The Hillsdale Forum December 2012 by Dale Form

The Bible and the Liberal Arts P3 - Women with beards P7 Conservatives and Autocracy p9 - Larry P. Arnn goes to outer space! p9

the hillsdale forum December 2012

h o ting t r ugh t r o h s e

rb ga

ag e s ince 2003

CONTENTS VOLUME XIII, ISSUE III, DECEMBER 2012

Conservative Features 3 A Biblical Critique of the Liberal Arts by Rachael Wierenga

STAFF

As her time at Hillsdale comes to a close, a former editor-in-chief reflects on faith, philosophy, and the liberal arts.

Editor-in-Chief Wes Wright

The written word was once highly prized and expensive. The printing press made literature easier to come by, but Al Gore’s invention of the internet degraded the quality of written discourse. Eatough writes about our virtual travails and how we might be able to solve them.

STAFF WRITERS Spencer Amaral Mike Giles Sam Ryskamp Corrie Beth Hendon James Inwood Savannah Tibbetts

5 Medium and Message by Caleb Eatough

7 Point/Counterpoint: Women & No-Shave November Wright weighs in on why women should be allowed to seek knowledge of Truth and Beauty by participating in No-Shave November, while McCaffery contends that the month is a manly ritual and, as such, women should not be involved. 8 Hillsdale: We’re The People by Sam Ryskamp Students often disparage Hillsdale, Michigan, but the community is vital to Hillsdale College. Ryskamp reminds us that we need to descend from our ivory tower and treat “townies” as people. 9 Autocracy Now by James Inwood

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Corrie Beth Hendon

11 The Final Frontier: Science Fiction by Devin Creed

EDITORS Mike Giles Matt O’Sullivan Chelsey Schmid

Campus Features

PHOTOGRAPHERS Laurie Barnes Shaun Lichti Caroline Green

Inwood argues that the true conservative government is autocratic, not democratic.

America has not sent a man to the moon since 1972. Creed argues that the space race was just a Cold War gimmick and tells us why lessened enthusiasm for space exploration is a good thing.

13 Professor’s iPod by Anna Shoffner

All your quintessential college moments, set to music. Professor Cole shares his Hillsdale soundtrack.

HEAD DESIGNER Lauren Wierenga

If you think Hillsdale is awesome now, soon it will be out of this world. 15 Campus Smackdown: Public School vs. Homeschool by Sam Ryskamp Hillsdale students explain why they either (a) know absolutely nothing or (b) have no social skills.

DESIGN AND LAYOUT Nathan Wilson Dan “Mowgli” Mummau

McClatchey discusses Benh Zeitlin’s short film about post-Katrina New Orleans. It is a raw, emotional, and rather damp film.

BUSINESS MANAGER Ryne Bessemer

14 The Kirby Center Mk II by Charles Fry

17 Glory at Sea: A Review by Forester McClatchey

21 Alumni.... Where are they now? by Corrie Beth Hendon

Diana Higbee ’96 lives in France and sings opera around the world.

22 Spotlight on Dancers by Wes Wright

Hillsdale College is full of dancers. Three of the best – a swing doll, a Tower star, and a ballroom gentleman – discuss dance and the liberal arts.

ADVERTISEMENT MANAGER Nate McBride

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR When SkyBlu of party-rocking duo LMFAO sings, “I feel like I’ve just seen the sun for the first time / You make my life bright ‘cause you shine,” he is trying to describe the way a girl makes him feel, not make an argument about rhetoric in the modern world. Though his lyrics are not intended to inspire philosophical discussion, his use of the phrase “I feel like” brings up an interesting point about how the use of words changes over time. SkyBlu uses “I feel like” in the proper manner, describing his emotion through the use of simile. Unfortunately, people misuse this phrase all too often, sheltering shallow thought behind unclear dialogue. It is frequently used before opinions or guesses, when “I think” or “I have a hunch” would be more accurate. Now, this isn’t just Wes Wright the Grammar Nazi kicking down doors and knocking people commatose; misuse of “I feel like” has major societal implications. When “I feel like” is used to describe thought, it indicates that the speaker has visceral reactions to everything, instead of using coherent logic to come to conclusions. The problem with this phraseology is that though such gut feelings are less argumentatively sound than reasoned claims, feelings are deeply personal. To disagree with someone who “feels like” something is unjust is as difficult as telling someone that they are not angry. As abuse of the phrase spreads throughout society, reasoned discussion will meet an untimely end: two men with different feelings can assume that both are right, but two men with different opinions will debate and discuss, seeking the Truth of the matter. Relying on visceral feeling to come to ethical conclusions is one cause of the moral subjectivism bemoaned by conservatives. Indeed, proper use of “I think” or “I believe” forces one to examine one’s opinions and learn to explain

them to others. The marked difference between the effects of “I feel like” and its more accurate relatives indicates the existence of a hierarchy of knowledge. At its base is apathy, not caring about the issue. Visceral reaction falls into the next category, dependence. When one has faith that some source of authority or feeling is correct, one can act on the issue, but not effectively discuss it. The highest tier is understanding, in which one can make the arguments for or against the issue, both for oneself or others. Reasoned discussion and pursuit of Truth can only occur once this stage is attained. The ability to explain one’s beliefs to others is crucial to achieving understanding. Rhetoric and argumentation are major aspects of this ability; part of The Forum’s mission is to provide a welcoming environment in which students can develop these talents and move to higher levels of knowledge. This magazine is a place to test out ideas, to discuss, and to learn. James Inwood’s piece defending autocracy is a prime example. It is also a place to share Knowledge that one has gained: Sam Ryskamp’s article contains his insight into how Hillsdale students should interact with the town. Reading this magazine should help move one to higher orders of knowledge, but writing for it is still more effective. The Forum is always looking for people to write, as well as photographers and layout designers to make the pursuit of Truth somewhat enjoyable. I feel like – no, I think – that it is a great opportunity to gain practical experience and boost one’s résumé. We hope to publish two more issues next semester. Please join us. We The Forum – that’s the crew that I’m reppin’ / On the rise to the top, no lead in our zeppelin. Hey!

WES WRIGHT

MISSION STATEMENT

CORRECTIONS

The Hillsdale Forum is an independent, student-run Conservative magazine at Hillsdale College. The Forum, in support of the mission statement of Hillsdale College, exists to promote a return to limited government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We publish Conservative opinion, editorials, and campus news. The Forum is a vehicle to bring the discussion and thought of the intelligent students and professors at the heart of the Conservative movement beyond the classroom and beyond Hillsdale’s campus.

We at The Hillsdale Forum would like to apologize for neglecting to mention our generous sponsor, The Collegiate Network, in our last issue. We offer double the thanks this time.

