The Phoenix The Rebirth Of The Conservative Movement at Wabash
A New Era in Conservatism
Defining Diversity the Right Way Inside the Admissions Department The Ides of March Curriculum Review March 2007 Volume 1, Issue 1
The Phoenix editor-in-chief Brandon Stewart ’08 managing editor
Josh Bellis ’08
business manager
Trent Hagerty ’09 events coordinator
Tyler Gibson ’09 design editor
Matt Vest ’08 copy editor
Jason Simons ’08 faculty contributors
David P. Kubiak Stephen H. Webb ’83 staff writers
P. T. Prosinski ’07 Robert Van Kirk ’07 Bryce Chitwood ’08 Ryan Grand ’08 James Inman ‘08 Kyle O’Keefe ’08 Sean Clerget ’09 Joseph Merkley ’09 Wesley Prichard ’09 Nicholas Maraman ’10 Kyle Nagdeman ’10 Austin Rovenstine ’10 Subscription inquiries & letters: The Phoenix Post Office Box 375 Crawfordsville, IN 47933 To reach the staff: (573) 864-2552 stewartb@wabash.edu A l l opinions ex pressed herein ref lect the views of the individual w r iters. T hey do not necessar ily re f lec t t he v iews of T he Waba sh Conser vative Union, The Phoenix , or Waba sh Col lege. E spe c i a l ly Wa bash College.
A Letter from the Editor: To the Reader, Many on campus are no doubt surprised to be holding this magazine in their hands. This is the inaugural issue of The Phoenix, the first of what we hope to be a long and successful tradition of quality conservative work. This magazine is the result of a lot of hard work - the decision to create the Wabash Conservative Union and to publish a magazine within two weeks of that creation was not one we made lightly. However, once we made that decision, the student staffers worked diligently to produce the quality work you have before you. This is truly a testament to how invigorated these students are and how devoted they are to what we began last year in the pages of The Wabash Commentary. I owe all of them a lot, but not just for the extra time they spent the last week getting this issue ready for print. I also owe them for their loyalty and their support in recent weeks, which has made all the difference in the world to me. I’d also like to specifically thank Matt Vest ’08 who heroically filled in as layout editor on a moment’s notice. Additionally, I’d like to thank my friend and managing editor Josh Bellis ’08, who continues to keep me motivated. His friendship and advice has been a big reason for the success I have had over the last year.
In Wabash,
Table of Contents Ides of March
A Brave New World Never Been Ruder PAGE 12 PAGE 20 PAGE 4
A review of the recent events at The Wabash Commentary Brandon Stewart ’08
Wabash & Africa PAGE 6 The third and final installment in the “What Wabash Won’t Teach You About Africa” series Dr. Stephen H. Webb ’83
Curriculum Review PAGE 8 As the faculty prepares to vote on a new curricular architecture, several problems remain Brandon Stewart ’08
A Worthy Investment? PAGE 10 One graduating senior considers whether he’ll be giving to Wabash P.T. Prosinski ’07
Islamic scholar Vali Nasr challenged Wabash students to learn more about the Middle East during his visit and one staffer takes on that challenge Austin Rovenstine ’10
Faulty Diversity
PAGE 14
While Attorney General John Ashcroft’s recent visit to campus was a great success, some members of the community behaved poorly Sean Clerget ’09
Smart Conservatives PAGE 22
Has the campus conservaOne student ponders wheth- tive movement lost its inteler the MXI was a bad example lectual strength? Josh Bellis ’08
Jason Simons ’08
The Phoenix
Is Christ Manly? PAGE 26
PAGE 16 A brief glimpse into the newest publication on the Wabash campus
Admissions
Brandon Stewart ’08
PAGE 18 CPAC 2007
After losing three counselors in less than a year, is the department still healthy? Ryan Grand ’08
New men’s movement seeks to make Christianity safe for men
PAGE 29
A quick reflection on a visit to the nation’s largest conservative student conference Josh Bellis ’08
The Phoenix
PAGE 4
MARCH 2007
PERSPECTIVES
The Ides of March A Story of Death and Rebirth by Brandon Stewart
W
Editor-in-Chief
hen conceiving the idea for our publication, we wanted to make sure our goals and our reasons for being were very clearly stated from the outset. As such, we felt that it would be wise to fully explain how we were created and what events led up to that decision. When I took over The Wabash Commentary in January of 2006, it needed a lot of work. The staff was reduced to only a handful of good guys, most of whom were graduating that spring. The office was a mess, with little or no organization, one computer and an old laser printer. We got to work soon after the start of the spring term, recruiting fresh faces and rebuilding what we had inherited. The spring semester was productive and foundational for the group. Early on I recognized that there were many conservative students who were interested in working with a new TWC, but that remained relatively uninterested in writing for the magazine. I altered the organizational structure to accommodate this reality by creating an events track for interested students. At that point, Josh Bellis ’08 was serving as Events Coordinator and set about to create a professional events program. That spring, we hosted a religion and government panel to discuss the proper role of
religion in the public sphere. Later in the semester, we hosted Michelle Easton, President of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute for a lecture entitled, “The Failure of Feminism”. At the same time, we were working hard to reestablish ourselves on campus. After only publishing once the previous semester, we had a lot of work to do to prove we could be an effective voice for conservative students on campus. At that time, the interviews for the new
