope that the following will fill some of those gaps.

Some of the statistics on sexual assault at the University cited in the Report are based on research that I have conducted with teams of student co-investigators for over 10 years. This research has been done in an attempt to understand better the nature of sexual assault among college students (it was not done for the University, although it was financially supported by the University). Our selection procedures have resulted in fairly large samples of students based on response rates that are considered quite good for survey research on this topic (30 to 40 percent). These procedures have also produced samples that are reasonably representative of the groups that we were interested in, depending on which aspects of sexual assault we were examining in a given study. Thus, for example, we have not collected data from first-year students in some studies because we were interested primarily in examining differences between members of Greek organizations and Independent students. Similarly, when focusing on sexual assault victimization, we have not sought data from male students, not because men are never victimized, but rather because women are victimized at substantially higher rates (and the rates of male victimization here are too small to analyze meaningfully).

You expressed concerns about survey response bias when you recommended encouraging truthful responses and wondered about respondents’ motivations to complete surveys. These are legitimate concerns for which there are only imperfect solutions. The best we can do regarding truthful responding is to measure tendencies to respond in a socially desirable manner, and then test for an association between that tendency and reports of victimization or lack thereof (we have not yet found such an association in any of our studies). Motivation to participate in surveys of personal, and potentially painful, matters such as sexual assault probably works both ways. It is possible, as you suggest, that some respondents might be more motivated to complete such surveys for a variety of reasons, but it is also possible that assault victims would be less likely to do so because they do not wish to be reminded of painful experiences.

You also seem to believe that “Greek life” is sufficiently safe for men and women at the University. Your points supporting this claim, while sensible, are not supported by the data. I agree that Greek life is safe for men, but not for women. Our data demonstrate that members of sororities are at significantly greater risk for being sexually assaulted than unaffiliated women (this is true in other studies conducted on other campuses as well).

The rates of sexual assault at the University as reflected by our research are high, in comparison to nationally representative data, and the CCTF and President Bravman are correct in arguing that something needs to be done about this problem. The choices about what we should do will be complex and difficult, and I hope that all members of the campus community will be engaged in helping with this task. In this effort, I would hope that students, Greek or otherwise, would be at least as concerned about their fellow students who have been affected by sexual assault as they are about their Greek organizations.

Sincerely,

Bill Flack
Associate Professor of Psychology

To the editor:

A pair of opinions articles published in a recent issue of The Bucknellian reflecting on the legacy and lessons of the attacks of Sept. 11 touched on an issue that, in my opinion, is the most critical to the future security of our country—the deep flaws in our nation’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes the remembrance of an event as tragic as the attacks 10 years ago to call attention to the matter. After reading Gabriella’s piece and Amanda’s response, I’d like to address a fundamental disagreement I have with the Editor.

The view that the true motivation for our involvement in the Middle East was “to ensure the future domestic security of our nation from extremists … that espouse beliefs that are fundamentally in opposition to the United States and the American way of life” may very well have been the intention of some policy makers, but the results of our actions could not bring us further from such a goal. For the better part of the 20th century to the modern day, our actions in the Middle East have led to the region’s instability and only serves to make us less secure. I’d like to cite our history with Iran as a prominent example of such unsound policy that will be extremely relevant to the future of our own generation.

The 1979 hostage crisis in which Islamist students took control of the American Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days marks what many people view as the beginning of our acerbic relationship with Iran. It was 26 years earlier, however, that conflict began. It was in this year that Operation Ajax, a coup d’état orchestrated by the American CIA and British MI6, overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed Mohammad Shāh Pahlavi, a pro-U.S. dictator. It was during the Shah’s 25-year rule (upheld by U.S. support) that anti-American resentment throughout the Middle East was cultivated. Our CIA helped to create SAVAK, an Iranian secret police that was used to instill fear in the hearts of dissenting Iranians. SAVAK imprisoned and tortured the Shah’s political enemies. Near the end of his reign, the Shah ordered troops to massacre protesters, an event that would spark the fire of the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis a year later.

