A Brother to Love and a Brother to Kill

“Follow the Golden Rule.” “Play nice.” “Treat others as you would like to be treated.” “Sharing is caring.” “If you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all.” Any of these phrases sound familiar? Good. Now, think quickly as to which persons you would actually be treating this way. Are your friends, family, and peers the ones who actually get treated kindly by you? Now think about who you would not treat fairly. Think about the groups of people where you might abandon the Golden Rule and replace it with a want to disgrace or destroy said group. Every society in history, no matter how much they may brag about being peace-loving, has had a group where it was perfectly alright to abuse. From Jews, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Fascists, slaves, untouchables, to (more modernly) terrorists, homosexuals, and prisoners, someone has always been acceptable to hate. Each of us has a person or a group of persons where we would suspend our ability to be civil and enjoy thrashing the “evil” group, verbally or physically. And most of the time the groups we are thrashing are villainized by being “affronts to your Deity,” “morally repugnant,” or “backwards and barbaric.” Even though we might love one fellow human being, someone else usually gets shafted by us at every opportunity we get.
This hate and competition is only natural. Mother Nature is not the kind gentle life-giver portrayed in children’s tales. She’s a sadistic psycho-bitch that creates the best contestants in life by killing the rest, but her results have been remarkable. From tiny pieces of polypeptides, to single-celled organisms, to fish, to mammals, to humans, she has made world-shapers from what was once a jumbled collection of molecules that wanted to self-replicate. Her methods are akin to trying to hit a target by putting on a blindfold and holding the trigger on a mini-gun whilst spinning in a circle. Sure most of the bullets miss, but eventually some will hit and those few that do are rewarded with the ability to pass on their genes to the next generation. In order for creatures to increase their chances of surviving and reproducing, they kill one another to get the most resources. A group of tigers don’t wait politely for a gazelle to die of natural causes; the lion fast enough and strong enough gets to slaughter the food, eat, and reproduce. Those that are slow and weak die off. This animalistic behavior is unfortunately still buried deep in the minds of humans. Nature has said to DNA: “Those who show the most aggression and strength will win my prize.” We let loose our violence and hatred in ways that range from debates to mass murder. Let’s face it, we are a violent species. In every war we find new ways of killing each other, and we have gotten very good at it. Our media doesn’t go a day without covering some sort of horrific, violent story, be it in the news or in a movie. Today’s morals however, do not allow those living in civilized countries from expressing their anger in any way at any group they please: you can’t just kill your neighbor because he has a bigger TV set than you do. Instead we choose from the list of peoples that our country, faith, or family has decided is sub-human. In the progressive nations the negative effects of this animalistic urge for violence can range from spousal abuse to working to undermine the basic freedoms of those you oppose (no gay marriages, no abortions, wire-tapping, etc.). In countries that are less stable and are not so civilized, the resulting fit of anger could cause mass genocide, as seen in Rwanda and Darfur. They can oppress an entire nation and make them unable to control or even protest against the government which holds such a firm grasp over their lives. It causes normal people to kill each other for small pieces of territory or over who has the best invisible friend (Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Elrond Hubbard, you name it).
