Category: Opinion

By Andy Isola 

Contributing Writer

Healthcare coverage cannot be framed solely as an issue of individual rights or beliefs because it always affects someone else’s health or access to care. Nothing should trump a patient’s right to make informed decisions or to receive access to safe and legal health care services because healthcare exists to serve the needs of the patient.

Insurance exists as a method of risk minimization. It is not a charity or a morally-based idea; it is a business. Preventative treatment is covered on all but the cheapest plans because early detection and treatment of serious conditions can cost far less than if the patient waits until symptoms become life-threatening. Along the same lines, I believe contraception fulfills this criterion for preventative care. Even insurance companies agree that contraceptive services save money over time or are at least cost neutral. Unplanned pregnancies mean lost work time and lower productivity for businesses, less focus on prenatal care and lower birth weights. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended and about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. If this was really a pro-life issue, access to contraceptives should be lauded as a way to ensure that more pregnancies occur to mothers who are prepared for a child and more able and willing to put an effort into raising that child. I then have no choice but to assume that the Catholic objection to contraceptives stems from the fact they believe access to contraception encourages sex for pleasure.

Russell Shorto’s New York Times article from May 7, 2006 entitled “Contra-Contraception” states that in 2003, the manufacturers of Plan B applied to the Food and Drug Administration for over-the-counter status. The FDA’s joint advisory panel voted 28-0 that it was “safe for use in the nonprescription setting” and then voted 23 to four in favor of granting Plan B over-the-counter status. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine endorsed the switch. But Dr. W. Hager, a Christian conservative whom President Bush appointed to lead the panel in 2002, shot down the idea because he feared it would “increase sexual promiscuity among teenagers,” which FDA staff responded to with studies that showed no increase. Disregarding these studies, Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA, expressed fear that over-the-counter Plan B would lead to “extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an ‘urban legend’ status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B.” The FDA denied the application. 

By the way, contraceptives have inarguably contributed to a massive decline in the social cost of sex–that is, the emotional investment required for two people to agree to sleep with one another. It isn’t hard to fathom that reducing the risks associated with sex will invariably inspire more of it. This leaves two options: either restrict access to contraceptives and vilify sex, or educate youths on how to safely practice sex. I don’t have to look far to find a study that shows that focusing funding on abstinence-only education has a direct correlation with the rates of unplanned pregnancy.

Free market proponents say that if you do not agree with this type of exemption, you can always get a job elsewhere, or buy individual health coverage. The problem is, people rarely have the luxury of choosing a job based on benefits coverage, especially in the case of healthcare institutions. Catholic hospitals represent 12 percent of all hospitals nationwide, and more than a quarter of Catholic hospitals are located in rural areas. There are often no other hospitals in the immediate area, and the poor may not be able to afford to travel to another institution. Also important to remember: not everyone who works at these hospitals is Catholic. Between 1990 and 2003, there were 183 mergers involving Catholic hospitals, and most of the time, the merged hospitals followed Catholic directives. The people who would benefit most from having their contraceptives covered don’t have a choice, and we’re arguing about who gets the right to make it for them.

By Connor Small

Writer

Get ready. It’s time to relive all of those awkward middle school dances: Nelly is coming to the University. Last week it was announced that our Spring Concert this year features Nelly, with Timeflies opening. While I can understand the hype around his coming to the University, I (along with many of my peers) question the decision to bring him to campus.

Now, before I say anything else, let me say this: I do enjoy Nelly, and I recognize the talent he has. He has had many chart-topping singles, including the songs “Ride Wit Me,” “Hot in Herre” and most recently, “Just a Dream.” His album “Country Grammar” has been certified nine times platinum, and for good reason. He is truly talented—that is indisputable—but I am disappointed the Concert Committee couldn’t find an artist from a genre other than hip-hop.

The three big concerts this year, Chiddy Bang/The Cool Kids, Wiz Khalifa and now Nelly will all have featured hip-hop, and I feel the Concert Committee is not doing justice to the many appealing artists in other genres. Bands such as Arcade Fire and Bon Iver (who won Grammys for the 2011 Album of the Year and 2012 Best New Artist, respectively) are both popular, versatile and mind-blowingly good live.  Besides coming from a genre other than hip-hop, I can guarantee that people would buy tickets to see both of these bands, as well as many others.

