Many supporters of the SOPA and PIPA legislation argued that both bills were actually in defense of to free speech and free exchange. Cary Williams, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Recording Industry Association of America wrote in the New York Times “[that the anti-online piracy legislation] is specifically designed to focus on the worst of the worst sites whose model is predicated on theft.” Coincidentally, the histories of content industries do not support Williams. Over the last twenty years or so, content industries have made broad, assertive claims of what constitutes their intellectual property.

Indeed, both bills illustrate an example of the increasing collusion between government and business. Companies such as Time Warner Cable, a staunch supporter of SOPA and PIPA, lobby Congress for legislation that would have made it difficult for low-priced or free websites to compete. This drives companies with new technology and lower prices out of the market. For example, Qwiki.com, an online encyclopedia which uses audio and video multimedia content—a great deal of which are taken from Time Warner affiliated sites—to display Wikipedia pages would have been shut down. Furthermore, other websites such as those which allow users to search for a broad range of content such as Google, Yahoo, and AOL could have plausibly been fined or challenged by SOPA and PIPA. Search engines neither censor nor scan for pirated content and can lead users to websites where they can download copyrighted material—a violation of SOPA and PIPA.

The broad language included in SOPA and PIPA may have effectively ended public domain. This is a confrontation to the original purpose of the internet. The internet is a perfect spontaneous market. Free speech thrives. Good, services, and information exchanges between individuals. Entry and transaction costs are low. Innovation is not centrally planned, but is driven by entrepreneurs. Individuals employ their knowledge and capital productively without an understanding the entire system. People make decisions on which websites to use based on their desires.

Accordingly, when the influence of corporate lobbyists enters the political process, policy can raise entry costs for competition. Companies try to maximize profit, but it is protectionist and crony policies that can lead to decreases in innovation, ideas, and free speech. At any rate, perhaps something good did come from the brief scare caused by both SOPA and PIPA that was felt by college students, professionals, businesses, and other individuals alike. When both bills were taken up as national issues civil protest unfurled. Numerous websites, in order to display what may happen if SOPA and PIPA were passed, initiated a blackout of their respective sites for a number of days. Numerous online petitions were created and signed by hundreds of thousands of people. Here, the power of ideas, innovation and individuals were released. Perhaps this is a progressive sign that we are finally tired of the government cronyism.

Related posts:

1. The United States Government is Not a Business
2. Why We Can’t Stimulate, Quantitatively Ease, or Twist our way to Prosperity

Last fall, the Habitat Golf Event raised over $2,500 to enable them to “continue building homes and building hope.”  Included among the 32 golfers were two H-SC teams: the Circle K team of Tim Shen, Patrick Lynch, Scott Cutler, and Steven Ellmann; and the Phi Gamma Delta team of Conner Rund, Andrew Near, Eric Rutherford, and Samson Canovos. Faculty golfers included Drs. Curt and Susan Smith, along with Dr. Jerry Bryce. After a round of golf at the Manor, there was a lunch with silent auction to raise additional funds. The Inter-Fraternity Council provided financial support for the event, as did the Habitat Club and H-SC’s ARAMARK donated snacks and drinks.

The Habitat Club, meanwhile, has been reorganized and is actively looking to help with construction and deconstruction projects, as well as fund-raising events.  So far the club has held cookie sale fundraisers and has done deconstruction work to support the Habitat Women’s Build that is currently taking place. In early February the Habitat Club is also participating in Habifest, a music festival held by Farmville Area Habitat to raise money. Next weekend, the club will be inviting students to come help with the current house-building project in Farmville. There are lots of ways to become involved!

