Where the war in Ukraine might be going and how the war could impact Philadelphia

Mark Thomas, Professor of political science

_{^{Header Image: phillyhistory.org}}

As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth week, the lingering questions are whether the Russia-Ukraine War could expand into a war between NATO and Russia; and, if it did expand, could a NATO-Russia war escalate into a nuclear war. But more poignant and salient is how could a nuclear exchange between Russia, the U.S. and its NATO allies impact Philadelphia and the surrounding area.

To the first point of whether the Russia-Ukraine war could expand into a NATO-Russia war, Dr. Mitchell Orenstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has contended such a war is unlikely. Such thinking is either delusional or wishful thinking. There are three possible outcomes for the current war in Ukraine: 1) The war becomes a quagmire for Russian forces and remains confined to Ukraine; 2) Russian forces turn the tide of war and gain control of Ukraine or 3) Russian forces withdraw either completely, or, more likely partially, enough to create a land bridge between the Donbas to the Crimean Peninsula. Of the three possible scenarios, only the third, e.g. a Russian withdrawal, excludes the possibility of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Scenario one likely will entail Russian bombardment of NATO and NATO member-state logistics-supply routes from the west to the east. In the second scenario, buoyed by its success in Ukraine, Russia invades southern Lithuania based on its geo-strategic need to (re)establish a land-bridge between Russia and Kaliningrad, the headquarters of Russia’s Baltic Fleet and of the Russian Army’s Kaliningrad Military District. Scenario three, which may not occur immediately but is surely a matter of when, not a matter of if, could also include incursions into Latvia and Lithuania so Russian can regain control of the Baltic Sea, where it has one of three warm-water ports, the other two at Sevastopol (Crimea) on the Black Sea, and Vladivostok on Russia’s Pacific coast.

In either the first or second scenario, NATO has two options: Respond with sanctions, essentially appeasing Russia for its new aggression or resort to the tried-and-true logic of nuclear deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Given NATO’s Article 5 commitments and the risk of losing its credibility of defending democracy as well as national sovereignty if it does not respond militarily; and given Putin’s mindset; and basic tactical tenets of Russian military doctrine, NATO must respond and the prospect of nuclear war becomes more likely than even in the most tense days of the Cold War, minus the strategic miscalculations which almost led to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and Able Archer (1983).

So, what is the likelihood Philadelphia will suffer during a nuclear war? First, we must distinguish between the two types of nuclear attacks: a counter-force strike and a counter-value strike. A counter-force strike is one in which the attacker seeks to destroy the opponent’s ability to wage war, both conventional and nuclear. A counter-value strike is one in which the attacker targets the civilian population in an attempt to eliminate the popular will to wage war. Given many counter-strike targets are often collocated to highly populated areas, the difference between a counter-strike and counter-value attacks blurs considerably.

In any case, for better or worse, Philadelphia is likely not high on the Russian nuclear target list. Why for the worse? To be ranked high on the target list, a location has to have either a significant military presence, or a technological or industrial base which contributes substantially to the national defense. Due to poor decisions by federal, state and local officials over the past several years, Philadelphia has neither. That is the good news insofar as Philadelphia will likely not be hit by a nuclear warhead in a counter-force strike.

The fact that Philadelphia is not a counter-force strike target belies the fact that destruction of property is the least of the types of damage which nuclear weapons cause. Given its central location between New York and Washington, its close proximity to significant military bases and logistics hubs in outlying areas of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and its general proximity to one of three of the U.S. government’s major underground continuity of operations sites, all of which are viable counter-strike targets, depending on whether or not the Russians want to allow the U.S. leadership to survive after the first strike so they can stop the war, Philadelphia will mostly likely suffer from the two most deadly and most long-lasting sources of death and mayhem following a nuclear strike. The most well-known of the two is radiation poisoning, which will decimate plant and animal life across Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey depending on the wind direction and whether the nuclear fallout reaches the jet stream.

The third type of damage is the technology-killing effect of the high energy electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) which a nuclear blast emits. Such an after-effect only requires a single well-placed strike or a high enough altitude blast. With one such blast, either close to any city within a 500-mile radius of Philadelphia will disable any appliance or device which does not rely on vacuum-tube technologies, or which is hardened against EMP, making them into high-cost paper-weights. In layperson’s language, the EMPs will knock out all devices upon which U.S. society and economy depends to do its day-to-day functioning: computers, cell phones and I.T. networks will fail, with the catastrophic ripple effects across any sector of the U.S. critical infrastructure which relies on digital technology. Briefly, there is not a single sector of society which does not rely on digital technologies. The EMP will essentially disable the emergency service sector, the communications sector, the financial sector, the commercial facilities sector, the transportation sector and the agriculture and farming sector. A single, low-radiation nuclear blast would essentially catapult Philadelphia from the 21st Century to the 17th Century.