Now not all hate is necessarily bad hate. There are ways for turning hate into something useful. We can do that through constructive competition where different ideas, services, and products battle against each other to see which one is best for the consumer. What would make this constructive in civilized nations as compared to unfair in other nations is the fact that in a constructive competitive environment you have no government corruption and limited government regulations that only cover consumer safety but do not hinder the businesses. Also, the competitors would not compete with, say, bombs or drive-by shootings. The competition would be limited to a strict and logical system of laws that would protect the competitors from different interests and from one another. You can also use hatred of the status quo to create revolutionary new ideas and movements. Scientific and literary movements were driven by this primal urge. Hate and love for violence can also be spent on non-fatal activities such as paintball, sports, or video games. You cannot stem all human violence because the basic parts of our brains are violent. Underneath our human brain are the reptilian brain and the mammalian brain which have Mother Nature’s cruel commands forever imprinted on them. You can, however, have hate and violence that helps the global society rather than slowly destroying it.
Now, let us discuss exactly why we want to move away from the mindless violence that nature uses to select the best brood. Why should we move away from something that has been so successful over the past billions of years? To start, humans have something nothing before us had: intelligence. Instead of killing each other to see which trait serves us best, we can logically deduce what is best for mankind. Even when we disagree, we can have smart debates and compromises that fit everyone’s needs. We can do this without shedding a single drop of blood. By allowing peaceful democratic pluralism, which lets all ideas that aren’t inherently violent (in a bad way) to coexist together, we can allow different people with different ideals ways to collaborate and constructively compete with one another in safety and progression. I could go on with how we are all really related to each other (our DNA is more than 99% the same) and how we should love one another, but you’ve heard all that before. Let’s take the other side for a second. What if you don’t really give a shit about your fellow man? What if you think sharing and caring is for “fags and weaklings” that should be knocked off the food chain? What if you think that Mother Nature knows best and if a person cannot survive in the world no matter their conditions or where they were born, then that person did not deserve to live? Well I’ve got good news: you too can hop in on the pro-peace bandwagon and still be as greedy and selfish as your black little heart desires. By turning destructive malevolence into progressive peace, you start a myriad of processes that increase every person’s welfare in life, including yours. By decreasing the power of oppressive governments, you increase the potential for businesses to rise, which boosts global economies and puts money in your wallet. By not having millions of people die from starvation, pestilence, and war, and then educating them, you create a giant new force of workers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. These people in turn create new consumer goods which you can enjoy and might create medical advances which save, extend, or increase the quality of your life. Oh, and one last kicker for the die-hard Social Darwinists: Mother Nature also rewards compassion. In a Harvard experiment done over a decade ago people felt better and received a boost in their immune system after watching a movie about Mother Theresa and her acts of caring and goodwill. So next time you see somebody on the ground, don’t put a boot in their ass. Help them out, and you end up helping yourself.