Related posts:

1. An Appreciation for Hampden-Sydney Sports
2. Finding a Place in the Hampden-Sydney Culture
3. All in the Hips

Last week the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “Ron Paul didn’t win Iowa. He didn’t win New Hampshire. He won’t win here [South Carolina] on Saturday, and he won’t win Florida. The Texas congressman will not likely be the first choice for Republican nominee in a single U.S. state.” This journalist seems so perplexed with Paul’s campaign strategies that she asks “What does Mr. Paul want?” (WSJ, Strassel, Jan 20). Despite his enormous popularity, Ron Paul doesn’t have the kind of traction that the front-running candidates have. There are large philosophical differences between Libertarians and Conservatives. And though they agree on some things, the polls show that the GOP is not changing. I tend to take a libertarian stance on most political issues, and even though I like him, I don’t really pay much attention to Ron Paul. After all, his ill-fitting suits and rants on the FED are off putting to a lot of voters, and I don’t think he has much of a chance at winning the nomination. However, after spending Winter Break in Peru and Chile, I learned that we shouldn’t analyze Ron Paul’s success as in a purely political context

In South America whenever I met someone new, after asking where I was from, the next question was always ‘do you like Ron Paul?’ The question came almost systematically. I always replied, “Sure, he’s cool, but he won’t win.” My acquaintances seemed to be disappointed with my lack of enthusiasm.  In many conversations, my college aged friends quoted things from Ron Paul’s newsletters, and during breaks from a class I took in Chile, my fellow students asked me if I had seen what Ron Paul ‘tweeted’ during the class. I don’t even follow Ron Paul on Twitter.

I was shocked to see so much enthusiasm for U.S. Presidential Candidate from students on a different continent, not even eligible to vote in the U.S. election. The illegal drug trade, and the violence stemming from it, is such an important political issue in Latin America, that I figured Ron Paul’s ‘pro-legalization’ stance was the root of his popularity, but that’s really only part of it.  A libertarian candidate as popular and as seriously acknowledged by the general public as Ron Paul is not something that public opinion would allow in stereotypically left-leaning Latin America. They highly respect the support he has.

Despite my first reactions, I realized this respect is not unfounded. We tend to judge Ron Paul’s success like the Wall Street Journal did last week: via his performance in the election. His chances in the election don’t look so good, but he is succeeding in another realm. After he came in fourth place in the South Carolina primary he remarked, “The message of liberty is being received by more people every day,” and in this realm Paul is succeeding.

You don’t have to win elections to promote social change. In fact, President Wilson’s Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan was the Democrat party’s candidate for President in the 1896, 1900, and 1908 elections. He lost every time- even after 500 speeches. However, he managed to change the Democratic Party’s platform to the big-government-oriented, progressive-leaning character that we know today. Bryan, the person, failed, but his ideas succeeded. Winning elections is only one metric of success.

Ron Paul is succeeding in spreading ideas about liberty. Other campaigns have accepted his positions on monetary policy, students in other countries know his name, he is the second most popular presidential candidate on Facebook, and there are over 500 University-based Ron Paul groups. Paul might lose the GOP nomination, but one can’t deny his huge social influence- in fact, his ideas seem to be winning. Even if he loses the GOP nomination, Ron Paul is leading a movement to renew an American political ideology based on individual, civil, and Economic liberty.  Just like William Jennings Bryan, Ron Paul can lose and still succeed. We shouldn’t let his lackluster political performance lead us to underestimate his power as a social influence.

Related posts:

1. Marco Rubio: Republicans’ Obama?
2. Virginia Election Results Keep to the Pattern
3. Palin in Wonderland: Why the Tea Party Must Kick Out Sarah Palin

Even if politicians were the most altruistic people in the world they would still face large problems in determining what their constituents wanted. This difficulty arises because voting cannot account for people’s intensity of preference for a policy. For example, in a market, if I wish to buy something, I can use my money to express how much I desire something, and I can use varying amounts of money to express how highly I want the item. However, with voting I simply get one vote. This is my only mechanism for expressing how much I desire a policy and it’s the same as everyone else’s, and the end of the day all of the votes are added together and whoever has the most gets what they want. Lost in this aggregation of votes are the different and varied preferences that people may have on an issue. Thus the feedback politicians receive from voting do not account for the actual demands of the voters, which will lead to poor policy choices.

However, even though every voter’s intensity of preference is restricted by his or her one vote, people and organizations find other ways of expressing themselves politically. Old folks attend party meetings, yuppies donate to politicians, and many young people, such as the occupiers, take to the streets. More importantly, corporations and activist groups also influence politics in a variety of ways from donations to starting Political Action Committees (PACs). Corporations can stand to gain millions based on the decisions of politicians. This means corporations have a strong incentive to be very involved in politics and support those politicians, who will write the laws they want and give them the subsidies they desire. The average voter does not have this incentive since he/she is rarely stands to gain millions of dollars by a single political decision. Inevitably, the politicians become corrupt and less receptive to the wants of their constituents.