Is such a scenario avoidable? Yes, as long politicians remember the Cold War tenets of MAD, despite a successful pre-emptive counter-force strike, the other side still retains sufficient capability to destroy countervalue targets in retaliation. The crazy logic behind MAD is what many believed deterred Russia and the U.S. from launching nuclear weapons during the tensest days of the Cold War. It is also the fear of NATO escalating the war and respecting its Article 5 commitments which could end the conflict now. First, it would give Russian leaders a moment of pause to consider the consequences of Putin’s aggression. Second, a critical tenet of Russian military doctrine is protecting the Russian homeland from destruction, a tenet to which the Russian military leaders and intelligence leaders have closely abided since 1953. The last Russian leader who placed the Russian homeland at risk was Nikita Khrushchev, whom the Russian generals and intelligence chiefs, in collaboration with Communist Party leaders, e.g. Brezhnev, quietly removed from power. I think Putin is catching a cold. Perhaps a bad case of COVID-19 is in his near future.

On Barbershops

Commentary

David O’Brien, Editor

^{_{Header image: Today I Found Out}}

I entered the barbershop at 11:00 a.m. There was one customer and three barbers. After entering I approached the nearest barber and requested a haircut. She responded by prompting me, “Do you have an appointment?” I, of course, did not because it was 11:00 a.m. on a Tuesday and clearly not prime time for people to need a haircut. “No,” I responded, “but I can come back another time if you guys are busy.” The barber responded, “Ugh, I guess I have time for you.” Instead of receiving a smile and a thank you for being a valued customer, I was given a grunt and an eye roll.

There is no reason for barbers to require appointments, especially when no one is there. I understand the idea of reserving your appointment, or calling in advance to inform them you are on the way. I understand calling in advance to make sure they have the capabilities of fulfilling someone’s desire for a haircut. However, I do not understand this idea that everyone should have an appointment when they get an incredibly simplistic haircut. I get my hair buzzed on the sides and trimmed on the top and go to the barber in the morning. There is no need for me to call in advance.

It’s not like going to a doctor’s or lawyer’s office where the reasoning behind going is personal and individualistic, thus you need to provide information in advance so the doctor knows what to expect. A barber is just cutting hair, it should be first come first serve with appointments optional. They shouldn’t be required anywhere. I shouldn’t be ridiculed for entering a barbershop without an appointment. I shouldn’t have to call in advance to book a time for me to have to make awful small-talk with someone I see once a month. Barbershops should have an appointment situation based on the restaurant-structure rather than the doctor-structure. You should make reservations, you should call in advance in case it’s busy, you shouldn’t need an appointment to get some stuff cut off the top of your head.

You look so stupid with your mask on your chin

Commentary

Elizabeth McLaughlin, Editor

_{^{Header image: Olmsted Medical Center}}

Make a decision: mask or no mask? I’m going to leave the science up to the public health experts and virologists; I’m not interested in making a case for masks (even though I will continue to wear mine until the data shows that I don’t have to). Why am I not interested in making that case? Because everyone is getting unique information. There is no guarantee that I am reading the same news as my neighbor, and doesn’t that fact take away from its legitimacy as news? We lack a shared reality these days, and when we’ve got a killer virus on our hands, that fact is terrifying. But that’s not why I’m writing; that’s fodder for a later article.

The purpose of this article is to ask my fellow Lasallians to make a choice. If you’re going to wear a mask, wear it properly; otherwise, what’s the point? I’m trying to understand. Everything we do and wear sends a message, and the message sent by wearing your mask around your chin is that you don’t, in that moment, care to avoid contracting an airborne virus. I can understand wearing a mask properly and then pulling it down on your chin to eat or drink, or when you’re struggling to communicate and you really need the added clarification provided by seeing your mouth. But why walk around, why teach a class with your mask around your chin? I genuinely don’t understand.

It can’t be a form of “virtue signaling,” to use a buzzer term as of late. It can’t be, because what virtue are you trying to communicate? People who choose not to wear masks may look at those who do as sheep; as people who lack the values of personal liberty that so dutifully reinforce our social, political and economic fabrics. Some people who choose not to wear masks look at those who do as performative and over-reactive. Some people who choose to wear masks (in spite of the university saying we don’t have to) view those who don’t as pig-headed and selfish. Individual liberty and the collective good. Those are the virtues at conflict.