Popular Vigilance

Event: Democratic Debates at DrexelTaking a look around campus on the night of the debates, it looked like a three-ring circus. Instead of the normal flow of students, there were news vans, reporters, supporters, and protestors galore. There were so many people buzzing around. It was the center of attention that night and it brought students over like moths to a flame. In this sea of people, imagine what would have happened if someone brought a gun, and intended to make use of the event to kill as many people as they could.Now generally, the more people have access to something, the harder that it is to secure. For example, a small gathering of people in a private location is pretty easy to keep safe and secure. An event with participants and spectators numbering in the thousands in a location just about anyone can get close to, well; there are just too many factors for it to be 100% safe. However, nothing in our lives is 100% safe. We all know that we can make a wrong step on the curve and fall face-first onto skull-cracking concrete. Automobile accidents happen all the time, Mother Nature is unforgiving, and you could even be one of the three thousand adults that die from choking each year. Most of us go on with our lives without putting too much thought into all of the possible ways we can die. Most of us also don’t ask for laws requiring automobiles to be made out of Nerf, every single object to be completely weatherproof, and for every person to chew their food at least twenty times before swallowed. Then again we also don’t allow cars that randomly explode or houses that disintegrate when a drop of rain hits them. We ask for things to be reasonably designed, created, and managed. So, this all begs the question: what is reasonable? In the country that we live in now, the United States of America, we make products, rules, and procedures in accordance with the law. If you disagree with a law, you can start a movement to change it, and if your argument is strong enough and your movement successful enough, you may just be able to change the law. Until that time though we must all obey the laws currently instated. No other agency should be able to do anything that violates these laws. This is why I could never understand how “Gun-Free Zones” could ever be legal. The second amendment, one of the oldest laws we have and follow, gives citizens the right to bear firearms. Today’s laws incorporate procedures like background-checks and other things to make sure that a citizen is capable and responsible of owning and using a firearm. These are the laws that the government passed, and these are the laws everyone has to obey. If the law says that you may carry a gun, and a different institution says that you may not, it is the law that should be upheld. How can you be penalized for following the law? Well unfortunately people do get into trouble for following the law. Schools and universities across several states have set up rules that state no one can carry a firearm. This idea has good intentions, and while at first this may seem like an appropriate way to stem violence related to gun-crime, it really makes all violence, not just gun-related violence, easier to commit. When you post a sign that says “Gun-Free Zone,” you are posting a sign that says “No one here has firearm.” Both of those phrases say the exact same thing, but when you compare them you realize that “Gun-Free Zone” is a very over-advertised euphemism. So let’s analyze where criminals would logically want to commit a crime. Let’s start off with the theory that “most criminals would rather not be injured or killed.” Now, there are fundamentalists out there, especially the religious kind. Recent events have shown us that some individuals are so strongly committed to something that they would sacrifice their own lives for that cause. So, let’s change the theory to suit the facts: “Most criminals would rather not be hurt or killed. For those that do not fear death and/or expect death, they want to do as much damage and to progress their goals as far as they can before they die. No criminal wants to be stopped before they have accomplished what they plan to do.” Looking at this theory I see no gaping flaws or holes in it that would make most people say that it is a bad theory. Remember, we are a democracy, so we care about most people, not all people. Now, using this theory as a guide, we can say that criminals would want to commit crimes in places where they will not be hurt, killed, or stopped. It seems like these “Gun-Free Zones” match up with this perfectly. By not allowing law-abiding citizens (that were deemed capable of using a firearm by the law) to have a gun, you are telling people that you are safe to do your criminal acts here. Imagine if a sign on a company said “243 of the 250 employees here have firearms. Feeling lucky enough to guess who the 7 are that don’t?” Are the chances going to be high that someone is going to attempt an armed robbery at that company? I personally do not believe so. When looking at the Virginia Tech. shootings that happened not too long ago, what do you think would have happened if some of the students or if some of the teachers had a gun? Do you think that the shooting spree would have lasted nearly as long as it did? Do you think it would have ended with a suicide?I think most of us can generally agree that the “Founding Fathers” of the U.S.A had some good ideas. They used these ideas to create a stable, democratic government that has flourished for over two hundred years. So it is not too difficult to understand why we place the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in such high positions. They were good for the people, and they were good for the government that was created of the people, by the people, and for the people. So whenever you have doubts about the Bill of Rights, and about the right to bear arms, remember this little quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

A tyrannical Mind

When thinking of the word oppression, one might correlate it to some image of a person slaving away in a rice field, an Afghan woman dressed in a burkha, or a Jewish family imprisoned in a concentration camp. However, it is interesting to note that what all of these correlations have in common is that all of them are not self-imposed. While one might argue that since the definition of oppression is imposing cruel and unjust authority, there is nothing exceptional about this observation since it is assumed that such an exercise of power will come from an outside source. Unfortunately, this assumption is not a realistic one, since many people’s greatest obstacles in life come from the inhibitions they set for themselves. These inhibitions can end up serving as oppressive forces, similar to ones imposed by governments, which prevent people from living their lives. When comparing both forms of oppression, one will most definitely state that self-imposed, or personal oppression, does not even compare to the severity of the type imposed by governments and other outside sources. While this argument is true to some extent there is one word, when considered, explains why personal oppression is just as severe. This word is something that everyone desires. This word is the basis of power. This word is “control.” What makes self-imposed oppression so frightening is that it involves inhibitions that can be controlled by the person himself. If one loses control of their mind and falls victim to abstract views of him or herself, then they easily fall prey to outside oppressive forces, which unfortunately can not be controlled as easily. This possibility of losing control is a common fear for people. Therefore, people spend their entire lives trying to rid themselves of the oppressive forces lurking inside of their veins, all in order to gain control of their lives, because there is nothing that people want more than to be free.