Even if politicians could overcome the perils of corporate influence and do what is in the best interest of the country, another obstacle emerges: deciding what is in the national interest is actually a very difficult task which is actually made more difficult by voting. Voting is often cited as the institution best equipped to understand what the populace wants. Politicians evoke this message incessantly, such as current Speaker of the House John Boehner who declared the 2010 midterms as a mandate from the people. However, it is misleading to say that the people have mandated something, even if the majority appeared to vote one way as opposed to the other. This is because individuals can rank their preferences in a transitive manner. For example, I can prefer to eat steak to chicken, chicken to soup, and steak to soup. On the contrary, a “majority” can prefer steak to chicken, chicken to soup, and soup to steak simultaneously. This means that the voting system actually complicates the preferences of the majority by reducing their consumption to just one politician or policy.

Of course, many people will claim that they will still vote, because it makes them feel good. It certainly can feel nice to wear the “I voted” sticker and stroll proudly out of the voting booth. Nevertheless, if someone is legitimately concerned about the well-being of other people, he would know that voting should not make him feel good since all he has actually done is contributed to a systemically flawed institution that will continue to make poor choices.

The arguments against voting should not be seen as a defense for being apathetic and ignorant about the world. Instead, one should seek other ways to improve society that aren’t political, such as becoming educated, pursuing philanthropic ventures, or simply helping friends in need. There are literally hundreds of other ways to advance society that don’t involve a voting booth, and it’s quite possible that the voting booth works against that goal in the first place.

Related posts:

1. The Libertarian Ideology is a Joke!
2. A Few Words About Voting
3. There’s Privatization and Then There’s Privatization

Drake-Take Care

Rating: B+ (4.5)

In his second album Drake proves that he deserves to be among the best rap artists making music today. Take Care is solid work from start to finish. The album opens with “Over My Dead Body,” a mellow tune that has Drake quasi-singing over a soft piano melody about how despite the money, he hopes not to change. Resisting the temptations of money is the main theme of the entire album, along with his reactions to an ever-changing environment and his hope to remain true to who he is. The theme continues with the second track on the album, “Take a Shot for Me,” a mournful tune lamenting the loss of his past girl. The next track “Headlines” is one of the best songs on the album and really shows what Drake can be at his peak. He raps fast and well and throws in his signature Drake style all over an up-tempo beat. The album slows down a bit here with soft songs like “Take Care” (featuring Rihanna) and “Marvin’s Room,” two of the best songs from the album and songs that show Drake’s versatility. Further flexing his musical muscles, Drake returns to his days of “Over” and “Forever” with “HYFR,” a collaboration with fellow Young Money rapper Lil’ Wayne. The album falls short however on the tracks that Drake tries too hard on. He seems determined to prove that a rapper can be tender and soft yet still have credibility. He does this well on a few tracks (namely, “Marvin’s Room” and “Headlines”), but he does not capture the magic from those two tracks over the course of the entire album.

Coldplay- Mylo Xyloto

Rating: B (4)

The fifth studio album from arguably the biggest band on the planet right now does not disappoint. Despite taking a different direction from their grandiose album Viva La Vida Or Death and All His Friends, this album is still very good. The band stated that Mylo Xyloto is a concept album focusing on a love story with a happy ending. The band originally set out to release an acoustic and stripped down album, but through the course of recording it came out with a more electronic feel. Despite the “concept” label, the album still has slow piano filled jams that echo “The Scientist” and “Fix You” that Coldplay fans have come to know and love; Most notably is “Hurts Like Heaven.” But where this album really shines is in the more fast-paced songs such as “Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall,” and, in my opinion, the best song on the album “Paradise.” Both songs are filled with lead singer Chris Martin’s soaring vocals. Coldplay also spreads their wings into more of a pop theme with the song “Princess of China” which features vocals from megastar Rihanna. The song doesn’t live up to the rest of the album but there is potential for more of the same nature. All in all, Coldplay still has a lot left in them and Mylo Xyloto serves as a holdover while hardcore Coldplay fans wait for the next Viva La Vida or A Rush Of Blood to The Head.