Though it would be horrible to suggest that we were responsible for the attacks on our fellow Americans then or 10 years ago, or somehow invited or deserved them, it is no great mystery why radical Islamists are upset. They do not hate us because we are free or because they oppose our “way of life.” They target us because our government has meddled in their nation’s affairs and sovereignty for over a half century with often-injurious results to both sides. It’s time we looked seriously at the justifications given for our action in the Middle East and realize that we are no safer for it. We are only more endangered as we continue to invade, bomb and intervene in the Middle East. Every day our actions produce more extremist militants who see our actions as an attack on their way of life and independence. We must realize even as we celebrate the murder (Gabriella was right here) of Osama bin Laden, he has in several ways accomplished exactly what he wanted. Our government’s faulty response to the attacks on our country has led us to spend a total of $1.2 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the unconstitutional “time-limited, scope-limited military action” under our newest war president. Just as militant Islamists sought to bleed-out the Soviets in Afghanistan, they now seek to have us spend our way into financial ruin in several unsustainable wars. The attacks have frenzied us so that we are now starting to give up what makes America truly great—our founding principles. We turn the rule of law on its head by giving our president the authority to decide who deserves to die and order an operation to kill rather than capture and give due process to a criminal. What would have been so horrible about executing bin Laden after a trial that would have surely found him guilty? Instead we delve deeper into a foreign policy that may well lead us into a sixth needless war in the Middle East. Our generation should be concerned. There is still time to show the world how great America truly is. There is still time to heal.

–Scott Lunde

To the editor:

On behalf of the Interfraternitiy Council and 12 fraternity presidents on campus, we would like to formally recognize our current deficiencies in our recycling practices on campus as organizations. We firmly stand in improving our attitude and behavior towards proper waste mitigation and separation to prevent further recyclable material from reaching the Lycoming landfill. As the current semester comes to a close, we formally agree to make a diligent and unwavering effort to encourage our brothers to reuse and recycle whenever possible, and to reduce our waste and energy use. In the coming months we plan to incorporate recycling into our policies and include checks by the Greek Monitoring Team during registered events to ensure proper measures are being taken to recycle.

We also agree to be wary and mindful of all unwanted furniture, clothing and school supplies that we and our brothers may choose to leave behind, and vow to donate them to appropriate sources, such as Hidden Treasures. We would like to acknowledge each of our chapters’ renewed interest in these efforts and are thoroughly motivated by our phenomenal potential to make an impact on the lives of others in need. It is our greatest hope and desire that our fellow colleagues and professors will support us in our efforts as we continue to support and encourage one another.

Sincerely,

Brad Meyer ’13, Interfraternity Council GAMMA Chair and the Executive Board

and

Jim Wilcox ’12, Chi Phi

Charlie Frederich ’12, Delta Upsilon

Nick McLeod ’11, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.

Michael Howard-Johnson ’12, Kappa Sigma

Justin Jones ’12, Lambda Chi Alpha

Matt Harbin ’12, Phi Gamma Delta

Matt Herman ’12, Phi Kappa Psi

Will D’Agostino ’12, Sigma Alpha Epsilon

Rob McFeeters ’12, Sigma Chi

Brandon Bays ’12, Sigma Phi Epsilon

David Pieper ’12, Tau Kappa Epsilon

To the editor,

The University has recently asserted the right to tell all employees how to use their own personal Facebook accounts.  Last Wednesday, Vice President for Communications Pete Mackey posted “Social Media Guidelines for All Personnel” to the Message Center directing our attention to this webpage:  http://www.bucknell.edu/x68141.xml. The page lists a series of policies and guidelines about the use of social media by branches of the university, and it says “… if your personal site identifies you as a Bucknell employee, you are representing the University and these guidelines apply accordingly.”  [Emphasis in original.]