and our general feeling about the fit of that particular candidate on the website. We then conducted interviews with both the new president and dean, which became the feature pieces for our January and May issues. Our March/April issue proved to be our most controversial as we delved inside the Malcolm X Institute and asked some probing questions regarding its function on campus. During the summer, the
president and dean of the College were underway. As each candidate interviewed on campus, he hosted a question and answer period with the student body. We promptly researched each candidate and wrote reflections on their student session
staff continued to work hard, sending copies of These Fleeting Years, a compilation of anecdotal histories about Wabash, out to the incoming class of freshmen. Our work continued in the fall semester, as we had outgrown our old office space and
The Phoenix
MARCH 2007
PAGE 5
PERSPECTIVES moved into a bigger property to accommodate our growing staff and new furniture and computers. The fall semester saw an expansion of the size and scale of our events program as well. We kicked off the school year with a pro-life week, which we had spent most of the summer planning. Early Monday morning, staff members congregated on the college mall to put up 1,200 white crosses on the mall to represent the number of children that were to be aborted during the time most students were asleep. When students woke up Monday morning, the display was a powerful visual representation of an issue that too often is talked about abstractly. During the course of the week, we hosted two speakers, a psychologist who treats men who have had children aborted and the Vice-President of Feminists for Life of America, a group that believes that feminism should promulgate a pro-life message. Also during the fall semester, we managed to produce a full three issues, just as we had the previous spring. Throughout this whole time, I had been engaged in an ongoing and increasingly unproductive discussion about the best way to be a force for conservatism on campus with a handful of previous TWC editors. Despite all the support we were receiving on campus from students administrators, and even many faculty, we were told we weren’t moving in the right direction. Indeed, if liberal faculty read our publication and engaged conservative students about their ideas, we could be sure we were doing something wrong. Despite all the letters from alumni who appreciated the way we had gravitated away from some of the less desirable elements of the publication’s past, these previous editors still maintained that we didn’t have a coherent vision. And despite the fact that we saw our methods as the
“
It was at this point that I realized they did have a point about direction. If TWC has to be about needless invective, then I readily admit to being a willing saboteur during the last year and a half. appropriate way to engage a campus whose atmosphere had greatly changed from the early 90s, we were consistently told that we were not being effective. It seemed the more productive we were and the more we formed our own identity for the publication outside of the way it had normally operated, the more we were at odds with some former editors. All of that baggage – both the accomplishments and the disheartening conversations – were carried into the meeting we had with the Foundation for a Traditional Wabash after the Ashcroft event. It was there that it became profoundly clear to me that our disagreements ran much deeper that I had thought. All the things that our staff had been proud of over the last year – heightened productivity, an increased staff, institutional support, interaction with liberal professors – were seen as emblematic of our failure. It was at this point that I realized they did have a point about direction. If seeing those things as negative is what TWC is supposed to be about, then I will gladly agree that it drifted away from its purpose under my editorship. If TWC has to be about needless invective, then I readily admit to being a willing saboteur during the last year and a half. Although the meeting was called under the pretext of getting
”
my input on who I wanted to select as the next editor of TWC, it quickly became clear that the meeting was about announcing the next editor with or without my support. A plan was already in place before I stepped in the office. Royce Gregerson ’09 would become editor by the beginning of the school year, with Josh Harris ’08 taking over during the fall semester while Mr. Gregerson was abroad. In fact, I was told, these two students had been active participants in these conversations and were ready and eager to “restore” the publication. Upon reflection, I suppose the covert involvement of two students was the most disheartening aspect of the whole affair, especially because I had considered at least one a good friend. Life lessons, I suppose. After the meeting, my first inclination was to walk away in disgust. However, after talking to some good friends and other staffers, it became clear that we had to continue the work we started last year. If we truly felt we were headed in the right direction, if we truly felt that we had something to say about how conservatism should be presented on campus, then we have an obligation to continue. The Wabash Conservative Union is a reaffirmation that the best way to be an advocate for conservative ideas is to attack ideas and not people.