But wearing it around your chin? Pick a side. Do you believe you and the community are safe enough without the added barrier provided by masks, or do you believe we have to keep this up indefinitely? Pick a side, make a decision. Your mask is doing nothing for you on your chin, except for prompting me to write this article.

Why you should doodle more

Commentary

Eliabeth McLaughlin, Editor

When was the last time you translated a thought into an object? An abstract idea into a tangible good? When was the last time you doodled? I hope the answer isn’t elementary school, or even last week — in my ideal world, the answer is as recent as yesterday. Contrary to popular belief, doodling should not be reserved for those with innate artistic talent. If we all doodled more, the world would be a happier place.

Think about it: we all used to (or some of us still do) doodle in the margins of our notebooks or on scrap pieces of paper. We used to draw little stick figures, houses, dogs and misshapen faces with no regard for proportions. Put in other words, we used to have more fun. That’s what I keep thinking as I round out my college career, about how I used to have so much fun as a kid, doing kid things like playing on the playground and eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Well, duh, Liz, of course kids have more fun… you’re an Adult with Real Responsibilities looming in the past, present and future. But I refuse to accept that we can’t hold onto our childlike wonder as we age. What better way to do that than to make crappy little doodles in the margins?

One thing I always hear from non-artists is some variation of, “I wish I could do that.” My answer? Same. You think I was born able to write calligraphy? Looking back on my childhood sketchbooks, it’s clear to me that my skills are mine because I was relentless in their pursuit, not because of some natural-born talent. (I’ll admit that this natural ability does come into play, but I think to a much smaller degree than one might believe.)

But my other answer to that quip is as follows: “Who cares?” The day I realized art doesn’t have to be good to be worth making, my entire perspective opened up. Once I broadened my outlook to one that validates crappy art, I started having way more fun. Let me give an example. I mainly use Strathmore 5.5” x 8.5” Mixed Media sketchbooks, and have been regularly doing so for about two years now. Prior to that, all my drawings were on loose leaf or in random notebooks. Anyway, once I committed to this format, I had this unwritten rule with myself that I couldn’t let any page go to waste. I had to finish the sketchbook in order, from front to back, not letting any page fall victim to crappy art.

Little did I know, that is a terrible way to approach art. Over time, I began realizing that I preferred to draw on the right hand page, so I began filling books by only ever drawing on the right hand page. And when I needed to, I’d use the left hand side to doodle or practice or gauge proportions; basically, to mess around. Or, I’d use the left side to provide context to the drawing on the right. Once I finished the sketchbook this way, I’d go back to any blank left hand pages and make more art. And perhaps the most important acquired element of my drawing process? My designated doodling page.

My doodle page where I experiment.

An example of a sketchbook page with context on the left.

An example of a sketchbook page with context on the left.

An example of a page where I didn’t care how it looked. I was curious as to how other people drew circles so I had my roommates draw circles.

One day, I realized that my arbitrary rule that I had to make every page count was counterintuitive and downright stupid. By prohibiting myself from doodling, I was negatively impacting the quality of my oeuvre. This doodling page, always the last one in my book, allows me to experiment with different colors and mediums; to see if I can draw a face that looks half decent or not (the answer is usually no… I’ve kind of let anatomy fall by the wayside. Oops.). My doodling page eliminates (some of) the anxiety and pressure associated with wanting to make good art.

After all, isn’t that why you don’t doodle? Because you don’t think it’ll look good? Well, yeah, with that attitude, you’re probably right. But so what? The act of doodling is worth as much as, if not more, than the end result. It’s therapy. A lot of my art is word-based. For example, when I’m anxious, I’ll write my thoughts in a stream-of-consciousness style in my black sketchbook. Sometimes I’ll alternate marker colors with each line, other times I’ll try to write as illegible as possible, a la graffiti hand style.

Lots of times, these doodles never see the light of day again, and that’s okay. Art doesn’t always have to be shared or evaluated. If that were true, then it would mean that art is only worth anything when someone else’s eyes are on it. It would negate the many benefits of the process of art-making itself. Having made both kinds of art, the kind to be seen (and worn) and the kind that hides in the corner of my closet, never to be viewed by anyone but me… I can definitively say that art is still worth making even when it doesn’t look good; even when you feel like you have no idea what you’re doing. At the end of the day, I’m convinced no artist actually knows what they’re doing. They just look like they do.

And at the end of the day, I hope you doodle more. I can’t tell you what you’ll get out of it because that’s subjective and unique to each individual. Maybe you’ll hate it. That’s cool, too. At least you can say you made something, not out of nothing but out of yourself. Think about it, it’s so simple but so amazing to me: you can just have a thought and then translate that thought onto a piece of paper using a bunch of markers and crayons?! I hope you read that in your inner child’s voice; they have way more fun, anyway. And, lastly, please send me your doodles, if you want. I would love to see what you create.