A biblical Critique of the Liberal Arts

any Christians on Hillsdale’s campus say that their studies here have deepened their faith and their understanding of God. Such a statement implies that a liberal arts education and the Christian faith fit together neatly and work together for common ends. Unfortunately, this complimentary relationship between the liberal arts and Christianity is too readily assumed. Three years of reflection on my Hillsdale experience has convinced me that the biblical account should ground, counterbalance, inform, and correct the habits of thinking acquire during their education at Hillsdale. Students should temper their studies with the Bible’s account of the differences between human wisdom and that of God. Indeed, human wisdom can be hostile to, inferior to, or dangerously heretical to God’s wisdom. First Corinthians suggests that human wisdom is hostile to or opposes God’s wisdom. In the first three chapters, Paul says that Christ is God’s wisdom and righteousness, and the message of the cross is the wisdom and power of God. Yet the world crucified Christ when He came; the world rejected the message of the cross. The antagonistic relationship between divine and human wisdom is clear. Christ, the wisdom and power of God, was rejected and crucified by men, and the message of the cross, the power and wisdom of God, is rejected by men. Corinthians 1-3 shows the hostile relationship between divine and human wisdom in many ways. For example, Paul argues that society calls wise are not truly so, nor are the things the world esteems truly wise. He makes a shocking statement: “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God…therefore let no one boast in men” (3:18-23). These chapters also reveal that God does not like the pride and glory of human wisdom: he intentionally chose a way for man to reconcile with him that brings wise, mighty men to nothing and despised, foolish men to glory. Paul clearly emphasizes the irrational nature of belief in the word of the cross: “For it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save

By: Rachael Wierenga

those who believe” (1:21). God wants belief, not rational, prudent acceptance; the foolish message will save those who believe. Liberal arts education develops a habit of reverence for human wisdom and the things of the world. The habit of weighing good and evil, seeking the good life, and examining moral principles creates a life of reason, not faith. Veneration of the mind over the Word of God is problematic in light of Corinthians’ depiction of the incompatible relationship between divine and human wisdom. A liberal arts education is the study of things of the world, seeking wisdom from the record of human thought and history. 1 John 2:15 and James 4:4 suggest that there is a fundamental difference between the things of the world and the things of God, so one cannot simultaneously love them both. Is it not possible that seeking the world’s wisdom could make one more likely to reject God? If God dislikes the pride in human wisdom and chooses things that man does not so no one glories in men, should that not inform the study of human wisdom and society’s opinion thereof? While Corinthians portrayed a relationship of hostility, the book of Colossians describes the inferiority of human wisdom. In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul calls all philosophies and human doctrines that do not center on Christ “empty deceit,” and “persuasive words” that are “of no value,” inferior to “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” that alone are found in knowing God and Christ. He does not argue that human philosophies are wicked or hostile to truth; Rather, he says that they are imperfect in that they are less than Christ. They cannot yield the same understanding as Christ and the gospel. Colossians 2:2-10 is a critical. Paul writes, “Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (2:8-10). Paul rejects any doctrine and knowledge that does not center on Christ. Persuasive words, philosophy, and empty deceit are “not according to Christ”; rather, they

are “according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world.” Paul’s critique of human wisdom elucidates the difference between the lesser and the greater. Accordingly, he exposes two main types of human wisdom as less and imperfect. Because power and principality, rule and authority, life and death are all beneath Christ, any philosophy founded on the world’s basic principles is less, is weak. In his death and resurrection, Christ triumphed over all worldly power, so study of anything less than Christ is inessential. Paul also rejects philosophy based on the tradition of men. This type of study only produces “regulations… [that] have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and asceticism, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (2:2023). The regulations have no value; they can only limit or contain the indulgence of the flesh. Christ puts such indulgence to death. Paul then contrasts these lesser, imperfect species of human wisdom with the wisdom is knowledge of Christ. He preaches Christ and “teaches every man in all wisdom” that every man can be presented “perfect in Christ Jesus” (1:28). Perfect accords with the other words Paul uses to describe Christ and the message of the gospel: “full, complete, and all.” When he contrasts the gospel with philosophy, it is a comparison of shadow to body, abstract imaginings within the mind to physical Head, appearance to reality. Everything that Christ is, philosophy is not. Philosophies based upon commandments of men or the basic principles of the world are not full, all, or complete. They are, in fact, the exact opposite: “empty deceit” and “of no value”. The liberal arts centers on the study of the same philosophies and human doctrines that Colossians describes as inferior. Paul does not revere the philosophic enterprise: philosophy puffs up one’s fleshly mind with supposedly profound imaginings that are, in reality, centered on rudimentary, immature principles that Christ has triumphed over and put to shame. Philosophy produces ascetic regulations limiting the indulgence of the flesh that are actually ineffective and useless. Much principles studied at Hillsdale fit this description: rule, authority, and ascetic-regulations doctrines designed to promote virtue and limit vice. This is not to say that there is no value to studying human wisdom. However, the knowledge that all human wisdom and philosophy is imperfect and that something greater, higher, better, and more perfect exists ought to ground the studies of Hillsdale students. Believers should “seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.”

If Colossians merely calls human wisdom inferior to Christ, many other passages in the New Testament warn that it is outright dangerous to believers. First, John 5:19 claims that Satan has charge of the whole world and non-believers are under his sway. Ephesians 2:2-3 and 6:12 remind believers that “the prince of the power of the air” and “the spirit who works in the sons of disobedience” rules “the course of this world”: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” The New Testament abounds with warnings about false teachers and their secret, destructive heresies. Many of Paul’s letters are written to churches that had adopted the heresies of false teachers. A liberal arts education does not consider the danger of false doctrines and philosophy; rather, it calls deep study of these subjects good. Can we really assume that it is not problematic or dangerous to read the words of unregenerate pagans who, according to 1 John, are under the sway of the devil? Heresies are doctrines that contain half-truths. They may be perversions of truth, not obvious lies. Indeed, most untruths are subtle: Satan himself is a beautiful angel of light. Spiritual forces and the false teachers they manipulate often pull men away from belief in God by offering a subtly wrong idea of Him. Study of human ideas of justice, goodness, and truth can result in mistaken acceptance and perpetuation of clever untruths. Heretical human notions of justice may well cause one to reject God’s justice and choose Hell, God’s ultimate mercy. Hillsdale is devoted to the liberal arts; critiques of the liberal arts are almost entirely absent. Most students implicitly accept that there are no serious downsides to a liberal arts education. If students are not aware that human wisdom can be less than, heretical to, or in contradiction with God’s wisdom, they may not realize the need for the higher and more perfect truth that exists in the Bible’s account of the person and work of Jesus Christ. They might mistake the good for the best. While we should not completely discount the study of human wisdom, it is only the good, not the best.

