Lehigh under evaluation

As finals week approaches, Lehigh students find their work under intense scrutiny, measured against high expectations.

It’s a familiar cycle: finishing assignments, meeting deadlines and taking exams. But this semester, something has shifted. There’s a growing sense that not everyone is being held to the same standards of accountability — especially the administration.

If the university evaluates students at the end of each semester, it’s fair to evaluate the administration as well. And if the editorial board were to assign a grade this spring, it would land somewhere in the middle: not a failure, but far from exemplary.

This semester began with a moment that demanded decisive leadership. In February, fraternity and sorority social events were suspended after a racist image surfaced, prompting a long-overdue campus conversation about accountability in Greek life. The pause created an opportunity for the administration to move beyond reactive discipline and toward meaningful cultural change.

Instead, that opportunity was met with reaction, not reform.

By March another racist incident emerged — a BORG on Buchanan Street depicting an anti-Black caricature. The Black Student Union responded quickly, and student organizers mobilized at “Pace the Prez.” The Student Senate followed with a formal resolution calling for concrete action.

In each instance, students led. They organized, spoke out and demanded change with urgency. The administration responded, but largely in ways that felt reactive rather than preventive.

President Joseph Helble issued a statement condemning racism and announced working groups. While the message acknowledged harm, it followed a pattern that’s become familiar: delayed responses and limited clarity on next steps. Statements alone haven’t reassured students who are looking for change.

The administration hasn’t been inactive, but consistent reaction shouldn’t be mistaken for progress. Real progress is proactive.

Lehigh should take a more proactive approach to preventing racist incidents by making it easier and safer to report them, following through on investigations and being transparent about outcomes. Regular bias training, stronger consequences for offenders and better support for affected students are also necessary.

Lehigh’s reactiveness became even clearer in April during debate over recognizing a chapter of Turning Point USA. The Student Senate initially moved to deny recognition, reflecting concerns among many students. The process grew complicated when a re-vote was proposed and administrative support for the group became apparent.

University leaders framed their position around inclusivity and open dialogue. However, TPUSA has faced accusations of perpetuating racism and maintaining links to extremist groups. That framing highlights a broader disconnect: the administration’s repeated emphasis on fostering an inclusive campus climate hasn’t always aligned with students’ experiences, particularly during a semester marked by heightened racial tensions.

This administration isn’t failing — it’s falling short. 

Lehigh leadership has shown a willingness to engage, but not the urgency needed to prevent incidents of racism and bias. It’s responded to problems, but hasn’t consistently acted to get ahead of them.

Grades aren’t just judgments, they’re feedback. They reflect what’s been done and what still needs improvement. That same standard should apply to the administration.

Lehigh can improve its grade. But doing so will require more than statements and working groups. It’ll require proactive leadership, clear accountability and a commitment to act before students are forced to demand it. Students will continue to speak out and push for change.

This semester has made one thing clear: students are paying attention — and they expect more from their leadership.