Experiencing misogyny as a female student leader

Commentary

Elizabeth McLaughlin, Editor

Header Image: Philosophy Talk

I’m no stranger to positions of leadership, which is a good thing. What’s not so good is that I’m also no stranger to my leadership being questioned, undervalued and undermined by virtue of my being female. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of my peers respect my guidance and opinions, but the truth of the matter is this: being taken seriously as a leader and a woman is one of the trickiest balancing acts I’ve ever encountered. The fact that I have to qualify that first statement with the disarming notion that it’s not all men who evaluate my leadership through a misogynistic lens is part of the problem, but it’s worth mentioning. Why?

Because although I have encountered sexism in my various leadership positions, I’ve also encountered overwhelming support in identifying and tackling said inequality. So before I get into my gripes, thank you to everyone who has supported me. Truly. You’re all part of the solution. And now, onto the problem.

As I mentioned before, I’m familiar with various leadership positions, but for the purposes of this article, I’ll zero in on the one to which I devote most of my time: La Salle Mock Trial Association (LMTA). To be clear, I am not zeroing in on this activity because it represents an isolated instance of misogyny in my life; rather, it serves as a useful illustration that can be extended far beyond the scope of mock trial. In other words, there is no need to attack or discard LMTA as a sexist institution, it’s not; I’m simply making observations that apply to other instances of female leadership.

I have been consumed by mock trial since fifth grade, and have formally competed on teams throughout high school and college. I truly wouldn’t be who I am without this activity. Each year, I have competed on the most competitive team offered by the organization. Back in the day, I was a much more timid attorney who had yet to fully realize the power of her voice and presence, and I’ve come a long way.

And I shouldn’t have to argue for my right to be respected by enumerating the various awards I’ve earned over the years, but perhaps it’ll provide some ethos to my argument. The American Mock Trial Association recognizes the top attorneys and witnesses at each tournament. I don’t keep track of how many I’ve won because, well, I don’t really care about those kinds of things. I care about performing well; any awards are borderline superfluous to me. (Not to mention that the awards themselves are gavels and, to be honest, a girl can only accrue so many gavels before it gets a little out of hand.)

You would think that the fact that I’ve won awards (as both attorney and witness) at all but one tournament I’ve competed in for the past three years would prompt any misogynist to respect me even just marginally more. These awards are data-driven, determined by the judges’ rankings on each ballot. But for some reason, even the data doesn’t seem to convince the most dedicated misogynists. And that’s frustrating.

As I stated before, mock trial is the activity to which I devote most of my time; it is essentially a third major at this point. I am not ashamed to admit I spend more time on mock trial than some of my classes (all of us do, we’re literally the biggest nerds ever). This is all to say I’ve invested a lot in this activity; I’ve been tournament director, president and captain. And still, the simple fact that I am a woman seems to affect others’ perception of me. Again, not all people; most of my teammates respect my contributions to the team. But why not all?

I can’t answer that, I’m not misogynistic. But I can discuss specific oddities that perhaps lead to an answer; oddities that I’ve experienced firsthand over the years. For example, I started scoring better when I started wearing glasses in trial. In the fall of my sophomore year, I developed this pesky eye condition that precluded me from wearing contacts; since then, I’ve worn glasses quite often. Perhaps they make me seem more competent or intelligent? By extension, I also wear less makeup. If you knew me in high school or freshman year, you’d expect my eyelids to be sponsored by Anastasia Beverly Hills any day of the week. As my use of makeup diminished, so too did my perceived femininity.

It seems that femininity and scores in trial have an inverse relationship. It seems that when I present myself in less feminine ways, people tend to take me more seriously. This isn’t a hunch — it’s evident in the data.

So that’s enough on physical appearance with respect to misogyny. What about communication? I’ve noticed that, around some men, us women have to be careful so as to not insult their intelligence. When advocating for ourselves, we mustn’t dare to broach territory that suggests they are in the wrong. We have to mince words and consider egos in ways that, it seems, men do not. Sometimes, we even have to go as far as convincing a misogynistic person that they were the one who came up with some great idea. It’s like an idea conceived by a woman carries less weight than if it were borne by a man. As a woman who witnesses her fellow women come up with intelligent ideas all the time, this observation is beyond frustrating.

Again, nothing I speak of here is exclusively endemic to LMTA — I love leading this organization and have confidence in myself to identify and correct misogynistic behavior using the tools I’ve developed over years of experience. I also have confidence in my peers to help me help us; LMTA will always have a special place in my heart.

