Feb/Mar 2014 Volume I Edition 3
Dear Reader,
Staff Campus Coordination Joe Kiernan C’17 Nicholas A. Zarra C/W’16 Content Ben Fogel C’17 Matt Nickaj C/W’14 Grayson Sessa W’17 Dillon Weber SEAS’16 Design and Layout Donald Sonn C’16 Finance Aidan McConnell C’16 Relations Chet Heldman C’17 Nayeli Riano C’17 Liz Sanchez C’17 Justin Wong C’16 Technology Alexander George SEAS’17 The Statesman is a student-run publication at the University of Pennsylvania. Our opinions are of our writers, and do not represent those of the University or of our donors. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, requests, and submissions, reach us at: statesmanofpenn@gmail.com 02 - February/March 2014
As our venture comes into its second semester of publication, we are proud to look back and excited to look forward. Last semester brought many successes for us as an organization: we published our first magazine, conducted our first interviews, and hosted our first speaker event. We hope that through these various outreach activities we can fulfill our goal and make some new friends and connections in the process. What we are working to do is build a network of trust, where ideas can be shared, discussed, and debated. Trust is a very central part of our concept of The Statesman, which is why we have decided to adopt a central theme for this semester’s issues: trust in government. The result, at least this month, has given us a close look at unfunded liabilities by Aidan McConnell (pg 3). This stands central in the minds of many who their trust in government to provide promise services, such things like Social Security, for a younger generation which paid into the system trusting they would
reap the benefits in time as well. A little closer to home for us at The Statesman, Joe Kiernan looks at the state of the Commonwealth’s infrastructure, and the safety of government-run transportation in the greater Philadelphia area (pg 9). Nayeli Riano and Justin Wong bring it back to campus with articles on the new trends in academia (pg 15) and the difficulties of having a censored campus (pg 18). This begs the question: should we trust the University to look out for its students’ best interests when so often it seems to mean stepping on our freedom or enforcing an ideological tilt to our studies? So as we begin a new semester and a new chapter in the The Statesman’s life it seems prudent to ask ourselves whether James Madison was right when he told his fellow citizens that “all men with power ought to be distrusted.” What do you think? Sincerely, The Statesman Staff
Content
February/March 2014 Feature Article 4-8
Do you trust our government?
Aidan McConnell Federal unfunded liabilities are often discussed. Yet, what about the local unfunded liabilities for both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania? How will we pay off these future debts?
Local Focus 9-14
The State of Pennsylvanian Transit
Feature Article, pg 4-8
Joe Kiernan Pennsylvania’s infrastructure needs an overhaul. It’s time to take an objective and in-depth look at how it really functions and how it can improve.
Dear Old Penn 15-17
A Misguided Foundational Approach
18-19
Campus Censorship
Nayeli Riano Are Penn’s course requirements actually helpful? We shed light into the uselessness of course requirements that take away from a classic liberal arts education. Local Focus, pg 9-14
Justin Wong Universities often promise free speech to both students and faculty. But do they really deliver and fulfill their promises to respect First Amendment rights?
Dear Old Penn, pg 18-19 Cover Art by Donald Sonn
February/March 2014 - 03
A DEBTOR’S FATE: Challenges and Solutions to the Unfunded Liability Crisis Aidan McConnell
04 - February/March 2014
FEATURE ARTICLE
A Debtor’s Fate
Senator Tom Coburn
I
n October 2013, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn made waves when he asserted that the United States’ unfunded liabilities exceeded $128 trillion, a number far outpacing the $16.7 trillion national debt then debated as part of a looming debt ceiling standoff. Senator Coburn, known for his Annual Wastebook of unnecessary government expenditures, had pooled his resources to determine the U.S. “unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon,” a jargon-infused way of referring to all future expenditures ever expected to come from the government. While those operating in the context of time horizons peg unfunded liabilities at an estimate of $87 trillion, the Senator’s presentation emphasized two exceptionally critical points regarding U.S. finances: namely, that unfunded liabilities are the greatest threat to American economic security and that such liabilities are poorly understood by policymakers and the public alike. The term “unfunded liabilities” refers to the amount by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of the funds available to pay them. In short, such liabilities exist when a debtor cannot pay upcoming debts with any cash on hand. In the context of government, unfunded liabilities are often associated with medical and welfare services, as well as workers’ benefits such as pensions—and as 2014 progresses, the U.S. unfunded liability level is set to reach a critical point of unsustainability. But what effect are unfunded liabilities having on government decisions and American society? Even more importantly, what solutions are available for policymakers attempting to address the United States’ most pressing fiscal issue? And how are states and local government faring in the struggle for solvency?
