Category: Opinion

By Jen Lassen

Assistant News Editor

I think most can agree that applying to college was one of the most stressful periods of our lives thus far. In hindsight, I am surprised I survived it. The pressure of applying to multiple institutions, unaware of which you’ll attend, then waiting for responses from each school was enough to ensue multiple mental breakdowns.

Yet the day I was accepted to the University was the day all my stressors dissipated. As my first choice, this appeared to be the place for me from my first visit and I have not looked back once on my decision to enroll.

Since being a first-year makes me a recent addition to the Bucknell family, I can recall my college search and application process vivdly. Coming from a big high school, I knew I wanted to downsize for college and go to a smaller university with a personal feel. Also, as a Pennsylvania native, I knew I wanted to stay in the state for my college education. I decided liberal arts schools seemed like the best option, so I researched a list of 20 good ones in Pennsylvania and set out with my parents to visit each.

This was the first school I visited in the spring of my junior year and the minute I stepped on campus, I knew I belonged. Primarily, the rural setting and quaint town made me feel welcomed, relaxed and at home. The beauty of Rooke Chapel and the luscious green lawns first captured my eyes, as most can agree that these, among many other elements, are equally eye-catching for all of us.  Through the information session and the tour, I discovered how genuine the people are and how committed each person is to academic excellence. The drive to succeed I observed that day inspired me and resonated with my goals for college and my future. Along with a true match to my ideals, the campus is certainly conducive to a high-quality educational experience since all of the facilities are of the best caliber and all of the buildings are well-kept (and, for the most part, they all match!).

After careful review of the University’s credentials and opportunities and after visiting 15 other schools, I decided to apply early decision to our University. Around this time last year, I had not a clue as to whether I would attend the following year. Now here I am, in the Ellen Clarke Bertrand Library, typing away without a college acceptance care in the world.

Being here so far has been simply amazing. I have gotten involved in many activities and clubs, pursued my interests in the classes I’m taking and have made a wonderful group of friends I absolutely love.

Yet I can’t help but nit-pick sometimes at a few things I would change. Seeing as I’m a total nerd at heart, I wish there was a separate library downhill (where I live) so I would not have to trek each time I want to do my work or study. Also, I want to pursue journalism and was primarily attracted to the University’s strong English and Spanish programs, yet I wish Bucknell offered a communications program for students interested such a field.

Other than these few—and minute—things, this school has turned out to be an absolute haven: the best school I could have ever asked to attend. The University embodies an abundance of qualities—all of which I cannot include in this article—yet I think most of us can confidently say that there are many aspects far too amazing to actually put into words. And for those who have yet to discover the University and its hidden treasures, you will see what we mean.

By Gabriella Fleming-Shemer

Writer

After reading the two articles published last week on chivalry I couldn’t help but contribute to the conversation. Firstly, I think it’s important to look at the history of chivalry and understand how it has become such a valued element of our society. The term “chivalry” can be dated back to as early as 1297 AD, used to describe the valor and militant success of a knight. From the 13th to 18th centuries it has described a set of moral, religious and social practices of knighthood that reflected the exceedingly patriarchal times during which men were admired for asserting forceful dominance whether it be in battle or in the household. The historically “chivalrous” rituals then of holding doors open for women and pulling out their chairs were ways of enforcing ownership and controlling the sphere that women lived in. While traditions die hard and people cannot help but play into its roles, the expectation of chivalry today encourages limiting gender roles that are harmful to both sexes.

Let’s begin with Connor Small’s example of paying for dinner. In his article he talked about the resistance many males have in paying for the first date and how disappointing this is to him. He wrote that “it is natural to get frustrated over feeling like you are an ATM, but if you feel that the girl you are dining with is not worth the price of one dinner, I would question why are you out with her in the first place.” I completely see where he is coming from because paying for another person is showing your respect and admiration for them and therefore should not seem out of place when dating someone. What I disagree with though is the one-sidedness of this practice. If it is only ever men who are expected to buy the meals, pull out chairs and hold open doors what does it say about women? It says that they are the passive ones in the relationship, the ones who need to be taken care of and managed by men. So while I can’t help but appreciate Connor’s desire to fulfill his gentlemanly role, I believe that these long-standing social expectations are outdated and serve to contain women in docile roles.