The Phoenix
PAGE 6
MARCH 2007
PERSPECTIVES
What Wabash Won’t Teach You About Africa How Marxism Ruined Africa by Dr. Stephen Webb
I
Faculty Contributor
don’t know which is worse: the stereotype students are often given as white, European Christians as remorseless imperial oppressors or the stereotype of black Africans as feeble victims of capitalism and the Bible. The two stereotypes reinforce and depend upon each other. To dismantle one, you have to dismantle the other. These stereotypes originate in the Marxist view of history, which still dominates many history departments, especially courses on Africa. Marxists argue that impersonal economic forces govern social change, and that religion is always in the service of the wealthy and powerful. Christianity is thus treated as little more than a handmaid to imperialism, while pre-European Africa is romanticized as a happy world that would have been better off never encountering the West. Here is the picture: Africa is the Garden of Eden and Christianity is the serpent. Capitalism and Western domination is what Adam and Eve were sentenced to endure, while only radical, leftist politics holds out the hope of liberation.
This view of Africa is so perversely wrong that it is hard to know where to start. Let me put my cards on the table. Marxism has ruined Africa. The rise of Marxism and socialism in Africa after the imperial powers left is the single most fundamental cause of all of Africa’s economic and political problems today. The fact is that the white, European imperial powers tried their hardest to prevent the leftist take-over of Africa, but they failed. They failed in part because so many of the cultural elite in the West worked so hard to thwart them. Even today, the best chance most Africans have of achieving economic prosperity
tional religious values will only hold Africans down. In other words, the typical professor has a picture of Africa that reverses the facts. I’ve got to give it to the cultural elite in America. If you define conservatism as sticking to your principles and resisting change, my left-leaning colleagues are the most conservative forces in America today. They could stare at the damage done by radical ideas in Africa all day long and still think that the solution is yet more radical ideas. Now that is conservative! In the last two articles I looked at what Christianity is doing for Africa. Now let’s look at what radicalism is doing for this continent. Please note that I am not excusing the many abuses and terrible things the colonial powers did when they scrambled against each other for African colonies. Europe had forgotten its Christian roots, and Europe would pay the price for its pagan behavior with two world wars. The fact is, however, that by the early part of the twentieth century, the European powers had lost interest in Africa. Africa was just not profitable. In much of Africa, the European powers left little evidence of their control. Most Africans had little contact with white Europeans. The colonial powers let Christian missionaries do all the work of set-
WORDS
F R O M
WEBB and political stability is Christianity, but do you think American academics will admit that? The typical university professor in America still thinks that leftist politics is the key to Africa’s salvation, while tradi-
The Phoenix
MARCH 2007
PAGE 7
PERSPECTIVES ting up colleges and hospitals and striving to improve literacy rates. The British hoped to get out of Africa gradually. They wanted to move cautiously because they knew that social chaos would occur if they broke their ties in a sudden manner. The British were convinced that Africans needed a long apprenticeship to the culture and habits of democracy and business. To give the colonies independence too quickly would, in the words of one British politician, “be like giving a child a latchkey, a bank account and a shot gun.” Those words sound harsh to our ears today, but they were spoken with realism and compassion. The French regarded their territories as part of the greater idea of France. Portugal was the poorest colonial power and the worst administrator. The French did not want to leave Algeria because they had a long history with it and many French citizens lived there. At one point, one third of the population of Algeria was white. France made a lot of mistakes in fighting to keep Algeria, but there is little doubt that Algeria would be a more economically and culturally advanced country today if it had stayed under French rule. The civil war was disastrous for both France and Algeria. Muslims who fought on the French side—and there were many—were slaughtered by the thousands after the French retreat. Although the story behind the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is disputed and contentious, it too makes for a sad tale about radical Africans in a hurry to throw off their white rulers only to rush headlong into disaster. The British worked for partnership in Kenya, and most Africans understood that white lead-
“
ership was essential for economic progress. The leader of the rebellion was a man named Kenyatta, who was trained in revolutionary rhetoric and tactical skills in Moscow. Fortunately, Kenyatta was finally
