tcnjperspective.com

November 2009 Issue 2

perspectivethe

DEMOCRATS DIVIDE | $209 | YOLANDA’S CHAIR | RAOSINGER SPEAKS | HOMECOMING | WHISTLING | SHAKES THE DOG

EICKHOFFHERO OR TYRANT?

THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE THIRD PARTY

As New Jersey’s gubernatorial contest draws to a long-an-ticipated close, there are lessons to be learned from what has been another nauseating campaign season. We are not terribly surprised that the two major candidates, Jon Corzine and Chris Christie, have been relentless with their asinine attack ads and trivial barb-throwing. But we are surprised at how low they have stooped, and the extent to which they have disillusioned the New Jersey elector-ate. Corzine has deflected accountability for his unfulfilled promises by calling attention to, of all things, Christie’s considerable girth. By way of an embarrassingly insidi-ous television ad, a raspy-voiced narrator informs viewers that as U.S. attorney, Christie “threw his weight around” to avoid being issued a traffic ticket. This ad aired after Loretta Weinberg, Corzine’s pick for lieutenant governor, person-ally assured The Perspective a few weeks ago that the tone of the campaign would henceforth be positive. Christie’s campaign, to be sure, hasn’t been much better – he has of-fered little more than vague conservative platitudes as so-lutions to the state’s dismal fiscal problems. The only bright point in the race has been the voice of Independent candi-date Chris Daggett, whose popularity speaks to a growing discontent with the state’s two-party system. Unfortunate-ly, it is that same two-party system that has rendered his candidacy, for all intents and purposes, inconsequential.

Locally, this discontent has manifested in the Corzine cam-paign’s lackluster showing on campus, which is covered in-depth on page 5. Though some on the editorial board do feel Corzine is ultimately the best choice for governor, we say so with enormous hesitancy, as well as disdain for the sophomoric way in which his campaign has been run.

All of us agree, however, that grassroots activism is often far more consequential than the buffoonery of state and national politics. TCNJ activists have asserted themselves in their advocacy of healthcare reform, LGBT rights, and other issues. Last month’s National Equality March, attend-ed by over 65 students and faculty, was a resounding suc-

cess. And it should serve to remind us that there will be an immensely important vote in the coming weeks to equalize marriage in New Jersey. To steal a Corzine campaign slogan: “Let’s keep it going.” Visit tcnjperspective.com for information on how to stay active and engaged.

Our inaugural issue, we are happy to report, was also a re-sounding success. We hope you will find this month’s edi-tion even more compelling – stories of whistling, Harold Eickhoff, and a Jack Russell Terrier can be found within.

Lastly, as always, please get in touch with us if you’d like to submit content. Mazel Tov!

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

2

tcnjperspective.com

M.C. TraceyEditor-In-Chief

Ron M. SeidelManaging Editor

Glenn D. EisenbergExecutive Editor

Matt H. HokeExecutive Editor

Christoper J. GibsonOmbudsman

Caroline BachmannCreative Consultant

Dena LagomarsinoPhoto Contributor

WE’LL DO IT LIVE!

Published with support from

and the Center for American Progress Online at CampusProgress.org

mail@tcnjperspective.comCopyright © 2009 RACY SIDES PUBLICATIONS. All rights reserved.

Cover illustration by Colleen A. NapolitanoEditorial illustration by Boris Spektor

“Man up and say I’m fat.”- Chris Christie

responding to a Corzine attack ad

“I can say with complete honesty that this is the single most importantmoment of my career.”

- Lady Gagaspeaking at the National Equality March

“We from the hood -- we don’t snitch. Doesn’t anybody remember that?”

- Disgruntled Eickhoff Worker

3

November IssueT h e P e r s p e c t i v e

The

IN THIS ISSUE:

OVERHEARD:

Letter to the EditorAnd other blurbs...Page 4

College Dems SplitA political schism on campus...Page 5

Let Them SitA note to John Higgins...Page 6

Reimagining SFBA utilitarian treatise...Page 7

Shakes the DogA really cute dog...Page 9

Harold W. EickhoffA look under the patch...Pages 10-12

Healthcare ShenanigansA Republican chimes in...Page 12

Separate But Equal?A Greek Tragedy...Page 13

Five Good MinutesA chat with Nat...Page 13

Chairman RaoA Socialist chimes in...Page 14-15

Singer SpeaksA Princetonian chimes in...Page 16

GreenwashingAn environmental charade...Pages 17

WhistlingA musican’s manifesto...Page 18

AAA WoesAn anonymous appeal...Page 19

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS...From its outset, The Perspective never sought to engage in an arbi-trary tit-for-tat with The Signal. The two publications have different aims, different journalistic standards, and different target audienc-es. Our relationship can be one of coexistence and supplementa-tion, not incessant quarreling. That being said, we will not hesitate to criticize The Signal if, in our opinion, it has failed to provide the wider campus community with quality content and reporting. In last month’s inaugural issue, The Perspective called attention to the flaws that we found to be pervasive at the publication. Signal Managing Editor Bobby Olivier responded with an off-kilter jab in that week’s editorial, which we then countered with a more thorough criticism, posted on tcnjperspective.com. In the post’s comment section, Ol-ivier accused The Perspective of committing libel. To our knowledge, neither Olivier nor anyone else associated with The Signal has acted upon the allegation, and we hope this continues to be the case. After carefully re-analyzing our words, the editors have concluded that the charge was without basis. Nevertheless, Olivier’s accusation is a serious one – indeed, it is grounds for a lawsuit. The Perspec-tive urges Olivier not to mistake forceful criticism for defamation or malicious misrepresentation of fact – the criteria for libel. We call on him to either explain the charge, or rescind it once and for all.

4

I just wanted to thank you for creating this publication, The Perspective. I read through the WHOLE thing, some-thing I’ve honestly never done with our beloved Signal. I found the articles well-written and thought-provoking, and I could really hear your voices as I was reading. I’m so tired of the cut-and-dry articles found in The Signal. Sometimes they can have flavor, but most of the time I find myself not even wanting to read articles whose topics should be interesting.

I also wanted to thank you for including the article “Concluding Thoughts and a Signal Critique” on the last page of your publication. I felt as if you were speaking directly to me, especially when you were referencing people’s opinion pieces that were edited in The Signal. You may remember that this happened to me regarding my parking letter to the editor that was edited and censored in the September 30th issue. The following week, they surprisingly published my angry response to their censorship–unedited might I add.

I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say, “It’s completely understandable for Signal editors to edit their own reporters’ writing for content…But to change the content of an opinion piece submitted by a non-staff member? That’s absurd.”

I also thought your “Retroperspective” section was ingenious. It’s interesting to hear about protests and events that went on, on our very own campus, many years ago. Events like this are part of our campus’s history and should be talked about, not filed away in archaic issues of The Signal to attract moths and rot.

So once again, thank you for this new “perspective.”

In 2006, the overwhelming majority of emissions on campus came from heating and electricity, creating 39,649 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. This figure is equal to 87,412,096 pounds, or the amount of greenhouse gases generated by 7,625 cars in an av-erage year. What can be taken from these statistics? The simple act of turning out the lights when leaving a room or shutting down a computer when logging off will have marked positive effects on our college’s contribu-tion to curbing climate change. While this may seem obvious, an evening stroll through campus or a visit to a deserted computer lab reveals that many individuals are not cognizant of the benefits of reducing energy use. Lights can be seen shining from windows every night and throughout the weekend in empty academic build-ings and barren residential common rooms. Additional-ly, it is an anomaly to sit down to a computer that has to actually be turned on, even early in the morning when presumably no one has used it all night. After a recent Saturday visit to three of Holman Hall’s computer labs, I found that only two of the sixty-one computers not in use had been shut down. Not surprisingly, the lights were on in two labs with no occupants. Judging by the energy usage in Holman, one would think there was a band of ghostly graphic designers in the building, work-ing furiously to meet otherworldly deadlines. With the pressing need to act promptly to halt climate change, it is not much to ask to switch off lights and shut down computers.