Rachael Wierenga is a Senior studying English. 4

Medium And Message by:

Caleb Eatough

Separated and alone. The only company, the whisper of one’s thoughts. No images flashing before the eyes, no music dancing inside the brain. The only source of knowledge contained in words on the dusty pages of an old, battered book. The rustle and sway of the habit as the scribe copied word by painstaking word. Such was the beginning of widespread rational discourse on the nature of God and man. There is a gap between the kind of reading one does today and the reading in centuries past. Information, once so hard to come by, has become instantly accessible. Once so precious, it now overwhelms, cascading where it once trickled. The change in medium from books to the Internet has changed the way one receives the information, and culture has changed as a result. Why does one read Plato, instead of listening to him aloud or watching him on C-SPAN? There is no interactive content in a book, just the reader and author. The internet, on the other hand, is full of pictures, videos, words, and games. Thousands of distractions—Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube—beg for the last vestiges of the modern attention span. If something doesn’t catch the consumer’s attention within a few seconds, he moves on to something that will. This is the “sound-byte” phenomenon. The internet condenses everything into an easily digestible pieces—shallow thoughts at best. Where St. Augustine plumbed deep waters, the internet rests on the surface and then flits away. These shallow statements often take the form of memes, humorous snap statements with minimal thought content. Consider Godwin’s Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%. Not exactly the kind of environment that encourages deep discussion. Wikipedia is another good example. It is an encyclopedia, but any page is editable, be it by expert or Scumbag Steve. Subject to public opinions and biases, it is more a reflection of what the world thinks

about a topic than what experts do. While its makers strive to keep the website as informative as possible, Wikipedia is subject to the very culture it contributes to. Unfortunately, “The Free Encyclopedia” has replaced primary sources as the basis of knowledge, populating the internet with pseudo-intellectuals who think they know everything about a subject. The internet is both anonymous and public. The way a person presents himself on the Internet is malleable, meant for entertainment rather than strictly accurate representation. A Facebook status is for others; a diary is for oneself. Some dishonesty is involved, both of others and of self. The internet: Where men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents. Why would one want to break the carefully crafted façade of vanity and pride to debate the deep questions? On Facebook, the sole motive for posting something is for others to see it, changing one’s public face even while away from the computer. Coupled with the sound-byte phenomenon, one’s identity shrinks down into what one can say in a sentence. It is a constant thirst for attention rather than genuine personality. Facebook is a public diary. Those who do not want their self-image tarnished edit what they post; embarrassing photos will haunt the less discriminating for decades. Good and bad consequences abound. Facebook is the greatest source of public personal information ever compiled, and it is accessible to everyone. The internet is harmless taken in small doses. No

one can deny it has been a boon to civilization. Like another great invention, the wheel, it has greatly changed human culture and environment. But a wheel is a wheel. No one spends hours looking at a wheel. Why do people dedicate their lives to the latest Kardashian scandal with Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics a fingertip away? The Internet is a tool, but it is a tool that shapes the user in its use. When one immerses oneself in this culture, it changes the way one thinks, just as books

poor, foolish masses. Their arguments end with either a meme or Godwin’s Law, not a rational synthesis of ideas. Hope remains, despite this massacre of thought. The solutions are simple, but difficult to implement. When dependence on the internet becomes mere convenience, half the battle has been won. Abstinence brings rationality; the antithesis of instant gratification. Weaning oneself from the magic box yields perspective. White noise becomes silence, which gives way to the music of thought.

“The Internet is a tool, but it is a tool that shapes the user in its use.” have done for centuries. The medium affects the message. Reading a book, be it Plato or Seuss, one must engage meaningfully with the text. The author encourages the reader to ruminate about what is written. The Internet is an endless cascade of information that can only be sampled with indiscriminate sweeps. Readers can stop and think, seeking beauty in nuance. The Internet is no vessel of beauty. It is mere argument, not debate. People, instead of enlightening themselves, lord their pseudo-intellectualism over the

Educating children away from dependence is the other half. Children must read, play, and think without distraction; learning the beauty of nature and solitude so they can be their own people, instead of what others want them to be. When they can think for themselves, then they will be ready to combat Godwin’s Law. The internet is an expedient—truth is truth, no matter the medium—but medium affects message, and the web will never replace the book. If people treat it as they ought, it may someday become as beautiful as the printed word.

Caleb Eatough is a Freshman struggling valiantly to finish the core.

counterPoint- Chris McCaffery

Illustration by Greg Carlson

No Shave November- an analysis

Point- Wes Wright

The growing of magnificent facial hair is an art. Men have sought hirsute glory for millennia, both as a sign of manliness and to win the hearts of ladies. Unfortunately, what was once a rite of passage has fallen out of favor, replaced by urbane, clean-shaven men with Photoshop abs. One month out of the year, college men reject this trend in that fabled event: No-Shave November. This tradition should not be limited to men, however; women should also be allowed to pursue knowledge of Truth and Beauty. Plato and his beard discussed the difference between art and the noble art. An art or craft can be anything from taco-making to music; what makes an art noble is that it is done with intent to pursue knowledge of Form. Sculpting facial hair into manly sideburns, gravity-defying moustaches, and billowing beards can be a noble art if it is pursued with intent to better understand Beauty. The goal of No-Shave November cannot be the pursuit of knowledge of Beauty, however, for it culminates in wild tangles of rather gross hair instead of stylish mustachios. Though it has this defect, No-Shave November can be a noble art if it pursues modesty –and through that, Beauty. One is modest when one minimizes individual success, talent, or beauty. Modesty is chivalric; it is the realization that though circumstance may temporarily distinguish individuals, all men are created equal and should be treated as such. Further, it is the understanding that beauty of character is greater than evanescent reputation or appearance. Rampant facial or leg hair conceals one’s physical beauty in the same manner as modesty of dress, forcing society to look beyond external appearance to focus on qualities of the soul. The modern media lambastes society with its conception of bodily perfection. No-Shave November is a noble pursuit because it allows one to seek knowledge of deeper Beauty. Because both genders are equally capable of not shaving, the tradition should not be limited to men alone. To restrict women from pursuing knowledge of the Form of Beauty in this manner is to reject the basis of the endeavor, for it implies that they are not worthy of noble, philosophical enquiry. That women must be allowed to participate is clear. Whether they should actually do so is another question entirely. Winter lasts most of the year at Hillsdale, so physical beauty is regularly concealed by bulky coats and lumpy snow gear. Ladies, while you can participate in No-Shave November, you do not need to be as furry as a hare to join in its celebration of modesty –dressing warmly will suffice. Ultimately, neither gender should be harried for not shaving during the eleventh month, but you need not feel gross for others to look at your personality. Just wear sweatpants once in a while.