So I may say what I wish only if I do not identify my professional affiliation? This is pointlessly demeaning to all employees, of course. But for the faculty this policy violates two bedrock principles of the University: 1) academic freedom, wherein the University seeks to protect the right of the faculty to express themselves however they think is important and appropriate, and 2) shared governance, which says that the faculty will be involved in adopting the rules for their own role at the University.

I asked Pete Mackey several times how he justified this rule, and he would only point to a statement from AAUP (a national professors’ organization) that says faculty have an obligation to avoid appearing to speak for the University.  How this professor-to-professor statement of a self-evident principle justifies the University unilaterally claiming oversight powers on private faculty speech is unclear to me.

A number of untenured faculty have told me already that they have removed their University affiliation from their Facebook profiles because they fear they will overstep some line.  This is a harmful stifling of free speech, and it feeds destructive paranoia about the nature of  the University among the people who should become future faculty leaders in the institution.

Ben Marsh

Department of Geography & Program in Environmental Studies

To the Editor:

When the seven sorority presidents made a public declaration at an Interfraternity Council meeting vocalizing their discontent with offensive party themes on campus, it was a laudable display of courage on their part to challenge the status quo of the campus climate. On behalf of the 12 fraternity presidents on campus, I would like to congratulate and to express our appreciation towards the sorority presidents for taking this stance, as well as affirm our commitment that fraternities will not perpetuate displays of sexism via offensive party themes at our social events.  As Greek men, we have pledged ourselves to adhere to strong values, morals and ethics.  We realize that we play an integral role in the shaping of Bucknell’s social culture, and to hold that position in conjunction with allowing sexist, misogynistic and offensive themes for social events to exist is both detrimental to student equality on campus and also a toxic violation to our commitment to higher values and social excellence.

We recognize that there are widespread benefits the Greek community provides for the student body and the campus community at large. Recently,actions taken by our members and chapters are neither reflective of what we, as Greeks, strive to achieve nor compatible with our mission of complementing our academic experience.  Eradicating offensive party themes is a necessary initial step that will affect progress and motivate students for further change. But our larger goal moving forward is to distinguish ourselves as a catalyst in the University community that will (1) motivate a departure from the negative realities of our current social scene and (2) cultivate a desire for recapturing a student culture that engenders, espouses and extols the values and beliefs we hold fundamental to our commitment as Greeks.  We know that social change does not happen overnight, and there is unfortunate internal resistance we will inevitably encounter.  But that does not negate our salient responsibility to help confront the systemic issues of sexual assault, alcohol & drug abuse, uncharacteristic student engagement and other problems that often are associated with Greek-letter organizations. Our ability to initiate this progress is contingent upon the strength of our student leaders to be outspoken, motivated and proactive–all qualities we know exist among us.  We are committed to increasing the education about our organizations and to solidifying the axiom that meaningful and purposeful discussion and education throughout our time in our organizations will ameliorate our members’ characters.  Reaffirming our values will help refocus our organizations as complementary to our higher education and beneficial for student life.  A Greek-letter organization can provide myriad educational opportunities to its members, and it is incumbent upon us to harness this influence, which has too often fallen by the wayside.  A true recognition of our principles and values will make us better individuals, better prepared for the reality and the unexpected we will encounter in life after the University.

The sorority presidents have taken a praise-worthy step towards improving our campus culture and as fellow University students, Greeks and peers, we stand strong in supporting them and helping advance their cause.  We look forward to working with many student organizations and resources on campus in the future in order to fulfil our goals.

Sincerely,

Michael Higgins

Interfraternity Council President

To the editor:

In the April 15th issue of The Bucknellian, students affiliated with the BUCC and FLAG&BT, the two student organizations centrally responsible for inviting a crude shock radio jock with a long and documented history of racially offensive rhetoric to campus, defend this action by reference to “the sacred purpose of a university … to encourage … thoughtful, critical and open intellectual discussion.” The heart is in the right place. The facts, alas, are not on their side.

