Category: Opinion

Categories
Opinion

New bookstore elicits mixed reviews

By Leah Rogers

Contributing Writer

If you haven’t already noticed, the bookstore has moved to a brand-new location in downtown Lewisburg. The old bookstore was conveniently located in the Elaine Langone Center, right in the middle of campus. The new downtown bookstore is bigger and more modern; it has everything, including miniature escalators. But is the new bookstore too much?

It has plenty of positives. It is much bigger and more aesthetically pleasing than the old bookstore, featuring classy dark wood floors, a cool atmosphere, mini-escalators and even a Starbucks for those who need a pick-me-up after making the trek from campus. “It’s the biggest college bookstore I have ever seen. It has escalators, so it’s awesome. It has everything you need, all in one place,” Katie Perez ’14 said.

There is much more space, and having three floors makes for a much better selection of merchandise. The second floor is a sea of blue and orange clothing and other items. Students can get everything they could ever want emblazoned with the University logo, ranging from sweats and t-shirts to shot glasses and baby clothing.

Downtown Lewisburg also appreciates the new bookstore. Having the bookstore off campus will cause more students to go downtown, which means more business for restaurants and shops. Citizens of Lewisburg can now visit the bookstore easily, increasing the bookstore’s profit and helping citizens feel more connected to the University.

The new bookstore’s biggest drawback is its location. Having the bookstore downtown may be good for business, but it is very inconvenient for students. Students who live downhill can enjoy a relatively short, easy walk downtown. For students living uphill, things aren’t so simple. The walk takes about 15 minutes, but it feels like years walking back uphill with bags full of books.

Shuttle buses take students from campus to downtown, but nobody ever seems to know what the exact schedule is. Instead of waiting around for a bus to show up, students just make the hike downtown to save time. “Although the bookstore was moved further away, I feel like it’s worth the walk because of all the improvements that were made,” Mike Kehrli ’13 said.

The bookstore also did a poor job of stocking textbooks during the first week of classes. Students’ books were backordered, making it hard to do classwork on time. Nicole Mastrodomenico ’14 felt the burden. “I had to return a bunch of times to get all of my books. I didn’t appreciate the long walk back, and I couldn’t figure out the shuttle schedule,” she said.

Although the new bookstore might be a tad over the top—maybe we could do without the escalators—it was definitely worth the upgrade. If the shuttle schedule were better known, the bookstore would be more accessible, and students could enjoy it with citizens of downtown Lewisburg. Overall, the new bookstore is a great improvement and the positive outcomes will continue to grow as we use it in the years ahead.

Categories
Featured Opinion

Why the NYC Mosque debate is misguided

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

It is popular in parts of the media concerned with commentating and editorializing to claim that a debate produces “more heat than light,” or to assert that the mainstream dialogue is “fruitless.” The planned building of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is a case in point.

The only reason this issue is a news story is because of the disinformation circulated by the likes of Fox News and the New York Post. The cultural center will not open on September 11th, as Republican Glenn Beck claimed in August on “Fox & Friends,” nor will the center be located “at” Ground Zero as Andrea Peyser bleated in her May column. In fact, the mosque will be built on the former site of a Burlington Coat Factory, two blocks away.

None of these commentators ever mention that there is already a mosque named “Masjid Manhattan” only four blocks from Ground Zero. Nor do they reveal that the Pentagon, another site of the 9/11 attacks, offers Muslim prayer services led by an imam every Friday.

Arguments made by those who oppose the building of the center are not only misguided but utterly laughable. Newt Gingrich has expressed that Muslims should not be able to build a mosque near Ground Zero until Saudi Arabia allows the building of churches. Because our nation should be going toe-to-toe with a government that treats women as subhuman and routinely uses amputation as a punishment for robbery.

Other politicians have labeled the project as offensive to both American principles and the families of 9/11 victims, as if this designation should automatically strip the Cordoba leaders of their legal right to build. This propensity to throw a tantrum over materials or actions deemed offensive is not so far removed from the petulant and illiberal reactions to the Mohammad cartoons. It seems freedom of expression has its enemies on both sides of the clash of civilizations.

Once we get into the business of saying, “You can practice your religion, but just not there,” or “you can practice your religion, so long as it doesn’t offend anyone,” we have crossed our Constitutional boundaries. Could one imagine preventing a Christian group from building churches in the south because of the lynching carried out by the Protestant Ku Klux Klan? Such an idea would automatically be dismissed as ludicrous.

I do not personally enjoy any church or mosque or consulate of Scientology being built anywhere, namely because I believe them to be against reason and critical thinking. I do not personally agree with statements made by the main architect of this project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, concerning the legitimacy of the theocratic Iranian regime. But these sentiments cannot be used in a discourse of civil liberties. Regardless of my own biases, Muslims have the right to worship and build wherever they wish.

Those who understand the U.S. Constitution and frame this debate in terms of religious freedom must also understand that tolerance is a two-way street. If Muslims in the United States begin calling for Sharia law courts and censorship of the arts, I hope my compatriots will stand in opposition to this double standard. I hope we do not equate being religiously tolerant with sacrificing secularism; these two principles are more interdependent than we think.