In stark contrast to Connor’s view that the fundamentally good-intentioned gallantry should prevail, Sarah Morris’s piece held that women today are undeserving of such courtesy due to our increasing promiscuity. In her article, after attributing the initial decline of chivalry to the women’s rights movement, she stated that “too many women are sluts these days.” I’ll admit, even I was momentarily lost for words. But no worries, they’re back.

First off, whether a woman sleeps with 1 or 100 men should not determine how civilly people treat her. What we do in bed, with whom and however often, does not define us, just as how often we workout or how much we eat defines us. Unless we’re placing moral value on abstaining from pleasure, we cannot be contemptuous of those who enjoy this lifestyle. Sarah went on to describe the “sluttiness” of girls at frats who grind with random guys, writing  “I’m not sure that girls who behave like that really deserve to be treated as expected. In that moment at least, when ladylike behavior ceases to exist, so does the opportunity to be treated like one.” Though her point is far from being inexplicit I’ll break it down further: girls cannot both reveal their sexuality and claim respect. So while men continue to be high-fived for scoring a different girl every weekend, women will be persecuted, perhaps have a door shut on her face, because hey, that slut grinded with a stranger last night and who deserves to be treated nicely after that? I would perhaps be more empathetic to her message if she had scorned all “sluttiness” but her point is clear that publically sexual behavior is fine for men and fine for women, if these women are okay with foregoing courteous treatment by men.

Instead of lamenting the so-called death of chivalry, maybe we should look at its effects and ask whether it really is such a bad thing. Rather than blaming dirty dancing or the women’s rights movement (which clearly still has a long way to go) for women’s reduced status, we should work to find ways in which common courtesies can still exist without the structure of oppressive and patriarchal gender roles. Yes, maybe men would feel emasculated for a while when their girlfriends were the ones to drive and maybe women would feel less valuable for a time when they would buy their own coffee but in this world, being chivalrous is a gift both parties could equally give and take. It’s a world where men wouldn’t be forced to empty their pocketbooks on every holiday and women weren’t indebted to them for it. It doesn’t sound too horrible to me.

By Gabriella Fleming-Shemer

Contributing Writer

All this news about the upcoming presidential elections has caused me to think a lot about my political views and whether I have been lazy in picking a candidate. Does our political stance develop over time through an accumulation of lessons learned in school, childhood experiences, etc.? Or have we always accepted the political beliefs of our parents but just gradually come to understand them, embracing such ideas as our own?

While I love to feel that I am an independent thinker unbiased by the influences of people and media, in actuality I am far from it, as is a majority of the population. We grew up believing in everything our parents told us, so why would their political ideologies be any different? I think that this only becomes problematic when acceptance of such ideas hinders our ability to understand and appreciate what other parties have to offer. And due to the stark divide between political parties, it makes it even harder for individuals to experiment with new stances on an issue.

For example, I had a Democratic friend who previously felt that abortions should not be legal but she chose to ignore her own thoughts on the matter, as they did not align with her party’s. While my friend and I disagreed on this issue, I think this a great example of how a group’s ideologies can too easily override and eventually deaden the individual’s personal opinions. I know that the first time I went to the polls I voted for all Democrats without knowing anything about them, save for our current president. Even though this is how our government works and for the most part our leaders can adequately represent us, I can see how the system deters people from questioning their acquired political beliefs.

After spending some time reviewing the presidential candidates’ profiles online, I found that a lot more overlap in left and right issues than I had expected. Take former governor of New Mexico and 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson. He is a Republican, pro-choice and supports civil unions between gay couples. Then there is Randall Terry, a Democratic candidate who is passionately pro-life and anti-LGBT. The point is that these men, like each one of us, have a unique set of experiences that develop into their accumulated set of beliefs on political issues. It is our job, then, as intelligent people with the ability to vote, to move past the blue or red mindset and challenge our previously held philosophies.

