Category: Opinion

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial: Hazing

The University’s chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity (SAE) has been accused of hazing and illegal alcohol and drug use. The University, which claims to have accumulated substantial evidence against SAE, is threatening the chapter with either suspension from the University or criminal charges. We support the University’s “zero tolerance” anti-hazing policy and hope that, if the allegations against SAE are true, the University acts harshly and justly in response.

Considering the huge number of policies the Greek office creates but doesn’t effectively enforce (for example, the “no unregistered parties” rule, the “no mixers” rule, and the wristband rule for registered parties, among many others), we are happy to see the administration taking action on this problem. We are especially happy to see the problem being addressed before someone has gotten badly hurt.

We suspect that hazing is much more rampant at this University than administrators formally acknowledge. As is evident from the widespread binge drinking that takes place approximately three times a week, many students have a habit of being reckless, apparently assuming that nothing bad will happen to them. At least some students seem to apply this dangerous attitude to the concept of hazing as well.

The student body has no excuse not to know what hazing is, especially considering all of the educational programs that members of the Greek system are forced to attend. However, peer pressure reinforces whatever systems are already in place. Even students uncomfortable with what is going on find themselves in a lose-lose situation: if they speak up in objection, they risk alienating themselves and being ostracized from their desired group of friends. Although we may question why a student would want to be friends with a group insistent on hazing, having to find an entirely new group of friends is a formidable task that is much easier said than done. It is unsurprising, then, that students might prefer to endure hazing than risk this other option.

For this reason, change realistically must come from the group level rather than the individual level. Organizations that haze, including non-Greek students as well, must rethink their procedures and reevaluate their priorities. Students must reaffirm a commitment to actually caring about the people they are ostensibly initiating as friends. Such a commitment is completely incompatible with hazing.

We applaud the Greek office and University administration for taking action, because students need a wake-up call. Hopefully this can be that wake-up call; hopefully we won’t need to see a body.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor: Fraternities recognize recycling inefficiency, vow to improve

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

Categories
Opinion

Large donation creates variety of opportunities

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

Recently, William Morrow ’70 and his wife Madeline have committed $6 million in support of the University. This contribution will provide funding to the Academic West and to “University strategic priorities,” President John Bravman said.

The funding will also give to programs such as scholarships, “academic facilities, the annual fund, study abroad and athletics.” According to the University website, the Morrows’ gift will go toward “adding 70,000 feet of classroom, labs, faculty offices,” and more.

With the University adding such great expanses to the campus, one asks the question of whether our university is changing from a small, liberal arts school to a large, research-based institute.

This then starts to make the current student and prospective student weigh the pros and cons to the expansion.

The benefits to such an action would include things like improved infrastructure, greater resources and additional students who may have unique perspectives. I believe that all these things stated are necessary for any institution to thrive in this environment. Universities must not only have state-of-the-art facilities and resources in order to attract the brightest students, but also a diversity of perspectives in order to enrich student life.

The cons to such actions may include a higher student-to-teacher ratio. I believe what makes the University great is that ratio between students and professors is, in most cases, very balanced which makes it easier for students to seek help and thrive in this environment.

Although there may or may not be an increase in the student-to-teacher ratio, I believe that this funding will greatly improve and contribute to the University. This funding will not only contribute to the student life of current students but will also help prospective students seek financial aid if needed. The University is changing before our eyes and the outcome seems promising.

Categories
Opinion

Documentation confirms Presidential birth in the U.S.

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

Recently, the White House released an official version of President Obama’s birth certificate after Donald Trump, a prospective Republican Party Presidential candidate, had questioned whether or not President Obama was born in the United States.

Obama, sounding greatly annoyed and troubled by these claims, said at the White House, “We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve.”

Trump, speaking in New Hampshire, said that he was “really happy” that this had taken place and was “ready to debate on other issues.”

The document that the White House released proves that he indeed born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. “The president believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people,” an Obama spokesperson said. President Obama traveled to Hawaii specifically to pick up the birth certificate.

I believe that this whole argument about President Obama’s birth certificate is nonsense. Not only has he been President for the past two years but also a shorter version of his birth certificate had already been released earlier this year.

Still, many Americans remain skeptical about Obama’s birthplace. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, “only 38 percent of Americans are positive that Obama was born in the U.S., while 15 percent think he was probably born elsewhere.”

This statistic is outrageous because not only does it show a complete disregard for our whole government, but has racial undertones.

Many believe that those who don’t think President Obama was born in the United States may be prejudiced.

Now that the official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate have been released, I hope this birther debate will stop because our country truly does have more pressing and important matters to be concerned with.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor: Social media restrictions inhibit freedom

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

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial: The Greg Mortenson Dilemma

In the past week, allegations have surfaced accusing best-selling author Greg Mortenson of fabricating parts of his book “Three Cups of Tea” and mismanaging funds intended for his nonprofit organization. This controversy is making the University confront two difficult questions: first, whether the book should still be used for next year’s first-year reading experience; and second, whether Mortenson should be brought to campus to speak in the Bucknell Forum as originally planned.

In regard to the first question, we do not think that the controversy undermines the value of “Three Cups of Tea” as a first-year reading experience, and we suspect that, if anything, it might even enhance it. Is the value of a book necessarily fundamentally changed by the fact that it may not be strictly true? Must controversies regarding a book’s author necessarily taint the message of a book? We’re not so sure; we suspect that what the reader gets out of the book might be what really matters.