I understand when people our age attend a concert, they want to dance and party, and finding an artist that people like to dance to may have been one of the driving forces behind the decision to bring Nelly to the school. But the University used to have a great tradition of bringing in artists on the rise, just before they became big, and with a diverse range of genres (past acts include Kanye, Jay Sean, Foo Fighters, Dave Matthews, The Goo Goo Dolls and Rusted Root).

Another aspect to consider is campus climate: how does Nelly reflect the principles and morals of the University? Is the man who sings about taking off all of our clothes, and who sponsors the energy drink “Pimp Juice,” really, in the eyes of the University, the best choice to echo the goals the school has been working towards? With a higher focus on Campus Climate, this selection has, understandably, made some faculty members upset. While this might not be important to many students, it should definitely be considered.

I don’t mean to rip on Concert Committee, nor do I want to seem as if I am telling it how to do its job, I am simply stating there should be more diversity in terms of concerts in the future. I know part of the committee’s job is to find artists that will appeal to the largest number of students possible, but they have ignored the fact that the University has a diverse range of musical interests, and that not everybody likes rap. I have great respect for all members of Concert Committee and their efforts in trying to provide fun concerts for us, and I know that they have the capability to bring in artists that everyone will enjoy.

By Jasmine King

Contributing Writer

In recent years, TV shows and movies have become an outlet for many producers and/or directors to illustrate their frustration with current events. Between reality TV shows and the dramas that air every night on FOX and ABC, it is no wonder that our nation’s “right to free speech” now has a negative context. The producers and directors frame their shows to expose the truths about today’s society, but in some cases they go too far, over-dramatizing and even poking fun at serious situations to make them seem less important.

In almost every show on television, there is at least one controversial subject, like rape, abortion, the death penalty, illegal drug use and the list goes on and on. We tell more about a person from his or her actions than from his or her words. In viewing these television shows, it is no wonder the world believes that if it is shown on TV, then it must be okay to do in real life. For example, in “Glee,” Quinn was determined to destroy the reputation of the woman who adopted her child in order to regain custody of the child. I was outraged by this episode, not only because she framed Rachel’s mother, but also because there were no true consequences shown of her actions. Without showing the consequences, TV is teaching citizens that it is okay to do acts like this, because there are no repercussions in the next episode.

Controversial issues have been seen in shows like “Glee” and the infamous “Family Guy.” Both of these shows touch upon controversial subjects in every episode and yet, they continue to be aired each week. Don’t get me wrong, I watch both shows. However, there is a point where the producers should draw the line in terms of what to show in each episode and how far to take it. For example, the University claims to be working on the issue of gender stereotypes, but how can we (as a University and a nation) say we are not condoning the seriousness of women’s rights when even our TV shows make jokes about it? To give “Family Guy” credit, the newer episodes have been more conscientious in terms of portraying more serious subjects, but after all, it is comedy. In the latest season, there is an episode in which Glenn Quagmire’s sister is being physically abused and although this is a very serious matter, the producers utilize comedy in subtle ways that do not take away from the real issue at hand. This is one of the most serious “Family Guy” episodes, as it illustrates the life of an abused woman, and I give credit to the makers of “Family Guy” for having the guts to take on such a hushed issue.

Our country does not want to see an abused woman or a child being neglected when we come home at night; we want to be humored, even at the expense of our morals. Humor has become a way of dealing with the things we cannot resolve. Thus, if we are making fun of the subject, at least we are acknowledging it is there.

By Jessica Isgro

Contributing Writer

Some people see internships as corporate America’s way of saying “pay your dues.” Undoubtedly, it’s easy to see it this way: the unpaid work, the undesirable position, the obscure hours, the fierce competition. In reality though, this is a glass-half-full approach to what is simply a reality of the working world. Whether we, as college students, want to admit this or not, internships are merely a way to get a leg-in to our industries of choice.

Now, bear in mind I have no intention to disparage the part of universities in training students to work in their desired fields. However, there is only so much that can happen in the hallowed halls of any institution; as much as higher education tries to simulate whatever real-life experiences we may encounter in future jobs, nothing compares to the working world like the working world. We can discuss situations, even simulate them in role-play exercises, but until we experience them we do not know how we would truly react.

Think about the massive leaps of faith employers would have to take if all they were presented with in an interview was a list of grades and extracurricular activities. Straight As, leadership positions and varsity sports show intellect, initiative and versatility to employers, but they do not indicate that you will be valuable to their team. What does show them your capabilities in the field is real working experience. This way, they know you have some practical skill, that you have worked in a professional environment and they have yet another reference to contact to see if you excelled in your position.