By Jen Lassen

Assistant News Editor

What began as a scandal has turned Happy Valley into a hotbed of unrest, riots, anger and confusion. Most importantly, this mess has placed more media attention on Penn State than the university has arguably ever received.

Last week the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal was announced. Yet even more so than the allegations against and arrest of Sandusky, the announcement of the end of Joe Paterno’s 46-year term as head football coach proved more devastating for the University. The beloved Paterno, with perhaps more success gained than any other college football coach, received a phone call last Wednesday saying that he was to step down from his position immediately.

Although our university is approximately an hour away from Penn State, this situation has had plenty of effects on this campus. As a Pennsylvania native, I grew up watching, appreciating and living Penn State football. It is a huge part of the Pennsylvania culture in general. And considering the proximity of the University to Penn State, I am sure many other students have shared my experience as well. Seeing this football empire crumble within a week or so has certainly been upsetting to watch, yet there is also the strong ethical side to consider that has proved difficult to comprehend and internalize.

We all know by now that Penn State University eats, sleeps and breathes football, but this is no excuse for JoePa’s lack of assertiveness in continuing to inquire about the status of charges pressed against Sandusky after JoePa had reported the scandal to a higher authority. Apparently, Paterno’s and now-former assistant coach Mike McQueary’s priorities were askew for obvious reasons: they would have rather protected the Penn State football empire, one that brings enormous amounts of revenue to the University each year, than become involved in a scandal that would have (and has) damaged the empire. Similarly, this scandal has single-handedly exposed the corruption that continued in the empire. Yes, it was a shame that Paterno was fired in the way that he was, and there could have been various psychological or contextual reasons that Paterno never pursued this once hidden wrongdoing. Despite this, he, along with the other officials, could have certainly done more to expose the scandal earlier on and show that they truly understand ethics.

Invariably, the effects of this situation on Penn State as an academic institution will be detrimental. The circumstances, devastating for students, staff, alumni and football fans everywhere may cause them to reconsider their love for the blue and white. Many people may see the uglier and unethical side of Happy Valley; one where the administration tried to brush a sex abuse scandal under the carpet in order to protect its multi-million dollar football empire, and re-consider donating to the university or paying to attend football games altogether.

Although Penn State is notorious for its extensive job network and strong academics, many students apply and attend the school for the dominating football culture. So, this long overdue scandal, finally brought to light, may cause fewer students to apply, as the Penn State rock of football is gradually crumbling.

The chances of something this ethically devastating happening at this university are slim. Frankly, I believe that the administration cares more about the well-being of the students versus protecting the reputation and revenue status of a Bison sports team. Yet if this did happen to us, our secluded bubble would be popped immediately: media would draw attention to our small and otherwise good-reputation university. This would make for a perplexing and equally intriguing news story.  The students, staff and strong alumni network would certainly be upset, yet I do not think it would cause as much devastation as the major upset to the infamous Penn State football program.

So the next time you see a “We love JoePa” sign or T-shirt, consider the ethics behind Penn State’s tragic situation. Yes, the situation was upsetting to people associated with and fans of Penn State. Yes, it was devastating to the University. But officials definitely could have done a better job of exposing the scandal. Whether Penn State will one day regain its status as a football empire is in the cards for next season; all we can do is sit back and let the games—more than just a football toss—again begin.

By Sarah Morris

Contributing Writer

The word “shame” holds a very heavy weight, but regarding a situation like Joe Paterno’s, it is the only word that comes to mind. Shame for his school, his family and his career is all that people are going to remember. His outstanding contributions to Penn State will forever be remembered as given by a coward. It is honestly a great sadness to see such a prominent figure in so many lives be revealed in such a manner.