SAVE YOUR ENERGYBy Anya Saretzky

L E T T E R T O T H E E D I T O R

Fr o m K r i s t e n C a s a b o n a

After being dormant for nearly two years, TCNJ’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is being restored. Perspective executive editor Glenn Eisenberg, with the assistance of the ACLU-NJ, has begun organizing meetings for ACLU-TCNJ. The club has had several meetings and has es-tablished the long-term goal of getting an over-bearing TCNJ policy or New Jersey law changed. The club meets Fridays at 3:30 on the second floor of the Student Center above the Rathskeller.

TCNJ ACLU Revived

Having missed the last few College Democrats meetings, David Chapman was surprised to learn that the group had voted to no longer actively sup-port Jon Corzine in the upcoming gubernatorial election. But despite the unexpected revocation, Corzine/Weinberg signs still hang in the freshman’s dorm room. “There shouldn’t be any question that the club should support the governor,” Chapman said. “I would have thought that as Democrats, they’d come together and back the Democratic nominee, even if there were disagreements.”

College Democrats did not take a vote on whether the individual members personally supported Cor-zine; but rather, whether the club would actively campaign for the candidate. Although the majority of the club will likely vote for Corzine, the College Democrats agreed to prioritize other causes.

Brian Block, president of the College Democrats, concurred with Chapman. “All in all, I don’t agree with [the vote], but I agree with my club’s ability to decide on its own,” he said. “For the sake of the national party, though, it would be better to elect a Democrat.” Brian R. Hackett, conservative activist and former College Re-publicans chairman, sensed that something had gone awry. “They’re sending out the public perception that they’re totally confused about this election,” Hackett said. “On one hand they’re propping up Corzine, but on the other hand, many of them are saying they’re not supporting him… Politics is about perception, and they’re not doing a good job with it.”

Division within College Democrats, I have learned, is hardly a new phe-nomenon. I am not a Democrat, nor do I associate with the Democratic Party, but I have observed enough of the club’s internal dynamics to identify the rifts that exist within it. They exist around conflicting personalities and organizational priorities; there has been a tendency for one side to be directly involved in single-issue activism, and for the other (usually the side includ-ing most of the executive board) to focus more on hosting and campaigning for politicians.

And though the club had been marred by disunity in the past, intra-party discord was never so clear as on the day that a majority, albeit slim, of College Democrats voted not to support the Democratic incumbent governor’s bid for reelection.

The decision, it seemed, was made out of disdain both for Corzine’s perceived failures in office, as well as the nature of his campaign apparatus. Alex Berger, vice pres-ident of the club, worked on the campaign for a time as “TCNJ Campus Coordinator.” Berger, who left the

position in early October, called the campaign’s atmosphere “very ma-chinelike; they run things very backroom, backdoor – decision-making is done in little interest groups.”

The governor’s personnel have aggressively courted TCNJ Democrats all semester, effectively converting meetings into Corzine campaign events without the consent of the general membership. With gifts of Chinese food and soda, Corzine staffer Ilene Lampitt attempted to entice the mostly-uninterested attendees into compiling voter registration remind-ers – junk mail, really – that would be sent to friends and relatives. Dur-ing the meeting, one disillusioned College Democrat questioned whether the club was truly obligated to support every Democratic candidate sim-ply for the sake of party loyalty; she proposed that the group actually take a vote on whether it would collectively support Corzine. Lampitt, the campaign staffer, became incensed at the mere notion; she shouted down the rabble-rouser, scolding her for having the audacity to challenge the status quo. Lampitt didn’t back up her arrogant command with any real argument as to why the Democrats at TCNJ should support Corzine – it

was a “because-I-said-so” affair.

The Corzine campaign took notice of the group’s in-fighting, and reacted with indignation. Vice President Alex Berger said Corzine staffers told him that if the College Democrats kept it up, the campaign would have to look elsewhere for help on campus – maybe even recruiting fraternities to do their grunt-work. Apparently, there’s no better way to rally your base than to tell them that they can be replaced by hired flunkies.

This is not simply a problem of personality differences or mismanage-ment by local leaders – most any political organization will experience small hiccups. The issue is that the national Democratic Party, in my view, is not a party of the people. It is beholden to the corporate two-party system, a system not actually interested in advancing progressive causes. Historically, the Democratic leadership has either failed to live up to their liberal ideals, or only acted upon them when forced to do so by mass movements. Discouragingly, people who care about progressive issues have been known to “Get out the Vote” for Democratic candidates, only to find that their issues are left unaddressed when the candidates actually win. It was only a matter of time before the strain in this contradictory situation, of enlisting energetic youth in a stale political machine, would show itself at TCNJ.

D I V I D E DDEMOCRATSCOLLEGE

By MATT HOKE

5

6

It’s only 4:00pm, and a dull pain is already starting to work its way up Yolanda’s lower back. She may only take two breaks over the course of her eight-hour day, one ten minutes long and the oth-er thirty, so timing is key; the chastened Sodexo employee must choose wisely. Soon, a barrage of hungry students will queue in the Eickhoff Hall vestibule, their faded identification cards in tow, and Yolanda will provide them with access to the eatery. By way of distraction, the pain will be temporarily alleviated. But it will still be there, lingering, and Yolanda will still be standing.

By M.C. Tracey

As a “card swiper,” Yolanda’s job requires that she remain basically stationary throughout her shift; for nearly eight hours, she is both immobile and upright. Why, I ask, can’t Yolanda – along with all the other dining hall “swipers” – get a chair? Or at least a stool? Could her duties not be performed just as satisfactorily while seated? It seems quite simple. What’s going on here?

“I need a chair!” exclaimed Valencia, another “swiper,” when asked for her take on the situation. She, too, must stand for nearly eight hours a day while manning the admittance station. And though Va-lencia has voiced her grievances to Eickhoff management, telling of the physical discomfort she has undergone, they haven’t budged. Swipers aren’t even permitted to exercise their legs while on the job, she said. “They don’t want you to move. They want you to stay there and look like a statue.”

It would be one thing if the no-seat policy were consistent across Sodexo-managed dining establishments at the College. But swipers at the Student Center food court, inexplicably, are allowed to sit dur-ing their shifts – on comfortable chairs, no less. Why the disparity?

Endeavoring to find out, I first inquired with Meghann Perry, Eick-hoff Hall Service Manager. She directed me to John Higgins, Gen-eral Manager for Sodexo at TCNJ – so I requested an interview via email.

What happened next could only be described as baffling. I happened to spot Higgins on the floor of the dining hall as he monitored that day’s lunch-time proceedings, and approached him with a question about the swiper-sitting policy. “I’m not talking to The Perspective,” he replied. When I asked why, he again said, “I’m not talking to The Perspective,” and briskly walked away.

Guh?

Not to be outdone, another Perspective reporter went to Higgins’ office in pursuit of further comment – this time undercover. Hig-gins deflected any responsibility for the chair policy, saying that it was a matter to be taken up with the employees’ union, Local 54. The organization had requested not to speak about the issue with students, Higgins said. Bernard, the dining hall union rep-resentative, could not be reached for comment.

Why persist with this story? Simply put, we should demand basic fairness for campus workers. Chair or no chair, food service em-ployees are already subjected to menial labor, less-than-desirable working conditions, and low pay. Advocating for small improve-ments, like allowing swipers to sit, might not seem like much – but for Yolanda and Valencia, it makes a huge difference. These are the people that serve us day in and day out – for once, we should be willing to serve them. Please contact John Higgins and ask that he work toward amending this unwarranted and incon-sistent policy. If a change is made, The Perspective will be the first to offer him its praise.

LET THEM SIT

John HigginsGeneral Manager, Sodexo at TCNJ

609-771-2343

sdhgm@tcnj.edu

7

SFB: A UTILITARIAN CRITIQUE By JACK MECCIA$209 per person – it’s the current student activity fee. The figure that, every semester, funds undergraduate entertainment and ex-tracurriculars. If the number is aggregated, there’s certainly a hefty sum of money to allocate and manage. Sure, it costs $209 on average to pay for all these expenditures, but let’s make things interesting by exam-ining another aspect of that number’s mean-ing; namely, the benefit. Weigh this consideration in a practical sense: if you had the choice, would you pay $209 (excluding ticket prices, etc.) for the overall value the student activity fee provides?

I suspect that, in many cases, the response will be yes. For the typi-cal student, clubs and school-funded activi-ties are probably worth it. Understand, how-ever, that whether or not you would give that $209 to the Student Finance Board is an en-tirely separate question. There’s a compelling alternative here that needs to be explored.