The lengths to which people will go to in order to insure that this fear, of falling victim to self oppression, does not become a reality is a common theme for many American writers. While they may not all pursue the topic of oppression, such as in the Middle East, almost every author creates a character that at one point has to overcome some inhibition to free him or herself from self imposed oppression. There are various levels of inhibitions, with government oppression being the highest and most sever. Inhibitions can be evident on a personal level, such as the desire to attain confidence in order to escape a worthless image of oneself. This inhibition can burrow itself into a person’s spirit and become the force that propels his or her actions until death. While fearing one’s personal oppression is not as severe as considering government imposed oppression, it is still as powerful because without personal freedom, one is captured in a self-imposed image that prevents him or her from living life. What better character to relate this description to than Jay Gatsby from the novel “The Great Gatsby,” written by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Gatsby is a lonesome character who strips his life from his past and the people who truly love him, all in order to attain an image, which he believes, will free him from his personal sorrows. What Gatsby fears the most is not having control over his life, especially not being able to conform himself into the image which will make Daisy fall in love with him. This fear of living life without Daisy motivates him to attain a lifestyle of glamour and wealth, all in order to please the love of his life. For Gatsby, money is the key that unlocks him from his oppressed view of himself, because he reasons that only with money he will be able to end up with Daisy.

Fitzgerald did not blindly chose to sculpt a character that uses money as a means to attain freedom from self imposed oppression; he chose money because he lived in a time where people correlated money with entrances to various possibilities in life. Having a series of open doors is simply a way to insure that one will have the freedom of choice. Gatsby understood this concept all too well, which is why he chose a life of unhappiness, filled with wealth, because by gaining a fortune he at least had the possibility of ending up with Daisy. Otherwise, Gatsby would have remained locked up in his world of poverty with no entrance to Daisy’s heart, since the key to her heart is money. This scenario, although fictional in context, is not fictional at all because it depicts the measures that people will take to free themselves from their personal inhibitions. Unfortunately, like Gatsby, many people’s inhibitions are money as well.

This scenario is all too common for people today because no one wants to have only one possible road to take in life. Having one road is characteristic of living in Afghanistan where the government dictates what one can do with his or her future. Money, on the other hand, can open up many doors, which might not be as necessary today, is still extremely beneficial. People are inclined to correlate money with safety, whether it is physical, emotional, or financial, because it is a means of entrance into almost anything. With money one can buy an expensive house, hire a body guard, and marry the person who would under normal circumstances never look at them. Therefore, people spend their entire lives trying to attain wealth because it ensures a lifestyle filled with choices and safety from oppression.

Oppression is a common fear shared by all people. No one wants to be bound up by any means, whether physical, mental, or emotional. Therefore, people as a whole are inclined to do everything in their power to insure that they have control of their lives. The first step in gaining control is ridding oneself of mental visions, which can prevent one from living a normal life. If these visions are not controlled, then the person can easily become a victim of more serious forms of oppression and end up slaving away in a rice field.

From my heart, or from my mind?

