Category: Opinion

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial: BarstoolU

The student community was recently captivated by the story of Parinaz Hadi ’12, who made it to the Final Four of a March Madness-style popularity contest on a website called BarstoolU. The reason this story made it into The Bucknellian is because it captured the attention of so huge a portion of the student community. We’ve heard more students talking about this than just about any other recent story we could have conceivably covered—and while we are willing to meet our readers’ demands for the sake of maintaining a readership, students’ attitudes toward this story nevertheless upset us.

We have no problem with Hadi’s decision to participate in the contest, and we can understand why she was excited about it. Good for her that she did well; it’s got to be gratifying to know that that many people care about you or are interested in you or at least find you attractive. We don’t have the desire or the right to tell anyone what to do with their lives to make themselves happy.

However, we are baffled by the enormity of the student response. Hadi received 215,000 votes, and an administrator from the website commented that he had “never seen anything like” the interest demonstrated by students and that he had been bombarded with “Facebook messages and tweets and emails and hand-written snail mail letters from everyone on campus asking me vote tallies.” It seemed everyone on campus was talking about the contest during the time of the voting, and Facebook campaigns constantly reminded us to vote as often as possible. Furthermore, it wasn’t just male students who were involved in this, and interest spread far beyond the group of people who personally knew Hadi.

In light of constant talk on campus about campus climate issues, in light of the sororities’ recent declaration against misogyny, and in light of the on-going discussion about how we need to be better people and objectify each other less, it is disappointing to see so much of the student body take so much interest in what is essentially a “hottest college girl” contest.

We’re not entirely sure what sparked this interest. Surely some students wanted to support Hadi and others considered themselves to be helping the University’s reputation, taking pride in her success. People were also hugely excited by the huge number of kegs BarstoolU was supposedly going to bring to campus if Hadi won, disregarding the logistical problems of planning such a party at a school where kegs aren’t even allowed, and this motivation is more troubling. Is this what students really care about on campus—having big parties and proving that our girls are the hottest? Did students really have nothing better to talk about than this contest on a website that few had previously heard of? It seems that all of the people admirably striving for a better campus climate have a long way to go.

Categories
Opinion

Is the U.S. still a dominant superpower?

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

In today’s day and age it no longer seems as if the United States is the world’s only superpower. With developing countries like Brazil, India and China growing at rates faster than that of the United States, American dominance over international affairs is already on the wane.

Although the United States is regarded as the world’s leader in many respects, we do not carry the same status that we once had during the second half of the 20th century.

China’s economic ascendancy, in particular, has challenged the Unites States’ identity as a superpower. Economically, it seems as if China has America on a leash as they have loaned and continue to loan us billions of dollars.

If China were to call in their loans, the consequences would be devastating to the U.S. economy.

While the Chinese government plans to invest $586 billion dollars in infrastructure, investment of infrastructure in the United States remains minimal and a comprehensive plan to revamp our nation’s roads, railways, runways and other various transportation services is yet to be implemented.

Internationally, in an effort to compete for the world’s natural resources, China has extended its reach to Africa.

While our government is preoccupied with our wars overseas and all the costs involved, China’s leadership isn’t taking any chances, as it has become the most aggressive investor-nation in Africa in an effort to gain the vast natural resources that Africa offers.

The effects of China’s dominance can also be seen on university campuses throughout the United States, as Chinese students compete with Americans for spots in our nations educational institutions.

Many regard the Chinese educational system as more rigorous than that of the United States. They have fewer days off, high standards for their school systems and now the means to come abroad, all factors contributing to their great success in standardized testing and superior academic results that eventually lead to success in work force.

In order to combat challenges to American domestic and international influence, the United States government must reassert itself as a global economic power by not only investing in infrastructure, but also leading the way in other technological pursuits such as alternative energy resources.

The United States has always led through great economic changes: the Industrial Revolution, the dot-com era, and the real estate boom, and we must continue to do so.

As globalization has caused the world to be smaller, the United States must extend its partnerships overseas in order to be competitive with China in places like Africa because our consumer-based society needs resources in order to fuel our economy.

We must also invest heavily in education if the United States wants to continue to compete with students not only from China but from all over the world. If measures and policies are not implemented to fight these challenges, America will no longer be the superpower that everyone perceives it to be.

If we don’t continue to advance with them, we will fall like all great empires that have ceased to be, countries like China will fill the void.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor: Bravman supports sorority decision

To the editor:

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

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

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

John Bravman
President of Bucknell University

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to Editor: Students respectfully engage with speaker

To the editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial: Charity fatigue?

At this point in the semester, virtually everywhere you turn on campus, someone is raising money for some type of charity. With the Day without Shoes last Tuesday, Bands and Bikes and the Running of the Bison coming up this weekend, the Management 101 companies selling their products, many students already collecting donations for Relay for Life, and many more similar events on the horizon, there is no excuse to not be aware of how many important causes need our help. These philanthropic efforts are generally at least moderately successful, but at the same time, observing how people participate in them makes us question how much the student community really cares.