For individuals just entering into the working world, there is an interesting, and seemingly unfair, duality to contend with. This duality is that of entry level positions which still require prior experience. The only way to have experience without yet fully being a part of the industry is to partake in internships. Even if employers do not necessitate this prior experience, they will likely choose the candidate with the most experience.

At the end of the day, are these students being exploited by a process that has become more and more commonplace in our society? No. You cannot be exploited by something that is completely voluntary. Yes, internships feel compulsory; if you don’t participate, then you lag behind in the competition against all those candidates with more experience. Yet when it comes down to it, technically, no one forces you to be an unpaid intern. When walking into an internship, a given student knows he will not be paid, he may receive “grunt work,” and he will not have the exact experience as an employee. There is a difference between this intern feeling exploited and being exploited.

It is a process laden with competition, stress, interviews and training. The eventual payoff of scoring the big job is worth the seemingly tedious journey. So do we condemn businesses for offering unpaid internships? Do we challenge them as instilling in us the concept of unpaid work? Or, do we thank them for the advantage they give us when we become a part of the “real world?” This is truly a matter of personal preference, but it seems logical to me that we swallow our pride, gain some experience and use internships as a means of preparation for the careers we hope to one day obtain.

By Mislav Forrester

Contributing Writer

Bring sexy back? Sexy never left, and if it did, it never left the University. A good friend of mine visited once and commented about how many pretty women there are here. Sexy, pretty, cute–whatever the choice term—all get at the same idea. So, what does it mean to be sexy? We grow up in a society where images of men and women are shown in contrast to each other. We focus on differences and overlook glaring similarities. It’s men who control these messages, telling women to be sexy and make themselves attractive for men.

It is great if a woman is dressing in a way that makes her feel powerful and proud of her self and body, but conforming to men’s expectations without thinking about the reason can be dangerous. If men host social events to which women must wear short skirts and revealing tops to attend, they are forcing women to fulfill their desires without regard for the women’s desires. We, as a society, are bombarded by images of women’s bodies, while men’s bodies are emphasized much less often.

Sexiness may appear to give women an advantage in some social situations, but it is often for the purpose of attracting men. In Disney movies, for example, female roles only appear powerful through their acquisition of men as marriage partners. In “The Little Mermaid,” Ariel gives up her voice so that she can marry Prince Eric. In “Mulan,” Mulan has to dress like a man in order to be allowed to fight, and her family only values her as a woman when she brings home a husband at the end; thus cementing a woman’s social role as a submissive partner whose importance is secondary to that of her mate. The problem is that a false sense of power is created; men still have more physical strength and top positions in most businesses and companies, as well as religious and political organizations, in our society. The power of attraction pales against the power of physical strength in a sexual context.

Cosmopolitan’s October 2011 issue promises a way to “shrink your inner thighs” following with an inside statement, “We’re psyched to see that P!nk isn’t rushing like mad to lose the extra pregnancy pounds.” Magazines for women simultaneously encourage women to be uncomfortable in their bodies while also being friendly towards women who are not. These contradictions are not coincidental and surely confuse readers. One thing is clear: women have to make themselves attractive for men. The very same Cosmopolitan issue promises “Times he wants you to be jealous” and “Four words that seduce any man. Any time.” Many magazines marketed to women are produced by men; Cosmopolitan and Seventeen Magazine are both published by Hearst Corporation, whose chairman and vice chairman are men.

In our male-dominated and centered culture, we are taught to view men as the norm and women as the exception, even though the physical and psychological differences we perceive between men and women are mostly socially constructed. This gender and sex binary, with only men and women, excludes anyone who doesn’t fit its narrow definitions and teaches women to see themselves through the eyes of others, particularly men. Our relations with others can only define who we are within the context of our own personalities; to only see ourselves through the eyes of others is to ignore our individuality and create an artificial void.

Students can regularly hear men talking about how “sweet” a particular woman’s ass is in our school cafeteria, and it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for the woman because she is being turned into an object of sexual desire for that man, and for the man who has accepted such a shallow point of view that he can no longer see sexually attractive women as people.

Sexy should not be a tight-fitting, body-accentuating outfit that catches the eye of a man in search of sexual gratification. Sexy should be an individual who is confident, aware of her and his sense of self, and not something involving pleasing others. It is up to us as a community to make sure our University includes an environment that accepts people for who they truly are.