The controversy surrounding “Three Cups of Tea” will open up whole new possibilities for topics of discussion among first-year students. Discussions can still center on the actual content of the book, but now they can include additional intriguing topics such as ethics, morality, and academic dishonesty. Even the topic of whether the book should have been used can now be a legitimate point of discussion. Furthermore, the scandal might compel students to pay more attention to the book than they might have otherwise. Even if their ultimate judgments are critical, they can be taught how to make these criticisms in academically useful ways. At any rate, controversy often makes a book more interesting, so we should take advantage of this opportunity to capture student interest.

The question of whether to have Mortenson speak in the Bucknell Forum is more complicated because doing so would be not merely using his book, but directly honoring him. It would implicitly link him with the renowned and highly-respected speakers who have appeared at the Bucknell Forum in the past, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jody Williams, Twyla Tharp, Niall Ferguson, and most recently Brian Greene. As a University, we must carefully consider whether we actually want to do that.

It’s not as if the Forum hasn’t also welcomed controversial speakers in the past. For example, it allowed Doris Kearns Goodwin to speak in September 2008 despite the accusations of plagiarism that she faced; it also allowed Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak in March 2009 despite widespread debates about the way in which she characterized Muslims. However, these weren’t among the University’s most positive moments, so we can’t recommend that they consciously be repeated. Furthermore, if—as was demonstrated last fall—first-years can’t even maintain respect for someone like Howard Gardner, forcing them to attend a talk by Mortenson may be asking for trouble.

Still, Mortenson’s message is positive and powerful, even if he may not live up to it himself. We don’t think that the message should be completely forgotten because of largely unproven allegations. But we do hope that the University holds him up to the same standards as it would any other major speaker.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor: IFC supports sorority declaration

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

Categories
Opinion

Sovereign debt crisis threatens future American fiscal stability

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

The current financial crisis has highlighted and exasperated the problem of sovereign debt.

“After a financial crisis like the one of the past two years, there’s typically a wave of sovereign default crises,” Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff said.

As we have seen over the course of history, foreign loans can be greatly beneficial to a nation or they can become an oppressive burden that forces the population to make huge sacrifices.

Developed countries like the United States and Japan face sovereign debt dilemmas because if they continue to spend exorbitantly, investors will become increasingly concerned that they will not pay back their loans, as they are in many countries in Europe, and freeze investment.

Government spending in these countries is also an issue because it crowds out consumption and investment. In addition, if the United States continues to spend, it is inevitable that the dollar will depreciate and that investors such as China will lose money on their investments.

In response to this depreciation, major investors like China will look for alternative currencies and stop investment, which would cripple the Untied States. The outlook for Japan and the United States is increasingly bleak because “an aging population, a sluggish economic recovery and high unemployment will keep governments’ entitlement spending high,” according to Forbes.com.

In order to achieve credibility with investors in the case of the United States and Japan, I believe that they should enforce tighter fiscal policies and engage in the type of financial reforms President Obama has already started. It will only be through these measures that economic stability will be sustained.

Categories
Opinion

Take advantage of opportunities to attend lectures

By Olivia Seecof

Writer

As a campus tour guide, I consistently tell people about all of the impressive things that University organizations bring to campus for the pure benefit of the students. Of course, the big-name concerts always cause jaw-dropping reactions, especially when I tell the story of how I was three rows from Ke$ha and screaming the whole time.

All of the ACE events are great too, especially bingo, which all of my friends will tell you is one of my absolute favorite events on campus.

This semester I have discovered my newfound appreciation for all of the wonderful lecturers that different University organizations bring to address the student body. The first lecture I attended was the Paul Rusesabagina (Hotel Rwanda) lecture, sponsored by the Student Lectureship Committee.

His lessons were so full of emotion and power that I felt that his fame was definitely second to his story. I came out of the lecture with a different outlook on why people help one another.

The second lecture I attended was given by the cast of the MTV show, “The Buried Life.” Truthfully, I only went to this lecture because I wanted to brag to all of my friends that I saw the cute boys of the show, but I again came out of the lecture inspired and with new perspectives.

I remember lying in bed that night thinking about the one thing I want to do before I die. While I am not one for making bucket lists, I came up with a goal and a plan to make it happen. I would have never even thought about this life-changing goal had it not been for the inspiring lecture offered right on campus.

Thirdly, I attended the Brian Greene lecture on breakthrough thinking and string theory. Because I am not currently enrolled in physics, this lecture was full of material that was way over my head.

Still, I enjoyed this lecture more than I anticipated and was genuinely interested throughout Greene’s talk. Greene is an incredibly respected individual in his field, and it was an awesome opportunity to have him lecture to our student body.

I also regularly attend the biology department’s seminars. While these lectures are shorter, only lasting one hour, they are full of material that I find incredibly interesting and I look forward to them every month. Whether the lecturer is a visiting professor or one of the University’s own, the lectures are always of top quality and about very relevant topics in the biology world.

While I have only taken advantage of a few of the lectures offered on campus, I intend to be more aware of the opportunities and take full advantage of them. I encourage you all to do the same. These lecturers come to the University to add to the quality of our education and enlighten us with topics that we might only know a little about.

I mean truthfully, who doesn’t want to know more about how many Africans were saved from genocide, or how a bunch of friends ride around trying to knock things off their bucket list or how the universe came to be in existence? I know I do, and that is why I greatly appreciate all of the opportunities the lecturers on campus present.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor: Bruce’s appearance raises questions about civil discourse

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