For example, we saw few people on campus actually participate in the Day without Shoes. While this was surely largely due to the cold and rainy weather, truly dedicated students should have participated nevertheless. The willingness of those students who did participate to brave the weather significantly increased the visibility of their cause, emphasizing the plight of people who must go without shoes in bad weather as well as good. We commend the students who went without shoes, but we wish that more would have joined them.

Despite the prevalence of philanthropic efforts on campus, we wonder just how deeply students actually care about them. Greeks raise thousands of dollars and work many service hours for various charitable organizations, but we suspect that these endeavors have more to do with Plan for Prominence requirements than with genuine passion—hence the many students who go out of the way to get their hours in the least effort-intensive ways possible. Most people who buy Management 101 products do so because they want the products, not because they particularly care where the profits go.

We wonder if the student community might be suffering from a sort of “charity fatigue.” Students cannot participate in all of the worthy causes without either spending a huge amount of money or ultimately contributing a small, insignificant amount to each individual cause. Furthermore, with so many people soliciting time and money for so many important charities, we are worried that students are starting to tune them out; the presence of so many events makes it harder to get excited about any particular ones. Perhaps if we concentrated more of our efforts as a community on a smaller number of causes, we could get more deeply involved and ultimately make more of an impact.

Still, with the possible exception of students required to do charity for classes, at least the students organizing all these events really do care deeply about them. The end result may not be enough to cause major widespread social change, but it is still more than what was started with. So while the attitudes of the larger University community toward charity may not be ideal, what does get accomplished is certainly better than nothing.

Categories
Opinion

Student Emergency Response Volunteers should keep house

By Phil Kim

Special Contributor

[Editor’s Note: Phil Kim is president of Bucknell Student Government.]

Last week, the leadership of the Student Emergency Response Volunteers (SERV) reached out to Bucknell Student Government (BSG) about the loss of their University housing on Sixth Street, Edwards House. We would like to give you some background as to what SERV has experienced here at the University and the influence that this organization has on our daily lives.

SERV and a downtown house have always gone hand-in-hand. For over a decade this organization’s home has been a place to live and run the organization effectively. Every emergency medical organization around the country responds from a central location, and Edwards House (and previously Martin House) has provided SERV with that. This living style is crucial to the way in which the organization can function in a professional manner.

This year, Residential Education and Fraternity and Sorority Affairs re-introduced the application process for the Small Houses Program on campus. SERV, which is not a formally recognized organization under BSG, is instead a wholly-funded division of the University’s Department of Public Safety. In past years, SERV has had an automatic renewal of their housing and was under the impression that this new application process was simply a matter of formality.

Taking away Edwards House from SERV threatens the functionality of an organization that truly impacts the campus environment. A house is crucial to the way in which the organization can function and allow medically-trained personnel to respond as a single professional unit to both campus and University emergencies, while at the same time serving the local fire station. Numerous modifications were made to Edwards House over the past few years to accommodate the space needed for a 24/7 fire and EMS responder unit. The house’s bunkroom, for example, serves numerous purposes such as a place for on-call responders to sleep at night.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) has certified this space as able to maintain prescription drugs and HIPPA-compliant reporting computer and database software used to communicate with the PADOH and SERV’s Medical Command. Thousands of dollars worth of medical supplies and both campus and county communications equipment are certified to be stored in a secure location in the house in which only medically-trained personnel are allowed access. For this reason, it would be a great challenge and of significant expense to move all equipment and modifications from Edwards House to an alternative location.

SERV has been offered alternative locations on campus, though moving the location of SERV’s headquarters from Edwards House to any other location on campus may add crucial minutes to a response call: time that those in danger do not have. Lastly, from our understanding, Chief of Public Safety Jason Friedberg, who oversees SERV, was never consulted or informed of this decision. Given his involvement in SERV, it would seem that a change of this magnitude would be brought to Chief Friedberg prior to the final decision.

For over 20 years, members of SERV have volunteered hundreds of hours of their lives, every week giving back to the community. SERV’s community service is of the ultimate and most personal form, literally affecting the lives of the individuals they come in contact with. SERV provides a service that, in the opinion of BSG, no organization or club can fulfill. Considering that SERV is not compensated in any way for what they do, what they turn to as their reward of service is the house in which they currently reside and the camaraderie that results from that. This house is essential to the organization.

Though BSG has no formal jurisdiction over SERV or the Small Housing process, we believe it is in the best interest of University students that SERV remain in their current location and be given the permission to reside in a proper housing facility indefinitely. With confidence from the BSG Executive Board, BSG Executive Committee, BSG Congress, SERV and Public Safety, it is with strong support that we view SERV’s work to be invaluable on our campus and should be entitled to remain in Edwards House. We strongly urge University administration to re-evaluate the Office of Residential Education’s decision and ask that SERV’s home be reinstated. Any questions or comments are welcome and may be directed to the BSG Executive Board at BSG@bucknell.edu.

Categories
Opinion

Housing lottery system needs reform

By Brian Shoener

Contributing Writer

Housing. For most of you, it will all be over by the time you read this. As I write this, people are fretting about where they will live, whom they will live with (or near) and if they even have the chance of getting the room of their dreams.