Picture a different method of ensuring that $209 gets used for student activities. The money is still taken from your semester bill, but instead of it being transferred to SFB, you have a balance of $209 in a “funds transfer account,” bearing a resemblance to PayPal. Every registered student organiza-tion has an account, and individuals have the option of giving the money to whichever group they wish (they’re also free to add their own money). But clubs aren’t the only ones with accounts. Others can post events, such as concerts or performances, that are autho-rized to pool funds. Such a system would have a number of desirable features worth discussing.

The first is greater choice. Direct translation of student preferences to programs is a diffi-cult process. For example, the College Union Board regularly surveys students prior to co-ordinating a concert or comedy show. But artist availability and pricing produce logis-tical constraints, to say nothing of CUB’s goal of bringing “different” acts to campus. Under the existing system, preferences are

certainly not sufficient to ensure outcomes that reflect (to the greatest possible degree) individual desires. But an alternative that al-lows direct movement from choice to event would fully reflect the wants, and most im-portantly, first choices, of individuals.

Why even bring artists to campus? TCNJ is right between New York City and Philadel-phia, where popular acts make regular ap-pearances. College students aren’t incapable

of making a simple trip into the city, especially if it means seeing someone like Incubus instead of, say, Cartel. The bet-ter approach would be to let students use their activity fee to partially defer their trans-portation and ticket expenses, and pay the rest out of pocket -- because tickets for college shows have to be bought any-way.

The second advantage here is inclusion. Organizations and event planners would have an even more vested interest in secur-ing participants. The rationale is simple. People respond to incentives, and if money had to be voluntarily transferred, only those clubs and events with an adequate and com-mitted membership could afford to hold events. Consequently, those vying for funds would do more to include a greater audi-ence, which would ramp up extracurricular involvement, as well as make casual mem-bers feel a greater sense of involvement.

On a related, and third, point, the sys-tem would provide a self-checking mecha-nism to ensure quality. Should an event not meet the expectations of those who con-tributed funds to it, there will be future repercussions. Students won’t be as apt to commit money next time, which applies a constant pressure to perform. With CUB in control of a programming, we can’t take money away from them if, say, we didn’t ap-preciate the skydiving rant during the Greg Giraldo/Michael Ian Black show. But under the system I’m advocating, not only is that option there, it is encouraged as part of value assurance.

Although I frequently reference entertain-ment as a way of utilizing the student ac-tivity fee, there are many other options. Academic initiatives are an important con-sideration here. After all, college is a place to acquire knowledge. But the trouble is that, within a given student population, there will be a significant divergence in intellec-tual tastes. TCNJ students are mostly smart people who want to learn, but they prefer to learn about different things. For example, lectures about cultural norms might be of interest to some, but others just aren’t go-ing to attend. On the other side of the spec-trum, if a remarkable athletic trainer were slated to speak at a nearby gym, I’m sure a number of students would go if they could divert their student activity fund to it.

A fourth advantage is full recognition of available opportunities. Many times, there are interesting (off-campus) events that stu-dents would probably go to but don’t know anything about. Searching for these things can be tedious, especially if one doesn’t know they exist in the first place. But having a categorized database of events to transfer money to certainly puts things out in the open, especially since organizers will active-ly canvass for your money.

I’m not saying CUB and SFB don’t have good intentions. For the most part, they do. But it’s extremely difficult to gauge student interest, and come up with workable solu-tions that maximize student satisfaction and

involvement from such a highly cen-tralized sys-tem. Recog-nize that an organization like CUB derives its

strength not from its ability to coordinate workable, but admittedly second-tier op-tions. Rather, its effectiveness stems from the concept of value creation through econo-mies of scale. It’s a lot easier to save money when resources are pooled. What I’m advo-cating is an approach that gives this power, through autonomy and choice, to respon-sible college students who know, better than anyone else, what they want.

9

SHAKES THE DOGBy CAROLINE BACHMANN

Advancing towards the beige house at Four Bittersweet Road in Ewing, I received two warm greetings. The first was from Mike Bottino, brother of TCNJ’s Phi Tau chapter; the second was from the fraternity’s newest and only non-human member, a playful Jack Russell Terrier mix named Shakes. The dog’s story, I have heard, is one of trial and triumph. I was ushered inside with Shakes in tow and, as instructed, “popped a squat” on one of the large, extraordinarily squishy pleather couches in the upstairs living room. Not a bad place to live for a dog, or for anyone else. After a few exchanged pleasantries and some more of Shakes’ own salutations, Mike began telling the fortuitous canine’s tale.

Early one day last March, one of the fraternity brothers returned to Four Bittersweet with a new companion, one who had followed him home – a small, charming dog without any apparent identification. The flea collar he donned, though lacking any tags, made it clear that the pooch had an owner. The brothers resolved to try to reunite him with his rightful guardian before the end of the day.

They turned the pooch loose and followed him in hopes that he would wander back home on his own accord. But it became obvious that the little fellow was either lost, or had no intention of returning from whence he came. Taking note of the dog’s apparent hostility towards other dogs and wariness of high-traffic roads, the brothers decided to take him in for the night, and he was treated to a generous steak dinner.

The next day, the brothers resumed their search for the owners. Mike filed a report with the Ewing police department, and put up “found dog” flyers. But after nearly three weeks, no one had contacted the police or responded to the flyers; so without apprehension, they began making preparations to establish the dog as a permanent member of the house. Mike had him tagged and registered with the police depart-ment, and the mutt received all necessary vac-cinations from the veterinarian. Finally, the lively terrier was officially theirs!

Having become a licensed resident of the house, the dog was dubbed “Shakes,” on account of some of his “weird tendencies.” According to Mike, the pooch is notably shaky whenever he’s anxious or cold – to cope with the chilly spring nights, the brothers purchased their new friend a fleece sweater.

As the weeks went by, Shakes became a cherished part of the fraternal family. Together, the brothers were “taking really good care of him,” and Shakes was having a blast. However, like the thunderous tornado that Doro-they confronted one idle Kansas afternoon, their world was suddenly turned upside down.

About a month after giving up on the search for Shakes’ owner, and nearly two months after finding him in the first place, two of the housemates took their canine companion for a drive. While stopped at a Lukoil gas station, the brothers were shocked and confounded when two young boys con-fronted them in the lot. The boys, whose mother was filling up her tank nearby, told them Shakes was their dog – ‘Tator.’ According to the mother,

‘Tator’ had run away while being bathed in the yard—thus explaining his lack of identification.

It wasn’t clear why the family hadn’t contacted the Ewing police depart-ment when the dog first went missing. The two fraternity brothers ex-changed information with the mother, and asked that she meet with Mike to straighten things out.

The family showed up to the house with pictures and documents not long after. Crestfallen, Mike thought, “What am I going to tell these kids – that they can’t have their dog back?” Shakes was returned to his original own-ers, and the entire house was heartbroken. A few brothers perused animal shelters in hopes of finding another pet they could love just as much; how-ever, their search was to no avail. No dog could compare to Shakes.

A few lonely months later, in July, a strange car pulled into the driveway. Out stepped two women and, to everyone’s astonishment—Shakes! The

women explained that they had found their old friend, apparently lost, and brought him to the police department. They were directed to Four Bittersweet Road, the address to which he was still registered. As it turned out, ‘Tater’s’ family never re-registered or retagged the dog. Shakes looked disheveled, Mike recalled – he was “long-haired” and “mangy as hell, looking as though he had been on the streets for months.” Vexed by his poor condition, the boys eagerly took Shakes in for a second joyous time.

Even though ‘Tater’s’ owners live only a few blocks away, they have never made any attempt to retrieve the hapless pooch. “They have all the necessary information to come get this dog... and it’s been months now,” the boys explained. At this point, “there’s no way we’re giving the dog back to them... [the previous owners] don’t even care.” Everyone who’s heard this strange story, they add-ed, concludes that the family “lost out on a good dog.”

Today, between eight adoring housemates and a dog-friendly shack in the backyard, Shakes is, as one brother declared, “living the dream… It’s like having another friend in the house.”

“He’s always down to chill,” the brothers enthusiastically remarked, and often curls up and cuddles with whoever falls asleep on the couch. Shakes may be the only member of the fraternity whose initiation process didn’t include chugging beers or cleaning bathrooms, but his gregarious ways earned him the easy ride. “He’s a chick magnet,” one brother said. “No – he’s an anybody magnet,” Mike contended.

