NE WS
THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN
The road was made SENIOR COLUMN BY ERNEST OWENS
L
ike most of my high school literature, I re member reading something profound from some old prestigious white man. This time it was Robert Frost. He spoke of t wo roads ( S P OI L E R A L E R T : t h e road not taken and the one most people took) and while many tried to convince me that those were the only two directions in life … I disagreed. There was a third road, and the four years I have spent at Penn allowed me to discover it. It was the road that was made. From freshman year till now, I have been fortunate and ever so pleased to be given the chance to inspire, enlighten, humor and, more often than not, piss off my fellow peers. But I wouldn’t have preferred it otherwise. After a failed attempt at being a typical pre-law undergrad at a very pre-professional university, I decided there had to be another way. WQHS Radio was that gateway, and as I went on the air speaking my mind and telling my truth, someone told me something I would never forget. It was a Penn alum and former The Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, Cornelius Range, a 2012 College graduate, who told me: “If you write about the things you talk about, you would do some amazing things.” And so I did. My first major gig was being a weekly columnist for the DP. For three semesters and 36 columns, I talked about student government hazing, my swiping thousands of people into dining halls (to which some of you are still not over, sorry), affirmative action and everything pertaining to campus life that you could possibly imagine. The Ernest Opinion was a column about my way of weighing in on issues of relevance to the Penn community. And your opinions, whether supportive or the most malicious of all time, were motivating. Because for the first time in my life I realized how powerful words were and how much of an impact one person could make in the lives of others. Since my departure from collegiate journalism, my he a r t for t he gen r e has shaped the way I express larger issues. The DP gave me the opportunity to have a voice to an audience of thousands. Today, that voice is shared around the world. During my junior year at Penn, I forged a friendship
and mentorship with a woman whose last name you all probably see daily on your Facebook newsfeed: Huffington. Yes, Arianna Huffington is a mentor of mine and gave me the opportunity of a lifetime over a year ago by giving me a personal account to blog whenever I like for The Huffington Post. Over 40 published posts later, I am still remembering a piece of advice she told me when I first met her at Penn. “Never grow a thick skin for people or things, always be permeable.” Thick skin, as she described it, would always block you from taking in the good when trying to protect yourself against the bad. Being permeable allows you to take in the good while letting the negativity flow in and out and not stay pent up against you like thick skin would allow.
‘‘
There is not just the road not taken and the one everyone takes, but also the one you should make for yourself.”
I may not ever be into dermatolog y as much as her, but the metaphor made me realize how I plan to forever live my life: fearlessly. With a permeable sense of being, I do not have a fear of the unknown, rejections and possible failures because those things will come and go. As Quakers, we oftentimes let ourselves be our own walls, blocking us from taking the road we are destined to make. For in my life, I have realized that everything is not black-and-white. There is a gray. Everything at Penn is not just bad or good, but can sometimes be in-between. And there is not just the road not taken and the one everyone takes, but also the one you should make for yourself. Because life has numerous paths, and we should be damn tired of having our destinations be so narrow that we limit ourselves by trying to fit in. If there is anything anyone can learn from my journey, it is that I preferred making my own way regardless of the pressures to conform. ERNEST OWENS is a College senior studying communications. His email address is owense@ sas.upenn.edu.
SIYUAN CAO is a College senior from Bronx, N.Y. Her emaill address caos@sas.upenn.edu.
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014 PAGE 5
On drinking hemlock
THE QUAKING POINT | When it comes to studying the humanities, you’ve Goethe stick to your guns
T
he f o l l o w i n g is an unapologetic defense of my liberal arts education. This is the most publicity my philosophy career will likely ever receive; with two weeks left as an undergraduate, I feel compelled to speak the truth. When I was young — young enough to feed peanuts to a VCR because “it looked hungry” — I had a pretty ambitious take on the way things were. Life was about asking questions and looking for solutions. The world and all its contents were a large and exciting puzzle. It was around that time that I first heard about philosophy, which, I thought, must be the study of dental hygiene. As I got older, I realized that “flossophy” might be slightly more interesting, albeit less practical. By the time college applications rolled in, I had concluded that studying the Big Questions would be a wise way through the traditional liberal arts education. The public has been distrustful of philosophers since the dawn of Western civilization. Socrates was put on trial for heresy against the state, during which he delivered his famous Apology for philosophical thought. Socrates had it easy, though — all he had to do was drink hemlock. He never had to explain himself to a room full of Whartonites. At least the Athenians had cultural
taste. As for modern times, it would appear that the unempirical has come under attack across American campuses. Philosophy majors are the butt of many a joke about fast food employment. Sadly, even Thought Catalog published an attack on the humanities that was as pitiful as it was bombastic. (To the haters: Make sure you know how to spell Immanuel Kant’s name before throwing him under the bus.)