These are problems endemic to being a woman in leadership. Being a female leader means constant self-awareness and concern for others. It means watching your tone and curating your clothes so that those who evaluate your body have as little to judge as possible. It means minding your Ps and Qs and being careful to not step on anybody’s toes too much, or you’ll run the risk of being called a b***h. Being a female leader feels like constantly having to prove that you are good enough.

Here’s a message to all my fellow female leaders, aspiring and current: don’t listen to the noise. As women, we’re already particularly adept at listening; it’s part of the ancestral job description, in my opinion. Listening is our power. So continue doing that for those who call you their president, captain or whatever your title may be. But don’t listen to the noise. Don’t listen to shallow, empty jabs at your competence. Remember that your femaleness does not preclude you from being an effective leader. It’s quite the contrary, actually: being a woman makes you an extraordinarily effective leader!

It’s no secret that leadership positions have long been dominated by men, and LMTA is no exception — as far as I’m aware, I’m only the second female president and “A team” captain in its history. Mock trial has taken up a significant portion of my time for many years now; I am who I am because of this activity. As my time with it draws to a close, I reflect on my gratitude for every second of it, misogyny and all. Experiencing misogyny seems to be a very unfortunate but inevitable part of life as a woman. In a weird way, thank you to the misogynists for challenging me to identify their problematic perspectives and exceed their expectations of me. Believe it or not, in doubting my capabilities, you’ve given me the chance to prove you wrong, time and time again.

To all my fellow women in leadership, keep proving them wrong. Have these conversations with your peers. Misogyny is an uncomfortable topic of conversation that needs to be broached in order to eliminate it. Keep advocating for yourself, you have so much more power than you might be led to believe.

The difference between $300 and $600k

Commentary

Elizabeth McLaughlin, Editor

_{^{Header image: collegeconsensus.com}}

La Salle’s highest-paid employee doesn’t even work here anymore. In the spring of 2018, La Salle fired Dr. John Giannini, the former head coach of the men’s basketball team. Still, thanks to the fine print in his contract, La Salle has been paying his salary each year since his dismissal. According to the university’s IRS 990 form from 2020, he was paid at least $603,217, not including “other compensation.”

And on Jan. 7 of this year, La Salle charged a late fee to my account, clocking in at $150. And, of course, they had to charge me interest on that late fee, to the tune of $10.88. Fast forward to Feb. 7 — I was charged yet another late fee (+ interest). Dear La Salle: if I wasn’t able to make the base payment without any late fees back in January, what makes you think I’m suddenly in the financial position to shell out an additional (and I believe arbitrarily-determined) $321.76?

For brevity and simplicity, let’s round that out to $300. $300 in my pocket goes toward groceries and bills and occasionally funding my small business. But my two main concerns as a college student right now are food and shelter. And La Salle’s biggest expense is… paying someone they fired four years ago? It doesn’t match up.

At this point, perhaps you’re thinking, “Liz, do you have a job?” Yes, I did, in admissions. And then the university laid me off at the start of my senior year. Something about “not having it in the budget.” I’m glad Giannini is in the budget, though! Especially given La Salle’s dwindling admissions numbers, it is of the utmost importance that we lay off our student recruiters, right? Wrong. It’s no secret that La Salle is struggling, from both a financial perspective as well as an admissions perspective. So this is my question to the university: how do you justify laying off your budget workers — all of whom are very effective recruiters — while still wasting money elsewhere? I’m not a lawyer, I can’t pretend that I know the terms of Giannini’s contract — but has the university even explored getting out of it somehow? Or, did the university maybe consider not firing him back in 2018…at least get some labor out of him if you’re going to have to pay him regardless? Or was the performance of the basketball team the most important criteria in their decision-making?

I don’t know how the university makes its decisions, but I can say that after nearly four years here, I do know that they prioritize two key areas: its men’s basketball team and its business school. Everything else, I’ve learned, isn’t nearly as important as those two stalwarts. This isn’t an article interested in slandering the business school. Given the high job placement rates that come out of Founders’ Hall, La Salle is getting a really high return on investment on that front. My qualms lie with the team whose record is 40-65 (.381) since coach Ashley Howard was brought on.

My motivation for writing this article didn’t grow out of my personal, unique frustration with the university’s financial decisions; it grew out of the collective. All of my peers are beyond frustrated with the manners in which La Salle goes about squeezing money out of its students, only to turn around and spend it in foolish ways. If the basketball program was better, maybe this would be a different article, or maybe it wouldn’t even be written at all.