Though friendly with humans, Shakes still doesn’t get along so well with other dogs; the boys of Four Bittersweet Road are working on “rehabilitat-ing” him through a gradual intra-species socialization process. They are happy to report that Shakes is making good progress.

But unfortunately for Mike and his compatriots, these “dog days” won’t last forever; what will become of Shakes after they graduate this year is a sensitive topic. But wherever he ends up, the brothers are sure, the ami-able terrier will never again be banished to the unforgiving Ewing streets.

Additional reporting by Ron M. Seidel

lauded his presidency as “the most successful this wonderful college has ever seen.” But many others, evident-ly, would unequivocally disagree.

“He was dictatorial and autocratic,” Crofts charged.

“We were stymied,” Klug added.

The fundamental conflict arose over a divergence in vision of how the College should foster academic growth. Eick-hoff refused to allocate adequate re-sources to the development of faculty scholarship, claimed Crofts and Klug. This created an environment that was not conducive to the sort of progress that the College purported to stand for in its admissions material. At the

time, Klug’s mantra was “We should be what we say we are.”

Thus, we are faced with a fundamental question: Should Eickhoff be heralded as a hero, who transformed a teachers’ school into a multifarious, competitive university, or a tyrant, whose authori-tarian managerial style both alienated faculty and hindered pedagogical de-velopment?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the true story of Harold W. Eickhoff.

The former president was born to a day-laboring father and a home-mak-ing mother in Depression-era Kan-sas. His parents had only a 6th grade education, and though they had little money, Mr. and Mrs. Eickhoff instilled

10

SHOULD WE HERALD EICKHOFF? By RON M. SEIDEL & M.C. TRACEYOn average, college presidents spend about eight years in office. The figure was even lower – hovering around six – when Harold W. Eickhoff took over the reins of Trenton State College in 1980. By the time his not-so-voluntary retire-ment came into effect, the seminal fig-ure had been at the helm of what is now known as TCNJ for nineteen years.

And in nineteen years, we have discov-ered, much can happen.

Strikes, protests, an overhaul of aca-demic programs – Eickhoff presided over two decades worth of unprec-edented collegiate transformation. Ac-customed to being surrounded by new-ly constructed buildings and scholars of considerable prestige, we as students in 2009 have little means by which to conceptualize what the Trenton State of 1980 really looked like. We should recall with some humility that what had formerly been a teachers’ college of little notoriety has today become a comprehensive and well-regarded in-stitution of higher learning.

But change doesn’t come easy; by all accounts, the road from Trenton State to TCNJ was a bumpy one. Any orga-nization structured in such a way that power is shared among ambitious in-dividuals – individuals whose agendas are not uniform – will inevitably pro-duce personality conflict and institu-tional strife.

Eickhoff, to be sure, will be assigned both credit and blame for the events that transpired during his tenure; such is the craft of history. But to most stu-dents and faculty, that history has been lost – “Eickhoff” means little more than a dining hall at the center of campus. For better or for worse, “Colleges don’t have much institutional memory,” re-counts Dr. Steve Klug, professor of bi-ology, who, along with history profes-sor Dr. Dan Crofts, led the charge to remove Eickhoff from office in the late 1990s. “Most of my colleagues don’t even know who Harold Eickhoff really was,” Klug lamented.

Some, however, have showered Eick-hoff’s nearly two-decade term with unfaltering praise. Robert Gladstone, former Board of Trustees chairman,

in their son values that taught him to “act justly, love mercy, and walk hum-bly with God.”

After a stint at the University of Mis-souri-St. Louis – which Eickhoff helped turn from a two year college into a fully developed university – he arrived at Trenton State College in 1979. Eickhoff succeeded Clayton R. Brower as presi-dent in January of 1980; at that time, Eickhoff maintains, the College was comparable to Glassboro State College (now Rowan) and William Paterson University in terms of the caliber of students and faculty.

“The greatest adventure of my life…” – this is how Eickhoff describes his time as president. Everyone would agree that those nineteen years were ad-venturous, perhaps. But not everyone would call them “great.” Crofts and Klug, among those critics, offer Eick-hoff little commendation.

The two senior professors, themselves now nearing retirement, together com-prised the focal point of faculty-admin-istration relations, which deteriorated dramatically during the latter half of Eickhoff’s presidency. Beginning in 1997, Crofts and Klug, president and vice president of the faculty senate, respectively, began a carefully-orches-trated effort to depose Eickhoff from office. And once the effort was under-way, they insisted, there was no turning back.

“It looked like we were going to have him forever,” Klug said of the campus climate in the late 90s. Eickhoff had been in power for nearly seventeen years, and people were growing rest-less. “You don’t go into a president’s of-fice and say, ‘Okay, we’d like to know, what are your retirement plans?’” So when it came to hatching a plan of their own to reform the college administra-tion, Crofts and Klug “didn’t really have much choice” other than to spearhead a serious effort to put the College on what they felt was the right path.

“There was a point at which a group of faculty met and requested that he re-sign. The longer he stayed, the more a bunker mentality began to develop,” Klug said.

11

What was it about Harold Eickhoff that left Crofts and Klug with “no choice” but to maneuver him out of power? Why would a president, who in large part oversaw the transformation of TCNJ, need to be forcefully removed?Eickhoff’s early years as president were met without much controversy – at least until 1986. The teachers’ union, in response to a salary dispute, censured him, stating, “The relationship between the faculty and the Board of Trustees of Trenton State College has deterio-rated measurably during Dr. Eickhoff’s tenure.” The union would prove to be a persistent thorn in the president’s side.

In the late 80s, Eickhoff, in an ambi-tious attempt to attract new, first-rate, out-of state faculty, purchased 150 houses surrounding the campus. Real estate prices, he said, were driving qual-ified talent away from Trenton State. In-cluded in the plan were 39 especially ex-pensive houses for vice presidents and administrative faculty. Many students, 700 of whom held an anti-Eickhoff rally in front of Kendall Hall, were outraged at the decision to use millions of dollars from student tuition to pay for the ini-tiative. “I used to like Eick,” one of the protestors’ signs read.

When asked to comment on the real es-tate purchases, Dr. Steve Klug scoffed. “Have you gone in any of those homes? You should—they would not attract you.”

Justifying his decision, Dr. Eickhoff said, “Things happen. The plan was a sound one, and one that was consistent with the development of the commu-nity.”

Due in large part to discontent over Eickhoff’s perceived unilateral decision-making, in 1991 the faculty senate held a ballot in which 64% of its members voted “no confidence” in the president. Sensing an impending faculty reprisal, a few weeks earlier the Student Govern-ment Association passed a resolution in defense of the embattled Eickhoff. Ul-timately, he was able to withstand the faculty’s challenge.

The College’s 1996 name change – still a point of contention – was spear-headed by Eickhoff, who attributed the hasty decision to a need to disassociate from the city of Trenton. “The name of the College was a handicap,” he said. “Whatever it was, it was. But the anec-

dotal evidence said over and over again that if you put Trenton into a name, it’s like putting Newark, or Camden.” Both Eick-hoff and the Board of Trustees took grief from students, alumni, and faculty for the precipi-tous rebranding.

In 1995 and 1996, while still in office, Eickhoff simultaneously held the post of Vice President of Academic Af-fairs. Dr. Ralph Edelbach, then presi-dent of the teachers’ union and a long-time critic of Eickhoff’s, said the move “threatened the system of checks and balances.” The union president also claimed that Eickhoff had no recent teaching experience in the classroom, making him unqualified to hold such a position. According to The Signal ar-chives, Edelbach said the faculty would go on strike if the situation continued. Although they never did strike, the fire-works between the faculty and Eickhoff were only beginning to spark.

Over the course of The Perspective’s interview with the former president, Eickhoff became increasingly agitated when asked about the latter years of his presidency, and largely declined com-ment.

There were three major events that per-petuated the faculty’s frustration with Eickhoff, and resulted in his eventual decision to retire:

First, after vacating his position as Vice President of Academic Affairs, Eickhoff hand-selected Dr. Anne Gormly to be his successor. Dr. Klug, whose oppo-sition to Eickhoff was gaining steam, said that after she was chosen for the position, Gormly was put “under con-straints” by the administration. How-ever, he added, “She’s a wonderful per-son.”