Categories
Opinion

France moves to ban the burqa

By Chris Giglio
Contributing Writer

As French lawmakers move to enact further bans on the burqa—an article of clothing many Muslim women wear—they should consider what they are really trying to solve. Burqas were banned from public schools in 2004, and in January of this year, a government-appointed committee concluded that all those who wear burqas should be barred from public services.

This move has found support from approximately 70 percent of French citizens and from both sides of the political spectrum. It is astonishing how much attention this issue has received, considering only about 2,000 of the 3.5 million Muslims living in France actually wear the burqa.

Those advocating the ban argue that though the numbers are small, the burqa stands against the ideals of the Republic. As French Republic President Nicolas Sarkozy said, “the full veil is contrary to the dignity of women.”

Indeed, many women wear the burqa because of the physical and social consequences that would result if they did not. It is also true that women voluntarily wear the burqa to express their religious piety. A ban on the burqa would violate core ideals concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms found in the French Constitution and the European Convention.

If the subjugation of women is the main concern, what’s to say the men exercising this oppression do not find other means to subjugate their women? To me, this ban is unconstitutional, ineffective and only serves to reinforce the idea that the French state is fundamentally against Islam.

Instead, I suggest that the government focus on the integration of Muslim communities in the form of developmental projects and through an affirmative action-type program. Currently, much of the Muslim population resides in pockets of poor housing projects throughout France. Most women who wear the burqa can be found in the most disconnected parts of these communities.

Integration would bring women who are pressured into wearing the full-veil garment in touch with the necessary social services to deal with this problem. For those women who choose to wear the burqa, integration would increase awareness of its true purpose in the general French population.

The current fixation on the burqa captures the increasing concern in Europe that the influx of Muslims from around the world is threatening the national identities and values of European states. Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark are also considering bans on the burqa.  If European governments choose to act on these fears through harsh laws, they will ensure that Muslim communities will continue to position themselves against European states. A commitment to integration is the right path, and if France pursues this strategy, the nation is in a perfect position to lead the way.

As French lawmakers move to enact further bans on the burqa—an article of clothing many Muslim women wear—they should consider what they are really trying to solve. Burqas were banned from public schools in 2004, and in January of this year, a government-appointed committee concluded that all those who wear burqas should be barred from public services. This move has found support from approximately 70 percent of French citizens and from both sides of the political spectrum. It is astonishing how much attention this issue has received, considering only about 2,000 of the 3.5 million Muslims living in France actually wear the burqa. Those advocating the ban argue that though the numbers are small, the burqa stands against the ideals of the Republic. As French Republic President Nicolas Sarkozy said, “the full veil is contrary to the dignity of women.” Indeed, many women wear the burqa because of the physical and social consequences that would result if they did not. It is also true that women voluntarily wear the burqa to express their religious piety. A ban on the burqa would violate core ideals concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms found in the French Constitution and the European Convention. If the subjugation of women is the main concern, what’s to say the men exercising this oppression do not find other means to subjugate their women?

To me, this ban is unconstitutional, ineffective and only serves to reinforce the idea that the French state is fundamentally against Islam.  Instead, I suggest that the government focus on the integration of Muslim communities in the form of developmental projects and through an affirmative action-type program. Currently, much of the Muslim population resides in pockets of poor housing projects throughout France. Most women who wear the burqa can be found in the most disconnected parts of these communities. Integration would bring women who are pressured into wearing the full-veil garment in touch with the necessary social services to deal with this problem. For those women who choose to wear the burqa, integration would increase awareness of its true purpose in the general French population.The current fixation on the burqa captures the increasing concern in Europe that the influx of Muslims from around the world is threatening the national identities and values of European states. Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark are also considering bans on the burqa.  If European governments choose to act on these fears through harsh laws, they will ensure that Muslim communities will continue to position themselves against European states. A commitment to integration is the right path, and if France pursues this strategy, the nation is in a perfect position to lead the way.

Categories
Featured Opinion

Letter to the Editor

An extraordinary opportunity lies before us. This summer, the University bookstore will move downtown to a new location on Market Street. The move will open up 12,000 square feet for which the student body must act decisively to claim its sovereign right.

Among the University’s few structural weaknesses is its lack of a communal space of an academic nature where students can gather in small groups or form clubs to work collaboratively on new enterprises. This lack of gathering space fragments campus life unnecessarily, contributing detrimentally to gender interactions, which are left to dorm encounters and segregated social groupings in our sororities and fraternities. In a vacuum, the first floor of Bertrand Library substitutes as the most social place on campus-albeit mostly trivial chats en passant between book retrieval and morning coffee.

The design of our dining system, with its dispersion of students to their respective watering holes, severely limits cross-gender and interdisciplinary -collaboration-unless you include weekend social activities! Most respected universities offer dynamic, student-designed spaces for improvisation, to advance collegiate and intellectual interaction. Refitting the bookstore’s void would immediately become one of the University’s greatest assets. The University should rise to the challenge and create an environmentally-designed student club to nourish student ventures and to attract the brightest and most talented scholars of tomorrow.