February/March 2014 - 05
FEATURE ARTICLE
A Debtor’s Fate The Federal Government: Promises, Promises Almost a year before Senator Coburn’s address, two former members of President Bill Clinton’s Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform authored a Wall Street Journal article expressing concern that federal government financial statements did not honestly reflect the true extent of U.S. obligations. Chris Cox and Bill Archer noted that in 2012, the actual liabilities of the federal government exceeded 550% of national GDP, with an annual accrued expense of $7 trillion for Medicare and Social Security. Broken down, Medicare alone accounted for $42.8 trillion in unfunded liabilities, while Social Security accounted for $20.5 trillion. On the national level, these staggering numbers amount to the continued expansion of systems to incorporate more American citizens, as well as increasing costs for services such as healthcare. Government programs have expanded so dramatically that Cox and Archer argue that to avoid shouldering a deeper debt, the U.S. will need to collect over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. With a total gross income of $5.1 trillion for all Americans earning more than $66,000, this revenue number is simply impossible to achieve. Further complicating the nation’s fiduciary situation is the revelation that the federal government is facing a “revenue problem,” as exhibited by the fact that the recent tax hike at the beginning of 2014 is expected to accrue only $54 billion yearly. With significant revenue constraints and the execution of new programs such as the Affordable Care Act, the 06 - February/March 2014
Government programs have expanded so dramatically that Cox and Archer argue that to avoid shouldering a deeper debt, the U.S. will need to collect over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. (That comes to an average of about $25,000 per person) government will be forced to borrow more from international creditors, perpetuating a cycle of indebtedness through various channels. Problematically, federal and policymaker reactions to growing U.S. debt have been slow and, in some cases, in opposition to the assumption that unfunded liabilities are threatening to government function and sustainability. Michael Lind of the liberal New America Foundation claimed in 2011 that there is no “near-term crisis” for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable. Echoing this general sentiment, a 2004 paper by none other than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) emphasized that “no government obligation can be truly considered “unfunded” because of the U.S. government’s sovereign power to tax—which is the ultimate resource to meet its obligations.” It is thus
unfortunate that a decade later the United States may not be able to meet its obligations simply because unfunded liabilities exceed the gross ability of all potential taxpayers to hand their earnings over for federal use. Closer to Home: Pensions and Intolerable Risk Unfunded liabilities on the federal level may be daunting, but even then the compiled data does not incorporate the financial situations affecting U.S. states and cities. In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett’s recent decision to defer $300 million in mandatory pension payments for 2015 adds to the state’s $47 billion in total longterm pension costs—all for a system that hasn’t been fully funded since 2003. Already, the Commonwealth has felt the impact of a decade-long monetary shortfall, from a 2010 legislative decision to artificially lower
Long lines at a New Jersey welfare office
obligations to a highly publicized battle over school district payments to Pennsylvania’s Public School Employees Retirement System. Adding to the political conundrum, public sector unions threatened legal action last year when Corbett proposed closing current pension plans in favor of a revised system emphasizing a defined-contribution structure. Neighboring New Jersey fares even worse: a new study by Sarah Arnett of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University finds that New Jersey “has an estimated unfunded pension liability of around $25.6 billion as well as $59.3 billion in unfunded liabilities for the health benefits of…government workers.” And then there’s Philadelphia itself, burdened by an unfunded liability of approximately $9 billion, or $16,696 per household. In 2009, Philadelphia’s ongoing monetary squeeze meant that pensions were only 62 percent funded. To avert
Illinois face similar financial problems. Coupled with detached policymaking, the monetary stability of state public pension funds is likely to worsen due to what the Wall Street Journal calls a “generational accounting problem,” or an apportionment dilemma exacerbated by a reduced ratio of working public employees to retirees. In 1950, every retiree was supported by 7 pension-contributing workers; today, that number has dwindled to 1.75 workers for every retiree. This demographic trend, extending beyond public finances to encompass the large-scale retirement of the Baby Boomer generation and a reduction in national birth rates, bodes poorly for state as well as federal obligations. Furthermore, a combination of financial mismanagement and unfavorable workforce trends threatens the reliability of funded pensions. Since most state pensions depend on ties to risk-free assets such as one-year Treasury securities, the low rates of return associated with riskless investments do little to offset increasing future shortfalls. State pension portfolio managers are consequently motivated to seek out investments with higher risk, a behavior that has resulted in tenfoldincrease in the standard deviation of pension investments from 1975 to 2014. For systems looked upon by many workers as protective guarantees, such volatility severely undermines the political efficacy of public pensions and destabilizes the link between current payment and future benefit.