when I stumbled across an essay by Heidegger called “What is a Thing?” I Kant even. No — as a Penn student, the most valuable thing that being a philosophy and history major has taught me isn’t abstract reasoning, close analysis or being well-read, but shameless conviction. It’s about figuring out what you’re interested in and standing up for it, even in the face of ridicule from your peers and the reproach of your
‘‘
Naysayers spend their lives in fear of idols; we’re the ones who smash them. Everyone uses their intellect like a hammer, smashing away at their hobbies and trades to craft something meaningful. We’re in the business of building better hammers.” To be honest, they might have a point. Physics and math majors are prime for logical reasoning. You can get access to the big questions in business ethics — even if that is an oxymoron. If you want a college experience full of meaning and personal fulfillment, be a nurse (apparently they’re not bad at writing, either). Even I think philosophy is a bit ridiculous. There is a public perception (read: resentment) of philosophy as being needlessly impractical, and it’s hard to blame them. I knew I was fighting a losing battle
parents. The barbarians are still at the gates, but these days, they’ve traded satchels for suits and spears for business cards. And all jokes aside, the humanities really are valuable in their own respect. Science can teach you how to bring back the dinosaurs; the humanities can teach you why that might not be a great idea. Having a soul doesn’t hurt, either. The most valuable aspect of philosophy is questioning everything. The ridicule of our peers only fuels our intellectual anger. Be it arguing vehemently in
JONATHAN IWRY class or debating the meaning of art on College Green, humanities teach the value of asking good questions. Those glossy college brochures actually managed to get something right. We don’t owe the finance majors an explanation, least of all an apology. The jokes are getting old. Stop judging us by your standards — the value we create isn’t liquef iable. Naysayers spend their lives in fear of idols; we’re the ones who smash them. Everyone uses their intellect like a hammer, smashing away at their hobbies and trades to craft something meaningful. We’re in the business of building better hammers. My thesis advisor once told me that according to Wittgenstein, good philosophy is about riding a bicycle as slowly as possible without falling over. The work of the humanities is both a skill and an art, and there is indeed a place for it on the modern college campus. Doing it well, however, requires persistence and resolve — not to mention good balance. JONATHAN IWRY is a College senior studying philosophy from Bethesda, Md. His last name is pronounced “eevree.” His email address is joniwry@gmail.com.
Moving beyond recommendations and dinner table taboos GUEST COLUMN BY PRISM AND THE POLITICAL COALITION
R
el ig io n a nd p ol it ics a r e two topics that you a r e n’ t s u p posed to speak about at the dinner table, but at a university like Penn, student groups shouldn’t be confined by dining-room etiquette. I nstead , the Penn we all read about in brochures is one that cares about intellectual debate and the full expression of its student groups. As the leaders of Prog rams in R elig ion, Interfaith and Spirituality Matters and the Penn Political Coalition, our constituent groups have long struggled with expressing themselves on campus. As a non-religiously affiliated university, we walk a fine line on funding religious and spiritual expression. As a non-profit, the university is limited in the extent to which it can fund and allow political expression on campus. We understand these concerns, but we strongly believe that the University can do more to foster open discussion of all identities and affiliations on campus. With this in mind, we were quite happy with the recommendations given to the administration by two of its University Council committees: the Committee on Diversity and Equity and the Committee on Campus and Community Life. But we worry about the speed or drive that the administration will actu-
ally bring to making these recommendations more than just reports submitted at the end of the year. First, the Committee on
‘‘
We’re now asking the administration to take the step beyond committees and follow up on these recommendations.” Diversity and Equity discussed the fact that most faith groups get no funding outside of a funding source est abl ished by PR ISM called the Faith Fund. This f und covers more than 42 groups but only has $10,000. In the past year we received requests that amounted to $65,000 for our $10,000 fund. Because of this, we were quite happy to hear that one of the recommendations that the Committee on Diversity and Equity made was to “increase the yearly allocation to the Faith Fund from $10,000 to $40,000 to ensure that the diversity of faith communities on campus … is adequately supported.” This suggested level of funding would ensure that groups that focus on discussions of faith, spirituality and religion, as well as
those dedicated to debates about religiosity, could be funded in a way that would allow students to truly express their diverse affiliations as well as alleviate our groups’ dependencies on a lter native f und ing sources. Second, the Committee on Campus and Community Life discussed political discourse on campus and support for local and national civic engagement. PoCo and our constituent groups run into numerous issues regarding rules, sometimes interpreted inconsistently, that prohibit partisan activities from being supported by university funds or resources. Given this, political groups receive substantially less funding than many other groups on campus, and vastly less than similar groups at peer institutions, usually only being given the cost to print flyers and nothing more. Because of this, the costs of bringing some of the brightest and best talent and speakers to campus are prohibitive. To make up for this, PoCo established our Synergy Committee, but for the nineteen groups on campus, there is only $7,500 available. This needs to be expanded upon, as the committee recommended. Additionally, many rules are attached, including the fact that anything funded must be non-campaign, pr oh ibit i ng mo st c a n didates from coming to campus. Furthermore, we
agree with the committee that “defining banned political activity instead of permitted activity may have a chilling ef fect” rather than expanding discourse on campus, a goal of President Gutmann and other administrators. As stated before, we’re quite pleased w ith the work that the two University Council committees have done and the recommendations they’ve made. Beyond that, we’re thankful. But we do have strong concerns that the follow-up on these recommendations may not happen, as these a r e r e c o m me nd at io n s and not administrative action. This is not something unique to our two groups, as many students have been disappointed by what is often seen as minimal follow up from the administration on promises they make to students. We’re writing this column because of that fear. We strongly believe in the work that our boards, our constituents and these two committees have done in increasing expression on campus, but we’re now asking the administration to take the step beyond committees and follow up on these recommendations in order to make Penn a bit more like the brochures. POLITICAL COALITION AND PRISM are chaired by Anthony Cruz and Varun Anand, and Shira Papir and Josh Chilcote, respectively.