In a recent issue of the Aviso, Malone University's newspaper, one of the administration whom I will call “Dr. S” addressed the concerns about the changes in Malone's admissions requirements. But very little of what he said sounded even possible to my ears, let alone true. I am so disturbed by the most recent article that I felt a response was not only in order, but absolutely necessary. This is a mildly revised version of my response, going play by play through Dr. S's article.
I'd like to begin by dealing with an ungrounded claim in Dr. S's first paragraph, which was also copied and had attention drawn to it as a particularly relevant quotation: “Please know that the leadership of Malone is committed to preserving and strengthening standards, quality and relationships.” This sounds very nice. My only problem with it is that it is in response to concerns that the admissions standards and thereby quality of academic achievement of Malone have been lowered and thereby weakened. I feel that I show in this response how the new system reduces the relationship potential of Malone admissions.
Dr. S first defends the new admissions standards by saying that the scholarships were not competitive, “were not distributed more broadly to our incoming students,” and that the school was “lagging behind in the timing in which we would make our scholarship awards.” Dr. S never defines what he meant by timing, but that is a minor issue. He only points out that “Now, every student that meets our admissions requirements will receive some form of... scholarship or grant.”
For those of you who don't know, the word “scholarship” comes from “scholar,” and refers to an amount of money awarded to students who excel in scholastic endeavors. To give a scholarship to everyone defeats its purpose, especially if done on an institutional level—after all, it would save a considerable amount of red tape if Malone simply cut tuition by the relevant amount for everyone, and this would not cheapen the word “scholarship” by broadening it out. I have no issue with grants being given to any student, but again, if you are going to give the money to everyone, it is much smarter to just cut the tuition.
Dr. S's second point is that the application pool has been redistributed among the admissions counselors according to the students' surnames instead of their geographic region. This is designed to broaden the focus of admissions, but will also have the negative effect of cutting down admissions relationships with particular regions.
Dr. S went on to say how Malone now receives a wider pool of “ethnic and geographic diversity.” He claims that both have been hindered by the smaller applicant pool, and that now we receive applications from students that will do well in college. This is quite possible—they may do very well. However, if they are admitted due to lower admissions standards, then many in this group will do less well than those admitted on the previous admissions standards. Not to mention, the claim that lowering the admissions requirements will allow more ethnic diversity at Malone does not strike me as the most appropriate of statements.
The next point Dr. S makes is that “one other impact of setting this new admissions requirement is related to college readiness.” He goes on to explain that these lower standards are still enough to project that the students will achieve a probational status GPA. That is ridiculous. We should not be aiming for probational students. Malone should certainly be admitting some probational students, but the general admissions standards should strive for excellence, not adequacy.
Dr. S's last point is that the new recruitment standard will be more aggressive and will be streamlined. The only specifics he mentions are eliminating brochures. I have no issue with this, it is one example of smart use of resources (although the majority of this claim is left unexplained, and I would have liked more information).
In his closing remarks, Dr. S reminds us of our Presidents words to “begin with the end in mind.” The end, for Dr. S in this article, is “to increase residential population, provide competitive scholarships, and strengthen our academic programs.” I have shown in this article that I do not believe the new standards accomplish this goal. But what is more importantly, we should focus less on academics, and more on what Malone claims is its continuing commitment: Christ's Kingdom First.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Envy
In church this Sunday, a woman got up and "taught" on Proverbs 14:30. Now, those who know me know already that I have an issue with this, but that is neither my primary complaint nor the reason I decided to put "taught" between quotation marks. What I have an issue with is, in fact, not even primarily a doctrinal issue (for once). It was the sheer incompetence of a woman who showed no depth of understanding of those things about which she presumed to tell others.
The text of Proverbs 14:30, as she used it, is:
The text of Proverbs 14:30, as she used it, is:
A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
(This was from the King James Version.)
Now, first of all, she did a horrible job of talking about this verse, because she was constantly repeating herself and falling back on saying "hallelujah" at what seemed to be the points where she either lost her place or couldn't think of what to say next. It is certainly a good thing to praise God, but it felt more like she was using "hallelujah" as a place-holder than an expression of worship. But even beyond this, was when she brought up bullies.
I was bullied as a child. It has left me with a profound disgust for bullies. If I call someone a bully, I do not mean they are being less than kind, I mean I want them to die a slow, painful death, in the most humiliating manner possible, in front of everyone they hold dear. It is not a minor issue for me. And, like every child, I heard the simplistic response that "they're just jealous." And like every child who was bullied, and like most bullies, I realized the lie of this statement. The speaker made this very claim when talking about the pitfalls of envy, and even related her own experience of being picked on as a child, but admitted she didn't know what the bully in question was jealous of. Let me fill this in for you: not all bullies are jealous!