But, the fact of the matter is this: Giannini gets $600k while La Salle’s own students struggle to make ends meet. A man who hasn’t worked here for four years gets a yearly salary while student workers get laid off. La Salle’s admission numbers continue to drop to alarmingly low levels while the university focuses its efforts on a team with a bad record. Perhaps the worst part? My peers reading this article lose more and more faith each day in their university to make sound financial decisions. I love La Salle; I always have and always will. But allowing students to lose confidence in the very institution to which they entrust not only their education but also the trajectories of their careers is bad policy. And it doesn’t take a finance major to know that paying Giannini without receiving any services from him is bad practice; it’s bad for the financial statements and even worse for student morale.

Luckily, Financial Aid was able to waive one of my two late fees. I’m still trying to come up with the extra $160 that would otherwise go toward PECO, PGW or rent. I’ll figure it out. I just hope La Salle does, too.

The results are in — responses to our first Collegian community survey

Commentary

Alina Snopkowski, Editor

_{Header image:}_lasalle.edu

Two weeks ago, we published the first in what will (hopefully) be a series of anonymous surveys for the La Salle Collegian community to share their opinions on a variety of topics. For the inaugural survey, what better topic than something we haven’t stopped hearing about and thinking about for the past couple of years — online classes, COVID-19 and La Salle’s reaction to it all?

The survey was available on the homepage of the Collegian website and was taken by about 70 people. Around 40 were current students who had taken at least one semester of completely online classes and at least one semester of completely (or mostly completely) online classes. The rest were professors, staff, alumni, friends and family of students or students who had only taken online or only in-person classes. This number of responses is just a small collection of Collegian readers and students and is not necessarily representative of the entire University. However, there are still some interesting insights and patterns shown through the responses.

The majority of the topics in the survey, which were only shown to students who had taken at least a semester of online classes as well as a semester of in-person classes, compared online and in-person learning in a variety of ways. Statements were presented with a Likert scale with the responses “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “strongly disagree” and “I don’t know/this doesn’t apply to me.” At the end of the survey, all respondents could also share whatever other information on these topics that they wanted the Collegian to know.

To try to reduce possible bias from the ways the questions were phrased, for each topic, half of the respondents received a statement asking about online learning compared to in-person learning, while the other half of the respondents received the same statement but reversed, so it asked about in-person learning compared to online learning. For example, a statement about mental health was phrased as “my mental health is better during online classes than it is during in-person classes” for half of the people who took the survey and “my mental health is better during in-person classes than it is during online classes” for the other half. Since the comparison was between just those two choices, a response of “strongly agree” to one ‘version’ of the question means that, at least logically, that same person would have answered “strongly disagree” if they had been asked to respond to the reversed statement. For that reason (and to cut down on the number of charts in this article), all results will be presented in terms of in-person vs online versions of the statements, with all responses to both versions of the question combined.

Here are the results.

“My mental health is better during in-person classes than it is during online classes.”

The majority of students who responded to this question thought that their mental health is better during in-person classes than it is during online classes.

“My professors’ office hours are more convenient in-person than online.”

The highest number of students were neutral on this statement. However, more students thought that online office hours were more convenient than in-person office hours.

“My professors’ office hours are more helpful in-person than online.”

While a high number of students, again, found this statement neutral, many more students found that office hours were more helpful in-person instead of online.

“It is easier for me to work on schoolwork when classes are in-person instead of online.”

The majority of students found it easier to work on schoolwork when classes are in-person.

“It is easier for me to work (at a job) when classes are in-person instead of online.”

The responses to this statement were more varied, but most students thought that working at a job was easier when classes were online.

“It is easier for me to join clubs and extracurriculars when classes are in-person instead of online.”

Again, the majority of students who answered this question find it easier to get involved with clubs and extracurriculars in-person (although, during online classes, many groups, including the Collegian, did meet and organize online).

“My grades, overall, are better when classes are in-person than when they are online.”

This statement had an even split of agreement and disagreement — while eight respondents were neutral, 11 agreed and 11 disagreed in some capacity.

“It is easier for me to connect with my classmates when classes are in-person instead of online.”

Just one respondent disagreed with this statement.

“In-person classes are more interactive than online classes.”

This topic was shown to both students and professors who took the survey, and both groups overall agree that in-person classes are more interactive than online classes. One respondent at the end of the survey made a note that “online classes can be very interactive if the professor knows how to set them up that way.”

All people who took the survey, regardless of if they are students or not, were able to answer questions about La Salle’s distribution of COVID-19 information, contact tracing and COVID-19 testing policies and if they knew who to contact if they had questions on any of those topics.

“La Salle’s distribution of information about online classes, COVID-19 policies and other related topics has overall been up-to-date.”

A majority of respondents thought that this information has been distributed in a timely manner.

