Category: Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

In response to “Hiding Behind Pseudonyms Evades Responsibility,” we would like to thank Sarah Block for reading “What the Buck,” brought to you by The Counterweight. The purpose of sending out these newsletters was to “encourage scholarly debate on meaningful subjects,” as she stated in her article. The nicknames we provided for our writers, however, were not pseudonyms; they were merely nicknames. We are glad to take responsibility for what we said and what we will continue to say in these newsletters.

To the editor:

I was disappointed to see such a negative response printed to John Stevenson’s article in the last issue of The Bucknellian. The letter goes to great lengths to minimize the significance of facts and exonerate those involved from blame. For all its equivocation, however, someone is obviously responsible for the drinking problem on campus. John simply recognized the dire situation on campus and held all University students accountable for their actions. For this he should be commended, not condemned.

No matter the underlying demographics, a 300% increase in drinking-related hospitalizations is alarming. So long as the statistic is controlled for students only, it is serious. That an administrator claimed 35% of the hospitalizations were Greek bears no weight because Greeks are not the only students to attend registered events. In fact, Greeks regularly invite non-Greek students to their events. The issue is not “how many Greeks are abusing alcohol,” but “how many students are abusing alcohol, and why?” John correctly identified pervasive drinking among Greek organizations as a causal factor. Sadly, contemporary college culture glorifies alcohol abuse. In my time at the University, I cannot recall a single fraternity or sorority which was ever ostracized due to drinking excesses. Students should understand the dangers alcohol abuse poses and set some standards. If students truly avoided Greek organizations known for fomenting drinking, alcohol abuse would naturally fade over time and self-policing would be viable. Students, however, are not angels; hence the need for authority.

Public Safety and the administration should reacquaint themselves with the age-old concept of deterrence. A more aggressive policy of enforcing not only the University’s regulations, but also state law, would deter students from drinking, for fear of retribution. As inebriated students stumble home–whether from Bull Run, a Wednesday-night frat party or a dorm binge–Public Safety can and should intercept the visibly intoxicated. The administration can oblige by punishing students accordingly instead of coddling them, and toughening its drinking-point punishment system. For those students who live off-campus, Public Safety can coordinate operations with local law enforcement, informing them that students are prone to alcohol abuse–thus a high risk to themselves and others–and should be vigilantly policed during drinking hours. Making an example of these students will send a message to the rest that drinking infractions will not be tolerated. Such methods may seem draconian, but students have left Public Safety with little recourse.

As a fellow Brother of Mr. Stevenson, I can say with the utmost certainty that he harbors no ill will towards the Greek system. Rather, he simply stands for the virtues it has traditionally upheld rather than the den of iniquity into which it has recently degenerated. What Greek life is and what it should be are worlds apart. How the University answers this question will make a life-or-death difference on campus.

James Rutledge Roesch

Class of 2010

To the editor:

To quote an oft-used colloquial phrase, “haters gonna hate.” Engineers have been denounced as “oompa-loompas of science” on TV and are sometimes viewed as pretentious. I personally have nothing against the College of Arts and Sciences or the School of Management. In fact, my second major is management. I appreciate and enjoy being able to take classes in departments outside the realm of engineering. There is also no law stating that a liberal arts major can’t take an engineering course. Personally, I have never said that I am better than a liberal arts major simply because I’m an engineer. However, when I read that someone (who is obviously jealous, insecure about their major choice, or possibly both) was degrading my major, I became incensed. I’m not denying that there are some engineers who feel a sense of superiority over other majors, and as a result, flaunt it like there’s no tomorrow. Nevertheless, generalizing all engineers like this is simply uncouth. For the most part, engineers are trying to do what everyone else is doing: get through college so we can get a good job and pay our loans off.

It’s true, E-Week is incredibly competitive (not contentious) and engineers enjoy dreaming about winning the Golden Hammer. E-Week is also an outlet for engineers to express the right side of their brain. Poetry, painting, drawing and videography are all arts; they aren’t simply something we “associate with the liberal arts.” As such, these competitions are taken seriously; engineers are proud of their poems, drawings, banners and videos. We don’t scorn the engineers who enjoy these activities. We applaud them. However, I feel that E-Week also has an underlying theme, a theme that pervades all engineering majors: teamwork. A building designed by one person would almost certainly fall. A computer programmed by one person would probably crash. Teamwork is the failsafe that catches one person’s flaws and E-Week is a much more fun way of learning that than weekly group lab reports.