an immediate crisis, Pennsylvania allowed the city to reduce its pension payments in 2010 and 2011 on the condition that missed payments would be met with interest by 2014. Instead, the beginning of 2013 saw a controversial closed-door meeting with bond underwriters that revealed the city was “effectively bankrupt,” with sales of assets necessary to inject short-term funds to sustain the pension system. Now in 2014, Philadelphia’s City Council has advanced few plans for long-term pension overhaul, positioning the United States’ fifth-largest city for a battle with private and public creditors. Pennsylvania’s fiduciary woes bear similarity to pension concerns in states such as Texas, where a 2013 evaluation of the Lone Star State’s Employees Retirement System Reduce, Reject, Replace: Chipping (ERS) highlighted the program’s Away at the Problem $7.2 billion unfunded liability. With a seeming preponderance Oklahoma, West Virginia, and February/March 2014 - 07
FEATURE ARTICLE
A Debtor’s Fate of fiscal concerns affecting all levels of government, proposed solutions to federal, state, and local unfunded liabilities are multitudinous and range from applications of free-market principles to drastic revisions of the national tax rate. On the federal level, massive expenditures on Medicare and Social Security were anticipated by Milton Friedman, who proposed the now-classic argument that healthcare should be separated from employers and be subject to competitive price adjustments. While it is uncertain how Friedman’s model would stack up against actualized systems, a misapplication of his theory—the Affordable Care Act—is anticipated by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Service to increase the U.S’s total unfunded liabilities by $17 trillion over the next 75 years. To handle the collapsing Social Security apparatus, the American Academy of Actuaries published a public policy monograph in 1996 stating that “payroll tax rates (FICA and SECA)…could be tailored to meet Social Security’s cash-flow needs, thereby ameliorating the effects of building up and then drawing down trust funds.” Payroll taxes could thus be adjusted by policymakers to best reflect Social Security’s financial stability. The Academy also recommended increasing the direct taxation of benefits and reducing Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) to small portions of particular benefits. Of course, the most commonsense approach to federal financial instability is touted as a combination of tax raises and spending cuts, a triedand-true business method rendered nearly infeasible by nuanced political opinion. In some ways capturing 08 - February/March 2014
the magnitude of the unfunded liability crisis, Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns’ book The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About America’s Future suggests that the federal government “raise income taxes by 17 percent, raise payroll taxes by 24 percent, cut federal purchases by 26 percent, and cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 11 percent” to bring federal funding of obligations to sustainable levels. Ultimately, the line of thinking espoused by Kotlikoff and Burns’ much-discussed recommendation seizes on the realization that, at current rates of future payments, U.S. government tax revenue should increase from 18 to 24 percent of total GDP to sustain fiscal solvency. As the issue of unfunded liabilities becomes more specialized in states and municipalities, a host of innovations have cropped up to address certain fiduciary concerns. Recently, the Illinois Policy Institute worked with Illinois state lawmakers to introduce House Bill 3303, a Corbett-esque plan to transition all future benefits to a 401(k) model. Importantly, the proposed legislation restricts any cost-of-living adjustments until retirement systems are deemed sustainable, a measure that if enacted would apply the force of political opinion to pressure the state into more comprehensive action. An even more encouraging example of reset financial priorities is the status of Oregon’s pension unfunded liability, which by the end of January 2014 had been cut in half as a result of $5 billion in benefit cuts and strengthened investment returns. U.S. cities seem to have been
less fortunate: Detroit, Stockton, and San Bernardino have all infamously sought bankruptcy protection to restructure their financial systems, while Chicago received national attention as a result of Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s decision to lay off 2,100 teachers due to pension costs. However, Providence, Rhode Island appears to have weathered the storm, with Mayor Angel Taveras utilizing the city’s near-bankruptcy as a rallying point for public workers and forcing through measures that suspend pension increases and shave $178 million off future obligations. Current Action, Future Benefit? The diffuse nature of the United States’ unfunded liability, from a still-disputed number of $87 trillion in federal obligations to the struggles of states and municipalities to meet overwhelming promises, makes any solution difficult to effectively implement without an intricate understanding of public finances and the decisions that led to the nation’s current problems. Regardless of the pace or scope of current policy solutions, the issue of unfunded liabilities is at its root a generational transfer of responsibility and economic leadership, a rare opportunity for new proposals to repair an aging financial infrastructure. Current action, if applied correctly, will certainly have future benefits, but the reality is that the reduction of unfunded liabilities requires long-term buy-in. It is an undesirable reality, but it must be accepted, analyzed, and tested to provide the next generation with a greater degree of economic flexibility and success.
LOCAL FOCUS
Getting Pennsylvania Moving
Spring Garden Station on Broad Street Line
Getting Pennsylvania Moving: A Review of the Commonwealth’s Transportation Policy Joe Kiernan
February/March 2014 - 09
LOCAL FOCUS
Getting Pennsylvania Moving
America faces unprecedented infrastructural challenges. Over the past few years, legions of policy experts have occupied hours of airspace haranguing the public about our infrastructure. Whether it was on talk shows or in newspaper columns, civil engineers and economists continue to conjure dark predictions about the decrepit and declining state of our roads and rails. Curiously, despite the general bipartisan appeal of construction jobs and potential for constituency-specific earmarks, the government has been remarkably silent in terms of legislative initiatives to revamp and rebuild many critical infrastructural systems across the country. Most people can agree that efficient infrastructure is a necessary component of a modern economy as well as an effective method for improving one’s quality of life. Infrastructural investment should be easier to enact because it does not have the toxic tinge of healthcare reform or the ideological weight of foreign policy decisions and should be all the easier to enact. So Why Aren’t We Building? The only significant recent commitment to our nation’s infrastructure was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly styled as the Stimulus Package, which infused a large amount of capital over a short amount of time. Unfortunately, the ARRA devoted a miniscule amount of fiscal resources to a problem that will require trillions 10 - February/March 2014
rather than billions of dollars in improvements. Many expected the ARRA to focus almost exclusively on a host of nationwide improvement and expansion projects, but much of the funds went elsewhere. Due to cutbacks, sequestrations, and congressional intransigence, the states are now carrying much of the burden for infrastructural repairs and expansions as the ARRA tap runs dry. Pennsylvania is one of these states and faces unprecedented challenges that could not only endanger the viability of the Commonwealth’s economy, but the lives of its citizens.
high compared to other sectors. Disturbingly, a quarter of the state’s 22,000 bridges are structurally deficient and require repairs totaling around $11 billion. This fiscal infusion is in addition to billions more for dam repair and levee reinforcement to safeguard against floods. These are not problems that will disappear with time, but will only worsen. The state must make enormous investments in its infrastructure to ensure its safety and reliability.