“La Salle’s distribution of information about online classes, COVID-19 policies and other related topics has overall been helpful.”

While more people agreed than disagreed with this statement, there was still a fair number of respondents who did not think the University’s information about these topics has been helpful.

“If I have a question about La Salle’s COVID-19 policies, I know who to contact or where to find the information.”

Most respondents seemed to know where they could have their questions answered, although several were also confused and unsure. For current information on La Salle’s COVID-19 policies, check this page.

The last statement students were shown asked them to choose between all online or all in-person classes for the current semester.

“All things considered, if I had to choose between either all in-person classes or all online classes for this semester, I would choose in-person.”

A large majority of respondents prefer in-person classes over online ones for this semester.

“I think that online classes don’t work,” explained one respondent at the end of the survey. “My experiences with online classes have been well,” wrote another. Someone else thinks it is necessary to “keep online classes and accommodations accessible for disabled students and those at highest risk,” and another wrote that it is important to remember that “there is inherent risk to everyone once a person walks outside their home or dorm.”

Although the sample size of this survey is certainly not large enough to represent the campus community as a whole, the results and patterns in the responses are still interesting. Here are my main takeaways.

Overall, the Collegian community, or at least those tuned in enough to respond to this survey, seems to think the University is doing a pretty good job distributing up-to-date and helpful information. Most students who took this survey reported that, in in-person classes, their mental health was better, joining clubs and extracurriculars and connecting with classmates was easier and it was easier to work on schoolwork. However, while classes were online, most respondents found it easier to work at jobs, and many found that online office hours are more convenient than in-person ones. Whether classes were online or in-person didn’t seem to have a consistent effect on students’ grades and, all things considered, the vast majority of students who took this survey would prefer completely in-person classes over totally online ones for this semester.

Many factors have influenced La Salle’s decisions about online classes and COVID-19 policies over the past two years, and some of those factors were certainly not covered in this survey. However, I think it is important to see what students, professors and others in the La Salle community think about changes and policies. We regularly receive surveys from the University about topics like Residence Life and dining options on campus, so why not something including some of the topics and themes in this article? These as well as other subjects could provide important insight to administration about what students think about their decisions and changes — because, after all, shouldn’t they be a little bit interested?

_{If you have any ideas for topics for future surveys, feel free to contact me at the email linked above!}

La Salle needs to start recycling

Commentary

Kylie McGovern, Editor

_{Header image: lasalle.edu}

Can La Salle please start recycling? I will get into research and logistics in a moment, but I am genuinely embarrassed and upset that I am writing this article in 2022 amid a literal climate crisis. Why would an institution of higher learning and research refuse to invest in recycling? I will never understand.

There are recycling cans on main campus (which I personally think are probably just dumped into a dumpster with the regular trash) and the university claims on this website that the Grounds Division at La Salle University consists of technicians who are very knowledgeable in their profession. They are dedicated to keeping the La Salle Community looking exceptional and free of debris. Their tasks include the following: lawn maintenance, landscaping, removal of trash, recycling and snow removal, as well as the Custodial Division at La Salle University, who are responsible for trash/recycling pickup. However, there aren’t recycling bins in any of the residence halls.

Living close to campus, I take a bag of recycling home every now and then because my conscience literally cannot bear throwing away single-use plastic just because I don’t have access to recycling at my apartment.

There are many benefits to recycling: according to Eco-Cycle, many items that are recycled can be repurposed into different things rather than sitting in landfill for the next 100+ years. For example, steel products can be recycled over and over again. In addition, plastic can be recycled into so many different things like carpet, clothing, auto parts and new bottles. Similarly, paper is recycled into new paper. Some types of paper can be recycled up to seven times. Just by recycling about 30 percent of waste every year, Americans could save the equivalent of 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline and reduce the greenhouse gas equivalent of taking 25 million cars off the road. In addition, the process of recycling can also create jobs as for every one job at a landfill, there are ten jobs in recycling processing and 25 jobs in recycling-based manufacturing.

This lack of proper and adequate recycling at La Salle is not the only issue — the University is being wasteful in other ways. The lights in the business building are kept on 24 hours a day, seven days a week! Also, can we talk about the straws and plastic utensils in the dining hall? This article is my call to action for La Salle University — both the administration and the student body — to put time and perhaps even money into making the university more sustainable. I learn about climate change in my classes and then exit the classroom to see vending machines full of plastic bottles that we do not have the resources to recycle, which seems a little backwards to me.

I think there are various solutions to La Salle’s recycling and sustainability issues, starting with turning off the lights in Founders Hall, providing recycling in residence halls and using more reusable materials in our dining halls. This is just a list of options I thought of in about 13 seconds.