I recently attended a Community Service Center, whose name I will not mention, and did my share of making the world a better place to live. Alright I will pause here for a second. Although I consider myself a decent human being, I am not the kind that cares about trees and the bees. I am more realistic kind of person and believe that community service should be completely voluntary and should come from the heart in order to make a difference in life.
So, do you think that I got up at seven thirty on the first chilly Saturday morning, right before final week just because I love working for the community? Yes, I think we are going to agree on this question. My community service was required in order to pass my University 101 class, and the class was required in order to graduate. So I guess I had no choice, but to be a philanthropic human being and serve my duty. When I was told we are going to the retirement center, I thought that we are going to serve them lunch, sit in some cozy and warm room and chat or play cards with the elder people and make their day a little bit nicer. Well I was wrong! When we got there we found out that the organizations from the retirement center actually wanted us to rake the leaves of the front yard and back yard and put them in bags. I do not want to sound like some coldhearted person, but aside from the fact that it was early in the morning it was 36 degrees and the yards were huge! We hardly finished the front yard and we had over 50 bags. One kid’s arm even started to bleed. I bet he felt satisfied with his service! After we finished with the front yard, we had to serve lunch to the elder people, which I was completely fine with. After serving for a while in a restaurant, I did not revolt anymore from touching strangers’ food or dishes. Doing their silverware is a whole different story! If there are any body fluids involved, you can not blame for being disgusted. Well the kitchen chef did make me do it after all, but there was a kid putting the dishes in the dishwasher; another one burned his hand taking them out of there and I saw a guy scrubbing the dirty plates, so I guess I got away pretty easy.
My community service experience was helpful after all. I started thinking of all the good things that service provides and how much more could have been done. So I started thinking about the people who participate in community service and their motivations to do so. I could not help but wonder; do we like to think of ourselves as better human beings than we actually are? Do we in fact like to help each other or do we want others to think that we are caring? I do not think that people who voluntary community service do it because they like to wash dishes. There are only two reasons that motivate them; because they want to make somebody’s life easier and better or because it will look better on their resume and job applications.
Society restricts our freedom of choosing to do community service by making it a recruitment of well rounded personality. All my friends included a list of voluntary work in their college applications. All of the sudden they all started to work for Red Cross in their senior year of high school. The government always starts to worry about injured and poor right before elections!
While raking the leaves I was listening around to other people’s conversations and there was one sentence that repeated in almost every single one of them: “I hope they will run out of bags finally”. So I guess I am not the only one who felt forced to clean somebody’s back yard. I would bet that 90% of the students who did community service this year would have not done it unless it was required. I guess this is the point of it being mandatory. Will forcing people to do good though, improve them as humans because they did something helpful to others, or will it make them worse because they did not want to?
I think that the public opinion forces people to act as they cared of the well being of the word. And doing something good because you feel obligated to would not make any difference. If people really did care they would use public transportation to save the Ozone layer. They would use less perfume. People would buy hybrid cars and actually use the hybrid option instead of pumping them up with gas. Years ago scientist invented a cheaper and less harmful substitutions of gas, but they never really came to the market because it would harm somebody’s wallet. If people really cared they would stop cutting down forests and recycle all the paper we already have in our homes. Instead of taking care of the world we live in, we wait for disasters to happen and then donate money to show that we are philanthropic. In the county I was born, there is a saying that “most of the good done in the world is done to hide something bad that has already been done.
Have you read one of those articles about a new governor, big movie star of a singer that recently donated some huge amount of money to the poor children in Africa? I have always wondered how there have never been articles, written about some normal people that donated money. These articles remind me of the movie “Ocean’s thirteen” and the interview of Terry Benedictd /Andy Garcia/ in Oprah’s show after the rest of the band had donated their money without his permission.
Lets be honest, there is this public opinion that drives people to do good things. I am not saying that there are no good people out there who would sacrifice their own well-being in the name of the common good. I just think that the majority of the people are a little bit selfish and are driven by some unstated society rules rather then their own soul. May be if the society did not make people feel obligated to help, they would act more like humans less like actors.

Reasonable Security, or Unnecessary Burden?