The Black Keys- El Camino

Rating: A (5)

The Black Keys bring a garage band/blues style to modern rock, and they do it well. This album is the duo’s seventh and, perhaps, their best. The band moves away from their traditional blues style and delves into a broader range of rock and roll styles. Despite the album only clocking in at 37:42, it is great from start to finish. Most of the songs on the album were recorded in one to two takes, which gives it a raw edge that really pushes it over the top. El Camino kicks off with the high-energy jam “Lonely Boy” with a heavy guitar riff and haphazard, yet perfectly timed, drums. The energy keeps coming with “Dead and Gone” and the also brilliant is “Gold on the Ceiling,” which is one of the more blues-rooted songs on the album. Think of the White Stripes… except better. The hits keep on coming with the two more excellent tracks: “Little Black Submarines” and “Sister.” If you ever want to get a party going or need some good beats to frat jam to, this is your album. I cannot say enough good things about this album. I highly recommend it.

Related posts:

1. Student Reviews: Friendship, The Redneck Manifesto
2. Sigh No More, Mumford & Sons
3. A Hard Days’ Night: The Beatles: Rock Band

A recent article on TIME titled “Too Many Pills,” reports a 300% surge in deaths from the misuse of medications within the past decade. The Richmond Dispatch posts a death toll of 15,000 from abuse of prescription medications in 2008, almost four times the deaths from narcotic abuse data compared to ten years ago. The wide spectrum of prescription drugs encompasses anything from highly addictive painkillers like OxyContin, Vicodin, and methadone to prescription analeptics/amphetamines—used to treat attention deficit disorders—like Ritalin, Adderall and Concerta. According to a recent National Institute of Health (NIH) report, the annual rate of doctor prescriptions has also hiked up to about 14 billion. This is neglecting the 2,000 or so over-the-counter drugs available to the population without a prescription.

The uncontested availability of drugs on the market has also made its way into to the college environment. Though prescription drugs are commonly used to achieve a narcotic high, a recent trend shows alternative uses, especially by college students. In a piece titled “The Adderall Advantage,” NY Times journalist Andrew Jacobs investigates the abuse of medication in college campuses. His investigation focuses on students of Columbia University. “The environment here is incredibly competitive,” says one of the students Jacobs interviewed swallowing a 20-milligram tablet of Adderall on his way to the library. “If you don’t take them, you will be at a disadvantage to everyone else.”

This disturbing trend has elicited serious concerns from health professionals. “Things have really gotten out of hand in the last four to five years,” says Dr. Robert Winfield, director of University Health Service at University of Michigan, trying to explain the notion that students seem to associate taking these pills with guaranteed academic success. But is this practice so different from the athlete who gulps down a glass of Creatine before a workout or the dedicated student who drains a can of Red Bull to stay up late studying for his economics test? Aren’t they all trying to get a little edge in the competitive environment that is college?  

Where the risk factor dramatically increases for prescription drug users, however, is when alcohol is brought to the mix. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism explains the process. Like most chemical agents, drugs and alcohol must travel through the blood stream in order to reach their site of action. Recognizing their toxic nature, the body slowly breaks down these toxins using enzymes to speed up the metabolic process. When a person who has taken Hydrocodon, for example, imbibes alcoholic beverages, the metabolism of the drug is altered. Since both toxins will compete for the same set of enzymes, the drug-alcohol interaction prolongs the drug’s availability and dramatically increases the risk of experiencing harmful side effects.

Related posts:

1. Death of Student Incites Action
2. Dead Weekends: Alcohol, CAC, and Your Money!
3. Do Regulations on Fraternities Make Us Safer?

This culture on campus has led to dangerous patterns of drinking developing among students. The CAC plans its events at times not to the benefit of the school as time during the week days, which are times either for studying, work, or lectures. Weekdays are filled with video game tournaments offering large prizes whereas the weekends are left barren with the exceptions being a few CAC sponsored game nights every few Fridays.

 It was suggested in a letter-to-the-editor titled “Welcome to Suitcase University!” in the last issue of the Tiger that the CAC should grant money to have the fraternities host weekly events. This undermines the need for college-sponsored events as they offer students choices other than parties. Clubs like the Animation Society, which hold a bi-weekly movie showing, are left to offer an alternative event from the frats with far less funding.