Despite all the controversy surrounding Joe and his colleagues, many people are still in his defense. I have such a difficult time understanding empathy for someone who was silent about pedophilia. Remembering someone as a great coach is one thing, but despite whatever students think, he shamed the university. Clearly, his actions (or lack thereof) do not compare to the man, Jerry Sandusky, who committed the atrocity that is child molestation, but there is something to be said for standing aside for the act to continuously occur.

I think people do not realize that children’s lives have changed because of Sandusky’s actions, and that his actions could have been cut short by Paterno’s willingness to go to the authorities. I know that if my child had been one of the children who was abused, I would be horrified that Joe Paterno said nothing to the authorities. Many keep saying things like: “Maybe he could have done more, but he’s not the one who raped the kids.” I think that’s a cop-out for people who just want Penn State to continue its golden football program. Maybe he could have? Yes. He absolutely could have. He could have gone to the authorities, because child molestation isn’t some petty crime, it’s an action that will affect the child for the rest of his or her life.

Yes, it is sad that Paterno’s career ended in such a catastrophic scandal, but in the end, only Paterno had control over that. He could have been a hero for exposing the man right when he heard the rumors. It is certainly a sad moment in sports history to lose someone who has meant so much to hundreds of thousands of students, alumni and Penn State fans, but I believe it is even sadder to think of the children whose lives are forever scarred by Sandusky’s disgusting actions and who could have been helped if Joe Paterno had gone a step further in the exposition of Sandusky’s molestation.

By Connor Small

Contributing Writer

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of women complaining that we guys “don’t know how to be gentlemen anymore.” As someone who tries very hard to act like a gentleman every day, I am slightly offended by these remarks. While for the most part I believe that chivalry is, in fact, dead, I find it agitating when women talk about the lack of chivalry in the world, while here I am, holding the door open for them. Maybe the issue is not that chivalry is dead, but rather, women aren’t looking hard enough for it.

Let’s take a step back for a moment. What exactly is chivalry? To me, a chivalrous man is not one who acts for the glory of getting girls’ attention; he is the one who holds the door or gives up his seat because it is the right thing to do. And guys, I am not just talking about acting like such just for women you find attractive. I am talking about doing these favors for everybody. A man should always help an elderly fellow cross the street and say “bless you” when someone sneezes. He should give up his seat to a woman, an elderly fellow, or a disabled person. He should hold the door open for everyone, even other men. He does these things not because he is expected to, not because he feels obligated to, but because he recognizes and respects others.

A common complaint among men is the annoyance of having to do things like pay for the first date. They say things such as, “Well, men and women are equal now, right? So why do we still have to pay for dinner?” When I hear guys say this, I cannot help but shake my head. It is not expected that we pay for the first date, I have had plenty of girls want to help pay for the date, but in the back of their minds, women relate paying for a date to security and generosity; they want a man to sweep them off their feet. It is natural to get frustrated over feeling like you are an ATM, but if you feel that the girl you are dining with is not worth the price of one dinner, I would question why are you out with her in the first place.

I think the real root of the problem here is that society is simply different today than it was when our grandparents and even our parents were our age. I have found that people today are in such a rush to get to their next location that they aren’t even able to stop and think about others for a moment. It is evident that empathy is at an all time low. Everybody needs to just slow down and realize how their actions affect others. For the most part, people—especially women—notice actions such as holding the door open, and they appreciate it.  However, often people are too wrapped up in themselves to realize such chivalrous mannerisms.

From a man’s perspective, chivalry is something that isn’t expected, but is all too absent from our culture. Maybe this stems from men feeling unappreciated in a very self-serving culture.  Maybe we are just lazy. Either way, something has to change.

By Sarah Morris

Contributing Writer

“Chivalry is dead” is one of the most overused phrases today. Not only is it available; the idea saturates media today with its falsehoods. Chivalry is supposed to be a grand lifestyle to live by, in which men specifically must mind all manners: hold doors open, pay for dates, shower women with gifts and romantic evenings.