The Elaine Langone Center renovations need to become the first priority of both the administration and the student body this spring. During the presidential search and transitional period, a university-led renovation of the space would signal a much-needed commitment to cultivate greater student cohesion on campus. While the attention of the trustees is focused-understandably-on long-term infrastructure projects, investment to improve this existing asset would see handsome returns. Let us focus the budget on utility-maximization, thereby leaving the University with a space that it has long desired.

I have a vision of returning to my alma mater, in the near future, to find a social laboratory of bright students sharing business plans, writing plays together, plotting off-campus service and performing music. I picture future Bucknellians plopped on some chairs,     delving through Plato or Aristotle with their legs quietly folded on coffee tables. Others collaborate over puzzling economic problems. Walking deeper into the new student lounge, I notice first-years settling a dispute over their ping-pong talents, while sorority sisters try their hand at a game of shuffle board.

Deeper still, I discover a billiards table sitting idly in wait for patrons, and a small stage where aspiring poets and musicians supply the evening fare. In the back left corner, I see the BSG office-moved from its old, isolated locale on the ELC third floor-newly relocated with efficient placement, to properly operate as student headquarters. Yet, my exploration still finds this new territory’s greatest treasure: in the far back-where once I picked up new reads at the inception of every semester-I now see a row of five group-study rooms! Each one bears resemblance to Bertrand’s hotly-contested study rooms that faithfully provided me the environment from which I attacked my collegiate work. How lucky these students are to have a center to stimulate curiosities, foster imaginations, tackle course work and even challenge friendly adversaries!

Whether your vision aligns with mine, there must be no doubt: student apathy towards this opportunity will lead to a result far from favor. One cannot start a movement with ears deafened by iPods, so wake up! Voice your opinion!
-Davis Alexander Rosborough ’10

Categories
Opinion

Editorial

College students can be incredibly creative when it comes to finding ways to save money.

Take the students who use Bostwick Marketplace’s “Take-Out” program as an example. The program allows students to substitute one of their meals inside the cafeteria for a to-go meal.

Students are given two plastic containers to carry food, a cup for a drink, a plastic container for soup (by request), utensils and a bag to carry their neatly packaged meal out of the cafeteria.

The program is intended to help students who are too busy to stop and eat during the day from missing out on important meals.

Students quickly discovered ways to use the program other than the way it was intended.

Some people totally pack the containers with deli meat, grab a couple of slices of bread, and take out enough supplies to make sandwiches for the next week.

Others have filled entire containers with cookies or pies and turned their to-go meal into a colossal dessert. Another common use of take-out drink cups is getting supplies for making mixed drinks over the weekend, like Hawaiian Punch or orange juice.

In response to the abuse of their system, Parkhurst shrank the size of the largest take-out container, so that less food will fit into it. Students who frequently get meals to-go reacted with shock and outrage.

Does changing the size of the containers solve the problem at all?

Many students passionately cling to the belief that Parkhurst charges way too much for its dining services on campus, and that anyone with an unlimited-swipe meal plan has the right to take as much food as possible to get their money’s worth.

Making the take-out containers smaller is not likely to deter these students.

Changing the size of the to-go containers is merely frustrating for those students who use the take-out program as it is intended; for anyone with a hearty appetite, fitting an entire meal into the smaller containers is a challenge. It is frustrating to see situations like this, where the group as a whole is punished for the actions of the few.

Categories
Featured Opinion

Obama needs stronger human rights policies

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Barack Obama carried out his promise to end torture and human rights abuse by issuing an executive order to shut down Guantanamo Bay and the military tribunals overseeing affairs.  The implications of this order are far-reaching and will change the United States’ legal ideology.

It also represents a departure from the beliefs of the Bush administration’s “by all means” philosophy that limited civil liberties and freedoms in the name of the pervasive “war on terror.” Obama showed insight in ordering the closure of the Cuban military base for multiple reasons.

This change seems to be almost completely physical in nature. The closure of Guantanamo Bay did not end the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA, or the long-term detention of about 47 subjects in military commissions. Obama refuses to investigate or prosecute those that committed human rights abuses on Bush’s watch.

I understand that the key to politics is compromise. Most say that in order to be meaningful, progress must be coupled with debate and the legislative process. But there are certain absolutes that all legislators should confirm-that the United States does not torture, that we should protect the rights of our own citizens and that we should set an example of freedom and liberty for the rest of the world.

Obama needs a stronger stance on human rights. Such a strong voice would enhance our claims as a free, liberal society by actually endorsing those claims. While “practice what you preach” may seem like common sense, the United States has justified for years the invasion of Iraq under the pretense that we were “liberating” its people from a dictatorial regime.

On the other hand, we were jailing dissidents within our own country, tapping phones with the Patriot Act and setting up kangaroo courts with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This is not only against constitutional law, but also against the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. A reversal of these policies will give us more leverage in international politics and put America above the things we fight against-torture, injustice and tyranny.

The country Obama has envisioned and begun to lead, is in line with the civil liberties that are so essential to our development and progression as a nation. But his voice on human rights must be followed with actions towards those goals.