Almost Failing
Many of us are all too cognizant of local debates about the state of our infrastructure. In the Philadelphia region, the majority of the discussion has been centered upon the dismal fiscal state of SEPTA, the SouthEastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which provides public transportation to almost four million people in the Delaware Valley. Philadelphians and Democrats advocate more funding for SEPTA to meet shortfalls while many in Harrisburg, primarily Republicans, contend that infusing state tax dollars into an inefficient system is a misuse of valuable funds. By transcending the partisan jibes of a parsimonious state government and the appeal for self-perpetuation of an inefficient transit authority, the real evidence of SEPTA’s operations and the impact of
Every few years, the American Society of Civil Engineers compiles a comprehensive national report card on infrastructure that highlights areas requiring particular attention and makes recommendations for improvement strategies. In 2013, the ASCE gave the United States a D+ and calculated that the country will need to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 to maintain its infrastructure. Furthermore, the ASCE compiles a state-by-state report which emphasizes areas of particular need on a regional level. Pennsylvania received: a C for bridges; a D- for transit; a D- for roads; a C- for dams; and the list goes on. The Commonwealth did perform well for rail, receiving a B, which is quite
SEPTA is a Paragon of Fiscal Mismanagement and Underinvestment
funding can be found in its budgets. Since FY 2011, SEPTA’s budget has been reduced by 25% due to the failure to impose a toll Interstate 80, as was planned under Act 44, the primary source of SEPTA’s state funding. The Federal Highway Administration denied Pennsylvania’s request to institute a toll on I-80 which resulted in a massive shortfall for state transportation funding. Every year, while more and more Pennsylvanians utilize public transit for transportation, services and networks have not kept up with demand increases. The tolling portion of Act 44 was intended to provide $160 million per annum to the Commonwealth’s public transit agencies primarily to the Port Authority of Allegheny County and SEPTA. According to the ASCE and SEPTA, government funding has been far from sufficient to invest in adequate transit improvement and expansions throughout the Commonwealth as populations have suburbanized over the past few decades. SEPTA desperately requires modernization: the Market-Frankford Line is in egregious condition and an anachronistic token payment system has yet to be removed. Instead of automatic dispensers, SEPTA pays unionized employees to sell tokens, adding incredible unnecessary expense. Furthermore, SEPTA is the last public transit system in the nation to use such tokens; this is only stereotypical of the Authority’s organizational operations. There has been a plan to eliminate the token payment system, but actions speak louder than words. Narrow staircases and features unaltered since the 1920s serve as a reminder
to the lack of comprehensive refurbishment and modernization in these locations and their current state transcends questions about aesthetics and right to concerns about their safety. Overall, the city’s subways are in such a state of decay and rife with structural issues that they serve as an embarrassment to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. Let’s Break Down The Budget SEPTA’s FY 2014 budget, a total of approximately $1.5 billion, is a compendium of bad choices. SEPTA’s capital budget is $308 million. This is the portion of the total budget designated to system improvements, modernization, and expansion. This capital budget pales in comparison to comparable systems in other cities such as Boston’s MBTA ($815 million), DC’s WMATA ($997 million), and Chicago’s RTA ($1.7 billion). According to an excerpt from the budget report, “The lack of adequate capital funding will reduce reliability and quality of SEPTA
service, increase operating costs to maintain vehicles and infrastructure, lead to a loss in ridership and revenue as service quality deteriorates, and result in SEPTA’s inability to meet the growing demands for public transportation in the region.” Last year, only $1.9 million was allotted to system expansion projects. Even more worrisome is that the largest single capital expenditure is the loan repayment. The FY 2014 SEPTA spent only 31% of its capital budget, or $96 million, on State of Good Repair projects. These are improvements and repairs vital to the continuing operation and safety of SEPTA’s transit networks. The current backlog for these essential State of Good Repair projects is a whopping $5 billion or more than fifty times the current expenditures on such measures. The servicing of SEPTA debt is 26 times higher than the funds allocated for extending SEPTA’s regional rail coverage. With leasing and debt servicing commitments at $81.5 million, SEPTA is spending more on paying creditors than it is on system improvements. This February/March 2014 - 11
LOCAL FOCUS
Getting Pennsylvania Moving means that the capital budget is actually only spending a pitiful $226 million on actual capital projects. Recently with much publicity, SEPTA threatened long-term regional rail service eliminations due to projected catastrophic shortfalls. This is a curious approach to cutting costs considering that the largest total expense across the entire combined operating and capital budgets, by far, is labor costs, not line maintenance or repairs. Facing fiscal insolvency, SEPTA decided to implement exotic