They want to challenge the purportedly “false impression” of Tammy Bruce as an extremist, hate-filled shock jock. Why then do they not address any of the voluminous evidence to that effect? Perhaps because defending the indefensible is hard work, as the Internet is filled with audio of Bruce saying the kind of things that disqualify her from speaking in a place committed to rational and dispassionate debate.

What is perhaps still salvageable from the disaster of Bruce’s invitation is a teachable moment regarding civility, debate, and University culture. One of the most important aspects of contemporary mass media culture is a widely-recognized precipitous drop in the tone and rigor of political debate in radio and television. Over the past several decades, extremist, anti-intellectual and even violent rhetoric once confined to the fringe of the public sphere has become more or less mainstreamed, thanks to the efforts of people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck, along with the media institutions that provide them a forum. Today’s students have grown up in this world, and the great danger is that, because of that immersion, they are unable to effectively discern what does and does not reach minimal standards of civility and reason in political discussion. Some of my current students were not yet walking when Limbaugh’s venomous, baseless accusations of then-President Clinton helped fuel anger on the extremist right that eventually produced the Oklahoma City bombing.

Students can perhaps be forgiven for being blasé about this toxic environment into which they were thrown at birth. But this does not mean the University is required to surrender to the abysmal leveling of discourse. Quite the contrary. It is one of the tasks of the University to oppose this broader tendency and to educate students about the harmful effects of such a decline in civility.

The student letter-writers proudly tell us that they participated in respectful, enthusiastic discussion with someone who regularly engages in vile, racist rhetoric and trades in the hysterical nonsense that envisions our President as a crypto-fascist enemy of the United States. They thereby demonstrate their belief that her manner of ‘argumentation’ is within the bounds of rational debate on a university campus. They claim a commitment to ‘open debate,’ but they are entirely uncritical in their invocation of that notion. If they had wanted to bring a thoughtful and civil gay conservative figure to campus, there is a pool of such individuals from which they could have picked. That they instead chose someone who has cynically made a career out of sensationalistic offensiveness tells us much about the limits of their understanding of civil discourse in a university.

The students who deserve to be proud of their actions are those who came to the talk to challenge Bruce’s very presence on this campus and then, when Bruce demonstrated that she could not and would not defend her hateful speech, summarily walked out, thus refusing to confer on her the status of a legitimate interlocutor. It is no accomplishment to cheerfully welcome to campus a speaker who mocks the very idea of reasoned debate by what she says.

Alexander Riley

Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology

To the editor:

In last week’s issue of The Bucknellian, the presidents of the seven sororities on campus made a strong statement against misogyny and sexism, and I commend their decision to do so. As part of this decision, our sororities will no longer support or attend events whose theme objectifies women. Theme parties or any activities that degrade women and perpetuate divisions amongst us have no place at the University. I believe our sororities’ decision is a powerful positive step for the strength and integrity of our Greek-letter system, and reflects a value shared across the University that we will treat everyone with respect and dignity.

Last fall, I appointed a task force of faculty and staff to conduct a thorough assessment of our campus climate and all related data, and to recommend to me whatever steps they believe can ensure that we are supporting and encouraging the most positive university experience for our students. I am looking forward to receiving their initial report in May, and am grateful for the hard work they have given to this substantive review. Our sorority presidents’ decision is an important step forward in the continuing goal we all share to foster a campus climate as special as the individuals who make up our community.

A sincere thanks to these young women for their leadership, and to all those who have given their support to this meaningful action.

John Bravman
President of Bucknell University

To the editor:

The letter to the editor printed in last week’s issue of The Bucknellian gave a false impression of Tammy Bruce.

Last Thursday, Bruce spoke about the compatibility of conservative ideas with the core values of the LGBT community and other minorities. She argued that the conservative principle of individual liberty empowers everyone, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Students with many different backgrounds, perspectives and opinions attended the lecture. Some students agreed with the opinions presented by Bruce, while others disagreed. Regardless of whether or not they held the same beliefs as Bruce, students came to the event with open minds, ready to hear a point of view not often articulated on the University’s campus.