Second, Eickhoff abruptly fired the re-spected Dean of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Richard Kamber. Kamber, who was “phenomenally popular and extremely effective,” according to Klug, declined to comment for this story. Kamber is currently the acting chair of the depart-ment of Philosophy and Religion, and his dismissal as dean is still shrouded in mystery. Klug, who said he and Kamber are close friends, claims to have never

discussed the matter in-depth with the former dean.

Lastly, Eickhoff put Dr. Mary Biggs, dean of Library and Information Ser-vices, on probation under questionable circumstances. Biggs, who also de-clined to comment for this story, filed a lawsuit against the College in 1998, al-leging that Eickhoff and others contin-uously harassed her on the job. She was forced to step down from her position as dean, she said, because her working conditions had become “intolerable.” The Perspective was unable to ascer-tain whether the case had ever been brought to trial, but all signs point to an out-of-court settlement. Biggs today teaches at the College as a professor of English.

On September 9, 1997, 57 senior faculty petitioners, citing the aforementioned controversies, called for the president’s resignation. “We now have no choice but to hold [Eickhoff] responsible for undermining collegiality and creating an academic setting marked by fear, intimidation, and retaliation,” the peti-tion declared.

“It’s pretty difficult for any president of an academic institution to continue without the support of the most senior faculty members,” said Klug. Although he did not leave office immediately, on September 23, Eickhoff announced that he would retire in January of 1999.

In a stark rebuke, 91% of tenured and tenure-tracked professors who ex-pressed “no confidence” in the presi-dent also called for him to instead re-tire no later than June 1998.

The decision was then up to the Board of Trustees, and predictably, they sided with the president, allowing him to stay on until his desired retirement date.

Crofts (left) and Klug

Continued...

12

In the ongoing debate over national healthcare, it is of utmost importance that we reject the speechcraft of politicians and focus instead on the merits of the programs that they would impose upon us. The argument put forth by the White House is that America’s current healthcare system is broken. Any op-position to the president’s healthcare agenda may therefore be dismissed as irrational support for the status quo. I reject the premise of this argument for reasons I hope to make plain.

First of all, the current system is not ‘broken’ in the sense that it still provides the best quality of care in the world to those who can afford it. The problem is that the costs are prohibi-tively high for most working-class Americans. This (as Dem-ocrats have correctly asserted) is at least partially attribut-able to excesses in the insurance industry. Cost overruns in the healthcare industry are also perpetuated by predatory lawsuits and cost overruns from defensive medicine, the practice of ordering excessive tests without medical purpose so as to avoid potential lawsuits. As currently written, Con-gress’s healthcare reform bill does nothing to address the latter issue. President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress contend that the objective of healthcare reform is to drive down the costs of treatment and make healthcare

more affordable for working Americans. Yet the single greatest action our elected representatives could take to drive down healthcare costs, legislative tort reform, is conspicuously absent from their legislation. Why?

Furthermore, I reject the notion that opposition to national healthcare equates to support for the status quo. We are in agreement; changes are necessary to make healthcare more equitable and sustainable for the American people. There is a proper role for gov-ernment in instituting these changes. However, it is not the role that Obama and his allies in Congress would have for themselves – providing insurance and dictating terms of coverage through a government-run public option in the insurance market. The public option, if instituted, would crowd out the private sec-tor with government-subsidized programs, reducing choice and competition in the healthcare market. Life-saving procedures covered under private insurance may be deemed too costly by government regulators. The result: lower quality of care for millions of Ameri-cans. I believe there is a better way to solve this coun-try’s healthcare woes. Question with boldness the as-sumptions of your politicians. They are often wrong.

HEALTH CARE SHENANIGANSB y DA V I D B . M I C H E L S O N C o l l e g e Re p u b l i c a n s Tr e a s u r e r

Curiously, for the last several months of his term, Eickhoff took a job as the Chief Operating Officer at Zayed University in the United Arab Emirates.

Dr. Harold W. Eickhoff finally relinquished power to Dr. R. Barbara Gitenstein on the first of January, 1999.

Crofts and Klug credit Gitenstein with having created an “atmosphere on campus in which faculty – the best faculty in the country – wanted to teach.” This, they claim, was “the single greatest accomplishment of the last decade.”

Though his name is brandished in the middle of campus, after nearly eleven years since his retirement, Eickhoff’s reputation as a controversial figure has all but sub-sided. He largely stays out of the limelight, but his presence is still felt by those who come into contact with him, and those he still educates.

Eickhoff currently teaches two sections of a Freshman Seminar Program humanities course, and retains an office on the first floor of the library. A source familiar with Eickhoff’s salary, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, alleges that in receiving a “platinum parachute,” Eickhoff, while only teaching two classes, is paid nearly 50 percent more than the average tenured professor. It was part of a “sweetheart deal” that Eickhoff received upon leaving office, the source claimed. Not much fuss has been made over the salary, the source said, out of respect for President Gitenstein, who would receive the brunt of any criticism.

It is clear that animosity still lingers between the parties involved in the Eickhoff saga. What were initially professional dis-agreements, Klug said, inevitably turned into “personal aversion.” Further, speculation persists about a Nixonian “enemies list” that Eickhoff may have kept, consisting of notable faculty agitators who could potentially pose a threat to his reign.

Even after a decade, important actors are still unwilling to comment. Indeed, much of the story remains to be told.

Now in semi-retirement, Harold W. Eickhoff is currently working on a memoir, which is unlikely to be published for several years. The writings are expected to provide readers with a comprehensive account of his career, as well as his life preceding it. Though Eickhoff certainly demonstrated a thorough knowledge of College history, he nevertheless chose to remain silent when questioned about many of the important decisions that were made during his tenure. Although he refuses to consider the forthcoming memoir a “tell-all,” we certainly look forward to learning more about the man whose name, for better or for worse, will always be part of the TCNJ lexicon. ΨΔ

From The Signal, 1991

Take a stroll through the Brower Student Center this time of year, and an array of colorful flags and flyers will more than likely meet your gaze, signifying that the ever-frivolous season of Homecoming has begun for fraternities and sororities. In total, there are 31 Greek organizations recognized on campus: 16 sororities, 14 fraternities, and one co-ed organization. Together, they comprise the TCNJ Inter-Greek Council, whose mission statement professes to “strive to exude and abide by the values of fairness, integrity, and loyalty so as to enable growth for the betterment of the community.” Yet amongst the Greek letter art-work displayed throughout the Student Center, there is a noticeable absence of any advertisement promoting the multicultural fraternal organizations, of which there are 14 out of the total 31.

When asked the reason why the multicultural organizations are not represented in the BSC, Anthony Grullon, member of Lamb-da Sigma Upsilon, said that “flyers are posted, but a banner is not customary.” In fact, there are only four members of LSU, Grullon being one of them. This is perhaps the reason for the lack of publicity, for according to Grullon, “we can only do so much with the manpower that is in the fraternity.” He admitted that the non-multicultural organizations have more people, and that the numbers are a lot greater; however, this is “based on the demographics of the school.” Numbers aside, it is clear that the IGC at the College does not live up to its mission statement, in that the multicultural organizations are not represented in accordance with the “values of fairness.” I, personally, did not know of any other multicultural Greek organizations before conducting this interview with Grullon; and furthermore, I only knew that LSU existed due to the fact that Grullon lived on my floor last year. Indeed, Gary Bethea, a sophomore at the College, shares my lack of familiarity with these organizations, saying “I know there are Latin fraternities and sororities, but I couldn’t name them.”

The absence of any representation of these organizations is not only prevalent during pledge season; it is prevalent every day during Meal Equivalency, when the non-multicultural fraternities and sororities take to the couches of the Student Center, quite literally claiming them as territorial conquests. For example, AEPi sits in the left-hand corner, Phi Tau sits on the left-hand couches, AXP takes the middle cluster of couches, Phi Psi has a bench on the right-hand side by the Rat. And so on.