Students pay $208 a year in activities and due to allocations by the Student Finance Committee, half of that money goes to the College Activities Committee. The CAC receives more money that any other organization on campus under the SFC’s purview. The cost of one CAC event is valued at the same level of many clubs’ budget for the entire year. This money is not always being spent on campus either. For example, the CAC sent fifteen students to the Dallas Cowboys vs. Washington Redskins game. The trip is estimated by the CAC at a value of at least $3,750. If the entertainment culture on campus is going to be changed by means already available, then either the CAC needs to focus on more small events available on the weekends for students or the SFC should consider less appropriations to the CAC and more towards the clubs that have already displayed the ability to hold entertaining and cost effective activities.

The Student Senate, College Activities Council and Student Finance Committee were unwilling to turn over records or be interviewed for this article.

Related posts:

1. Board of Trustees Alters Activity Fee
2. The CAC: Working Hard So You Can Play Hard
3. My Beef with OrgSync

                  Over the past year and a half K2 has become an enormously popular marijuana substitute. As more people began using K2 instead of other drugs, we have learned some its negative side effects: high blood pressure, seizures, and hallucinations just to name a few. K2 users were becoming more and more frequent in hospitals. And when an Indiana 18 year old smoked enough K2 to have a hallucination that provoked him to end his life, lawmakers decided to capitalize on the opportunity to justify K2’s prohibition. K2 has taken at least three lives, and has sent hundreds to hospitals all while scientists know relatively little about the long-term health effects of its synthetic compounds- is that enough to justify prohibition? At least 12 states and several cities think so.

                  Despite all the social ills the ‘drug’ seems to be causing, outlawing it will not deter consumer’s demand. Nor will outlawing K2 incentivize scientific research on its synthetic compounds so that we can fully understand their effects on our health. Furthermore, prohibition will not allow producers to innovate a safer substitute.

During the legislative process, our representatives will no doubt debate the costs and benefits to outlawing K2. Obviously, there are costs and benefits to allowing consumers to buy K2, but how do we know when the costs are high enough to outweigh the benefits and legitimize prohibition?

                  We have a mechanism for determining the best decision: competition. Nobel Prize Winning Economist F.A Hayek calls competition “a discovery procedure,” and he couldn’t be more correct. When we have a hot-dog eating contest, we do not know who is the best hot-dog-eater, (who can eat the most) so we have a competition. If we knew who the best hot-dog-eater was, then having a contest would be pretty silly, so we have a contest to discover who is the best- competition is a discovery process.

As elementary as competition seems, without it we couldn’t make every day decisions. Consider choosing between 2 brands of razors in Wal-Mart. By buying the razor that works best, I send a signal to all the razor companies about which price and razor characteristics I prefer. Being able to choose the best razor signals information about my preferences which producers use to make better razors and maximize profits. For example, I did not know that I really wanted the razor with the AAA battery that vibrates and shaves closer, but by watching my consumption patterns, corporations knew consumers wanted a close shave, and innovated a way to make that happen at a low cost.  By allowing consumers and producers to exchange knowledge, competition literally leads to the creation of knowledge- about what products consumers will prefer.  Without competition in the razor industry, there would be only one, un-innovative, razor on the market leaving me without the opportunity to choose the best product, and signal to innovators what kind of razor would be best. 

Competition provides us with ever innovative and ever cheaper products, but it also provides us with choice, without which we couldn’t decide if something is best. Without competition, I wouldn’t know a 4-blade razor was the best choice not only because lack of competition does not give companies the incentive to innovate a razor with more than one blade, but also because there would be no 3 blade razor to compare it to- my friends majoring in philosophy would say that without a ‘contrast class’ we cannot say the buying the 4-blade razor is advantageous. In other words, the only reason I know the 4-blade razor is the best, is because I know it is better than the competing 3-blade razor.

                  Unlike the competitive market for goods and services, the government is by definition a monopoly. When the government creates a law, we simply can’t choose to follow one we like better since there could be legal consequences. As a monopoly, laws that our legislature creates are not subject to competition from other laws, and without competition- a discovery process- we can’t know if the government is making the best decision when it comes to weighing costs and benefits, like in the prohibition debate over K2.

