The Bucknellian

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.

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.

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.