The Bucknellian

By Jasmine King
Writer

The most stressful part of the end of the semester isn’t finals anymore, it is course scheduling. When speaking to a variety of students on campus, the consensus is that course scheduling is borderline painful. The system is completely ridiculous and causes students unnecessary stress as they try to get into all of the classes that they want for the next semester.

As the system runs currently, seniority rules. This is fine because upperclassmen have been here the longest, so they deserve to pick the classes for their last semesters first and get everything that they want to take. My biggest problem with the process is with the way in which students within a class year are assigned to pick courses: in groups based on last name.  So not only does seniority rule; you have to be lucky enough to have the right last name to have the first spot of picking.

I understand that the last name process is varied throughout the years at the University so that eventually everyone will get a turn to go first. But if a senior chooses her classes last, there is no guarantee that she will get the classes that she wants to take in her final semester at the University. I think that the school should make it so that everyone within a class year (first-years, sophomores, juniors and seniors) should pick their classes all at the same time. This would make it a lot fairer for the students involved and then more students would have a better chance to get the classes that they want. Since all of the students in the group would pick at the same time, it also would be a lot quicker for the Registrar’s Office because the University could have all of the course selection process done in two days instead of making it a week-long process.

As a first-year who picked her classes in the very last spot, I can attest to the fact that this system is very inefficient.  If the system would run the way that I explained, then there would be less “dropping and adding” of courses by students in the fall. All in all, this would be a better system to run for the University. It would be a lot more efficient, less time consuming and less stressful for everyone involved.

By Elizabeth Bacharach

Opinions Editor

As a student who attended a high school that was inundated with bomb threats, I found myself somewhat scoffing at the University of Pittsburgh’s current issue. Since Feb. 13, the university has received 57 bomb threats, including 12 on Monday alone. Now, it might just be that I am jaded—sick of hearing about students calling out in desperate need of attention by scribbling words they’ve seen in a recent terror movie on a bathroom stall—that my first reaction to the issue occurring in Pittsburgh was disgust. But as I thought more deeply on the subject matter, I became ashamed of my initial instinct and actually formed new feelings toward what is occurring. I then considered what it would be like if such an issue hit our campus.

I understand that the University of Pittsburgh has been extremely considerate to the students on campus, taking each threat into profound deliberation by investigating and clearing the issue (as much as they can).  Students are welcomed to speak to psychiatric services and even return home if necessary.  The University of Pittsburgh can also be distinguished recently by the extensive lines spanning their campus due to the newly instituted regulations, requiring each student and staff member to show ID and have their bags searched before entering any campus building.  What would we do if any potential crises popped our bubble?

I will be the first to admit that I am overtly nervous, every second of the day, far too frequently. Once my high school was hit by threats I entered every classroom planning my method of escape or hiding, no matter the given emergency. But as I said earlier, I soon became jaded, sick of these (thankfully) non-committal threats.  However, Pittsburgh’s recent issue has me wondering who walks our campus and what their intentions are.

It is truly impossible to keep track of every person that tracks the pathways of the University.  Because of possible threats–like those at Pittsburgh–I think our University should institute drills for situations such as a bomb scares or a suspicious person sightings should they hit our campus. Students and faculty alike should recognize a certain code word, whether it be red, blue, or bison, and know what steps to take for protection and safety. These drills should be practiced monthly, awakening students in their automatic daily lives, making the situation as real as possible. These drills will further allow students to be conscientious of those people around them and feel confident, not scared, if they see a suspicious person.  How should students learn of what actions to take? Well, if the University can provide students with signs that say “wait, did you shut off the light?” then signs equally as obnoxiously green and poignant should be distributed and hung up detailing courses of action, numbers to call, and definitions of all codes. These actions are so simple and so efficient that I truly cannot understand why the University has yet to take such protective steps in these overarching times of terror.

Sometimes ignorance is not bliss.  It truly frightens me that as a student, I have no idea of what to do if there was a bomb scare or a threat of any kind.  Now I am not saying that we are the next University of Pittsburgh, but it wouldn’t hurt to be safe and knowledgeable in case it does happen to us.