2014 (before the passage of the transportation bill). Meanwhile, SEPTA generates only $528 million in fares, or about 33% of its budget, not even enough to pay for labor expenses. Amazingly, this shortfall in fares means that the SEPTA is running a $754 million deficit that is covered by the government. Yet despite the large state subsidies, the Authority still cannot manage to repair its infrastructure. While SEPTA has been avoiding system improvements and
The City Hall station, the nexus of the city’s two subway lines, is shamed by even Pyongyang’s metro revenue strategies which included selling the Broad Street Line Pattison Avenue/Stadium Complex stop naming rights to AT&T. Apart from the negligible savings for SEPTA (around $2 million), the name change must be very confusing for tourists visiting the stadium complex as the new corporate name is completely geographically ambiguous. If SEPTA is going to such extreme lengths to cut costs, then where is it actually spending its money? Examining the budget, 70% of SEPTA’s $1.3 billion in operating expenses goes to labor and fringe expenses while a trifling 18% is dedicated to material and services. Furthermore, the state pays for $711 million of SEPTA’s total budget or about 45% for FY 12 - February/March 2014
prioritization, it has not engaged in meaningful structural and labor reform. Serious questions should be asked about the role of the unions and the relationships between labor and management at SEPTA considering that the majority of SEPTA’s budget is ultimately derived from taxpayers. Willie Brown, the leader of Transport Workers Union Local 234 and leader of the SEPTA strike following the 2009 World Series had shamelessly admitted that “I understand that I’m the most hated man in Philadelphia right now…I have no problem with that” during the strike that crippled and embarrassed the city. After such sentiments, why would one ever doubt the unions’ commitment to excellence? Now, the new five-
year TWU contract includes a $1,250 signing bonus as well as a 2.5% raise and then 3% per annum thereafter while trash accumulates in subway stops. Not surprisingly, most of the other transport unions tend to follow the TWU’s lead. Clearly, the unions lack commitment to working with SEPTA to reduce costs as the entire system begs the Commonwealth for money. Before opening the Commonwealth’s checkbook, Harrisburg should be wary of SEPTA’s promises. In 2007, the Authority had promised to transition to a smart card system, replacing the old tokens. By 2010, the largely-state funded $100 million implementation program had been delayed four times. SEPTA continued to avoid an actual implementation. By April, the long-awaited transit card system should be operational on SEPTA vehicles after years of delays. The archaic tokens are planned to be out of service by 2015, but SEPTA’s past history of delayed deadlines might very well extend that date. In terms of general operations, SEPTA spends almost $200 million on surface transportation staff. It is not unusual to find bus lines that are serving a handful of residents with a unionized driver acting as a virtual chauffeur. Then why wouldn’t SEPTA cut back on its least essential services rather than threatening regional rail? Not only would this leave tens of thousands of commuters stranded, but pour thousands of cars onto over-capacity roads like the Schuylkill Expressway and Interstate 95. Political leverage is the probable answer. Communities in the suburbs are heavily reliant upon the regional rail services and
white collar commuters carry hefty political weight. SEPTA was looking to the state for a major new influx of spending and the suburban counties, Montgomery, Delaware, Bucks, have significant sway over the Republican legislature in Harrisburg. It is entirely likely that political pressure from these regions greased the legislative machinery needed to pass recent transportation bill HB 1060. HB 1060: Is It a Legislative Panacea? 9The state government has responded to SEPTA’s pleas for assistance and the apparent infrastructural needs across the Commonwealth. On November 25, 2013, Governor Tom Corbett (R) signed HB 1060, a sweeping transportation appropriations bill that represents one of the most significant political and financial commitments to saving Pennsylvania’s infrastructure in years. Interestingly, this momentous
legislative achievement for the embattled governor has been rarely cited as his poll numbers continue to slip in the face of a host of eager Democratic challengers. HB 1060 will ensure that transportation projects are funded by increasing the Oil Franchise Tax which could lead to significant price hikes, but it also means that this new spending will not be borrowed. HB 1060 also includes a provision to cut costs to taxpayers by making bids for contracts more competitive for projects costing under $100,000. The bill appropriates $1.3 billion to repair and rebuild state roads and bridges, $480 million for public transit, $237 million for local road infrastructure, $144 million for a multimodal fund, and $86 million for expansion and reconstruction initiatives on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The bill aims to rebuild numerous bridges across the Commonwealth; after all, Pennsylvania has the third largest number of bridges in the country.