For men at Hillsdale, November is a sacred time. They stride about campus, chins covered in stubble and necks partly cloudy with patchy beards. Some even manage to grow respectable moustaches or beards. No-shave November is a tradition beloved by young men. It gives them a common goal and a chance to grow out their facial hair in a socially-acceptable manner. It is also a distinctly male tradition: what do girls derive from participating? When men participate in No-Shave November or any of the other months of virile virtue (Augustache or Manuary, for example) they bond through common activity with their peers. For a whole month, they and their friends go around looking slightly ridiculous and uncouth, bucking social norms to emulate their bearded role-models. According to Victoria Sherrow’s Encyclopedia of Hair, the Ancient Greeks venerated facial hair, offering up the first growth on a young man to the gods. The Romans of the Republic continued this tradition, growing elaborate beards and linking shaving with femininity. In his Life of Antony, Plutarch praised Mark Antory because his “beard was well grown…giving him altogether a bold, masculine look.” The Encyclopedia notes that after 1900 shaving companies drove beards out of vogue. But fickle fashion should not keep men from their masculinity. Should girls be allowed to participate in No-shave November? When a woman decides not to shave, it’s not a public event; no one will look at a would-be female participant and think of her “femininity.” As Anthony Esolen noted in his lecture about education, boys and girls have different characters. When guys forgo shaving they invite social judgment, sacrificing a well-groomed appearance to participate in some harmless, masculine fun with their peers. This yearly ritual leaves an external mark that identifies them as participants; they can gladly say they are a part of No-shave November. Which of these benefits would a female participant gain? With women there is no social element and no corresponding feminine bonding, so the event cannot achieve its goal. No-Shave November would lose something if girls were allowed to participate. For them to be included, the very definition of the month would need to change. Without celebration of masculinity, what is left? Neglect of grooming is all that remains, and that is not worth celebrating. No, girls that want to take part in this peculiarly male celebration would be better served with something uniquely feminine, far be it from me to propose what 7 they might do.

t’s time for us Hillsdale College students to stop apologizing for our college town. We love to boast about Hillsdale College’s first-rate academics, excellent job placement, and award-winning conservative magazines, but we consider the town to have little value beyond being the punch line of our jokes. In fact, Hillsdale College students surveyed by the Princeton Review recently ranked our college town as one of the worst in America. Our displeasure with the town can border upon arrogance toward the townspeople, as evinced by the condescending moniker “townies.” We view ourselves apart from the townspeople, as if the town of Hillsdale is divided into two distinct parts: “the College” and “the community.” But a successful college requires a strong relationship with its hometown. If we want Hillsdale College to be the best it can be, we need to stop viewing the community of Hillsdale as an amusing assortment of backward country folk and view it as a genuine community, of which the College is but a part. A strong relationship with the community has been indispensable for the college since its establishment. In 1853, when Michigan Central College decided to leave Spring Arbor and look for a new home, it settled upon the growing settlement of Hillsdale, mostly because of the generosity of its citizens. The “townies” donated $15,000 dollars for the establishment of the college, without which it never would have survived. Then to bring in further funds, Ransom Dunn—the “Grand Old Man” of Hillsdale College and one of its first presidents—rode 6,000 miles across the frontier, raising donations from small-town farmers and villagers who believed in the mission of the college. The college owes its existence to the generosity of a community of low-income, rural people, just like the one we live in today. Hillsdale College has not outgrown the need for a supportive community. By nature, a college is a bubble. It’s an assemblage of like-minded 18-22-year-olds who study the same subjects, live in the same buildings, eat the same food, and enjoy the same recreational activities. There’s really only one place students can go to catch a glimpse of the world beyond the safely-crafted, picture-perfect bubble,

and that’s the town. Interaction with the community serves as a safeguard against the trap that has ensnared so many universities throughout the west: becoming so engrossed in the academic world that they lose their grip on reality. The town of Hillsdale is the window that lets us look out from our ivory towers and see the We think that being a part of a small community narrows our world, but in reality, it broadens it. A small town increases our opportunities to build lasting connections with people from the community and make a discernible impact personally. As Chesterton wrote, “The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world.” We pursue a world-class education not only for its own intrinsic worth but also to gain skills necessary to go out and enrich the world. A detached and aloof attitude will set us on the wrong track for our future lives as leaders of our respective communities. Do you want to be a doctor? Take a stroll downtown to meet some of your future patients. Do you want to be a politician? Next time you go to Wal-Mart, don’t look at the young man restocking shelves as a townie. Think of him as a constituent. Better still, think of him as a person. Townies are not empty “characters” whose telos is to be the object of our jokes. They are humans, rational creatures with eternal souls. They have jobs, families, taxes, bills, friends, struggles, dreams, and regrets. They are real people we can learn from, or, better yet, we can serve. We can’t allow ourselves to become so immersed in our quest to change the world that we forget about those living right next door. If Hillsdale College is a tree that bears the fruits of profitable study and service, then the town of Hillsdale is the soil that gives the college necessary direction and inspiration. Unfortunately, it’s so easy for us college students to treat the town as nothing more just dirt. But one time, 159 years ago, our tree was just a seed planted in that same dirt. The taller the tree grows, the more roots it must send down into the dirt. Let us be those roots; the study of the human condition should not be so introspective as to neglect the conditions of the humans in our own community.

Sam Ryskamp is a sophomore studying the liberal Arts

Autocracy Autocracy Now Now BY: JAMES INWOOD of the Founders, the idea runs contrary to the millennia of politics before the Declaration. What good is an invented axiom? Indeed, this assertion conflicts with more than tradition: it contradicts the government of the very cosmos. God rules the universe as its king; rule among men is justified by something other than popular consent. There are three possible theses for the justification of such government: the ‘What’, ‘How’, and ‘Who’ questions of the Lord’s universal government (‘Where’ and ‘When’ are inapplicable to deities). The ‘What’ argument notes that God rules perfectly. The ‘How’ argument contends that God respects human freedom in His rule, and so requires no consent. The ‘Who’ argument is that of Christian scripture: the Creator is sovereign. For government by imperfect man, authority is reduced to competence by the first argument, respect of liberty by the second, and the earthly extension of God’s work –justice– by the third. Conveniently, each of these options is satisfied under the name of “ruling well”. This principle relies on the regime’s members, for the wise and virtuous rule better than fools and fiends. A government’s composition depends on its number. As officials accumulate, the state adheres more to the citizenry, just as larger samples better represent a population. While narrower states like oligarchy or autocracy may vary from the whole, democracy must draw from the common. The average man is corrupt and foolish, so democracies feature the same attributes and officialdom must be narrowed. Republicans seek to solve this problem by “refining” the errant popular will through