There are six multicultural fraternities and eight multicultural sororities recognized at the College, yet on the Spring 2009 Inter-Fraternity Recruitment page of the IGC website, not one of the multicultural fraternities are listed as having meet-and-greet dates. Only the recruitment dates for the eight non-multicultural fraternities are available. Similarly, out of the seven members who sit on the Executive Board of the IGC, only one member, Terry Oppong of Phi Beta Sigma, belongs to a multicultural or-ganization. If all 31 organizations compose the IGC, why are the 14 multicultural organizations virtually unheard of, while the non-multicultural are so ubiquitous? What is the difference between the two?

“We’re not different,” said Grullon. “We’re just separate entities.” Let it be remembered that as part of the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the “separate but equal” doctrine. Although this doctrine was repudiated in the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education, could it be that the ideology as per “separate but equal” is still prevalent upon campus?

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL?By SARAH K. BURDICK

FIVE GOOD MINUTESWITH NAT SOWINSKI

By KYLE TOMALIN

So what made you pick those glasses?This may sound ironic, but I got them out of irony. I also want to look as punchable as I can – and I think I’m succeeding.

I think you’re failing. People seem to like you.Why do you go by Nat and not Natalie?I’m not sure. That’s how it’s always been.

Can you give a funnier answer than that?Nat sounds manlier.

So you’re intentionally manly?Ever since I asked for GI Joes and bacon for Christmas when I was five. True story.

To make things even, does your boyfriend try to keep it girly?My boyfriend IS the girly one. We balance each other out.

Boxers or briefs? His boxers are the manliest thing about him. Then again, I’ve known some pretty manly men who wore briefs.

I was asking about you.Boxers. Boxers with bacon on them.

13

On The Perspective:I like the name. In art, as in politics, perspective is about angles of view. To have a perspective is to identify your field of vision, to locate yourself in relation to the world around you. Often we mean it in an aesthetic sense, like in a painting.

For activists, a perspective is about defining and clarifying the exist-ing political terrain. If you want to change the world, you need to understand it. To succeed, social movements require continual re-assessment of the environment in which they exist. In other words, to effectively intervene in the world, we need a clear perspective to begin with.

On the divide in the Democrats, Obama, and the current political climate:There is something going on, on this campus and others, among Democrats and indepen-dents who were looking to Obama for change. Many of them have begun to ask—what went wrong?

On the national political scene, you see all the fault lines beginning to emerge. On the one hand, you have Obama bailing out the banks and the auto industries and so forth, and doing nothing to stem home foreclosures…. So there’s a real sense of — they’ve given away trillions to corporations... where’s our bailout?

At the same time, if you look at the policies that have been pur-sued by the Obama administration, they’re not that different from Bush’s policies. On Guantanamo he’s been stalling, on civil liber-ties he’s been backtracking—for instance, he’s going to continue the “renditions” programs of the Bush years…. We had an editorial in the New York Times that says Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, who were supposed to put forward a climate bill, have decided to delay it another month. Which means that when the U.S. goes to Stockholm for the global climate summit later this year, there’s not going to be a plan. This is a stalling mechanism so corporations can continue to pollute the environment.

On healthcare, it’s clear that there is massive widespread support for healthcare reform, and yet the Democrats have allowed the agenda to be taken over by the far Right. The reason I’m saying they’ve allowed the Right to take it over is that the Democrats have not come out with any strong defense of state-run universal health insurance. Not being willing to defend a government program, they find themselves on the defensive; on the one hand, they give away billions to banks in the bailout, and yet they’re afraid to propose a government-funded healthcare system.

People can see the hypocrisy there. The “public option” that’s be-ing offered is just a sop—and it takes more than a sop to actually energize people behind the plan. But it is enough for the kooky

right wing to go nuts, to call it socialism, fascism, whatever. So it’s the spinelessness – no, the lack of principles – of the Democrats, in terms of standing up and demanding Single-Payer, that has given fuel to the Right.

I think people are beginning to see it, at colleges, workplaces, and neighborhoods... There are sections of those people—including stu-dents—who are saying… “I think Obama still can do it, but I don’t know if I want to wait.” And they’re turning instead to organizing, and mobilizing, as the way to get change.

I think the marriage equality movement has put protest as a way of changing things on the agenda again, and that is a very exciting de-velopment.

On the link between LGBT rights and economics:Well, it might not be a mechanical link between economic condi-tions and social struggles. But if there are 1,300 laws that discrimi-

nate between gay couples and straight couples, and a whole slew of legislation that prevents LGBT couples from having the same ben-efits—spousal benefits, healthcare benefits— that’s an economic issue. Secondly, this time around, the LGBT movement, unlike, say, in the 1980s and 1990s, is not a corporate-dom-inated movement, but genuinely grassroots. It is a movement for civil rights that is draw-ing in not just middle-class professionals and the like. Its base is increasingly working-class. Thirdly, in a time of economic crisis, the far Right uses prejudice and hate to distract peo-

ple’s attention from the real issues. Fighting homophobia and stand-ing up for equality is therefore crucial to the process of building the solidarity we need to push back against the economic crisis.

On furlough days and the teacher’s union: Students need to know that the “furloughs” are a farce. It’s basically a pay cut that faculty take, because we’re not allowed to take our fur-lough days on days that we teach. So essentially we continue to do the work that we do, and we take a pay cut. This is the pattern every-where in higher education, and sadly the unions aren’t really doing anything to fight back.

[Taking teaching days as furloughs] has come up in conversation, but I don’t think people are ready to do that … it seems like too radical a thing to do…it’s almost like going on strike. People are not ready to do that, to a large extent, because we as union members are not organized. The membership of the union typically sees the union leadership as being the union. We expect them to do some-thing when there’s a problem. But the fact is, unless the rank-and-file membership is organized before a crisis hits, when the crisis does hit it becomes very difficult to have any kind of response to it.

So typically what happens is this: The state is having a budget crisis, the union knows about it, we all know about it, and the union lead-ership only begins to call for some action or response or when it’s almost too late to do anything. Instead the union ought to be adver-tising and spreading information about our demands in the months or years before the crunch, before the contract deadline, before the budget vote, so that when the time comes we’re actually mobilized

14

By MATT HOKE

RAODr. Nagesh Rao is a professor of literature at the College. Nagesh, as he prefers to be called, is a proud member of the International Socialist Organization, and encourages his activist students to fol-low suit.

and organized enough to be able to take some action.

We stay quiet for three years, and then in the final year of the contract, there’s a panic. And then we usually give in to concessions, like we did in our last contract. We gave up 1.5% of our salaries for healthcare, which we shouldn’t have had to do.

On re-introducing Single-Payer to the healthcare debate:The organized Left is too small right now to affect things on the national level. Can we win back the initiative on this? At the local level, I think we can. I don’t think the Left is organized enough around the issue. There are some groups coming together, but it’s at a very initial stage.

On maintaining continuity between ac-tivist movements:This is where the centrality of political dis-cussion, debate, theoretical development, intellectual understanding of history—of movements, of activism—becomes so cru-cial. Because if we’re simply going from one demonstration to the next, from one meet-ing to the next, from one movement to the next—if we’re not part of a political culture where these issues are constantly being talked about, debated, discussed, read about, and understood—then we run the risk of losing that memory. The memory of the move-ments is kept alive by the activists.

Once a year, the inhabitants of suburban New Jersey gather together in celebration of that most joyous of autumnal days: Homecoming. On drizzly fall afternoons, as birds warble and leaves float gently to the grass, in the distance the sound of revving engines and pumping subwoofers disturbs the bucolic atmosphere, announcing the arrival of the Homecomers.

A long caravan of every imaginable sport utility vehicle emerges, each equipped with infinite trunk space and a sturdy tailgate, for it is known that on this day no man shall be without these essentials.

The wagons purr to a stop and their brood spills out, busying themselves with tent poles and hammers. Within moments, a canvas city is erected and the day’s festivities can begin. In play, children scramble through mud while their parents spit-roast the heartiest of Oscar Meyers. It is reminiscent of a renaissance fair.

During this charming harvest festival, the people share all manner of delica-cies painfully acquired through a season’s toil. The revelers usher in the colder months, enjoying the last of their summer bounty before winter’s frost makes Cheetos and Miller Lite scarce.

Yes, the onlookers eagerly stuff themselves with meat and mead in antici-pation of the day’s sporting events. A pastime whose spectators can gorge themselves while watching others exercise is a great pastime indeed.