As I sit here in 30th Street Station, waiting patiently for my train to come and bring me home, there is a presence here that no one can ignore. That presence is the police. Many armed police officers, some with dogs, are wandering around the station. They are here looking for anything that seems out of the ordinary. Now I am not complaining about their presence, in fact, I feel much safer with them here. They play an important role in preventing crime and terrorism in our country, especially in a transportation hub such as this one. But the question that I now ask is, is this same presence needed elsewhere? Is a heavy police presence needed or even necessary in a place such as a school?
I was pleasantly surprised when I came to Drexel to see the efficiency of the security here. In a big city campus, in a city with a somewhat large crime rate, you would expect the security here to be efficient. Unlike in some colleges, the Public Safety organization here is not a police department, but instead they work with the city police. Their presence and their close relationship with the police help to deter crime from happening, but their limited authoritative power deters them from hassling students or other people. The security here for individual buildings is effective in that you need a card in order to scan yourself into the buildings. It is in my last statement where security is the most important, and that is in access. If a criminal, or someone who shouldn’t be in a particular place, cannot get into that place, then there is little need for the security inside that building. For example, you don’t need bomb-sniffing dogs inside the vault of Fort Knox, if no one can get into the vault anyway.
I have seen schools that are very easy to infiltrate, but once inside, there is a ton of unnecessary security, that in the end, only tend to piss off students and others. Security is important, but not at the expense of certain freedoms. I went to a friend’s college the other weekend, and the security there was painful. Not only was I able to easily sneak in, but people there thought I was just another student. But, since I wanted to be the responsible law abiding citizen that I am, I went through hell trying to get registered to stay there. This doesn’t prevent crime; this only punishes those who try to do the right thing. This college is not the example of a school with good security, although they had a large presence, they were only there to punish, and not prevent.
I think that the difference between effective and ineffective security lies in their purpose. If their purpose is to punish, then the security is ineffective, because by punishing, you are not stopping crime from happening, you are only punishing those who already committed a crime. If the crime in question is a shooting or a robbery, then the damage is already done. An effective security is one that prevents crime. Having a presence and stopping bad people from “getting in” is the key to safety, and the key to not stepping on people’s freedoms. When a crime is committed, some people will do whatever it takes to punish those responsible, and this could step on any number of individual freedoms. A random search, or an accusation, are all violations of a person’s freedom; their freedom from persecution.
This is not only happening at the college level, it is also happening at the high school and elementary school level. I worked for a computer technician for my school for a little over a year, and I was involved in security. I was involved in implementing a system of cards that provide access to buildings. Before that though, it was very easy for people to come and go from any school building. Then they created a system where everyone had to sign into a building when they came it, and the problem with that is that it lets people come into the building, the good people just have to make sure they check into the main office, even employees with ID cards.
When someone has to be “hassled”, they tend to feel violated, and they feel that their freedom to do what they please has been violated. Poorly designed security at places like schools can exacerbate this feeling of being hassled. When it is possible for anyone to get into a place, then the security there treats everyone like criminals. Security needs to be designed to accommodate the people who do the right things, and prevents the people who wish to do bad things from having a chance. Personal freedom should never be sacrificed in order to accommodate security. Security needs to be able to be flexible in order to accommodate people’s freedoms. There are good models and bad models, and luckily I go to Drexel, which is a good model of effective security.