The ability to work in teams is a useful skill for anyone to have in their artillery. I think hosting a College of Arts and Sciences Week is a great idea. It might even be fun to call it “Sciences and Arts Week” so it can be abbreviated SAW 1, SAW 2, etc. However, when someone says that they “do not desire a pity party,” writing a column complaining about not having a week of their own proves that a pity party is exactly what they want. They feel left out and want attention. The same can be said when banners are posted pre-emptively offering acceptances of a thank-you. Math is fundamental, Olin-ites, but it was first used to construct structures properly (in other words, to engineer).

What bothers me the most, though, is how people want to compare apples to oranges. Majors such as education and engineering are almost polar opposites. I for one could never teach a classroom with 20 screaming, booger-filled children. An education major can’t design a highway. However, it doesn’t matter because the two have nothing in common in the first place. One isn’t better than the other; it is merely different. Both have aspects that make the respective major difficult at times, and easier at other times. A major should not have to feel like it needs to defend itself. If the liberal arts want their own week so badly, organize it, get it approved by the University and have a blast. Until then, leave E-Week alone.

Brian Shoener ’13

Civil Engineering and Management major

To the editor:

As a rare reader of The Bucknellian, when I heard about John Stevenson’s article “University’s attempts to halt binge drinking inadequate” I assumed that he was just calling University students a bunch of alcoholics. After picking up the article for myself I finally understand why people were talking about it. He points out the increase in drinking incidents and begins to call out the Greek system, Public Safety and the University itself for not preventing this from happening. He does so articulately and passionately, not as one who intends to insult the school as a whole, but as one who hopes to make it better. However, if I completely agreed with John I wouldn’t be writing this. First off, he claimed that there was a 300% increase in the number of reported sexual assaults. It is a 300% increase in the number of hospitalizations from the semester before. We had 42 hospitalizations last semester, but only a total of 20 hospitalizations for the whole year prior. While John has the best intentions, I feel as though he calls out the wrong people. I first want to point out that we are only hearing the whole statistic. We hear no breakdown of guy/girl, year, Greek/non-Greek, 4Loko/non-4Loko. The only thing we hear is the increase in hospitalizations and number of alcohol-related incidents. When I asked a Dean flat out, I was told that about 35% of both hospitalizations and alcohol-related incidents were Greek. He either didn’t have the breakdown by gender or year in front of him or he refused to tell me. On a campus that is more than 50% Greek (freshman included) this tends to indicate that the Greek students are being safer than non-Greeks. With the numbers stated above it seems like I imply freshmen are to blame. I have no breakdown by year, so I give no comment. To say Public Safety sits idly by while drinking occurs on campus is an insult to them. There are only three places where drinking occurs: downtown, fraternity houses and in dorms. Out of the total drinking incidents that occur (a little more than 250 last semester) more than 60% occur downtown, which is out of the jurisdiction of Public Safety. Public Safety is not here to get us in trouble; they are here for our safety. Greeks are in constant talks with Public Safety almost daily. And as any Greek member knows, if someone gets too drunk at your house, you get in trouble–not only that, it makes your fraternity look bad. So what needs to be known is that the Greeks self-police themselves and those who attend their parties, whether this is because fear of getting in trouble, worries about image or decent human empathy. So this leads me to dorms. You can’t expect Public Safety to station an officer in every dorm every night, can you? No one can blame the RA’s. Like Public Safety, they are not here to bust freshmen, but are here for our safety. While John said the student body must receive aid from the school, I disagree. Now that these numbers are around campus and the student body is aware of the situation, I honestly believe the alcohol-related incidents will decrease, but it is our job to be active and self-police to prevent the increasing trend in alcohol related incidents. We must remember that we are adults and while the school and Public Safety are here to help us out, they are not here to hold our hands and baby us through life.