“If a land is rebellious, its princes will be many; but with a prudent man it knows security.” Proverbs 28:2 A nation once elected a new, revolutionary government. Its promises were as extraordinary as its incompetence, and country descended into chaos. A military coup overthrew the republic and replaced it with a dictatorship. The new leader implemented a program of economic reform and refused to let revolutionaries threaten the peace. The nation grew more prosperous and free than any other in the region, but the people still hated the dictator for usurping the republic, eventually forcing him from office. Who was right? The despot who rejected populism, or the people who rejected despotism? This, by the way, is the story of Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile from 1974-1990 and a key U.S. ally in the Cold War. American conservatives are uncomfortable with autocracy. Our traditional government is a constitutional republic, and history has taught us to distrust kings and dictators. But is this fair? Parliament passed the Photo by Mary Harrsch infamous Intolerable Acts, not King George. Most of America’s foes have been popularly instituted or constitutional states. Further, the Western Tradition is one of monarchy, not American-style republicanism; the few classical experiments in popular rule ended terribly. The ages agree with Homer: “A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king.” The traditional is not necessarily just, however. Americans have held this axiom since the Revolution: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A “self-evident truth” only to contemporaries 9

representation and constitutional restrictions. But this offers only modest improvement; the people choose the lawmakers and the constitution depends on the good will of those it is supposed to bind. Still dominated by the masses, these governments necessarily fall into all the problems of democracy. This process can only be delayed when the republic is as undemocratic as possible. Autocracy, on the other hand, liberates the state from the masses and other impediments to good rule. An autocrat may be the best among men; democrats and republicans must be common. He may implement justice without the approval of interested parties. Institutions do not stall him when he pursues policy, so neither legislatures, courts, nor factions can prevent the autocrat from doing good. His firm hand – not a legion of committees – is the best guide to a well-regulated administration of the law. This same latitude can produce the worst regimes as well as the best, but history contains many possible solutions. For example, the dictator could impress an ideologically republican society into universal acclamation and utilize adoptive succession, like Augustus and the Five Good Emperors. A thoroughly indoctrinated guard, unlike the intrigue-prone Praetorians, may provide the answer to checking a fallen despot—since tyrannicide is sometimes virtuous. History lends credence to this theory; most renowned leaders were somewhat autocratic. Great kings, emperors, or even presidents, are typically men who bent the state to their will, imposing necessary reform or standing firm against encroachment. Though nominally “president”, they doubtless did more than preside, playing the autocrat despite their supposed republicanism. More concretely, “Four Tigers” of the Pacific demonstrate this principle. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore saw tremendous growth and modernization in the aftermath of the Second World War because their rulers imposed liberal taxation and free trade against the wishes of the people. Each saw massive and sustained

progress, the British governors even exceeding the prosperity of their proudly republican fatherland. In the Middle East, many Persian Gulf despots have encouraged free trade and virtually abolished taxation. As a result, their average incomes are often far greater than republican Israel, despite the latter’s educated workforce, tourism, and American aid. Although oil is indeed the key driver of their growth, the same is true of poverty-stricken Venezuela, whose left-wing republic has planned the nation out of prosperity. Even communists like Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia can make good dictators. After he seized power, experience convinced him that Bolshevism was deeply flawed, so he broke ties with the Soviet Union and launched a program of domestic reform. He granted greater civil and economic liberties than any other socialist government and opened Yugoslavia to international trade and migration. He only retained Marx’s internationalism to keep the bickering Balkans together. His death in 1980 left Yugoslavia to inept men who led the nation into internecine warfare. These examples and others demonstrate a classic truth of the Western tradition: autocracy works. While democracy and its republican cousin make the state a reflection of the passions and prejudices of the masses, autocracy permits great men to do justice and secure peace without having to appease the common man. Many of these examples are imperfect –avoiding tyranny remains the paramount concern– but such imperfections should not deter men from embracing the rule of the one, the best of governments.

James Inwood is a Junior studying the liberal arts 10

The Final Frontier: Science Fiction BY: DEVIN CREED Space has been hailed by many as mankindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final frontier. The phrase was popularized by the hit sci-fi television series Star Trek, in which a band of space travelers rove the galaxy looking for adventure. Years ago, our own planet was not completely discovered and adventurers would seek their fortunes by setting out into the unknown. In his essay â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Significance of the American Frontier in American History,â&#x20AC;? Frederick Jackson Turner explains how the western frontier was seminal in the development of American virtues like democracy and individualism. But does outer space play the role of the rugged frontier that Turner thought the West did? Turner argued that the frontier shaped the pioneers and forged an American identity distinct from the European ideal. The frontier required settlers to be enterprising. If they were not, they would not survive. It promoted fierce individualism that spit in the face of hierarchical social structures. This fierce individualism gave way to belief in the institution of democracy. Turner, alarmed by the closing of the frontier in 1890, thought that American culture would dry up without the source of its inspiration. Thankfully, Turner was wrong and American society continues to flourish, but there is no doubt that the frontier had a great impact on the American identity. Does outer space, the final frontier, have the same effect on the modern American identity? Far from it. In the 1960s, the space race occupied the attention of

leaders and citizens around the globe. Many saw it as an answer to possible overpopulation and resource scarcity problems. The fervor died, however, when the Soviet Union fell, proving that the space race was a proxy war, not a solution to a problem. The United States developed space exploration technology to appear superior to the Soviet Union. Space did not shape the United States during the space race, instead the American government fitted the space exploration story into its larger narrative of the Cold War. The final frontier was a means to an end, not a source of the distinctly American. The United States has not landed a man on the moon since 1972. Waning interest in space exploration and decreasing NASA budgets (as a percentage of total government expenditures) have removed the final frontier from the minds of Americans. The US government, the former catalyst for space exploration fervor, has chosen NASA as one of the first agencies to cut when fiscal times are tough. Mars expeditions are continually pushed to the distant future. Terrorism and the global financial crisis have captured the attention of Americans. Is this decreased interest in outer space a bad thing? Perhaps not. Space exploration inevitably leads to space colonization. Colonization is the reason many scientists and governments consider outer space programs. Much theorizing and experimenting has been done to determine which planets or moons could

be inhabitable with the right blend of natural resources and imported infrastructure. Scientists have hosts of ideas about specific colonization enterprises. Is space colonization a good end? In C.S. Lewisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space trilogy, the physicist Weston has grand ideas for space colonization. He invents a space ship and journeys to Mars and Venus to see if they are inhabitable. He wishes to wipe out any indigenous populations so that mankind can spread across the universe. Once earth

runs out of resources, mankind will need new planets to perpetuate the race. Weston conceives of Man as a whole and not as individual. He does not give a wit for persons, only caring for the race. When questioned about this inconsistency, he can only bluster on unintelligibly about the importance of humanity. Ultimately, any argument for colonization is fundamentally dehumanizing. Putting humanity above individual humans creates a situation in which individuals are not valued. When persons are not valued, society devolves into a selfish state. People no longer care for one another because they themselves do not matter. Government feels free to make draconian regulations if they will benefit humanity as a whole. There is no remorse when individuals are sacrificed for the greater good. Weston admits that he does not care if individual humans die in his mission to perpetuate the human race. In fact, he brings a hostage to Mars with him because he thinks he needs a sacrificial victim. When colonists are viewed as numbers in a calculation to determine the efficacy of long-term survival, dehumanization is clear. Outer space does is not the West of the future. There are no space cowboys. Space is less a frontier than a giant science experiment. Westward expansion must stop at the Pacific (okay, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll say Guam counts). If it turns into colonization of other planets for the preservation of the race, it loses its American basis and becomes dehumanizing. While outer space may be fascinating, it is not a wonderous final frontier for American settlers.