At the conclusion of her initial remarks, Bruce opened the floor to questions from the audience. It was during the question-and-answer period that students displayed the finest qualities the University has to offer and undeniably affirmed the sacred purpose of a university — to encourage and nurture thoughtful, critical and open intellectual discussion. Students engaged Bruce in conversation for over an hour, asking pointed questions and challenging her conclusions. The guest speaker was also committed to constructive dialogue with the students, giving them the opportunity to stay afterwards to talk for at least another hour. Both Bruce and the students who continued the conversation acknowledged that they came away from the experience with valuable information that they otherwise would not have gained.

This event provided the University community with a priceless opportunity to openly discuss current matters of great significance and expose themselves to different opinions. The behavior of students at the event was exemplary. They effectively used this venue to challenge their beliefs and ultimately strengthen their own convictions. University students should be proud of the admirable conduct of their classmates.

Scott Henry ’11
Sami Prehn ’11
Sarah Thibault ’12
Wes Pyron ’12
Ashley Rooney ’14
Anthony Contarino ’14
Dominique Douglas ’14
Brian Cooper ’11
Monique McCants ’14
Robert Harder ’59
Michael Higgins ’12
Kalila Beehler ’11
Mallory Lyons ’14
Frasier Esty ’13
Oswaldo Galicia ’14
Bridget Gates ’13
Sophia Geraci ’14
Julia Bonnell ’14
Evan Kaufman ’12

To the editor:

The Bucknellian recently announced the Bucknell Conservatives Club and FLAG&BT are inviting Tammy Bruce to come to campus to give a canned speech she has been delivering, for substantial remuneration, for years. The BUCC’s president apparently believes that the collaboration of these two seemingly disparate student groups in the organization of the event is itself some evidence of its legitimacy, but even the slightest glance at what Bruce actually says and writes makes clear that she is not an acceptable speaker at a university.

Many readers will likely wonder just who Bruce is. She is a right-wing talk radio host and frequent Fox News contributor who has made a career out of vicious and borderline racist verbal attacks against African-Americans with whom she disagrees. She was (rightly) fired from a mainstream radio job in Los Angeles in the 1990s for calling Bill and Camille Cosby a barrage of offensive names in response to Camille Cosby’s op-ed following the murder of her son. Bruce then realized that the right-wing populist mass media is in constant pursuit of people who will say such things for pay on the air and seamlessly transitioned to that virulent community. Recently, on her syndicated radio show, she has demonstrated her vision of political discourse by calling President Obama a “bastard” and a “freak” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anrw9nNVUoY) and denigrating both the President and his wife Michelle as “disgusting and contemptible” (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907100031) “trash in the White House” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/tammy-bruce-calls-the-oba_n_178109.html). She has also suggested that the President “secretly wishes the nation to be harmed” and that his mother “certainly did” (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906190006).

Her festering hatred of the Obamas, and indeed of anyone with whom she disagrees, cannot be understood in any way as respectable political dissent. Unwilling or unable to muster any substantive intellectual arguments, Bruce simply repeatedly calls them vulgar names. This is unfortunately more or less normative for populist right-wing media these days. Whenever one thinks the bottom has been reached, a Tammy Bruce or a Michael Savage emerges to prove that further descent is indeed possible.

Reasonable political debate and dissent should of course be more than tolerated in a university; they should be embraced. But there is simply no room for someone who speaks in the register of a Tammy Bruce at a university. The University should not be providing her a forum. She does not represent a reasoned, respectful position in political discourse, and her presence cannot serve to do anything positive here, though it certainly might do some harmful things, such as suggesting to students the acceptability of this kind of vapid, malevolent speech in civilized debate. If it acquiesces in this unreflective decision by two student groups rather than endeavoring to educate them by explaining why a university is no place for such uncivil speakers, the University administration would be acknowledging Bruce’s vile rhetorical style as a legitimate option in intellectual debate.

Alexander Riley

Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology