Hmm.
Is this shame on Ivy League students, for attending institutions that have the money to provide full security?
Wake up -- Ivy League schools have great facilities, great education, and offer great job prospects, and that's just the way it is. And everyone should know by now that Ivy League is at least 50% meritocracy with lots of hoi polloi on scholarship.
If the Ivy League can insure their overseas programs and thus students, all the better. I'm sure some financial aid students were among the ivy students evacuated by the security firms that were contracted to do so. (And probably contracted because 1) the Ivy have the money to pay the insurance and 2) admittedly, the Ivy generally fears powerful litigious parents of some students -- thus everything is about security -- for ALL students, rich or poor.
So its not a simple question of rich kids getting special treatment.

"I teach at an Ivy League University and the scholarships we can offer barely make a dent in the crippling six-figure costs over foru years. A few poor kids, thank God, get a free ride, but middle-class kids are not coming to these schools ... What happened in Beirut was "The Titanic" all over again -- only the rich got lifeboats."

I don't know what university you teach at, but I haven't observed such a disparity in class and income at Harvard, which bears the brunt of criticism whenever ivy league privilege is brought up. Most of my friends are in fact middle class and I myself pay next to nothing to attend to this school. In my experience, Harvard does a great job of enabling kids from all backgrounds to attend, and I don't think it's fair to characterize the Beirut evacuation as the rich exercising their privilege. I have a lot of middle class friends studying abroad right now and if it were them or me in danger, we'd be just as protected as our better off peers.

It's unacceptable that students elsewhere aren't given the same amount of protection, but I think many people miss the point: what schools like Harvard did for their students shouldn't be considered a privilege but a basic expectation that any school should offer. It's unfortunate that that's not always the case.

To be fair, not all ivy leaguers are rich... almost everyone I went to school with was receiving a generous amount of financial aid AND working part-time or full-time jobs.

Dear Prof-- see the two comments above yours. I too attended an Ivy League school and can attest that I did not grow up wealthy, nor exactly poor, but in fact fall into the category of "selfish" middle-class kids that you claim never go to these schools. I do not know what prompts you to believe that all or nearly all of your students are extremely wealthy, but I would venture to guess that is an unfair generalization. My classmates came from a variety of backgrounds, yes, some of them wealthy, from private schools, others poor, on a full or partial scholarship, but many of them were like me-- somewhere in between, making our way through on a combination of work-study programs, government-subsidized loans, private loans, private scholarships, and of course the invaluable assistance of our parents, none of whom, I can assure you, are destitute as a result. It is unfair to assume that all Ivy League students are at these schools simply because they come from wealthy families. The Ivy League opportunity is available to many bright young students of all financial backgrounds-- and in my opinion can prove a great equalizer to those who are at good schools simply because of a legacy, like our president. In addition, as others have pointed out, many private colleges in the US are at least as expensive as Ivy League schools, and they should all have insurance policies that would provide their students with the sort of support one would expect in Lebanon. The fact that the Ivy League universities had this type of coverage and that their administrators saw fit to call students and advise them of it simply means they were better organized. There is not even any proof in this article that other schools did not have such insurance policies-- no other school is named, nor are any students-- yet another example of how people are often quick to say "look how lucky the rich are" without looking any deeper. What other schools had students studying in Lebanon? What security companies had they hired, if any? These strike me as key questions that should have been answered as part of a responsible piece of journalism rather than one designed to play on stereotypes without finding out where the blame should really lie for those students left behind.

Criticizing the Ivies isn't fair in this situation. The schools saw the students were in danger and acted accordingly.
However, if Harvard can get its students out quickly and safely, you'd think the US government could do the same for its citizens.
Perhaps the Bush administration should look into hiring these private security companies to help get all Americans out of dangerous situations. Looks like they do a pretty good job.
And it's entirely possible that after seeing what happened during Katrina, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton realized that the government cannot be counted on in times of crisis and took matters into their own hands.
Bottom line: This story does nothing but illustrate that our government will not be there for us when we need it.

And if the Ivy League schools hadn't done their best, and students had been injured, the same people would be complaining that "rich" schools should have done better. The US governement is not in charge of personal security in Lebanon, so anything they do to get citizens out is a bonus and should be appreciated.

Hi All,

It amazes me how quickly people to place blame on the State Department for the speed of evacuation without thinking of the cause. Let's say State did like the French and said everyone just get on a cruise ship. Let's say Hizbollah or just so Joe with a chip on his shoulder and a few extra grenades decides to bomb that gathering of Americans. Would you then say it's not the State Department's fault or that they should have provided security?

If you would in any way blame State for not providing security, as I would, then how do you blame them for taking the time to have the Navy move assets into position. Let’s remember large scale evacuation of Americans were about 24-36 hours behind the French and Spanish who seemed to be most advanced with evacuation efforts and all those countries did was say hop on the cruise ship we’re sending you. The reality is Americans are always targets and when people forget that Americans get killed.

Slightly off topic pet peeve: And how do you complain about paying $150 to get rescued from a war zone? If you can afford to travel to Lebanon you can certainly put $150 on a credit card to defray the cost the rest of us Americans have to pay for getting you from an exist war zone.

Tom

Good for Harvard, Yale, etc. or whoever paid for the evac insurance! Sounds like "SOS evacuation insurance" is a pretty good value for the money.
I just think this situation is more illustrative of what happens when an administration that HATES government programs gets to appoint people to run government agencies that have no stake in good performance. Say what you will about Clinton and the demos, but they at least tried to appoint effective leaders at FEMA, FDA, EPA, etc. Clinton is known to have BUILT UP FEMA only to have GW destroy it in a few years by appointing his cronies to run it. When I was a kid you always heard of how GOOD the US government was at taking care of citizens abroad. Heck, Reagan sent in the MARINES to Grenada to rescue a few med students (and of course topple an unfriendly government...).
So I don't think we can say government HAS to be incompetant at protecting citizens abroad. It just has become that way recently. Perhaps we need to install an administration that believes in effective government rather than one that merely wants to tear it down in as many places as possible, and then say "See! Government is incompetant! Let's 'outsource' everything to our friends in private industry!"

Medex and International SOS are NOT private security companies, they are emergency travel medical assistance companies, working on behalf of insurance carriers worldwide. I'm also insured with a travel plan through Medex as part of my employee health benefits. Trust me, I'm not wealthy. These are common policies and the Ivy League schools apparently had enough foresight to invest in them. It does make the other schools look bad though, and make it seem like the rich are more important. Here in Canada, most students might not have this, but lots of low-income office workers do...

In this particular context, I agree that the criticism should be directed at the failure of the U.S. government to protect citizens living or studying abroad and not at Harvard and other schools that had the foresight to ensure that, should such a situation and need arise, they would be able to protect those in their care. Let's remember that colleges act in loco parentis while students are in their care.

That said, there has been an astonishing (and I am tempted to say disingenuous) display of naivete on this blog. While one can always adduce examples of those from low income environments who enter the ivies, the notion that the majority of those in ivy league schools are not the beneficiaries of inherited wealth and privilege is laughable.

While not quite the preserves fo the wealthy as they once were, elite schools are still self-perpetuating engines of inherited privilege and wealth. A very fine article by Walter Benn Michaels on this very subject appeared not long ago in the magazine n+1. It is well worth reading.

I am a former Yale student who is not rich. Yale, being a very wealthy institution was able to offer me much better financial aid than other expensive liberal arts colleges. That said, I had to work the entire time and came out with lots of debt. It is good that even this is offered, but it is not enough. Many people threw out the figure of 50% of students being on financial aid, which last I heard was pretty close. That means half of all Yale students came from families who could afford to simply pay for school out of pocket. These people in the rest of country make up about 5% of the population. That means that regardless of the partial efforts made, the rich make up an undeniably disporportionate number of ivy league students. I can attest to having met lots and lots of kids at Yale who were not particularly smart, just rich, but then I don't think personal anecdotes are very convincing argument.

As for the evacuations, it's clear just as in Katrina that wealth (or being affiliated w/ a wealthy institution) can help buy your way out of risky situations. I believe that everyone deserves to be protected from harm, regardless of their class. However, it's worth noting that if the US were not giving Israel a blank check to bomb Lebanon into oblivion, these students wouldn't have to be evacuated in the first place.

When Katrina hit, Harvard invited all Tulane students to transfer there for the fall semester, apparently because Tulane is an expensive sister private institution, the vast majority of whose students do not come from Louisiana. Students at the several public-supported universities in New Orleans, whose student bodies were overwhelmingly from Louisiana and whose families therefore suffered much more from the hurricane, did not receive such invitations. Talk about class solidarity!

Also, see sociologist Zelda Gamson in a 1997 issue of Social Text in which she reveals that students at the most selective institutions come from families with incomes three and four times higher than those of students at the least selective institutions.

Instead of passing blame, look at the root cause. These students chose to go to Lebanon, a place not really known for peace and tranquility. Maybe it's because I graduated from a state university instead of a private or Ivy League school, but if I were heading to the Middle East, I wouldn't be surprised if stuff started blowing up.

Also, Katrina provided us with a harsh but necessary lesson: waiting for our government to bail your butt out of a dangerous situation isn't a good idea.

These evacuation programs are not expensive, so everyone who thinks these are reserved for the financially elite are selling themselves short (or playing the blame game instead of realizing their own responsibility to protect themselves). Yes, Yale, Harvard and Princeton are doing the prudent thing to provide this kind of program to their students...but these programs are also available to individuals. Check out the Medex Travmed program on www.insuremytrip.com that has a terrorism rider -- it's only $1 a day!

So stop complaining and dish out the money, that you would otherwise spend on trinkets and gifts, to be sure YOU will make it home. It makes me sick to see how quickly people point fingers and feel sorry for themselves without doing a little research.

It is amazing how a subject like this twists itself into political and social knots. The point of the report, for those who really are interested in where this started, is that some university administrators had the foresight to recognize that university's students might experience catastrophic medical or security circumstances. That has absolutely nothing to do with elitism. The pure fact is that some state universities and small private colleges work with companies like Medex, as does my daughter's. Her school charges something insane like $90 a year, hardly elitist and certainly affordable on my single parent budget.

To those who want to bash the schools whose sin here is being interviewed and commenting positively on the fact they had a means through Medex and SOS to get their sons and daughters to safety, what did your school do for its students? What did you do to protect your spouse and family during your European vacation?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...or rocket.