HB 1060 will also prioritize efficiency along the Turnpike by funding further electronic toll collection measures, specifically E-ZPass. Finally, HB 1060 will provide an essential influx of new funding to SEPTA for long-due system improvements and maintenance. For SEPTA, HB 1060 is a multimillion dollar godsend that will enable the Authority to undertake longoverdue projects and improvements to service for the residents of the Delaware Valley. The passage of HB 1060 did not spell the end of the discussion about SEPTA’s performance. Essentially, there are two positions anchoring the SEPTA debate. On one hand, the Authority still requires major funding infusions to make infrastructural improvements and expansions. Should this burden be drawn from the state or perhaps more locally from people who actually benefit from SEPTA? On the other side, SEPTA needs some serious structural reform which would include trimming the workforce, emphasizing the prioritization of key services, and working on restructuring debt in a less burdensome manner. The Commonwealth could consider attaching caveats to spending increases to ensure efficient use of Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars in the future. After all, it is difficult to persuade someone from Scranton that SEPTA desperately needs a larger portion of state transportation dollars while local roads in Lackawanna County deteriorate. Perhaps, the unions should get the message that pay increases are not fiscally viable options right February/March 2014 - 13
LOCAL FOCUS
Getting Pennsylvania Moving
The use of tokens are a sign of SEPTA’s anachronistic ways
now. Also, a renegotiation process should be attempted in order to toll Interstate 80, maybe when a more compliant presidential administration is elected in 2016. Anyway, much of the traffic on I-80 is interstate freight rather than the local commuters that clog I-76 and other metropolitan highways. This could provide vital funds to the PA Turnpike Authority and fund major system expansions that are planned by SEPTA to extend service to underserved regions like the US 422 corridor. Thoughts For The Road… Disaster has been averted, at least temporarily, for SEPTA. The state passed a comprehensive bill that improves infrastructure, ensures that mass transit can continue operation, and does not add to the deficit. This is the superficial interpretation. However, the bill does not address SEPTA’s systemic issues: spending too much on labor costs, inability to meet hard deadlines, and illogical prioritization of resources. The state is already covering close to 50% of SEPTA’s expenses, and it looks like this is only going to increase over the 14 - February/March 2014
next few years. The costs are being spread across the state, to areas that aren’t even served or influenced by SEPTA. Remember that only 6% of SEPTA’s costs are covered by local governments, the municipalities and counties that directly benefit from SEPTA’s infrastructure. If locals want less traffic and more trains, maybe they should contemplate paying more for SEPTA than a person living in Erie. Also, remember five billion. That is the amount of money needed by SEPTA to bring its system up to a reliable, acceptable standard with not a single expansion. The next time that people place blame on Governor Corbett for potholed roads and shoddy MarketFrankford stations, they should reconsider their criticism. What was the cause of SEPTA’s cuts? Inefficient institutional spending practices, lean budgets, and the Obama administration are primarily to blame. A lack of prioritization and the Federal Highway Administration’s rejection of the I-80 tolling measures induced fiscal panic at 1234 Market Street (SEPTA’s headquarters). The state government not only boosted transportation
funding, but salvaged SEPTA and paid for its expenditures. SEPTA needs funding and reform to become a world-class mass transit system. More financial investment in SEPTA’s miniscule capital budget is crucial to creating a better transit network. Governor Corbett’s Funding Advisory Commission estimates that Harrisburg will increase its transit spending from $500 million to $1.4 billion by the end of the decade, or a 180% increase. If the Authority receives more state money, it should be diverted away from labor costs and towards upgrading the physical plant and reach of the rail systems. SEPTA is a valuable asset for the Philadelphia metropolitan region and the state should recognize its impact upon the economy. But, as stated previously, strict guarantees and deadlines must be enforced; otherwise politicians and taxpayers will never trust SEPTA to appropriately meet its obligations. Most people can agree that a system extension of the Norristown High Speed Line to the King of Prussia Mall would be advantageous for shoppers and business. Funds should be allocated to such ambitious projects rather than to the satisfaction of the TWU’s demands. Statewide, a continued commitment to improvements is needed to raise Pennsylvania’s ASCE grade and provide better transportation options for the state’s residents and businesses. HB 1060 was a good first step, but much more will be needed to rebuild the state. Commonwealth residents should remember the importance of our infrastructure and intricacies behind its construction, especially when in the voting booth. And then, maybe, we can work together to get our state back on track.