I know that there are perhaps logistical and financial barriers to these solutions on the front end, but in the future if the university puts some funds into these things, the effects will certainly pay off both financially and environmentally. To both the higher ups at La Salle and its student body: let’s get better, because I do not want my grandchild to die from climate change or to be living the same non-recycled plastic in 50 years. If this enrages you also and you have answers regarding sustainability at La Salle, feel free to email me.

Still disappointed in La Salle’s public safety communication

Commentary

Meghan Cain, Staff

Last semester, I experienced issues with La Salle’s shuttle system and wrote an article expressing my concerns about the lack of proper communication regarding the shuttle hours. I had explained that my friends and I went downtown and had followed the shuttle service hours posted on La Salle’s page, which stated that the shuttle would be running until 3 a.m. Unbeknownst to us, the shuttle hours were changed, and they were no longer running at the time that we were hoping to get a ride. Had the updated hours been posted, and the shuttle tracking app wasn’t removed, we wouldn’t have been left waiting in the dark on the corner of an unsafe street for a shuttle that was not going to arrive.

Following the article, the updated hours were posted online and the shuttle tracker app was made available again, which I am happy about. However, not long after that, my friends and I had walked to the station, as it was still bright out, but were followed on our walk by an older man that we do not know. Luckily, a shuttle driver noticed and pulled over to pick us up. We were happy to have been given a ride, but were uncomfortable with the fact that we had been followed, so we have felt a bit unnerved at the idea of walking to and from the Septa station on our own since then.

On a recent Friday afternoon we wanted to go downtown, so we tracked the shuttle on the La Salle app to take us to the Septa station. We were waiting on campus when the app said the shuttle had arrived nearby, although it had not. We called public safety and asked to be picked up. When we got on the shuttle, we asked how late they would be running later that night to make sure that we could get back in time so that we would not have to walk home in the dark, just in case we got there later than the posted times. We were told that at any time during the day or night we could call 215-951-1300 and that a shuttle would be sent out to us.

When we got back to the Olney station later that night we used the shuttle tracking app, and, again, it said that the shuttle arrived at the station even though it had not. It was only 7 p.m. at that point, and the shuttle is supposed to run normally until 9 p.m., so we assumed there would be no issue getting a ride if we called the number we were given earlier.

We called and were told that unless we had a medical emergency, a shuttle could not be sent out to us. I explained that we were given that number earlier in the day and were told to call at any point for a ride and was again told that a shuttle would not be sent unless there was a medical emergency. We walked back in the dark in 20-degree weather, still uncomfortable about the fact that we had previously been followed and were in an unsafe neighborhood to be walking around in at night.

I have had no problems with the shuttle drivers themselves as they have consistently expressed how much they value La Salle students’ safety, but I am extremely disappointed in La Salle for their lack of communication and their irresponsibility. My primary purpose in writing this article is to make it known that there needs to be more consistency, communication and emphasis on student safety. La Salle may claim that student safety and well-being is a top priority, but they have continuously proved otherwise. There is consistently better communication regarding the beloved basketball team than about something as crucial as public safety — or anything else, for that matter.

An invitation to daily Mass

Commentary

Richard Mshomba, professor of economics

“For when two or three gather together in My name, there I am with them.” Matthew, 18:20

As a Catholic University, we are blessed to be able to celebrate Mass every day, Monday through Thursday, in our beautiful Chapel. Daily Mass is at 1 p.m. and it takes only about 20-25 minutes. As your fellow Lasallian, I invite you — students, faculty and staff — to make a habit of going to daily Mass at our Chapel, even if just once a week.

Mass has always been an important part of my life since I was a young boy. I am originally from Tanzania, East Africa. Faith is what held people in my village together. When I was in my last two years of elementary school, my best friend, Alphonce Marandu, and I went to Mass every morning. Our mothers would wake us up at 5 a.m. and we would walk (past our school) for an hour to get to our church which was four miles away. After Mass, we would walk back two miles to our school. Alphonce was praying that he would be a priest and I was praying that I would be admitted into secondary school. Less than five percent of students who finished elementary school at the time were selected to go to secondary school. The national exam I took at the end of my elementary school education is the most important exam I ever took in my life. Our prayers were answered a millionfold!

Every time I walk from Hayman Hall to the Chapel, I marvel at God’s goodness and generosity. Now, a three-minute walk gets me from my office to Mass. I find this quite amazing.

Mass is a wonderful opportunity to worship and pray together. We all need prayers — all the time — both as individuals and also as a community. Surely, Mass is not the only way one can pray, but as a Catholic, I don’t know a more powerful form of prayer.