ernments not only destroyed African economies, but they also put all the power in the hands of the few, who were often uneducated. Dictatorship was the usual result. Even today, however, you read about how African tribal culture was egalitarian and socialistic. When you read such nonsense, you know the author is trying to tell you this: Africans are naturally open to socialism because their tribes shared things in common. Capitalism destroyed tribal culture because it emphasized the freedom of the individual. When you hear such things, think about how condescending it is. Anybody can be fooled by socialism, and everybody should be given the opportunity to be free in a capitalist democracy. Saying that Africans are inherently socialist is a racist remark, but many academics still get away with it to this day. Where does it stop? I could talk about how church agencies took the lead in saving Biafra when that nation was starving in 1968. I could talk about other African leaders, like Nguema of Equatorial Guinea, who was taught to hate whites so passionately that he rejected anything having to do with European culture. After he kicked out the Spanish population, which ran the businesses that kept the country prosperous, his country fell into ruin. He closed the Catholic schools, which were the only schools in the country, and taught children leftist political slogans instead. Christian worship became a crime. Many Christians were martyred. When was the last time you read about that in a history class?
The rise of Marxism and socialism in Africa after the imperial powers left is the single most fundamental cause of all of Africa’s economic and political problems today.
”
able to see how terrible the consequences of the Mau Mau rebellion were, and he wrote a book repenting of his ways. It was only on the basis of such wisdom and self-reflection that workable transitions of power in Africa could be arranged. A sadder tale involves Lumumba, the leader of the Congo, who was so carried away by anti-colonial prejudice that he was willing to destroy his country’s economy in order to take revenge on the Europeans. When he was killed, he was turned into a martyr in both Africa and the West. He was seen as someone who was strong and bold enough to stand up to European hegemony. In reality, his rule was so inept that it led to a civil war where over a million people were killed. In other words, political independence in Africa meant disaster for most Africans on a scale they could not have imagined under white rule. African leaders went wrong primarily because they embraced leftist ideas. They believed a strong centralized government was needed in order to control the economy. This belief was encouraged by many radical Westerners, who enjoyed using Africa as a laboratory for their own Marxist ideas. Of course, strong centralized gov-
continued on page 24
PAGE 8
WABASH Old Curriculum One semester of Freshman Tutorial in the fall or spring
The Phoenix
Out With the Old ... by Brandon Stewart
Editor-in-Chief
Two semesters of C&T sophomore year
Roughly 50% of freshmen take either a full or half semester of English composition
One course in language studies. Three courses in social sciences. Three courses in literature and fine arts. Three courses in natural science (two labs) One course in quantitative studies Two courses in History, Philosophy and Religion
Five course minor or Area of Concentration
Nine course major
MARCH 2007
The new curriculum proposal has been in the works for awhile. It was the outgrowth of Academic Program Review, which had been operating for a few years without any tangible result. This past October, Dean Phillips created an ad-hoc “Curriculum Architecture Committee” composed of Drs. Morillo, Castro, Placher, Feller and Mikesell, who were charged with bringing all the previous work together in one coherent proposal. It was this group that brought the current curriculum proposal to campus. As a member of the Academic Policy Committee, the committee charged with “review[ing] all proposals that directly affect the curriculum of the College”, I have had the chance to be intimately involved in some of the discussions that have taken place about the document. Throughout the process of vetting this proposal, I have found it to be largely unsatisfying and a brazen attempt to overhaul our entire architecture under the guise of “revamping” or “updating” it. Indeed, rather than solving problems in our current system, we have chosen instead to create a totally new curriculum architecture. This proposal is currently before the faculty for decision after making its way through the Academic Policy Committee and will be passed in some form by the faculty. According to more than a few architects, the advising process has become unduly burdensome with all the requirements. The reduction of “checkboxes” was cited by numerous professors both in meetings and the public forum as a primary goal of this proposal. Why is choice being