Tej Pahwa ’12

To the editor:

Katherine Bourque considers it “disturbing” that, in a university student newspaper, one would criticize erroneous claims, as I did in my recent letter to the editor. But this is the very business of a university. Facts are our tools, and we must get them right. It is understood here that an opinion must be undergirded by facts, and when it has none or when it gets the facts wrong, it must be corrected. Ms. Bourque, however, sneers at “book learning” and rejects the very possibility that one might know more about a topic than someone else because one has informed oneself of the state of the research. She dismisses any argument that does not support her a priori beliefs as “partisan” and thereby hopes to avoid the hard work of reading and understanding. Given all this, it is unsurprising that her letter is littered with the same kind of gun lobby-manufactured falsehoods I criticized in the original article. Although The Bucknellian allows her considerably more than their 600-word limit, she cannot respond to even one of the factual claims I made and seems not to have followed basic elements of my argument.

She returns to the red herring of total bans on private handgun ownership, despite the fact that I made clear I was not arguing for this. She believes she has demonstrated how splendidly things work when citizens are heavily armed by referring to the vigilantes who, during the 1992 civil disturbances in Los Angeles, perched on rooftops and fatally shot people who were taking tennis shoes from stores. It speaks volumes that Bourque believes the idea that property is worth more than human life is self-evident. Does she know that exactly one Korean-American died during the LA uprising, and this was 18-year-old Edward Lee, who was shot by a Korean-American vigilante who thought Lee was a looter?

She proceeds next to a talking point on how cities with strict gun laws have high crime rates, while those which allow concealed carry see crime rates go down. I wrote nothing about the effects of firearm availability on crime rates generally and argued only that outlawing high-capacity magazines would make it harder for criminals to walk into a mall and kill many in seconds. Yet even if we engage her issue, we find that Bourque has the facts wrong. The consensus in the research community is that John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis is not supported by the data. Ian Ayres and John Donohue III have written two of the major articles dismantling this hypothesis; Bourque should read them.

On the question of why many guns manage to get into cities and states with significant gun restrictions, much research exists, but Bourque apparently hasn’t even a faint familiarity with it. The data show that the vast majority of these criminal guns come from neighboring states and localities with weak gun laws; hence, only a federal response to proliferation has any chance of effectiveness.

Later, Bourque moves from the uninformed to the absurd. If sociopaths can’t have high-capacity magazines, she claims, they will use rat poison. I leave it to readers to decide whether they believe that Jared Loughner’s visit to the Safeway would have been unchanged if, instead of a pistol with a high-capacity magazine, he’d have had only a bag of d-Con products with him. The point is not that taking 30-plus round magazines from madmen will render them completely harmless. It is that it will eliminate the most efficient means they currently have to kill many quickly. And the law-abiding public will lose just about nothing if such devices are outlawed. This is why Bourque’s attempt to equate gun and power tool deaths is so feeble. Those latter objects, while responsible for some harm, also produce easily discernible public goods that outweigh that harm. What is the public good produced by 30-plus round magazines?

Alexander Riley

Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology

To the editor:

I just opened up the editorial section of The Bucknellian and was humored by the lively response on the “Gun Policy” (“Tuscon tragedy shouldn’t affect gun control policy,” Feb. 2) by Alexander Riley to editorial writer Amanda Ayers. While the editorial opinion piece may have lacked pertinent details supporting the enforcement of existing gun laws as written, it nevertheless adequately supported the second amendment and the founders’ intentions. The response, on the other hand, while well intentioned, was an unfortunately predictable piece riddled (no pun intended) with holes, emotion and misguided logic.