The day’s climax manifests in the crowning of the Homecoming king and queen, figureheads of fruitful farming. Both are perfect physical specimens, the best the human race has to offer, and were selected using the same pro-cess as prizewinning pumpkins. The attendees feel secure knowing the fate of the human race is saved with the pairing of these two thoroughbreds.

As the day winds down, the steel caravans head back to their homesteads. They leave in their wake muddy lawns, a plethora of refuse, and happy memories of living the American Dream.

ROSCOE WOULDBE PROUD

By SCOOTER

15

SINGER SPEAKSPrinceton professor and noted philosopher Peter Singer visited TCNJ on October 20 to discuss his new book, The Life You Can Save. His 1975 mani-festo, Animal Liberation, is widely credited as the touchstone of the modern animal rights movement. Singer sat down with The Perspective to discuss veg-etarianism, politics, and the rights of non-human animals.

Have you made any strides toward vegan-ism, as opposed to your vegetarianism?I don’t buy dairy products now. But I will eat them if… I don’t know, there’s a recep-tion tonight. If there are things served that are vegetarian but have some dairy, depend-ing on what’s available, I might eat them. I’m not strict about it. I generally try to avoid eggs when I’m out anywhere, because even if the carton says “cage-free,” they’re probably still pretty intensively produced. But if I have ac-cess to genuinely free-range eggs, where the hens are outside and I know they have a good life, I’m prepared to eat them.

How does a vegetarian, if he or she is at someone’s house for dinner, avoid com-ing across as rude in the event that meat is served? Have you ever been in that situa-tion, and how did you handle it?I think if somebody invites you for dinner, you tell them what you eat and what you don’t eat. You say, “Look, if this is a problem, may-be it’s more convenient for me to come after dinner,” or something like that. In 38 years of being a vegetarian, maybe there’ve been one or two occasions where I’d forgotten to tell someone and it was somewhat embarrassing. But it hasn’t happened for a long time now. So, generally, I think that’s quite manageable; you just explain it to people. And of course, it’s good in a way to explain why you eat what you eat. That’s what led me to start thinking about this issue in the first place. You need people to talk about it.

Do you think government policy should, in some way, promote vegetarianism?Sure, yeah… I think that would be an ex-cellent thing to do. And not only for the animal-regarding reasons -- that’s the stuff that I’ve mostly written about. But it would be good from a health point of view, just in the same way that we try to persuade people not to smoke, or not to be obese. Persuading them not to eat meat would improve peoples’ health, especially given the amounts of meat that most Americans eat. And then there’s the climate change factor, which is huge. I think we’re increasingly realizing just how signifi-

cant animal products, in particular red meat, are to climate change.

What has been your reaction to the Ameri-can political scene, as opposed to that of Australia?I think the American political debate is more hysterical and less well-informed than the political debate in most other countries -- re-grettably. And that includes Australia. I’m not saying that the debate in Australia or Britain or other countries that I’m familiar with is wonderful -- it’s not. But some of the things that people get excited about here – I mean, the idea that the sort of healthcare reform being proposed is in some way socialism, or a step toward totalitarianism -- that’s just so crazy. There’s no other industrialized country that doesn’t have universalized health cover-age. Nobody in those countries thinks that having universal health coverage is socialism or totalitarianism. Australia had eleven years of a very conservative government, which did not do one thing towards dismantling our universal health care scheme. And they didn’t do it because they know perfectly well that it would have been electoral suicide. So yeah, it’s a strange place in terms of what passes for political opinion.

One of your more controversial positions, and correct me if I’m misrepresenting it, is that the life of a chimpanzee may have more value than the life of a severely retarded hu-man. Can you explain that?If we’re discussing whether, other things be-ing equal, you ought to preserve a being with normal intelligence over one with profound intellectual disability, I would say yes – but it has nothing particularly to do with the com-parison to a chimpanzee. Once you get away from “species-ism” – once you get away from saying, “Just because a being is a member of the species homo sapiens, that being has a special right to life,” then you have to ask: If it’s not because we’re a member of the species homo sapiens, why is it a worse tragedy for somebody like you or me to be killed, than for a chicken to be killed? And I do think it’s a worse tragedy. So it has to be something to do with the fact that we have intellectual ca-pacities that are superior to those of a chick-en, and therefore maybe we live our lives in a different way – we think about our future, we do things in order to be able to achieve something in the future, and so on. And a chicken doesn’t do any of that. The chicken doesn’t have those achievements or those fu-ture plans. So that’s a reasonable answer to the

By M.C. TRACEY

question, “Why would it be worse to kill you or me than it would be to kill a chicken?” But by consequence of that answer, if you have a being that is a member a species other than homo sapiens, and doesn’t have intellectual capacities any more advanced than those of a chicken – then, other things being equal, you have to say the same about the human as you would about the chicken. Of course, other things may not be equal, because that intel-lectually disabled human may have parents that love and care for her. But intrinsically, once you reject “species-ism,” there isn’t much of an alternative to saying that intellectual ca-pacities matter for the wrongness of killing. Unless you just want to say whenever a being is conscious at all, it is always wrong to kill it – in which case you have a more radical view about the wrongness of killing animals than I do.

Why can’t people shed their “species-ist” biases?Some of it comes from religion. One reason I think it’s worth challenging religion is because it has consequences – it has consequences for the way people think about nonhuman animals. Because they think, “Oh, they don’t have immortal souls, so they don’t count.” Well, how does anybody know whether any-body has an immortal soul?

So there is a human-centric solipsism (the view that the self is all that can be known to exist) that springs out of religious belief, and contributes to our inability to place non-human beings on a level comparable to us. Yes, I think that’s right. And I’m not saying there aren’t elements in religion that count against it. But certainly in the Judeo-Chris-tian tradition, there has been this emphasis on humans being at the center of creation, as being made in the image of God, as hav-ing immortal souls, as having dominion over the other organisms. And I think that’s been harmful for the way we treat animals.

16

A DARKER SHADE OF GREENBy JILLIAN STARK

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – the environmental ethos that has been etched into our minds since elementary school. More recently, these words or other derivatives have been appearing on t-shirts, cosmetics, and even coffee cups. But how much thought is actu-ally given to the actions that they purport to suggest? Does the mass production of “environmentally-friendly” t-shirts realisti-cally help to reduce over-consumption? Are cosmetic companies actually putting reusable shampoo bottles on the market? Is 10% of that Starbucks cup really post-consumer recycled material?

Global climate change and the ongoing energy crisis have forced many of us to adopt a more eco-friendly way of thinking. We have begun to realize that we do not live in an isolated bubble that is selectively permeable to the outside world. People are now considering where things come from – and where things go when they are done with them. This is undoubtedly progress to-wards global sustainability, and a step in the right direction.

But in a genuine attempt to improve the health of our families and our planet, we are content with looking in supermarkets and retail outlets for the so-called “greenest” products. Unfortunately, upon closer in-spection, one cannot help but wonder if the “green” in “going green” is referring to environmental consciousness – or the color of profit.

Corporations have shrewdly spotted this newfound eco-friendly mindset and translated it into another marketing fad; such schemes have become another vehicle for competition, and companies who haven’t joined the race are left in the dust. We are seeing vague or unfounded claims on labels – such as ‘all-natural’ or ‘Earth-friendly’ – in hopes of appealing to the environmentally-conscious consumer. This phenomenon, known as “Greenwashing,” can be found in nearly all consumption-based markets – from food to cleaning products to cars – and is successfully deceiving customers across the board.

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm, outlines the “Seven Sins of Greenwashing” that companies use to mislead consumers. One such method, the “Sin of No Proof,” refers to the claim that a product is “green” without verification from a reliable third party. These market-ing ploys have made it almost impossible to pick up a product without seeing it adorned with some kind of contrived environmental reference.

Another “sin,” the “Lesser of Two Evils,” addresses the all-too-common mistake of focusing on a product’s label rather than the product itself. Advertising an SUV as fuel-efficient or a plas-tic water bottle as environmentally friendly (ahem, Poland Spring “Eco-shape”) is inherently hypocritical. Simply chang-ing the color of packaging or modifying the advertising slogan has no value if the product itself is detrimental to the environment.

The last and probably most discouraging sin is the “Sin of Fib-bing”: companies are falsely and intentionally labeling their prod-ucts as environmentally-friendly. While our intentions may be good, such traps lead to a backfire in the sustainability movement.