Eat whatever, whenever

Recently, I attended a half an hour commuter cooking tip session at Drexel University, which made me realize how limited dining options are at campus. It was organized by Drexel’s commuter student’s organization and took place in the basement of Creese Center. The event’s main purpose was to teach students how to efficiently prepare three or more dishes out of grilled chicken in order to save money from eating outside as well as time. The session did not intend to turn students into chefs. Although these tips might be helpful to others that are new to cooking, they were basic to me. The Drexel Catering Representative showed us how to make chicken ceaser salad, chicken salad, and pesto pasta with chicken. I believe every person with minimum cooking skills can prepare these meals without the need of a book. The audience in the room was much smaller than I expected and I was unsure if this was due to insufficient advertising or the fact that students at Drexel do not have the time or opportunity to cook. The other twenty students in the room with me did not look like people who needed cooking or shopping advice. Frankly, from the answers heard I suspected that the free lunch was the only reason attracted them to the event. At first I was a little curious why so more people would not go to an event that offers free lunch. You would think that a free lunch is an advertisement that automatically attracts students, but then I realized that all freshman students already have prepaid all their lunches with the golden meal plan for a year ahead.
The school is worried about the stress level of their freshman students and wants to make sure that all students have a healthy meal three times a day. Because Drexel believes that “dining on campus play an important role in fostering a sense of community,” the school requires all freshman students living on campus to enroll in the golden meal plan and be able to visit the Handshumacher Dining Center, also called the cafeteria, as many times a week as they want. I was amazed when I found out from other students that they are actually obligated to purchase the plan if living on campus, which is also mandatory for the first three quarters unless you are a commuter who lives with your parents. I felt like the school has limited students living and dining possibilities and obligated students to spend money they could have had possibly saved. It is true that if one visits the dining center three times a day, seven days a week one meal would cost only five dollars and twenty cents. This is relatively cheap, but also equal to the price of a meal and drink purchased from any of the carts on campus. Let’s be realistic for a second! How often is a student able to visit the cafeteria? As a student, I cannot believe that other students would get up in the morning and go to the cafeteria for breakfast. I am extremely skeptical about Saturday and Sunday mornings in particular. I also know that students enjoy going out and eating in the city if they can afford it. Although I have no meal plan I was curious to check out the food at the Handshumacher Center and I visited it a couple of times myself. I did not need a lot of time to realize that the food choices are very limited, especially if you are a vegetarian or have some other food restrictions. At my first visit I was able to create my salad only to find out that they are out on dressing. About ten minutes later I found out that the lettuce is not fresh as well. A little disappointed, I thought that I could at least enjoy my Chinese meal that looked very appetizing, yet unfortunately tasted exactly the opposite. There is one thing tough that I do recommend at the cafeteria- peach yogurt ice-cream. I swear it its divine! After my second visit at the place I was convinced that it is lacking variety; the food is unhealthy, lacks taste and the ice-cream machine is not working quite often.
Then I heard other students talking about the “freshman fifteen rule”, which states that the average student gains fifteen pounds during freshman year, because of unhealthy food. Is the school interfering with students’ personal freedom by providing food that they might have not chosen if they had the right to dine wherever they want? Is the school responsible for college students’ obesity, because of providing unhealthy food? These are questions that, I am sure, concern some other students as well. It is true that the school has not restricted anybody to go and eat anywhere else, but why spend extra money if you have already prepaid for food a year in advance.
Drexel’s on campus dining opportunities are very limited compared to other schools in the area. University of Pennsylvania, a school in the neighborhood, has a lot more to offer in regards to dining places. Drexel’s students often leave their campus and prefer to experience dining services at foreign campuses. This contradicts with Drexel’s goal for “building a community”. I have heard from Temple students that they can use their Diamond Dollars, which is equivalent to the Dragon card, anywhere on campus, including the carts on the streets. This, as Drexel students are aware, is not possible on our campus.
I am so lucky for being a commuter and having the personal right to pick the food and the place I eat every day. As a business major I only wish there was a little more competition in dining centers so prices would get lower and the quality of food would improve.

A Symbol of Freedom

Imagine living in a country where education is banned. Growing up, children do not go to school and simply stay at home to help their mothers take care of the house, or help their fathers by plowing the soil in the farm. Everyone is illiterate, except top government officials, and all decisions are made by the government. Speaking out against any aspect of life leads to direct imprisonment and possibly death. While this seems like a scene from a horror film, it is a reality for many people living in dictatorial countries. People looking at these countries from the outside, such as Americans, many times wonder how these regimes can be overthrown. They then realize that only through a desire for change and knowledge of the existence of a better lifestyle that progress can occur. It is only through education that people develop this desire and knowledge, which is why it is so important to exalt and display the freedom of education in order to let the world see how important it truly is.