Devin Creed is a sophomore studying Economics and History.

Professors’

iPod By: Anna Shoffner

Professor Lee Cole is so hip his wife had to make him buy a dinosaur cell phone to keep with the times. But when Professor Cole isn’t discussing Aristotle or Kant he is listening to a fantastic assortment of so-off-the-mainstream-it-isn’t-even-funny rock music (like songs containing references to Kant). So Prof. Cole and The Forum got together and made a soundtrack for all the quintessentially Hillsdalian moments in every student’s life at the ‘Dale. This should help you get through these last few weeks of the semester. Enjoy.

For Monday: “Phase Dance,” Pat Metheny Group (from Pat Metheny Group) For Wednesday: “Running up that Hill,” Kate Bush (Hounds of Love) For Friday: “Red Sails,” David Bowie (Lodger) For Sunday (better known as “Semi-Formal Homework Day”): “Psalm,” Roxy Music (Stranded) Rhetoric and the Great Books: “Supper’s Ready,” Genesis (Foxtrot) Math Class: “Pi,” Kate Bush (Aerial) Art: “Michelangelo,” Slapp Happy (Casablanca Moon) Intro to Economics: “The Money Song,” Monty Python Speech Class: “Elephant Talk,” King Crimson (Discipline) Intro to Philosophy: “Seriously Deep,” Eberhard Weber Colours (Silent Feet) or “Philosophy Now,” Scritti Politti (Provision) For Greek Mythology: “Orpheus,” David Sylvian (Secrets from the Beehive) For Science: “Natural Science,” Rush (Permanent Waves) Exam cramming: “I Don’t Remember,” Peter Gabriel (Peter Gabriel III—Melt) Understand Hillsdating: “The Word Girl,” Scritti Politti (Cupid and Psyche 85) Surviving Hillsdale in the Winter: “Topplue, Votter & Skerf,” Terje Rypdal (To Be Continued) and “Someone, Somewhere (in Summertime),” Simple Minds (New Gold Dream) That moment when you’re on your knees in front of Central Hall screaming, “WHY is it so HARD?!”: “Sat in your Lap,” Kate Bush (The Dreaming ) or “Tinseltown in the Rain,” The Blue Nile (A Walk Across the Rooftops)

e C nt e y b r i r K : C h a r l e s fr y y B

e h T

Most Hillsdale students realize that while the first election of Barack Obama was survivable, his reelection spells absolute doom to freedom, liberty, and morality. But rather than wallow in despair, they now have the opportunity to make a difference in the world by leaving it. In a space ship. Due to the detrimental outcome of America’s presidential election, Hillsdale College has decided to use its endowment funds to convert its clock tower into a rocket ship that will take a select group of students to a newly constructed moon colony. The ship will launch in early January after the 2012 apocalypse, and will establish a government similar to what the Founders intended—a free-market, Christian republic isolated from other countries. When asked for details on the voyage, Hillsdale President Dr. Arnn stated that “The colony will be like the Kirby Center, but on the moon. It will be a bastion of the liberal arts; a pure polis of conservatism.” The project began at the behest of several major donors who wanted students to have a reasonable means of living despite this horrendous, irreparable damage to America. One donor commented, “Look, if the Israelites had a rocket ship to save them from Egypt, they wouldn’t have needed Moses to lead them around in the desert. Now that we have the technology and foresight to allow our children to avoid certain slavery to the Progressives, we should use it.” Demand for seats on the voyage has surged; the line of students applying stretches around the block. As one student pointed out, “The Founders realized that England kinda sucked, so they left it. Why shouldn’t we do the same with America? I mean, it was salvageable before, but now that Obama’s back we’re gonna have **** like government healthcare and debt. It’s better just to start over on the moon.” And start over they will. Sources reveal that the new government will be a return to the principles of America’s forefathers—dispelling the rumor that Dr. Arnn would declare himself King of the Moon. The capitol city of the new republic will be called “Aristotle D.C.”, since Aristotle practically wrote the American Constitution. In fact, the Constitution of this new nation will be virtually identical to America’s, but with a few small changes. Some of the more notable of these amendments include banning Progressivism, making Old Crow Medicine Show’s “Wagon Wheel” the national anthem, and installing an AJ’s Café in the lunar White House. But not all Hillsdale students agree with the new lunar government’s policies. A group of hardy young rebels are holding a bake(d) sale to fund a spaceship mission to Mars: The Ron Paul. This colony will differ from the moon’s in several distinct ways. It will take non-interventionism to its appropriate measure by moving 225 million kilometers away from Earth. It plans to legalize and carry marijuana on its voyage, making it, as one student puts it, “one giant hotbox in space”. These libertarianauts are so committed to their principles that they will not bring any food on their mission, ending the Fed for good. While the arguments these groups make are compelling, The Forum has decided to stay here on Earth. The truth is, acting like America is doomed based on a single election seems almost overdramatic to us, and if we didn’t know any better we might even say that this sort of mentality is alarmist. But even if Obama succeeds in his nefarious mission to burn America to the ground, The Forum is staying right here.

VS PUBLIC SCHOOL Why do you think Public schooling is preferable to homeschooling? Homeschooling is great because it is typically accompanied by a high level of parental involvement. Anyone with a high level of parental involvement will have an excellent education, be it homeschool or otherwise, because parents will instill the value of hard work and education in their children. But people are social animals, and public school is the sort of social environment that children need to form relationships with peers. Did you find yourself adequately prepared for the perils of freshman year at Hillsdale College? I would say I found myself about as prepared as the next freshman. Somewhere between “I know how to read” and “I can write a Jackson English paper.” What do you think are the dangers of homeschooling? Sometimes, parents who homeschool lack time or ability, so their children are only halfway educated. But most of the time, homeschool parents are probably better equipped than the average public school parent. The problem is homeschool communities, which do tend to be dedicated and closeknit, are artificial communities that can lead to a cloistered environment in which kids’ views of society are narrow and lopsided. How were you able to find the truth despite the overwhelming left-wing indoctrination? Most of what you learn in public school is merely normal education. I still learned math, grammar, physics, American History, economics, etc., and if I picked up any left-wing tendencies, I am sure they were hammered out by my parents and Hillsdale. My parents took care of the political and social liberalism, and Hillsdale has taught me what tradition there is to conserve. Or maybe I am a closet liberal. Shhh. Would you send your children to public schooling? Yes, especially if I end up living in my hometown. I graduated from the same high school from which my father and my grandfather and grandmother graduated—in fact, that is where my grandparents met. I love the Grandville Public School system because it is such a community focal point and because I had such good teachers and friends. Human Interest