True, I had some kids pick on me for what may have been jealousy. But more often than not, it was a way to assert their dominance without any personal risk. By showing that they could put down someone, they were given popularity and with it, power. Very rarely did I offer anything of which they could be jealous. Some of them even got better grades than me. And I certainly didn't have more friends. Or try to take away their friends. I shrank! So you want to tell me that all bullies are jealous, you'd better have some really good proof. Don't simplify something that tortured someone for over a decade to one potential cause unless you are absolutely sure. And you are not absolutely sure.
Not my most meaningful post, but I needed to get that off my chest. I may have a few more depressing blogs in the future for more venting - sorry if this brings anyone down.
Now, first of all, she did a horrible job of talking about this verse, because she was constantly repeating herself and falling back on saying "hallelujah" at what seemed to be the points where she either lost her place or couldn't think of what to say next. It is certainly a good thing to praise God, but it felt more like she was using "hallelujah" as a place-holder than an expression of worship. But even beyond this, was when she brought up bullies.
I was bullied as a child. It has left me with a profound disgust for bullies. If I call someone a bully, I do not mean they are being less than kind, I mean I want them to die a slow, painful death, in the most humiliating manner possible, in front of everyone they hold dear. It is not a minor issue for me. And, like every child, I heard the simplistic response that "they're just jealous." And like every child who was bullied, and like most bullies, I realized the lie of this statement. The speaker made this very claim when talking about the pitfalls of envy, and even related her own experience of being picked on as a child, but admitted she didn't know what the bully in question was jealous of. Let me fill this in for you: not all bullies are jealous!
True, I had some kids pick on me for what may have been jealousy. But more often than not, it was a way to assert their dominance without any personal risk. By showing that they could put down someone, they were given popularity and with it, power. Very rarely did I offer anything of which they could be jealous. Some of them even got better grades than me. And I certainly didn't have more friends. Or try to take away their friends. I shrank! So you want to tell me that all bullies are jealous, you'd better have some really good proof. Don't simplify something that tortured someone for over a decade to one potential cause unless you are absolutely sure. And you are not absolutely sure.
Not my most meaningful post, but I needed to get that off my chest. I may have a few more depressing blogs in the future for more venting - sorry if this brings anyone down.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Enemies
This could be a lot better, but it was more or less a stream of consciousness. Ironically, this kept me from actually talking about the event that triggered this post.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Swearing
***Warning: This post is not only about swearing, but includes "inappropriate" language***
Okay, I'll admit it: I swear too much. Growing up, I didn't swear. And I don't mean I rarely swore, I mean that I never intentionally swore before I came to college. My freshman year, I had a roommate with a somewhat foul mouth who also liked to watch comedy central. Even more than public schooling, this whittled away at my resolve to keep my speech clean. So, despite the fact that in college I could be fined for swearing, I began my excursion into the vulgar my freshman year.
I will take a moment here to make a clarification. There is "swearing," "cursing," and "cussing." Outside this paragraph, unless otherwise specified, I am using the terms of "swearing" and "cursing" to refer to "cussing," that is, vulgar language. However, in actuality, swearing refers to taking oaths, and cursing refers to putting a curse on someone. Both of these are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Many misinterpretations of scripture come from people applying the "cussing" definition to swearing and/or cursing. I hate the equivocation, and would not use these words for this purpose, except that I hate the word "cussing" even more, and I am too impatient to say "vulgar language" in every instance.
My language freshman year was therefore worse than it had been in my entire life, but still fairly tame. The words left a strange taste in my mouth. It was unusual to me to think that I was using these words. On the whole, I kept it under wraps, in part because I was so new to the idea, and in part because few of my friends swore. However, my friend group shifted sophomore year, and I developed a mouth like a sailor, which I have kept to the present date. I have tempered my language in the past school year, and I still hold my tongue around authority figures (more out of respect for their authority than for fear of reprisal).