The government does not lack innovative minds; in fact, I am sure congress will drag in a diverse group of experts to testify about K2. But, it will not matter how many experts testify in front of committees, how altruistic our representatives are, or even how well our politicians represent their constituents views, without competition they cannot ‘discover’ whether it would be best to outlaw K2- it’s systematically impossible.   

                  Fortunately, introducing competition, the discovery process, into law is not beyond our experience or our established institutions. When judicial institutions, utilizing common law, make rulings that uphold old precedents or establish new ones, the law becomes better and better at executing its intended purpose. In the court room, judges are able to choose between the costs and benefits a law has imposed on both parties and make a ruling that establishes a precedent, or unverifiable principle that can perfected over time. Parties seeking to utility maximize by suing each other, and judges seeking to utility maximize by establishing the best precedent possible, will lead to better law.  Different cases give judges the option to chose between what types of precedent should be created, and after many different cases judge’s choices create knowledge about what type of precedent works best.  Furthermore, different precedents can apply to different districts, which allows for even more competition.

                  We can continue to scream our individual preferences to congress about what they should do, but systematically it is nearly impossible for them to make the best decision outside of pure luck. Should we legalize K2? I have no idea; in fact the knowledge we need to know too much such a decision might not even exist, which is why we need competition. Just as we use competition to discover the best ways to use allocate our resources, justice should be a discovery process too.

Related posts:

1. There’s Privatization and Then There’s Privatization
2. Three Days Without Trays
3. Trayless Option Considered for Commons

There is only one method of privatization. We often confuse privatization for “contracting out.” Contracting out involves the government paying a private firm to perform a service.  This contracting out system is used by Michigan’s Department of Human Services (DHS). The DHS contracts out to a private adoption agency and pays them for every child they send to a home. The problem with this system is that government is funded by a constant revenue stream, known as tax revenue. With a constant revenue stream, the government does not have to worry about going out of business. Thus they have little incentive to choose the best and most efficient firm to do business with. Inevitably, the government selects the firm with the most political clout, i.e. the one that will provide them with the most long-term political capital. A firm on contract with the government is not trying to satisfy consumers, but trying to satisfy the government. This is not actually privatization in its purest form.

Actual privatization entails allowing a firm to sink-or-swim, and this is much different than simply contracting out. Under contracting out, a firm does not have to please consumers, because it makes money by maintaining political clout. This is bad for the rest of us, because the firm is not trying to innovate to make a profit. Instead the business is simply trying to keep friendly with the government. On the other hand, under privatization, the firm now has to make a profit and it can only do this by satisfying customers. The firm’s existence literally depends on its effectiveness. If a firm is performing inefficiently, the customers can always choose to do business elsewhere. Consumers have an incentive seek out the best firm, because they do not have a constant revenue stream. Consumers cannot simply point a gun at their neighbors and demand money whenever they wish to purchase something. Thus, consumers will only do business with a firm if that firm is good (if not the best) at its job. On the flip side, producers, in this case adoption agencies, will constantly be trying to innovate to discover the best ways of doing business. This is beneficial for society at-large.

When firms innovate they do so to make our lives easier. For instance, a local newspaper in Chillicothe, Ohio cites one private adoption agency that specializes in finding homes for teens. Finding homes for teens is often a very difficult task that in the past adoption agencies have been unwilling to take up. However, because the firm was working to make a profit instead of pandering to bureaucrats, it had to innovate and provide a service that was often not provided in the past. This example demonstrates how privatization is preferable to contracting out. Under contracting out, firms only pander to small group of people, with a narrow set of goals and preferences. Under privatization, firms have to cater to the demands of many diverse people with various different preferences.

The news station in Detroit made the very common, but dangerous, mistake of confusing contracting out with privatization. The mistake is simple, but the distinction huge. Contracting out is a system filled with cronyism where firms compete to please the narrow interests of bureaucrats and politicians. Privatization is a system that places the power of deciding which firm to use in the hands of consumers. To confuse the two systems as one in the same, and to advocate policies from that premise, will lead to dangerous consequences.