I think it is important that women everywhere realize there are reasons that chivalry has “suddenly” disappeared. Men did not just sit down one day and all decide to be assholes just to get on our nerves. I believe that the start of chivalry’s decline can be dated back to the women’s rights movement. We wanted to be equal to men, we wanted to vote and we wanted to be able to actually claim ownership to our own belongings, receive an education and hold office.

If women want to be treated equally alongside men, we have to be ready to accept that they’re not going to be overly gratuitous all of the time. If we are truly their equals, they have no real purpose in treating us like the “princesses” some of us imagine we are. But now, we need to look at the most obvious reason why chivalry has keeled over right in front of us.

Too many women are sluts these days. Come on ladies, I know you’ve all been to a register and seen girls bent over, hands on the floor, bums in the air, pretty much having sex with guys on the dance floor. I also know that most of you have been one of those girls before. I’m not sure that girls who behave like that really deserve to be treated as expected. In that moment at least, when ladylike behavior ceases to exist, so does the opportunity to be treated like one.

It has come down to the changes our society has gone through. I personally think such advances are great: women should be able to go around acting like men and behaving however they want to in regards to their sexual actions. But it is necessary that if women want to support free love (not in the groundbreaking manner in which hippies celebrated it), they need to be able to accept the facts that men do not want to open doors and spend money on girls who give it up on the first date, or first register … whatever it may be.

So ladies, go ahead, grind like you are in a Lil Wayne music video on the weekends. But when you meet a guy who you want to take home to Mommy and Daddy, make sure you act like a girl who deserves to be taken home as well.

By Jen Lassen

Assistant News Editor

“I want a brownie,” “Dang, that cookie looks good,” or the ever-popular “but I worked out today … I deserve it!” are popular phrases echoed in college cafeterias everywhere. These phrases are especially common on this campus, where first-years like me enjoy the luxury yet downfall of an unlimited meal plan. Even before college, my greatest fear above meeting new friends, living in a dorm, or handling the rigor of university-level courses was keeping off the infamous “freshman 15”. Even though I have been here for over three months, this fear still nags at each meal.

I am certainly taking care of myself here. I typically work out four days a week, go on occasional runs downtown, sleep a solid eight hours each night and eat the healthiest options I can. However, the temptations of decadent desserts in the Terrace Room, milkshakes at Seventh Street Cafe, and a cookie on the way out of Bostwick are often hard to resist.

I spend time with an amazing group of friends who are all very health-conscious. We help each other pick out meals at dinner, send group texts to one another to meet at the gym and give each other tips on what’s healthy and what’s actually worth the calories, and we still have our slip-ups. Sometimes, we’ll longingly walk past the dessert displays, nine times out of 10 giving in to the goo cake or caramel bar calling our names. Some of us have even gone as far as creating diet plans for one another. But this failed attempt just made everyone crazy, including those not on the plan, at the thought of restricting ourselves from indulging every now and then.

Since college began I’ve often put myself down for not working out hard enough, eating a slice of cake instead of a carrot stick, or eating too much when I wanted to eat less, but I have realized that all of this grief only results in more frustration than I’ve bargained for. Slowly, I’m realizing that the only way to be content with my health choices is to find a happy medium. Instead of putting myself down for having a cookie, I’ll enjoy eating it but will eat something healthier later in the day. Rather than making myself to go to the gym despite a ridiculously packed schedule, I’m starting to work out in smaller stints of time so I don’t overstress myself yet still benefit from the calorie burn. And instead of dieting, I’ll eat smaller portions of what I want and stay away from the foods that are obviously very unhealthy.

No one can be perfect in their eating or exercising habits, especially college students. If I had to guess, I would say that I share common thoughts with a majority of students on campus about being health-conscious 24/7. Even though I’m guilty of being slightly too obsessed with these thoughts, I have learned to compromise for being healthy yet very realistic about my approach to eating and exercising. This way, I don’t get my hopes up, yet I still challenge myself to be healthier every day. It’s once been said that no one can limit you but yourself. So if I say that I want a brownie, I’m eating it, no matter how many minutes I need to spend on the elliptical the next day.