***Mature language begins below this line***
All of this, I tell you so that I can tell you what I think of swearing in general. I, like many people, rank 'bad words' in a hierarchy. I have a very different ranking from most, however. I have no idea why "shit" cannot be said on television, for example. I consider it simultaneous among the least severe, and least useful. Also ranked among the minor curse words for me are the two "b"s. The second tier for me includes "fuck," as well as any of the more vulgar references to reproductive anatomy (the "c"s, as it were). Taking the Lord's Name constitutes the top tier - I will not even here write them. Top of the top tier is g--d--- (I hate when people do that with spelling, but I know of no other way without breaking my own requirements). "Piss," which some people count as a curse word, I do not, putting it rather on par with "crap." They aren't elevated language, but neither are they truly swearing.
This leaves what I refer to as "the floaters": Hell and Damn. When I think about them, I consider them practically top tier, insofar as they have theological implications. However, when I swear myself, I use them with bottom tier frequency. What I've ultimately concluded is that to use them literally as curses is inappropriate on the grounds of the Biblical command not to curse (which refers to casting curses, not just vulgar language). Using them as non-curse swearing is acceptable however. Thus "what the hell?" and "dammit" are acceptable, while "go to hell" and "damn you" are not.
Why do I not just say "no swearing at all"? Simple: I do not believe there is any reason for such an assertion. The Bible itself contains words and phrases which were culturally as inappropriate as what we today consider inappropriate. There are verses about letting no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but if this were genuinely a sinful act, then the Bible would not have used such culturally sensitive language. Thus, either that is a piece of advice not bearing the weight of a command or it has some other meaning. I confess I have not looked closely into it. Perhaps someday I will and I will stop swearing altogether. I will say that those who can say what they want without swearing are better off than those of us who swear, and I am working to become such a person. But I am not there, and I do not think it is a moral so much as intellectual and practical pursuit to strive to reach that point.
Okay, I'll admit it: I swear too much. Growing up, I didn't swear. And I don't mean I rarely swore, I mean that I never intentionally swore before I came to college. My freshman year, I had a roommate with a somewhat foul mouth who also liked to watch comedy central. Even more than public schooling, this whittled away at my resolve to keep my speech clean. So, despite the fact that in college I could be fined for swearing, I began my excursion into the vulgar my freshman year.
I will take a moment here to make a clarification. There is "swearing," "cursing," and "cussing." Outside this paragraph, unless otherwise specified, I am using the terms of "swearing" and "cursing" to refer to "cussing," that is, vulgar language. However, in actuality, swearing refers to taking oaths, and cursing refers to putting a curse on someone. Both of these are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Many misinterpretations of scripture come from people applying the "cussing" definition to swearing and/or cursing. I hate the equivocation, and would not use these words for this purpose, except that I hate the word "cussing" even more, and I am too impatient to say "vulgar language" in every instance.
My language freshman year was therefore worse than it had been in my entire life, but still fairly tame. The words left a strange taste in my mouth. It was unusual to me to think that I was using these words. On the whole, I kept it under wraps, in part because I was so new to the idea, and in part because few of my friends swore. However, my friend group shifted sophomore year, and I developed a mouth like a sailor, which I have kept to the present date. I have tempered my language in the past school year, and I still hold my tongue around authority figures (more out of respect for their authority than for fear of reprisal).
***Mature language begins below this line***
All of this, I tell you so that I can tell you what I think of swearing in general. I, like many people, rank 'bad words' in a hierarchy. I have a very different ranking from most, however. I have no idea why "shit" cannot be said on television, for example. I consider it simultaneous among the least severe, and least useful. Also ranked among the minor curse words for me are the two "b"s. The second tier for me includes "fuck," as well as any of the more vulgar references to reproductive anatomy (the "c"s, as it were). Taking the Lord's Name constitutes the top tier - I will not even here write them. Top of the top tier is g--d--- (I hate when people do that with spelling, but I know of no other way without breaking my own requirements). "Piss," which some people count as a curse word, I do not, putting it rather on par with "crap." They aren't elevated language, but neither are they truly swearing.
This leaves what I refer to as "the floaters": Hell and Damn. When I think about them, I consider them practically top tier, insofar as they have theological implications. However, when I swear myself, I use them with bottom tier frequency. What I've ultimately concluded is that to use them literally as curses is inappropriate on the grounds of the Biblical command not to curse (which refers to casting curses, not just vulgar language). Using them as non-curse swearing is acceptable however. Thus "what the hell?" and "dammit" are acceptable, while "go to hell" and "damn you" are not.
