I’m not about to call the recent BDS demonstrations by concerned undergraduates sanctimonious; it is my heartfelt belief that those protesting genuinely care about the many individuals who tirelessly serve us. Begrudgingly, I even stood through one of their jejune man-puppet displays on my way to a Ratty dinner.
But I also understand the difficult decision of the folks holding the purse strings, the ever-lambasted Brown Corporation. Every financial determination they must make is a tradeoff – some must lose so that others may subsist. In this case, the Corporation has proposed a “sliding scale” to determine BDS workers’ health care premiums. (Interestingly, this scheme is similar to the US progressive tax system, something many SDS and SLA members, I imagine, would support.) The university also plans on refashioning the retirement benefits for new hires and is considering a wage freeze.
I would like here to offer a solution to this current predicament. I mean this without a drop of Swiftian satire: Brown should simply institute a tuition hike.
Why can’t undergraduates, quite literally, put their money where their mouth is? If they so ardently care about the plight of BDS workers, they will have no hesitation in coughing up a few extra grand a semester to offset the cost of lower healthcare premiums and increased wages. But if you feel the same moral confusion that I do when considering this dilemma, perhaps you can begin to sympathize with the tough, inevitably unpopular decision the Corporation must make. The protests so far have been useful, but keep in mind the underlying tension of the Corporation’s decision as you march your man-puppet across the Main Green. In the end, you may get more than you bargained for.
Anthony Badami ’11
Newly-christened Fall Weekend 2009 has come and gone, leaving Columbus Day behind for the first time…but not without protest and debate. You tell us: which name is more fitting for the holiday weekend? Or should the observance be moved to a different date altogether?
Have you got questions? The BDH’s advice columnists have got answers! Submit your questions about love, life, school or the universe to email@example.com and let them solve all your problems.
To call President Musharraf’s recent speech to Brown students underwhelming insinuates the expectation that he was going to say something meaningful. Instead, we were left with vapid bullet points of leadership (he may need to work on that “sincerity” one), confusing and unaccommodating explanations of Afghan and Pakistani history, and the wintry realization that the former president of Pakistan is a solipsistic, mendacious and prevaricating louse.
After last week’s Janus Forum debate on D.C. v. Heller, we invited two opinions columnists to debate a small yet salient facet of the gun control debate: the prohibition of firearms on college campuses. After the jump, read Michael Fitzpatrick’s ’12 argument in favor of allowing students to carry personal firearms on campus and Dan Davidson’s ’11 argument against. Then share your opinion, blogdailyherald readers, in the comments section.
So it is done: wand-wielding wunderkind Emma Watson is among the newest Brunonians gracing College Hill this fall. Like her fellow classmates, she has the very rare opportunity to attend one of the proudest, most selective, most eccentric academic institutions this side of the Atlantic Ocean. I am genuinely delighted for her.
Notice my preposition there. I am delighted for her, not because of her. Unlike many of my peers, I am not allured by the media frenzy surrounding her arrival. Nor am I particularly ecstatic about the syrupy fawning she will undoubtedly receive from our Harry Potter fan-experts in residence. Continue Reading