Let us first start with the “obligatory” reference to the founders, who he wryly remarks “we are told liked guns.” While it is historically debatable what the founders’ personal likes and dislikes were, what is clear is that the “invitation to struggle” that became the U.S. Constitution was brilliantly framed to limit powers of each branch of government and, more profoundly, to outline protections of its citizenry by listing what a government writ large could not control. The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers leading up to the Constitutional Convention clearly followed one key vanguard that was codified into law – an inherent and wise distrust of what often develops when centralized power devolves to tyranny over its citizenry. Mr. Riley accurately identifies social norms that did not track with later values in the 19th and 20th centuries, and they were rightly corrected through the amendment process. He incorrectly draws parallels that evolving social norms now must be aggressively applied to gun ownership, and that drafting additional laws to restrict lawful gun ownership is essential, presumably regardless of whether or not they progressively whittle away at a constitutional right with a clear endgame. The follow-up questions then become: is a deliberate journey to undermine the Second Amendment and slowly prevent lawful gun ownership by citizens the right path? Is private gun ownership in and of itself an outdated concept in the modern world? Ask the Korean-American business establishments during the L.A. riots or, perhaps more recently (albeit abroad), the Green movement in Iran what they think on this subject.

Mr. Riley also conveniently skips details in his argument, like the magazine bans that have occurred elsewhere, previous “assault-looking” weapons bans and other laws that have had in fact adverse impacts on crime; that cities with the most restrictive anti-gun laws like Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles have experienced increases in gun violence when the “bad guys” became the only ones who are carrying them. Conversely, numerous other cities have experienced the reverse when concealed permits were increased.

The shooter in the Tucson tragedy, certifiably insane by any measure, was in fact already in violation of numerous gun laws already in place, and he will no doubt suffer the consequences for his actions. Yes, the “man” did do the action, and yes, a large clip enabled him to carry out this crime with ruthless efficiency and violence. What Mr. Riley omits is that someone of this mind, already in violation of the law, could and likely would have resorted to other measures such as a homemade bomb, an automobile, rat poison or any other imaginable means with equally deadly efficiency, precision and murderous results. Sociopaths do these things, hence the name, and a reactive and alarmist response (with a political agenda behind it) to such horrors makes for bad broad policy and further limits rights, like it or not Mr. Riley, that are in fact guaranteed under the Constitution. I wonder what Mr. Riley’s response would have been if a private citizen legally carrying a firearm had downed this sociopath, as has occurred at other crime scenes. No mind, he was on a roll. “The Germans were bombing Pearl Harbor,” as John Belushi so eloquently pointed out in “Animal House.”

Let us next look at the “more Americans died between 1965 and 2000 from firearm accidents than were killed in the entire duration of the Vietnam war” argument. Perhaps based on that we should outlaw cars, motorcycles, power tools and lawnmowers, which data show clearly have killed more Americans than either Vietnam or firearms. Perhaps the most disturbing remark of the response, however, was, “It is depressing to see how frequently, in this country where education levels are so high, and even in a university like this one where students must excel academically just to gain admission, the falsehoods of the extremist gun lobby are uncritically reiterated in this manner.” Translation: even though you must be “book smart” to get into a school of this caliber, you are nonetheless ignorant to disagree with me (in upholding the Constitution) … perhaps in time you will become more “enlightened” (as I am) and see the real truth someday as it is outlined in partisan writings of like-minded individuals. Wow, I guess those founders really didn’t know what they were up to.

Katherine Bourque

Tuscon Tragedy MUST Affect Gun Policy

To the editor:

Amanda Ayers’ opinion piece (“Tucson tragedy shouldn’t affect gun control policy”) demonstrates how much work is still to be done in educating the public regarding sane firearm policy. Her editorial is little more than a jumble of gun lobby myths and falsehoods that fails to seriously engage the public health problem of firearm proliferation in American society.

She makes the obligatory reference to the Founders, who, we are told, liked guns a lot, and therefore we should too. But the Founders also believed that women should not have the vote and that the institution of slavery could be safely accommodated in a democracy, and no one today thinks those are serious positions just because they were proposed by political leaders of the late 18th century. The Founders were not gods, and they did their thinking in a world without AK-47s or Glock pistols with 30+ round magazines. We do not live in their world, and we have to go beyond the historical limits of their reasoning.