15 15

VS HOMESCHOOL Why did you prefer your homeschool education over public schooling? My public high school was not conducive to learning because of its pervasive drug culture. Homeschooling allowed me to interact with others who were passionate about the liberal arts. I had access to any AP course I wanted to take, as well as the resources of the local community college. Hereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a tough question: are there any drawbacks to todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public school system? All public schools are not created equal. If you happen to live in a district with a terrible public school, you are stuck unless you want to pay through the nose for a private school. Additionally, the public school system is a product of mass culture and seeks to inculcate a certain set of values and attitudes in its students. This agenda quashes creativity and promotes an atmosphere at odds with individuality. Do you believe you were adequately prepared for the rigors of freshman year at Hillsdale? Yes. Homeschooling allowed me to adjust to the rigors of college by taking multiple college classes during highschool. I was also able to take rigorous AP classes, which prepared me well for Hillsdale. Was it difficult to go through high school without learning any social skills? Ha! Contrary to popular belief, not all homeschoolers live primarily in their basements. I took classes with other students in a pseudo school setting, and I also interacted with hundreds of other homeschoolers across the country through speech and debate. Nearly all my social skills were developed after I stopped going to private school and started homeschooling. Which would you chose for your children: a world-class public school or homeschooling? The main reason I see for homeschooling is as an alternative to poor conventional alternatives. I would not have a problem sending my children to a rigorous public school rooted in the liberal arts, but those are few and hard to come by. I would have to evaluate on a case by case basis, but a public school would have to be stellar if I were to send my children to it.

16 16

GLORY AT SEA a review of A short film By Forester McClatchey “I try and think about how the storm and all of these people dyin’ was part of God’s plan. But mostly I just stare up to the water hopin’ I can have one last look at them.” Writer-director Benh Zeitlin’s 2008 short film “Glory at Sea” opens with an underwater view of a rain-dimpled ocean surface, an eerily beautiful image that sets the tone for the movie. Zeitlin and New Orleans art collective Court 13 have created something grounded, moving, and utterly unique. The ragged figures in “Glory at Sea” seem to merge with the post-apocalyptic wasteland of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. They clamber through the debris, cobbling together survivalist lives, scrabbling for joy and comprehension in the wake of such extreme loss. They struggle with the words of their preacher, Reverend Carlton, who tells them that the storm was part of God’s plan. Unable to accept this reassurance, they long to sail across the sea to reunite with their loved ones. When a seaweed-caked survivor named Jake washes ashore, they have their guide. The village bands together with moving spirituality to build a raft out of wreckage and “things with luck on ‘em” like rusted cars, beds, and even a bathtub. They cast

humor

off jubilantly, but not before Carlton pleads “Don’t you let them sail this!” to an unresponsive sky. The narrator is a little girl at the bottom of the ocean, drifting in a forest of lost souls. In the villagers’ voyage to the underworld Zeitlin masterfully draws from myths like the story of Orpheus and Euridyce. The film is full of beautiful paradoxes: it is at once gritty and whimsical, real and fantastic, mythical and original, lighthearted and cathartic. Zeitlin, the indie film up-and-comer who directed the 2012 success “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” is renowned for his mastery of the Southern Gothic. “Glory at Sea” –in many ways the prologue and genesis of “Beasts”– e x p l o r e s themes of loss, unconditional love, apostasy, recklessness, and redemption. Its jagged, hodgepodge feel and deftly-controlled scenes give “Glory” human credibility while retaining its dreamlike nature, allowing it to effectively examine weighty subjects in a fantastic environment. The villagers, burst with spirituality but struggle with religion. The storm washed away the rational and modern; all that remains is illogical love and a broken landscape. The church burns down during a party the night before they cast off, embodying the 17

village’s religious confusion. The fragile stoicism in the preacher’s face as he watches his church burn speaks louder than any soliloquy. While the villagers pile liquor into the raft, he defiantly affixes a driftwood cross to the stern. Zeitlin questions religion’s role in such miserable living conditions, but does so with Apollonian grace. The film suggests but does not preach, and this delicate orchestration builds an emotional crescendo remarkable for such a short project. At 25 minutes, the film surges forward at a frenzied pace that matches the fever-pitch love and craziness of the villagers. The brevity of the film is a result of its production—Zeitlin and his team spent five months and a thinly stretched $100,000 building rafts, sinking bathtubs, burning buildings, and rooting through New Orleans rubble to reveal the haunting beauty of the post-storm Louisiana coast. Like so much else in “Glory,” the script is sparse but lyrical. The lines are distilled and forceful, the most obvious example of the film’s poeticism. Most of the emotional cues come from the earthy score composed by Zeitlin himself. It swells, ripples, and crashes like the sea. The instrumentation is distinctly Cajun; the brass, fiddles, and steel guitars playing in raw, fractured harmony. Though he is not from New Orleans, Zeitlin does a remarkable job of creating a nuanced sense of place and culture. The script, direction, and score compliment each other to form

a well-textured film. The characters and landscapes converge: a man sleeps easily in a bed wedged in the arms of a live oak; kelp and human hair wave in unison beneath the surf. The cinematography makes such unlikely visions seem natural. Ultimately, the short film owes its appeal to compelling characters and the narrative momentum of a fairy tale. It has an inexorable drive; the odd events are what must happen, are fated to occur. A moral lesson must be imparted. The film suffers from a few moments of ambiguity and occasionally shaky camerawork, but overall Benh Zeitlin’s art succeeds. The images –a man pining for his drowned lover, a despairing priest watching his congregation sail to their doom– are difficult to forget. When the film ends, one feels one has witnessed a genuinely special story of eerie beauty and catharsis.

Forester McClatchey is a Freshman studying the liberal arts, sometimes.

Garret holt

Hunk

Hillsdale’s

Year: Junior Major: History MAjor Home Economics Minor

If you could be dictator of any country, which would you rule and why?

Africa, because I love Chinese food and I could daily ski in the Alps and I could ride my fleet of llamas to my palace.

Does Hillsdating do more good than harm to Hillsdalian social life? Well, college is about obtaining flow—hair flow. And Hillsdating can often get in the way of flow. Take Scott Lantis, for example: he has fantastic flow and he is not Hillsdating. On the other hand, Anthony Manno had illustrious flow, then he started dating and he lost his flow. Ergo, Hillsdating is a no flow. Briefly describe a day in the life of Garrett. Well, I wake up in the morning feeling like P-Diddy and then all the other boys try to chase me…here’s my number, so call me maybe: 867-5309.