Related posts:

1. Public System Has Flaws but Privatization Is Not the Solution
2. Privatization Will Improve Education
3. Why Big Corporations Should Fund Think Tanks

Let me start this article with an admission: I am biased. As a former Marshal, or Pledge Master, and current Rush Chair of Theta Chi. I am, therefore, ideologically committed to the idea of Fraternal Organizations. I will attempt to be self-aware enough to check that and approach this article as purely a student.

Every week I, like all students here, spend hours upon hours secluded in academic buildings, computer labs, and the library attempting to gain an education that rivals any offered in the world. The incredible faculty of this school hold us to a standard that other schools can only dream of and give us an education of such quality that I have never even heard rumors of elsewhere. Yet, every week, I watch a common scene: the fine young men of Hampden-Sydney College packing their vehicles for a weekend at UVA, UNC, or any number of other colleges and universities within driving distance. Their answer is always the same: why would I stay here for the weekend?

The problem is that they are right. The CAC simply doesn’t have the resources to entertain the student body every weekend. This wasn’t a problem in years past. Students could find a Fraternity Circle that would surely be able to provide release for a night or two from the endless effort that pursuing a quality liberal arts education required. Now, the Circle seems quiet and lifeless and more reminiscent of specialty housing than a place for the men of Hampden-Sydney to find a break. What changed?

The problem is a decline in the quality of Greek Life on this campus. Every year new regulations are put on Greek Life that strangle it. Limits on Rush negate brothers’ ability to get new men interested and result in the diminished size of Fraternities. With this diminished size comes a diminished resource pool and cash poor social budgets. Strict regulations about the conduct of Fraternity men, which don’t apply to the whole student body, put Fraternities constantly on edge and defeat the means and willingness of Fraternities to invite non-brothers into their parties. So, in an effort to preserve the existence of their organizations, Fraternity men feel they must close their houses. Hence, the Circle becomes an unwelcoming and anti-social place for all students since even Greeks are so wary, that enjoying the company of their brothers in their house might risk its very existence. So here we find ourselves, a campus in social decline with Fraternity Circle unable to step up to the plate and serve our community.

My solution is a new approach to the interaction between the CAC and Fraternity Circle. I do not know the operating budget of the CAC. I do, however, know what it costs to host live music at a fraternity. Anyone who has been to a fraternity house with live music playing knows how fun that atmosphere can be and the comfort level of students who know they are at an event run by other students. East Coast Entertainment, the managing agency that handles nearly all of the bands who play at fraternities at this campus, quotes a one night performance at 1,500 dollars. In a given semester there are about 10 weekends in which neither the CAC nor Fraternity Circle can offer real escape to the student body. Coincidentally there are nine member organizations of the Inter-Fraternity Council. For 15,000 dollars a semester the CAC could allot each fraternity a weekend in which they would host live music, not including those weekends in which live music is already prevalent. To accept the funds Fraternities would, of course, have to agree to abide by certain conditions, i.e. no common alcohol source and an open door policy. With this solution, the CAC and Student Body can know that there will be some sort of activity at the school every weekend, and the IFC can enjoy an atmosphere in which they do not feel suffocated by our College. Not only does this give the Student Body something to do on campus, it might also allow for the resurgence of Greek Life which I addressed earlier in this article.

Until a solution is found, however, to these problems we will stagnate where we are: stuck with a CAC that cannot possibly satisfy students’ needs every weekend and a Fraternity Circle suffocated by regulation. We, once again, will watch the train of cars depart on Friday afternoon. Finding themselves, likely, at fraternity houses on other campuses where students are not held to the standards of gentlemen, where doors must be locked to prevent theft, and where a sense of community and honor is reserved for novels.

This situation will not make me leave; however, my concern is not for myself. With the apparent decline in Greek Life, how will I be able to perpetuate the betterment of young men through Fraternal Organizations? More dire still, how can we perpetuate the betterment of young men through Hampden-Sydney College when we tell them to spend 4 years of their life at an all-male institution with incredible academic standards and no social life to speak of?

Related posts:

1. The Future Looks Bright for the Greeks
2. H-SC isn’t Holding Up its End of the Deal to Fraternities
3. IFC Sets Constitution for Reform