Ayers cites Justice Scalia speaking critically of complete bans on handgun ownership, but Scalia clearly acknowledged in his majority opinion in the Heller case that some limitations on the Second Amendment certainly pass constitutional muster. The legislation recently proposed by Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy to outlaw high capacity magazines would clearly make it harder for sociopaths to efficiently kill dozens of people with little fear of being interrupted in their vile work. Ayers repeats the gun lobby cliché: “it was not the weapon … [but] this … man’s actions” that did the harm. But the kind of weapon the sociopath wields obviously matter. Laughner fired more than 30 rounds in a matter of seconds, killing six and wounding 19. He stopped firing only when he emptied his magazine, and he was attempting to reload when onlookers took advantage of the pause to down him. How much more contained would the damage have been if he’d had to reload after only a few shots?

Ayers calls on another canard, the claim that the negatives that follow from the fact that Americans are essentially swimming in firearms (e.g., that more Americans died between 1965 and 2000 from firearm accidents than were killed in the entire duration of the Vietnam war) are outweighed by the purportedly vast number of gun owners who legally defend themselves from criminal attack. This claim has been thoroughly debunked in the research literature, and the gun lobby’s continued reliance on sources and studies that have been utterly discredited is reprehensible. The truth is that legitimate self-defense use of guns by private citizens is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. Ayers and others who share her beliefs might do well to consult this research, which is ably summarized in David Hemenway’s excellent book “Private Guns, Public Health.” The data actually show that a gun in a typical family home is more likely to produce an accidental self-inflicted wound or death, a suicide, or an act of serious domestic violence than an act of legitimate self-defense.

I do not mean to unduly chastise Ayers, who perhaps is just beginning to explore this issue and certainly has much study ahead of her. But The Bucknellian needs to do better on this deadly serious issue. It is depressing to see how frequently, in this country where education levels are so high, and even in a university like this one where students must excel academically just to gain admission, the falsehoods of the extremist gun lobby are uncritically reiterated in this manner. It is time we started thinking rationally about guns and definitively turned away from mythology.

Alexander Riley

Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology

To the Editor:

On behalf of the many Bucknellians to come across your editorial about sexual assault (Oct. 27), we would like to start off by thanking you for writing about an issue that has been a major problem on the Bucknell campus. We strongly agree with the editorial’s assertion that sexual assault is a big problem on campus; however, we feel that there is a disparity between The Bucknellian’s opinion and the way that opinion is conveyed.

The editorial argues that “what we need is a change in mindset that no committee or movement can accomplish alone,” in addition to saying that “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.” However, the point of this movement is to work with other movements (such as M4M and “Take Back the Night: For A Better Bucknell”) to “truly reform behavior.” Depreciating these efforts undermines any chance of creating positive change. If the “I (Heart) Consensual Sex” buttons and t-shirts are useless, why do we wear “gay? fine by me” t-shirts?  Wearing these t-shirts shows support for individuals who sometimes suffer in silence in the wake of cruel treatment by their peers, which is also the way survivors of sexual assault who speak up are sometimes treated at Bucknell.

While we applaud your efforts to give constructive criticisms, we feel your recommendations for more non-alcoholic events does not target the source of the problem. The solution is not Bingo sponsored by ACE in the LC. What really needs to be changed is the environment of the alcoholic, and frankly more popular, activities. We need to talk about sexual assault and learn more about preventing it. It is necessary to educate the student body on the importance of consent. The absence of a “no” does not equal a “yes.” This line between “no” and “yes” is too often blurred by miscommunication and lack of communication has made this topic uncomfortable. Consent requires an enthusiastic and freely given “YES”!  This way of looking at consent is not well known, but it should be.

The Bucknellian could work with us to increase rather than diminish conversation about sexual assault by printing sexual assaults from the “Public Safety Crime Log” or at least make it clear why you don’t. Maybe you could even start a column in which students write about the social scene at Bucknell–-from all different perspectives (e.g., greek, independent, CHOICE, athletes).

All of the efforts and movements you mention in your editorial initiate discussion, and discussion is the first step towards a better Bucknell. The Bucknellian can do its part as well.