Foundational Approaches? Try: Defenestration of Liberal Arts Education Nayeli Riano
T
he most magnificent things are being denuded, their beauty and value stripped from their very frame. Liberal arts colleges are no strangers to this ideal; whether it is perverting art, literature, or history, today’s universities flaunt their wellreputed institutionalized power as they wish. Humanities courses are deemphasizing traditional liberal arts while pushing transient topics more and more. Welcome to the sector requirements, the ones that are being created specifically to slant to fit passing academic fads. Diversity is one of those words that has become sacrosanct, or at least that is what appears to be occurring here at Penn with the “Cultural Diversity in the US” foundational approach. The aim of this sector is “to develop students’ knowledge of the history, dynamic cultural systems and heterogeneous populations that make up the national culture of
the United States. While studying this national culture, it seems that the only things we will hear being uttered by so-called scholars today is anything that mentions class, identity, race, gender, or sexual orientation. However, it is not the topics that are problematic—a thorough understanding of U.S history requires a person to understand the black experience in this country— it is the fact that we are replacing the classics with courses based on our skin color. In order to live in a country, and in a world, where we respect our history and our collective culture, we require course requirements to develop our appreciation and acquaintance with the past, for without it we would not be where we are today. Yet, our melanin and gonads have become more influential factors in mapping out our college curriculum than Aristotle or Milton because
we are purposely ignoring the positive history about our past and veiling it with topics of oppression and victimization, all under the pseudonym of “cultural studies”. Let’s Talk Culture Cultural has a much more significant meaning than our narcissistic interpretation of it: cultural should not be a word that basically corroborates ‘selfvictimization’ or ‘identity’, rather it should be an explanation of the intellect and knowledge that has accumulated in our history over the years. We are taught only the negative things that our American culture and our Western culture have done, while lauding other cultures. For example, nearly every incoming freshman could talk about the internment of the Japanese during World War Two, February/March 2014 - 15
DEAR OLD PENN
Foundational Approaches? but the names of Patton, MacArthur, and Marshall are much less known. In truth, all cultures deserve laudation and criticism because history, any history, is meant to teach us about the best and the worst of our human nature. How can we possibly pass down a culture if all that we students learn of it are its shortcomings? We are left to believe that there is nothing in it worthy of respect or emulation. Before, classes were taught a particular subject without inculcating any undertone of race, class, or gender. The point of reading Shakespeare was not to focus on issues of gender and race, rather to learn about great literature— great literature are universal works that teach us about being universally human. The humanities should be studied from a universal perspective, regardless of race, class, or gender. So Where Does Penn Come In? Our university certainly has a duty to pass on culture, but not the culture we have in mind that simply allows us to study our selfish interest in ourselves. Culture is a complex examination of the past, both the highlight and triumphs of the civilization that laid the foundation for the Western tradition. This is the silver platter of history and knowledge that is placed on our college tables to pass around, to share, so that we may benefit from the information written before our time. We have an opportunity to truly transcend our ignorance, but instead of seeking universal truths and insight into what it means to be a human of any melanin or gonad status, we succumb to such ultimately shallow and transient topics like race, 16 - February/March 2014
We should not simply seek to reaffirm what we already think: This is not education gender, and class. These are certainly things that define us to a degree, but they do not define the highest in us, and a person who defines themselves solely on their melanin and gonads is a dull person indeed. It should be acknowledged that the College of Arts and Sciences does not have a US History requirement—something that is as important (arguably more important) as cultural diversity. We should take into consideration the fact that we cannot presume students’ knowledge on US history and that perhaps US history is something that should be required before demanding that students be taught about a modern American topic such as cultural diversity. It is similarly dubious whether cultural diversity within the United States can be properly appreciated or studied without a more general knowledge base. Basic standard US History should be taught before an overly critical “diversity” course is taught. To teach the bad is fine, but you have to start with an even-handed approach. To Have, or Not to Have Sector Requirements? The decision to have or not to have sector requirements has many advantages and disadvantages. While there are those students who already know their set path and do not have
the time to diverge from it, there are also those students who want the possibility to explore the best that a liberal arts education has to offer before (and even after) selecting a major. Core requirements are definitely necessary so that we can increase our intellect and understanding. The question then becomes, which topics should be requirements? Being well rounded and familiar with a broad range of topics is the classical purpose of a liberal arts education and it is good that the university tries to hold on to core requirements. That being said, this should not be taken as an opportunity by any university to instill particular thoughts or points of view on topics that are subjectively chosen as “foundational”. The only thing that should be required at a university should be the core of a liberal arts college: introducing the student to the best that has been thought and said. But while we keep prioritizing classes on cultural diversity as the more important ones, universities will continue to further marginalize themselves in the life of the nation at large, feeding empty topics to students that will never learn the value of classical education unless they actively teach it to themselves. But teaching ourselves the humanities generally considered to be the pedagogical responsibility of universities seems wrong. What is the purpose of a university? To
receive a higher education—sure. To obtain a degree—fine. But the vital part of a university is to ensure that we as a generation are not cut off from our own culture and our past. A university has a responsibility to pass on our culture, which is firmly rooted on the great things that have been thought, said, and done. By focusing on the history of the United States through a lens of its sins and its sins only deprives us of our culture. We aren’t ‘required’ to learn that the U.S lifted so many millions from poverty and disease, how its armies liberated millions of people around the world, but we are required to know about diversity. When we raise a generation of scholars without any links to past history, without any introduction to past thinkers, or what’s worse, without any reference to the past classics and instead replace such a void with ephemeral course topics, we lose a part of ourselves in exchange. Our present culture will always remain, diversity and multiculturalism are part of modern America, but how else can we learn about our past if not even the higher education institutions deem it as important? Looking at it objectively, we already have a “cross cultural analysis” approach, so why did we add “cultural diversity in the US”? Because the modern academic isn’t really interested in anything beyond his own nose, while practically living in a place wherein lies the entrance to an entire civilization’s history; filled with intellectual, scientific and aesthetic wonders that then, through edification, would lead him to wisdom. We reject this generous offer so that we may comply with our requirements. Cultural diversity is something that we learned about without the need
The vital part of a university is to ensure that we as a generation are not cut off from our own culture, that is, our past.
of having it be explicitly taught in colleges. Knowledge and awareness of a cultural diversity is something that can be automatically picked up by our daily interactions with other people while living in a culturally diverse country, and especially while living in a culturally diverse campus where the undergraduate population includes students “well over 100 countries and citizenships.” Cultural perspective is granted to us, probably more so, when we meet people with a different background, go to school, listen to music, eat at a different restaurant, visit a new city, visit a new state, work at a new place, even leave our room than when we sit in a classroom and have it taught to us. Looking in the Mirror So how could we fix this requirement? For one, if we are going to have a “diversity” class we shouldn’t be allowed to take classes about ourselves for a “diversity” requirement. We should not simply seek to reaffirm what we already think: This is not education—it is navel gazing that is overshadowing the reputation of our ivied halls.