It is ten thirty, half an hour until the beginning of the ceremony and already the main auditorium is packed with students, faculty, and guests. The students have a reserved section in the very back of the room, from which the stage becomes almost invisible. As eleven o’clock approaches, the number of people present begins to outnumber the seating capacity of the room. Although half the front section of the auditorium is completely empty, it is reserved for faculty, therefore making the unlucky standing individuals even more furious that there was insufficient planning put into this event. Unlike a normal event where one can easily tell if students or adults are sitting behind someone simply from their conversations, this event is the complete antithesis. Instead of being able to differentiate the students by their discussions of who got drunk the previous night, during this event both the students and the faculty seem to be focused on the lack of planning put into such a propagated ceremony. By eleven o’clock, everyone is outraged that the seating limitations were not taken into account when inviting guests. A middle aged woman standing to the right of me keeps on saying, “they don’t look very happy to have us here.” The honors students standing in the corners are raging about the fact that the Honors College made attendance mandatory, when in fact there is seating available for only about half of the honor students.

About a quarter after eleven the doors close and the Convocation ceremony begins with Drexel University’s President Papadakis addressing the crowd and wishing everyone a successful new school year. After the president’s speech a few other speakers take the stand until the back doors open and the faculty comes walking in, organized into their prospective colleges and dressed in the medieval, academic attires of caps and gowns. The various colors and forms of caps and gowns represent the school and degree of a particular professor. Simply by looking at the academic attire one can tell the degree, area of study, and the university that a particular professor graduated from. Looking into the crowd of black, blue, and yellow robes, faculty members enter with the dean of each school holding a banner with its name on top. The ceremony concludes with Doctor Shirley Malcom speaking about the struggles she overcame as a black woman, growing up in the south, during the time of the civil rights movement.

Looking back at the convocation ceremony it seemed like a complete waste of time. However, thinking beyond the two hours spent sitting in a hot, crowded auditorium I realize why the annual ceremony is so cherished and exalted. Convocation is an event that defines the success of Drexel University, and even more so, the freedom of education, that we are fortunate enough to posses. Dr Shirley Malcolm’s speech makes one realize how fortunate we are to be able to attain an education. The definition of personal freedom spans far beyond the right to speech, press, to keep and bare arms, because it also encompasses the right of every person to attain the required knowledge necessary to become prosperous, through education. What makes America so different from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other oppressive countries, is that Americans are entitled to education and self enlightenment. Education is an extremely powerful force that is feared for a particular reason. With knowledge, comes the desire for progress and change. For this particular reason education is not permitted in many dictatorial countries. By banning education, governments are able to suppress their citizens by hiding the truth without fear that someone will decipher the lies. Therefore, convocation is commended because it is symbolic of the freedoms that Americans are able to posses. With education there is no limit to what one can achieve, as seen in Dr. Shirley Malcom’s experiences.

Beyond the symbolic aspect of freedom that convocation indirectly conveys, the overheard conversations are also symbolic of another type of freedom. The fact that the university did not thoroughly plan the seating arrangements is a fault that disserved criticism. However, the fact that the students, guests, and even faculty were able to voice their dissatisfaction is another example of just how much freedom Americans posses. In many countries people are jailed or even killed for speaking against institutions, especially ones that are as large as Drexel University. The ability to complain and even receive and e-mail from the Dean of the Pennoni Honors College apologizing for the lack of planning is an extraordinary freedom that should not be overlooked.

Convocation, although a minor event, in essence is symbolic of the freedoms that Drexel University is able to display, teach, and practice to its students. It inspired me to continue my studies and try to attain a doctorate degree because seeing my professors achieve such success makes my dream of becoming a doctor a bit more tangible. Seeing a great number of successful people is an extremely motivating force that encourages students to desire the freedom of education as much as Dr. Malcom desires it. Sometimes the minor things in life help people realize the significance of the bigger things. In this case, convocation was able to make me appreciate the personal freedoms that I, as an American, am fortunate enough to posses.