Sincerely,

The students in FOUND 91-34: Gender & Philosophy and creators of the “I <3 Consensual Sex”  campaign

To the Editor,

As your staff works to provide important and timely information for the campus community on the topic of sexual assault, I would like to provide some feedback regarding the use and citing of research that has been conducted on campus and nationwide. In the Oct. 29 issue, three data points were reported that had been collected by the 2009 Sexual Assault Research Team Survey. These data were not properly referenced, nor was there any context provided. When sharing statistics with the community, especially those related to such a sensitive issue, it is critical that your readers have an opportunity to understand the nature of the research and that you use multiple data sources to provide accurate and balanced reporting.

I offer for consideration data that were collected using the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) in the spring of 2009. There were 385 women who completed the survey, and on questions that addressed the same three behaviors as those reported in the Oct. 29 issue, 51 women indicated that they had been sexually touched without their consent, 14 said they had experienced attempted rape and six indicated they had experienced a completed rape within the past 12 months. These data are comparable to those collected with the NCHA at similar institutions, with the exception of the sexual touching statistic, which is slightly higher on our campus (13.3 percent vs. 10.6 percent at other private, baccalaureate schools in the Northeast). These data also vary greatly from those reported in The Bucknellian.

Please know that I am in no way seeking to minimize the issue of sexual assault, the significance of the work that lies ahead or the value of important research conducted on campus by our faculty, students and staff. However, as we continue this conversation and seek greater understanding, it will be vitally important for us to continue to examine data from a variety of sources and disciplines to ensure we understand to the greatest extent possible the issues facing Bucknell. Faculty and staff have consulted regarding these two surveys and, while we do not fully understand the differences that lie between these data, it is an important reminder that no one survey answers all questions, and it underscores the importance of using multiple data sources when examining complex social issues.

For a better Bucknell,

Tracy Shaynak

Director of the Women’s Resource Center

Coordinator of the Advocate Program

Editor’s Note: As in any print publication, The Bucknellian is constrained by the limitations of space. The data reported from the 2009 Sexual Assault Research Team Survey were included to illustrate the issue of sexual assault on our campus alone. The full context appeared in the Sept. 10 issue of  The Bucknellian, but  we should clarify that the sample included 342 women and that there was a 38 percent response rate. In addition, there could have been overlap among the three categories of “Touching,” “Attempted rape” and “Completed Rape.”

Students know what’s right

To the Editor:

We live in a world of few absolutes. Issues are rarely black and white, and often we are called upon to distinguish subtle shades of gray.

The challenge of grappling with nuance and questioning inherited ideas is especially evident in academia, where so-called “standard interpretations” must sometimes give way to radical new understanding. Coping with ambiguity is something that all of us must confront, especially at a university.

But some ideals, I assert, are absolute, even on a college campus—in fact, especially at a college campus like ours. We are a residential learning and living community that is more than a place of study for our students. For the better part of the year, Bucknell is also their home.

Recently I appointed a Campus Climate Task Force to ensure that we are supporting and encouraging the most positive overall University experience for our students. The response to my decision to appoint this task force tells me that many of us across the campus—students, faculty and staff alike—share a deep interest in the well-being of this community.

In reflecting on that fact, I found myself drawn to fundamental values. It seems to me that while many ideas are open to question today, in a university community there are several truths that remain categorically true, including these:

—Violence between students is always wrong.

—Capitalizing on someone’s desire or need to belong or fit in is always wrong.

—Non-consensual sex by definition is violent, and is always wrong.

—Condoning the violent acts of others, directly or passively, is always wrong.

—Looking the other way when a wrong is being committed is always wrong.

In my short time at Bucknell, I have already come to learn how much we celebrate learning here. We celebrate difference, and overcoming difference. We celebrate achievement, understanding and creativity.

As a home to our students, we must also celebrate our commitment to values and behavior that make a good campus community possible. Administrations and faculties can stand behind this commitment, and we will. Our students, though, have a vital role in bringing this commitment to life for one another every day on our campus. You know what’s right, and what to do. We as a campus community need you to do it. Your fellow students need you to do it, and so do Bucknellians past, present and future.

The University we create happens one decision at a time. Let’s make decisions that are good not just for ourselves, but for others. It seems inarguable that by doing so, we can guarantee that our community is as good as it can be.

John Bravman

President of Bucknell University