elevated to such a high status? Liberal arts education is about preserving the knowledge of the past and seeding it in the minds of future generations. Although choice certainly has its place in a liberal arts setting, a decision must be made whether student choice should be considered of greater value than the dissemination of particular knowledge. As with many of the more disappointing parts of the proposal, the emphasis on choice does not seem to be grounded in any particular pedagogy. Instead choice is floated about as an end to itself. Why do we need more choice? Because it provides us with more choices, of course. Students came to college to be taught, not to teach themselves. If choice is really as important as the proposal and its authors suggest, then why didn’t they propose a complete abolition of all requirements? The fact that there are still requirements seems to suggest that the authors recognize the value of a directed education. As such, we don’t need to water down the requirements already in place, we need to either keep the current requirement system or move more in the direction of a core curriculum. One of the most disheartening aspects of serving on the Academic Policy Committee during the curriculum review has been the number of problem areas that seem unanswered by this new proposal. The stated goal of this document, according the “Proposal for a New Curricular Architecture” is supposed to be “a renewal or updating of our curriculum.” Of course this is flatly untrue. In fact, the opposite is true. This document is exactly what the architects said it was not, namely a “comprehensive and radical overhaul” of the current curriculum. Either way, this proposal should seek
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
... In With the New to make improvements on what we currently operate with, not merely bypass them for more trendy alternatives. For example, the number of students who receive English composition either as a full or half semester course has been slashed from 50% of the freshman class to a mere 20%. The reason? It is designed to “reduce the service load on some departments that bear an especially high share of that burden,” which will “free them to do more interesting work within their departments and interdisciplinarily” as well as “encourage creative and college-wide thinking about what competencies mean and how they are best taught.” Why are we concerned about making sure the English faculty have “interesting” projects at the expense of the English writing competency of our students? Certainly the need has not decreased, so why the change? No real reason has surfaced in the any of the conversations I have had about this issue beyond expediency. But students and alumni needn’t worry, because this will encourage “creative thinking” about what it means to be competent. It’s good to know that there is a solid plan of action in place. Indeed, the proposal only offers a proposed “beefed up” Writing Center and more writing across the curriculum as substitutes. And poor substitutes they are. When I asked in a meeting of the APC what concrete ways we planned to address this decrease in remedial coverage, there was nothing substantive mentioned. The only direct response I received was a comment by one faculty member that just because a student takes a remedial English class, it doesn’t automatically mean that they are learning. Beyond the obvious fact that this was in no way the explanation used to justify the change, the fact remains
that if something hasn’t been working, we should fix it before moving on! The fact remains that the writing center is largely ineffective and underused by the student body and the curriculum offers no concrete ways to address that problem. Furthermore, expecting that students who are in need of remedial English instruction are just going to voluntarily take non-credit classes from the writing center on top of their already busy schedules is irresponsible at best. This proposal plans to radically alter the current structure with no concrete plan in place to address the outcome. This is just one example which speaks to the larger concern that this proposal fails to address more seroius problems with the current curriculum. There are several elements to the longer proposal which hint at a curriculum which is more invasive into student’s lives. At one point in the proposal it states as a goal for the freshmen experience to “work to ensure that extra-curricular programs, such as fraternity pledgeship and participation in intercollegiate athletics, do not detract from the academic program of the college.” Although that language was removed from the condensed version, it provides a helpful look inside the minds of those crafting the document regarding the faculty’s role into the lives of students outside the classroom. In all, the proposal would be more effective were it truly a revision and not a complete overhaul. Furthermore, the most fundamental flaws of the proposal are the areas it doesn’t mention, the problems it leaves uncorrected. As the faculty takes its final look at this proposal and the various suggested amendments, I can only hope that they will choose substance over trendy.