Of course this anxiety rises out of the entirely random lottery numbers. What I would truly love to know is why the lottery numbers are random. There are quite a few factors that could be used to determine students’ lottery numbers.

I have talked to others about this, and most of us feel that an appropriate way to determine lottery number would be by basing on students’ GPA. So many people here work as hard as then can, keeping their eyes on the goal of a financially secure future. Why should they have to suffer and worry about where they will live?

They should at least get this small break for their diligence. I’m sure some people would get shortchanged (if they have a bad semester, for example), but I feel that in general, things would work out well.

My other problem with housing is the way rooms are partitioned. I understand and support co-ed floors, but I don’t get why rooms must have a gender assigned to them. This is the 21st century; there must be some way to make it so that a certain number of men and women are on a given floor without predetermining what gender can go in which room.

I had to pick a bad room on the hall I was blocking on because there was only one more “male” room. None of the better female rooms were taken yet, but I couldn’t choose them.

I have very little knowledge of computer programming, but I can’t imagine that it would be difficult to write something to regulate how many of each respective gender is on each hall. The partitioning might be so that everyone has an equal chance to get a good room, but I need a clearly defined reason before I can go along with it.

With these two relatively simple changes, housing could be much less stressful than the chaotic mess it currently is.

Categories
Opinion

Republican budget cuts unstable for economy

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

With an increasingly large deficit looming, House Republicans unveiled their long-term budget proposal to cut $5.8 trillion from spending over 10 years.

The plan, primarily drafted by Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul D. Ryan, who is the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposes to limit federal spending and change major federal health programs, but to also cut taxes for corporations and individuals to 25 percent.

President Obama has argued against this plan, as he believes it will lead to a public backlash. Recently, Republicans offered a one-week extension to the budget at a price of $12 billion in immediate spending cuts. “I can’t have my agencies making plans on two-week budgets,” President Obama said in response.

If something is not done over this budget deal a partial shutdown of the federal government is likely to happen as early as this upcoming Saturday.

In response to the deep and far-reaching budget cuts that the Republicans are hoping to implement, Senator Charles Schumer of New York is calling for Republicans to accept his $33 billion budget cut, which would leave the government open all year.

Republicans argue that their proposal would reduce the size of the federal government by 20 percent by 2015. In the plan laid out, Republicans intend to eliminate hundreds of “wasteful” government programs and temporarily ban spending by members of Congress that is already in place. Democrats argue that this plan is more detrimental than beneficial because it will cut benefits and programs for the nation’s retirees and the neediest of Americans while protecting wealthy corporations and individuals.

Because Democrats control the Senate, this proposal is unlikely to be adopted; if Republicans gain control it will surely be a blueprint for their economic policy.

I believe that it is essential for the government to do something about the deficit, but I also believe that there must be some semblance of balance in the budget.

Millions depend on government programs for assistance, and to get rid of those programs would be a great injustice. Programs like Medicaid that provide health care programs for the elderly and the poor are benefits that we cannot deny to Americans because not only is it against our American principles but it is also immoral to the highest degree.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Letter to the Editor

To the editor:

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

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

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

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

Alexander Riley

Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial: School of Management

The School of Management recently announced details of its four new majors that will be available to students beginning with the class of 2015: Accounting and Financial Management, Global Management, Managing for Sustainability, and Markets, Innovation and Design. These new majors aim to better prepare students for the challenges that the business world will be facing in future decades.

We are happy to see an academic program making such extensive and effort-intensive changes to better address the needs of its students, and we foresee these changes having many positive results. They should make the School of Management stronger and more attractive to potential students, boosting the University’s competitiveness and perhaps making the University more likely to be a first choice among particularly business-oriented students. They will also make management students better able to take programs of study that specifically interest them, rather than having to fulfill the broader requirements of a general major. The new majors and new courses will certainly help students prepare for issues they are likely to face in their future careers. Students will also benefit from having smaller majors, hopefully receiving more direct faculty attention than when grouped together into the broad major of “management.”

At the same time, seeing these changes take place at a liberal arts institution makes us reflect on the directions higher education has recently been taking. The School of Management appears to be moving in the direction of a more explicitly career-oriented education, and we wonder what long-terms effects these changes will have. Will they attract a different type of person to the University? Is it unequivocally a good thing to be clearly focused and specialized? Will the changes allow indecisive students sufficient time to explore their options before having to make a commitment? Or do we need to change the dynamic of a “liberal arts” education in today’s society to give students a better chance to be successful after their college years have concluded?

We believe that the School of Management has done a good job in preserving as much of a liberal arts element as possible in its new curriculum. Students will still have to meet all of the requirements of the Core College Curriculum, taking such diverse courses as a foundation seminar, a foreign language course, two arts and humanities courses, two natural science or math courses, and a course about diversity, among other requirements. Plenty of space will also exist for electives, and many of the new major requirements will actually encourage students to take related classes from outside of the School of Management, so students should not be forced into too narrow of a track by the new majors.

The changes to the School of Management represent an admirable effort to prepare students for the professional world while still retaining a liberal arts core. Balancing these two types of education is clearly no easy task, so we applaud the School of Management for its efforts and hope that they turn out for the best.