By Josh Haywood

Contributing Writer

We have all been in class working away when “that guy” does something so annoying that you want to scream at the top of your lungs. Being at an institution for higher learning, it would be easy to assume that students follow certain rules of etiquette. Sadly, this is not the case at the University. This is a composite of the three most annoying things students do in class and how to self-alleviate the pain of looking like a fool, which we all are guilty of at one time or another.

First up is arriving to class late. This is possibly the most annoying failure of classroom etiquette. I can justify being four or five minutes late, but that is where tardiness is cut off. When you are rolling in 10 or 15 minutes late, you might as well not even come to class at all. Do you think you are Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell and can sneak past 20 other students without being noticed? It is extremely rude to arrive this late; I would even go to the extent to say that flipping the professor the bird is more polite than coming in as such. What are you going to do when you have a real job outside the “Bucknell Bubble”?  Excusing yourself by saying “my bad” won’t cut you a break in the real world. 

The next issue is strictly generational: cell phone use during class. What would you say if your professor just whipped out his or her phone and started texting President Bravman asking which he likes better, Lin-Sanity or TebowMania? It is honestly a dead giveaway that you are texting if you are looking down at your crotch smiling like it told you a good joke. You do not need to be checking Facebook to see if that random girl you poked at 3 a.m. last Friday has poked you back. Just leave the cell phones in your pocket or—better yet—your bag.

The third classroom annoyance is talking to your friends during class, specifically whispering. I seriously doubt that you cannot wait until after class to discuss which fraternity is throwing down this weekend. Whispering is the absolute worst as it accomplishes the total opposite of what it is meant to do; instead of a private conversation, it is as if you are giving a public service announcement. Ladies, we do not care what type of rain boots you just bought. Men, we do not care that you just bought a sick pair of vintage Sperrys. Sit down, shut up and take notes; it’s simple as that.

Hopefully you will be able to pass this knowledge on to your fellow friends and classmates, because obviously they are lacking in this area. Go to class prepared, sit in the first three rows—not the back row with all the other people who went to the bar last night—and pay attention. For all you know you might learn a thing or two.

By Riley Schwengel

Contributing Writer

While many students here at the University are from nearby locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, a good amount, like myself, are far from home; this brings certain advantages and disadvantages.

I am from Rhode Island and must endure a seven-hour drive every time I wish to go home. I have learned to battle any homesickness that may arise by participating in a variety of activities. When I was deciding which college to attend, I knew I wanted to go somewhere far away as I wanted a change of scenery. Many of my friends went to schools relatively close to where they grew up, but I wanted to explore new places and meet new people from different parts of the country. That being said, I was still concerned about being seven hours away: I thought I would get homesick and have trouble adjusting to my new environment. Surprisingly, I really did not have that much trouble getting used to school. I immersed myself in the many activities the University has to offer and surrounded myself with new friends. Whenever I felt a bit homesick, I had the technological innovations of Facebook and Skype to keep me close to my friends and family back home. With how busy I was at school and the chats online with family, I really did not have time to be homesick.

I believe the key to staving off homesickness is complete immersion in what the school has to offer. I knew I would have a lot of free time between classes, so I joined as many activities as I could: club tennis, pep band, ski team and The Bucknellian.  This allowed me to meet a lot of great friends and compensate for all the activities I left back home. While for the average student this advice may prove invaluable, many do have situations that may make this move to college quite difficult.

One challenge that some students face is dealing with a chronic illness so far from home and leaving the medical care they grew up with. I myself do not have any chronic illnesses, but I have been sick here and can attest that it is not fun to be ill far from home.

Students with chronic illnesses may have a harder time adjusting to their new home because of the medical care they require. I read an article in The New York Times by Lily Altavena, a junior at New York University who has Crohn’s disease. Her advice was to plan ahead; she advised finding a doctor, getting medical information together and telling the school early on to get the best and easiest treatment when the need arises. She also advises to not be afraid to go home if you are really having a bad experience with your illness and school. Luckily for us, the University does have Health Services to assist with any medical emergencies. They provide help with simple maladies, like colds or flus, and have services that allow chronically ill students to receive the guidance and treatment they need. My only complaint with Health Services is that it is a rather long walk. Not to worry–they have a solution for that too; they provide those too ill to walk with a ride to Health Services or to the hospital at no cost. While they may not be as comforting as your mom’s homemade chicken soup, Health Services can be a huge help for a variety of ailments.

Coming from one who is far from home, the University can easily help you overcome any homesickness if you throw yourself into the many activities and clubs this school offers. If there are any situations that may make this transition harder, like chronic illness, then plan ahead and seek assistance and this school can easily become your home away from home.