How do we evade this corporate deceit? How can we distinguish be-tween the companies that are truly environmentally-friendly and those whose primary motivation is sheer greed? The most consequential decisions might be made behind closed doors, but as consumers, we wield real power. It is our job to be skeptics. It is our job to investigate the claims of corporations. And it is our job to look at the big picture.

When making purchases, take a moment to examine the product. Do its environmental ornaments hold any weight? Labels like Eco-Logo, FSC, Green Guard, GreenSeal, SFI, EPEAT, USDA Organic, and Water-Sense are all legitimate and assure a certified environmentally-friend-ly manufacturing process. Another more obvious indicator of green product is the packaging – is it biodegradable? A general rule of thumb: choose cardboard or biodegradable polyester over plastic or Styrofoam. Also, buying in bulk can reduce your overall waste output.

But most importantly, before taking the product off the shelf, con-sider whether you need it in the first place; sometime in the fu-ture, whether in an hour or fifty years’ time, part of what you’re holding will end up festering in a landfill. This brings us back to the first and most important of our three “Rs”: Reduce. Though it requires proactive thought, and is often difficult in such a con-sumerist society, reducing consumption is by far the most en-vironmentally-friendly way we can make a difference individu-ally – and dodge the deceptive craft of Greenwashing altogether.

17

18

WHISTLE (WHILE YOU WEB BROWSE)By HELEN CAREY

“You know how to whistle, don’t you Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.” Lauren Bacall crooned this to Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not in 1944, and although the same instructions would likely still ap-ply, perhaps now no one would be lis-tening to them. The act of whistling doesn’t seem to have aged as well as the film. In fact, whistling seems to have all but disappeared from modern soci-ety, particularly among our generation.

Maybe this is simply because contempo-rary music doesn’t focus on the subtleties of vocals or instrumentation—most popu-lar songs today just can’t be whistled very easily. (Have you ever tried to whistle a rap song?) Easier songs to whistle, like jazz ballads and showtunes, have fallen off the popular radar, so it’s unsurprising that whistling isn’t as common as it once was. One noteworthy exception is “Young Folks” by Peter Bjorn & John, a tune with an insanely catchy whistling section that briefly brought the practice back into style – it’s almost impossible not to whistle along. But then again, there’s a lot more on the radio than Lil Wayne, and most popular songs do have some semblance of a catchy melody. So why don’t we hear anyone whistling them?

Most people whistle when they’re alone—recall the classic image of a jovial, whis-tling mailman. But it’s not that people spend less time alone now; on the con-trary, recent studies have shown that people are actually spend-ing more time by themselves.

How, then, do we account for the decline in whistling? Is it that we’ve become an overstimu-lated, Adderall-obsessed, zero-attention-span society? Walking through campus on any given day, one is likely to notice students with iPods, cell phones, Black-berries, and a multitude of other beeping, ringing, and buzzing de-vices. Then again, maybe people haven’t noticed because they too were engrossed with whatever was on their screen of choice. (This is not to say that I am above

these rings and beeps and buzzes; I al-most ran into someone a couple weeks ago because I was texting while walk-ing to class.) But this is a tired, albeit partially accurate, explanation for just about everything one could deem is wrong with our society nowadays. Perhaps it’s a combination of things—an increase in time spent alone, plus the abundance of personal technologi-cal devices—that accounts for such a manifest lack of whistling. In other words, perhaps we should be focusing on how we spend our time alone. A late-night cigarette break or a respite by the lake is often accompanied by texts and phone calls. It seems that we are never truly disconnected from other people, even when we want to be. Our friends, acquaintances—even our en-emies—are always within a proverbial arm’s reach. This undoubtedly makes communication a lot easier, but it also means that our “alone time” has essen-tially become everyone else’s time too. We have no problem being physically alone, as long as we are never truly left to our own devices—left only with our minds for solace, left only with our hands for action. Whistling, one of the oldest, most basic forms of occupying oneself, just isn’t necessary anymore. Simple day-to-day events, like a trip to the grocery store or library, are now performed with the ever-present ac-companiment of whoever happens to

contact us. Time that perhaps would have been spent just thinking, clear-ing one’s mind—or, of course, whis-tling—is now at the mercy of the next text message alert or Blackberry e-mail update. That we should always be available has become so expected, and so ubiquitous, that people often don’t respond kindly to an ignored call or text message—even if it is ig-nored for reasons totally unrelated to the person on the other end of the line. It’s hard to truly “disconnect” oneself; technology, after all, is a huge part of everyday life, and its prevalence will only increase. It’s becoming harder to argue that one can successfully and ef-ficiently function in contemporary so-ciety without a phone or a computer, or that one would even want to do so. But we can create a certain balance of priorities, if we so choose. We can leave our cell phones at home for the night; we can set our phones to silent for the ten-minute cigarette break. And perhaps if more people did so, we would start to notice more kids whis-tling on the way to class. Maybe they’d be whistling the same song you were just listening to on your iPod. And maybe, just maybe, everyone would be a little more clear-headed and ready to face the daily onslaught of people and work and socializing, and not be so eager to escape it all. The value of “alone time” is a cliché, but an ac-curate one at that; time spent alone

may help us realize a great deal about ourselves before we are faced with the daunt-ing reality of life after college. Technology is an integral part of our society, and although its pervasiveness is largely out of our control, we do have control over the way we bal-ance and integrate that tech-nology with other aspects of our lives. In a modernized version of To Have and Have Not, maybe Bogart would take Bacall’s advice, and whistle. And maybe that whistle would turn out to be her ringtone.

19

On September 23, 2009, torrential rains slammed the Philippines, as Typhoon Ketsana ravaged the small island coun-try. Hundreds were lere left dead or injured. Not even a week after Ketsana dissipated, Typhoon Parma formed and struck the same area. Still reeling from the first shock, hundreds more fell vic-tim. Many organizations have helped the Philippines in its time of need. Celebrities, too, have done their part.

Quentin Tarantino is donating the funds from the opening of his film, In-glorious Basterds, to help deliver aid, and apl.de.ap from the Black Eyed Peas performed at a concert in Ma-nila to raise both funds and the spir-its of the Filipinos. Surely, we would assume, TCNJ’s Asian American As-sociation (AAA) has spearheaded a profound effort to help. So what has this effort consisted of? They started a canned food drive. That’s right – a canned food drive. In the Filipinos’ time of need, the skies opened, light poured down on their weather-torn country, and cans of Chef Boyardee’s ravioli rained down from the heavens.

AAA, a club with a large member base that annually receives a size-

able amount of funding for its vari-ous events, has started a canned food drive for the Philippines. I can only ask: why? A quote from the Fili-pino hero, José Rizal, answers this question. “Man works for an object. Remove that object and you reduce him to inaction” (“Indolence of the Filipino”). This canned food drive is

a pseudo-humanitarian effort car-ried out by organizations with vast resources, such as AAA, so they are able to feel as if they have done something, no matter how small and insignificant. Then, afterwards, they can pat themselves on the back. AAA spends much of its funds throughout the year on hosting various events, yet cannot spare some money to

lead a significant effort to raise mon-ey or awareness – their Mystique of the East show and semi-formals, apparently, are far more impor-tant. What is especially mortifying is that Filipinos comprise a signifi-cant portion of AAA’s membership.

We must ask ourselves what these faux humanitarian efforts actually achieve. The death toll in the Phil-ippines has exceeded 500 and con-tinues to rise. Others will survive, only to find their homes destroyed. When lucrative organizations like AAA host canned food drives for large-scale disasters, they trivial-ize the deaths and sorrows of an entire nation to a can of cream of mushroom soup. What the Philip-pines needs is money to help re-build and restore what it has lost, as well as supplies of medicine to stave off rampant infection. Leave the canned food drives to the count-less grammar schools that host them. Sacrifices are needed to tru-ly make an impact. We can last one semester without a couple hundred dollars for a semi-formal, but a Fil-ipino’s life cannot wait to be saved.

AN ANONYMOUS AAA INVOCATIONby an aaa member

TCNJPERSPECTIVE.COM

:: please kindly pass THE PERSPECTIVE on or recycle it ::

VISIT OUR WEB SITE

FOR EXCLUSIVE ONLINE CONTENT