By Josh Haywood

Writer

Recently, the New Orleans Saints have come under fire because of some things said by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. In the pregame speech before the Saints played the San Francisco 49ers, Williams specifically told Saints players to rough up several 49ers to get them out of the game. Many people seemed shocked to hear a coach saying such things–especially if you add the team’s bounty program into the equation–but purposely harming opponents is nothing new to football.

First off, you need to remember that football is by far the most violent sport on the planet. Targeting an opposing player in an attempt to take them out of the game is nothing new. I can remember in high school if my team found out an opposing player had some sort of injury, we would go out of our way to aggravate the injury. The game is war, and in war you specifically look out for weak enemies. Anyone with a knee brace or extra wrap on their body was automatically a target for extra punishment; if anything our coaches promoted us to hit players as hard as we could. This is just the nature of the game, where the most violent individuals are praised for hard hits; it is not for everybody.

In regards to Williams’ recorded speech, coaches talk like this all the time–maybe not as explicitly as Williams, but they all preach the same ideology that to hit the hardest on the field makes you a better player. Coming from a football background in both high school and college, I did not find the speech to be that radical other than the amount of expletives used. This type of speech is not limited to the realm of football. It occurs in all contact sports, such as lacrosse and wrestling, especially wrestling. Honestly, if the Saints bounty program had not existed or come out into public light, Williams’ speech would not have even showed up on the radar. Maybe it is just the fact that this type of language and behavior has become normalized in my mind, but I just do not see all the fuss over the coach just trying to hype his players up. When the game is over and the pads come off, players are able to reenter “normal” society.

The reason football appeals to many people is that it acts as a medium for violence that the average person does not have the ability to express in person. If you try to soften the image, then you will lose a large part of what attracts viewers to the game. We as humans thrive on violence; it is a drug for our body that we legally do not have the ability to use. Football, along with many other contact sports, acts as a means of supplying our body with a fix. It is not through actual physical involvement but rather through association by spectating.

By Ginny Jacobs

Contributing Writer

In a recent New York Times poll, more than two-thirds of Americans said that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Even many Afghans are planning on leaving their own country. Many believe the United States should withdraw, giving the worsening of relations due to disturbing events such as the shooting spree of a U.S. Army sergeant that massacred Afghan civilians and the riots set off by the burning of Korans by American forces.

Although it has been a discouraging few weeks in the Afghan War, the United States should not speed up the pace of withdrawal. If we walk away from Afghanistan without securing it, terrorists may return the nation to its condition in 2000—or worse. Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, recently spoke with The Telegraph about his views on the future of terrorism in the West.

“Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan. If the West decides that 10 years in Afghanistan is too long, then they will be back, and the next time it will not be New York or Washington, it will be another big western city,” he said.

The moment U.S. troops leave, the Taliban is likely to return and regain its oppressive rule over Afghanistan. Fawzia Koofi, a candidate for the Afghan presidential elections in 2014, claims that if the West abandons Afghanistan, global terrorism will increase.

“Once again our country will become a playground for global terrorism and a risk to the world,” Koofi said.

Although there is an enormous amount of pressure on U.S. President Barack Obama to pull out of this unpopular war at a time of economic crisis, by pulling out now, we risk undoing all of the fragile gains we have made in the past 11 years.

Our main goal for being in Afghanistan has been to prevent Al-Qaeda’s return by preventing the Taliban and Haqqani Networks from gaining control of the Afghan state. U.S. military pressure has kept Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in check, despite Al Qaeda’s many efforts to return to its position of power. However, the Haqqani Network still remains. It is essential that the United States’  forces drive the Haqqanis from their safe havens and create a stable situation that Afghan troops can maintain.

Counterinsurgency wars are difficult to win. They take a long time; they force us to rely on the local government in order to achieve our goals, as well as our ability to persuade members of a devastated society that we are better than our enemies, such as getting them to trust us and not the enemies.

It is difficult to see progress, even as it is occurring. However, there is a reason our enemies force us to fight this way. If they fought to our strengths, they would lose completely and quickly. The only way our enemies can defeat us is by eroding our will to continue the war. Currently, they are succeeding.

We must stay until 2014 so that the Afghan security forces become sufficiently large enough and strong enough to take over the fight. Although this process is well underway, we should not persuade ourselves that Afghan forces are currently strong enough to either fight without us or hold what we have meticulously won thus far.