Why do I not just say "no swearing at all"? Simple: I do not believe there is any reason for such an assertion. The Bible itself contains words and phrases which were culturally as inappropriate as what we today consider inappropriate. There are verses about letting no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but if this were genuinely a sinful act, then the Bible would not have used such culturally sensitive language. Thus, either that is a piece of advice not bearing the weight of a command or it has some other meaning. I confess I have not looked closely into it. Perhaps someday I will and I will stop swearing altogether. I will say that those who can say what they want without swearing are better off than those of us who swear, and I am working to become such a person. But I am not there, and I do not think it is a moral so much as intellectual and practical pursuit to strive to reach that point.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Heir of a Worldview
Do we inherit our views? Are we cursed to live as a sum of those individual views shared with us by those we come to know? Or is there some chance of something more? There are those who tell us that we would even inherit those views which we come upon on our own by means of experience: they become ours by mere endowment. This view disgusts me in the same way that I imagine most people must be revolted by the idea of living without free will - it is not that I have any evidence against it, I simply find the idea abhorrent (As a side note, I do not have this issue with lacking free will: I believe we have it, but would be totally fine if we did not).
The problem is, the idea of inheritance to me implies that it belongs rightly to someone other than myself. For all my love of heritage and legacy, I could not bear to think I had nothing but these. Rather, I would say that we sometimes (I would not dare say how often) do not simply pick up the ideas of those around us. Instead, we observe many ideas, decide on the one that seems truest, and claim it for ourselves. We might even need to wrestle the idea into submission, making them surrender to our other views and adapt as necessary. In this way, cannot our views be truly our own?
The problem is, the idea of inheritance to me implies that it belongs rightly to someone other than myself. For all my love of heritage and legacy, I could not bear to think I had nothing but these. Rather, I would say that we sometimes (I would not dare say how often) do not simply pick up the ideas of those around us. Instead, we observe many ideas, decide on the one that seems truest, and claim it for ourselves. We might even need to wrestle the idea into submission, making them surrender to our other views and adapt as necessary. In this way, cannot our views be truly our own?
Friday, January 30, 2009
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Who knows you better, you or your friends?
I've been thinking about this a good bit lately. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with two friends who seem to have a much higher view of me than I have of myself. Another friend has constantly been telling me I appraise myself wrongly (not just in one respect - pretty much every time I describe myself, he tells me that no, I'm another way).
The question was first: do my friends know me better than I know myself? But this question is too self-absorbed, too narrow, and hardly inspires genuine thought. So I widened it. For people in general (including you, dear reader) who knows someone better, the person himself, or his friends? I'd like to believe I know myself better, but acknowledge there are at least some ways in which I know virtually nothing about myself that others seem to understand quite well.
The question then becomes: if someone else knows you better than yourself, how do you come to understand yourself as well as they do?
I've been thinking about this a good bit lately. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with two friends who seem to have a much higher view of me than I have of myself. Another friend has constantly been telling me I appraise myself wrongly (not just in one respect - pretty much every time I describe myself, he tells me that no, I'm another way).
The question was first: do my friends know me better than I know myself? But this question is too self-absorbed, too narrow, and hardly inspires genuine thought. So I widened it. For people in general (including you, dear reader) who knows someone better, the person himself, or his friends? I'd like to believe I know myself better, but acknowledge there are at least some ways in which I know virtually nothing about myself that others seem to understand quite well.
The question then becomes: if someone else knows you better than yourself, how do you come to understand yourself as well as they do?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
I Have Been Wrong
This semester, I am taking Author Studies: Lewis and Tolkien, and am as a result re-reading The Magician's Nephew. This has led me to... discuss... rather thoroughly, how the correct order in which to read the books is in the order they were published, both because that was the order in which they were written and for various other reasons. However, I could not remember the correct order except that it began with The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, and ended with The Last Battle, so I decided to search online. I received quite a shock when I read a letter Tolkien wrote to a young fan named Laurence (From C.S. Lewis's Letters to Children here, page 68). In it, he explains that he personally prefers the chronological order over the publishing order, and had no plan for revealing in any particular order. Thus, while I still prefer the original order and the effect it has on the reader, the chronological order is clearly the correct order. I was wrong. As such, I must make an effort now to argue just as heartily for the correct correct order just as fervently as I previously argued for what I had presumed was the correct order before, or admit myself to be a hypocrite. The only temperance I will put on this is that I must admit I still prefer the publishing order.
On another note altogether, I had forgotten how beautiful Lewis's writing is. I was moved nearly to tears by his account of the creation of Narnia.
On another note altogether, I had forgotten how beautiful Lewis's writing is. I was moved nearly to tears by his account of the creation of Narnia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)