What’s your favorite part about finals week? Having absurd amounts of free time which I don’t use to study. I can just have a dance party to the Village People in my room, I can run around Simpson in a sumo suit making sure everyone gets bad grades like I do, the amount of joy about going home that pervades the campus is great, and, most importantly, not seeing Patrick Timmis for a month.

If you could date any historical figure, who would the lucky woman be? Easy. Bella from Twilight. I mean who doesn’t want an extremely needy, super awkward girl who double-crossed a vampire for a werewolf?

Describe your dream wedding. Well it would be at Monticello because, in fact, Thomas Jefferson is my great great, great, great, great uncle so I could get married there. Except it would cost an arm and a leg. Saga Steve would read my guest list, and I would ride a tandem bike off into the sunset. 19

Hottie

and

Compiled by Savanah Tibbetts

t Mary Crail

of the month

Year: Sophomore Major: Political Economics, Business Minor

If you could be dictator of any country, which would you rule and why? Djibouti. Because it’s fun to say and it’s in Africa so I wouldn’t have to deal with the cold weather all the time. Does Hillsdating do more good than harm to Hillsdalian social life?

100% false. All you Hillsdaters out there: don’t be afraid of your feelings.

Briefly describe a day in the life of Mary Crail. Well, I wake up to the sound of that construction for sports complex…you all better enjoy that stinkin’ facility. Then I go on to be amazed by all the Hillsdale social “wonders”—such as capes and incessant inappropriate PDA in the union.

If your love life were a movie, how would Family Video categorize it? The Video Game section…because I’m a player.

If you could date any historical figure, who would the lucky man be? Heath Ledger …too soon? And do I have to give a “why?” …it’s Heath Ledger.

On a scale of one to 24, one being a day in a canoe on the lake and 24 being a 24-hour cross-fit workout, how exhausting is it to deal with all of the men begging to be with you? Well, when they’re begging appropriately it’s not stressful at all, because of all the presents.

What’s your opinion of boy bands—particularly “One Direction”? They can be entertaining. However, their artistic value is lacking.

Sum up your love life in a Haiku poem . Ka ji ga bol ka / Op oppan Gangnam Style / Ehhhhhh sexy lady

Describe your dream wedding . My dream wedding will involve Tom Hardy and that’s as far as I’ve gotten.

Alumni...Where Are They Now? Diana Higbee

Compiled by Corrie beth hendon When did you graduate? I graduated in 1996 with a Major in Music. What have you been doing since graduation? I am the mother of a two year old and an operatic soprano. My husband and I reside in Versailles, France. I sing in opera houses around the world, mostly in Europe, a little in Asia, North America and New Zealand. My repertoire is Mozart and French composers such as Debussy, Massenet, Bizet, Poulenc and Rameau.

What have you missed most about Hillsdale since graduation? The friendliness of my fellow students and teachers also some of the desserts from the cafeteria which were sometimes dangerously good. Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s one thing you learned at Hillsdale that you think youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll remember for the rest of your life? Hard work; until I came to Hillsdale I just glided by, but I needed to step up once I got to Hillsdale. I also learned that I could be anything I wanted to be as long as I worked like a maniac to get there.

How has your education from Hillsdale been helpful or hurtful in life after graduation? Hillsdale has only been helpful in my life after graduation. It taught me rigor, to go through and work hard in everything I do, discipline and stickability. It also taught me to confront myself to different politcal ideas and come up with something I truly believed in.

Spotlight on...

Dancers Compiled by Wes Wright

Photography by Laurie Barnes

Hillsdale has a thriving dance community. From Tower Dancers to Jazz Afterglows, Garden Parties to Regency Balls, students are dancing all the time. Here are a few stars to watch next time you hit the dance floor.

Haley Pelissier What styles of dance do you do? Swing and Ballroom. I have been since I came to Hillsdale, so for two years. I also go to a club back home in Seattle. I am the Vice President and DJ of the Hepcats Swing Dancing Club. What is the Swing Dancing Club like? We get 50-100 people at the beginning of the year, which drops to thirty regulars the rest of the year. We play big band music, primarily, but also classic rock like Elvis and the Beach Boys. And some medium-tempo modern songs like “Tik Tok” by Ke$sha. What would you say those hesitant to dance? Swing is very Hillsdalian; it teaches courteousness and proper interaction between the genders. It’s classy, a lot of fun, and something you can use throughout your life. How does dance fit into the liberal arts? The liberal arts are supposed to be uplifting and improve character. Dance does this by teaching the proper way to interact while training both mind and body.

Gabe Duttlinger What styles of dance do you do? I do American-style Ballroom, which includes Waltz, Foxtrot, Tango, Rumba, Cha-Cha, and Swing, among others. My favorite is Cha-Cha. When did you start dancing? I started dancing in 2003, when I was in tenth grade. Everyone did ballroom lessons before Winter Formal. When I came back from Iraq I joined the Ballroom Dancing Club at Hillsdale and took Social Dance every semester. A year and a half later I was running the club. I also taught professionally over the summer. What would you say those hesitant to dance? Guys: It is scary, and requires vulnerability. Guys aren’t comfortable exposing their vulnerabilities, but the girl-guy ratio (usually 3:2) speaks for itself. Girls love to dance. Also, ballroom isn’t just for old people. I try to play modern dance music you would hear in a club, so people will say “Oh yeah, we can ballroom dance to this!” Some good ones are “Low” by T-Pain featuring Flo Rida – that’s a great chacha song – and Enrique Iglesias. “Ring My Bells” is good for rumba. How does dance fit into the liberal arts? Dance strengthens the body by movement, the heart by discipline, the mind by improvisation, and character by wholesome social interaction. It complements our scientific, historical, and literary education and strengthens our fraternal bonds.

Dan Thelen What styles of dance do you do? I’ve been dancing for seven years. I do ballet, modern, jazz, and Scottish Highland. I also teach hip hop and musical theatre at Studio 55 down town. No matter what kind of dance I am doing, I’m happy. I am a Tower Dancer considering Hillsdale’s minor in Dance. What is the minor in Dance like? The Dance minor requires dance technique classes like ballet and modern, movement-based theatre classes, history of dance, pilates, et cetera. You have to do Tower Dancers – we have a concert on the first weekend in February, by the way. It will be Greek-themed, like all of this year’s theatre. I am doing some choreography for the show. Tower Dancers only dances to wordless music, instrumentals; lyrics often serve as a crutch to dancers and choreographers. How does dance fit into the liberal arts? Dance is good for one’s mental, spiritual, and physical well-being. One can also look at it academically: learning to understand music, how to move, and how to avoid injury. Terminology of movement is a field of its own. Ballet, for example, has names for all of its moves; you could write down a whole routine and people could read it and do it. It is a language of movement and words. Rudolf Laban went further and categorized all movement in terms of words and symbols. A complete language for dance –it looks at energy use (bound, contained, free-flow), contraction versus expansion, weighted movement. It’s very cool.

Hillsdale in Photos By Caroline Green