Sector requirements that aim to preach about “diversity” and “cultural studies” are tipping our institution more and more over the cliff as we teeter back and forth between a solid foundation and the mockery that liberal arts colleges have become today outside the ivory towers of academia. By continuing to focus solely on classes that portray the United States in a negative light, we are doing a disservice to those who tried so hard to make our country what it is today. The modern academic will continue to absorb all the information about himself that his little heart desires, but he will continue to pass up the opportunity to learn about the most wonderful of things that our history has to offer that would render him a better human being. He will masquerade his navel-gazing narcissism as serious self-study. And, like taking someone to Versailles, showing them the outhouse, and then moving them along saying “nothing else to see here”, he will continue to support the further balkanization of American culture, and render laughable the maxim that has best defined the people of America—E Pluribus Unum. February/March 2014 - 17
DEAR OLD PENN
On Campus Censureship
On Campus Censorship Justin Wong
It was Ben Franklin who once said, “They who can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
T
here is a place where thinkers and intellectuals can be censored for their words, where one person’s distaste or discomfort is grounds for censorship, where higher powers can prosecute with impunity without releasing details to the public. One may not be faulted 18 - February/March 2014
for mistaking a place like this for a modern authoritarian state— Belarus, or China, for example. Sadly, this is a place all too familiar to us: the modern American university. Here, students and faculty are harassed and censored by overzealous administrators, eager to
avoid controversy and discord in the university. However, this amounts to a violation of the First Amendment rights of students and faculty. In the past five years, egregious examples of the repression of free speech at universities have brought this issue under closer scrutiny by the
public. However, this is a problem with a long history at our own university. Arguably, the repression of speech at universities was first challenged at Penn in 1993. This was the infamous “water buffalo incident”, in which a student was charged with violating a racial harassment policy after yelling “water buffalo” at a group of rowdy students outside his room who happened to be African-Americans. Unsurprisingly, the administrators at Penn were made the laughingstock of the nation by the media (indeed, even Doonesbury ran a comic on the affair), and the incident became a teaching moment and a turning point in Penn’s free speech policy. Unfortunately, other universities have not learned this lesson. In the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, a University of Kansas professor took to Twitter writing: “The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.” This post attracted a maelstrom of controversy, with many prominent conservative politicians calling for censure and dismissal from the university. The Board of Regents of the university took action immediately, suspending the professor indefinitely “in order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students”.
The infamous tweet that got a University of Kansas professor suspended
This is a troubling decision. In the case Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects public employees when they are speaking “as citizens about matters of public concern”. Here, a public institution, funded by the state, has stepped in to punish one of its employees for his personal views. This, according to the Supreme Court case, is a violation of First Amendment rights. Of course, the employee’s right to free speech must be balanced with the need to avoid violence against other individuals or damage of property. For example, if the professor had called for students to riot or had made threats against individuals in the university, that would be grounds for suspension. However, the professor’s comments constituted a private, albeit distasteful expression of his political views that could not have harmed the daily operation of the university. At worst, it would have made individuals uncomfortable. Here again, we see an institution sacrificing
It is a hallmark of the university that no matter how inflammatory these ideas, they should be subject to consideration and review by peers.
free speech on the altar of civility. In the wake of this incident, the University of Kansas system changed its policies on social media. Improper use of social media that “when made pursuant to the employees official duties is contrary to the best interest of the university” is now grounds for dismissal. This sets a chilling precedent. The language here is so vague that almost any mildly inflammatory speech could be construed as damaging to the university. For example, if a professor makes a comment on Twitter that irks a politician who happens to be a donor to the university system, that could be construed under the new policy as being “contrary to the best interest of the university”. The purpose of the university as an institution is to allow a free exchange of ideas, ideas that sometimes will be points of contentious debate. It is a hallmark of the university that no matter how inflammatory these ideas, they should be subject to consideration and review by peers. Censuring ideas because they are disruptive runs completely against the purpose of the university. One should attend a university expecting to be intellectually “disrupted,” to have preconceived, and sometimes very personal opinions challenged. This reexamination of beliefs often forces us to revise and adopt more rational beliefs. After all, the purpose of education is to search for Truth, and Truth does not care for civility or personal discomfort. February/March 2014 - 19
- Nicholas A. Zarra, Campus Coordiinator
thank you for carrying the torch we would like to personally thank the following people and institutions for making this issue of The Statesman possible:
Mary DeChristopher Sarah Weber Matt Wolfe Michael Cibik Joe & Jamie Kiernan Mr. & Mrs. James E. Maurey Alicia & Kevin McConnell John & Clare McConnell Matt and Michele Weber Rob Wonderling we would also like to give a special thank you to Dr. Neilson for her guidance and support