PAGE 9
WABASH New Curriculum One semester of Freshman Tutorial in the fall only One semester of C&T, taken in the spring of the freshman year
Approximately 20% of freshmen take a full semester of English composition
Four classes in each division, in at least two departments per division
No Minor
9-15 course major with multi-departmental requirements
The Phoenix
PAGE 10
MARCH 2007
PERSPECTIVES
A Lousy $nvestment
Why You Should Reconsider Alumni Giving by P. T. Prosinski
I
Staff Writer
am excited to be a part of and write for the Wabash Conservative Union. It was a courageous effort on the part of the publication’s administration to form a new conservative magazine. They should be applauded for their efforts, and I wish the entire staff much success over the years. Because this will most likely be my final submission, I have spent considerable time considering how to close my tenure as a staff writer. You understand—do you go out with a bang? Do you stay modest? Do you stay silent? All are legitimate questions, and I am still not sure how to characterize what follows. Perhaps, after you have finished reading the article you can decide. I want to preface my main topic by commenting briefly on the recent events regarding the Wabash Conservative Union. It seems to me that the Student Senate’s attempt to derecognize what was then The Wabash Commentary was based on a personal motivation to bring an end to what once was a successful conservative publication. If the same series of events occurred within any other student organization, very little, if anything, would have been said. The Student Senate also would not have attempted to derecognize the group. Things would have been “hush-hush,” and only a handful of students would have been aware of the situation. Recently, the conservative students of Wabash hosted John Ashcroft, a
well-known conservative Christian, and panties wadded up all around campus. However, leftist speakers and events are hosted at Wabash regularly, and with the exception of conservative students, no one says anything about it. It has, unfortunately, become commonplace. The bottom line is that if the Wabash Conservative Union did not exist, then there would be no conservative voice on campus. There is no balance at our college, nor is there any desire for it. Our college is controlled by liberal faculty and students who will continue to suck the life from thy loyal sons just as Tithonus did to Eōs in Greek mythology. In the end, Eōs could only make a grasshopper sound, which leftists around campus view as the ideal sound for a student. They want us quiet so that we may more easily swallow all of the propaganda disgorged in the classroom and beyond. Wabash claims to want discussion—unless you are a conservative Christian. Wabash claims to preach tolerance—unless you are a conservative Christian. And Wabash wants diversity—unless you are a conservative Christian. These were preliminary comments that needed attention, but unfortunately, I must continue on with the bulk of my comments being about alumni giving. I cannot help but anticipate graduation. Thinking about it leads me to consider being an alumnus, which in turn raises the question of alumni giving. Would I give money to Wabash? In short, my answer is yes, and no. I will explain. Currently, I suffer from what I will coin, “Slothful Senior Syndrome.” It occurs when a second semester senior has selected a job, passed comps, and is
merely buying time until he can take his sheep’s skin and ride off into the sunset. With that being said, I regularly take the opportunity to consider my relationship with Wabash and how it will change over the next few months. I will no longer be sitting in a religion class in Center Hall, but will be expected to donate money instead. This leads to my first problem: donating expectations—as if by not giving to the college you are somehow less of an alumnus. Wabash folktales about extravagant alumni giving saturate the campus and lead students to think alumni are diligently searching in between couch cushions just to give what they find to Wabash. As a Lilly Scholar, I have been asked at least once if I feel as though I owe the college anything. No, I respond. If I choose to donate resources to the College, then that is one thing, but I do not and will not feel any sense of guilt for not giving. This is merely a way of using emotion as a controlling mechanism. If we make you feel guilty enough, then you will give. Homosexual advocates regularly display a similar mechanism. They communicate that if everyone does not love gays and wear rainbow T-shirts, then somehow we are less human. In reality, this could not be further from the truth. This issue of giving raises a second problem: entitlements, or owing. Our culture believes almost everyone deserves something (whether they honestly deserve it or not is another issue). For example, a few years ago a black woman demanded slave reparations because a distant relative of hers was a slave. But how can people who never owned slaves (you and I) give money to people who never were slaves (this woman and others)? Another classic example around
The Phoenix
MARCH 2007
PAGE 11
PERSPECTIVES Wabash, is that you owe me an apology because you offended me. Actually, I do not. These are my opinions, and I have no intention of apologizing. On a side note about being offended, no one stops to consider that every time someone says “Jesus Christ” or “God damn it” out of frustration and anger, that it is highly offensive to Christians. In fact, you have just reduced my Savior to a swear word. But after all, they are Christians, and it is okay to offend them. I can only imagine the caterwauling from Muslims and the antiChristian media if Muhammad’s name was used in vain. God help us all. Unfortunately, this owing disease has crippled Wabash as well. Even before we actually graduate we are asked to donate money. Donating to Wabash may be an honor for some, but I do not view it in this light. I do need to clarify what I said before about wanting and not wanting to give money to Wabash. Financial security and giving money to our college are two goals of mine. However, the money I give will be to specific individuals and organizations. I refuse to give money to the general alumni slush fund so Wabash can invite kook fringe liberal and feminist groups and speakers to campus and employ liberal faculty who want to dismantle the framework of our college while our weak administration sits back and smugly congratulates one another for being a clever bunch of conflict avoiders. I have a word for this: spineless. Unlike most, I see the current state of the college in complete decline. Wabash is not becoming better, it is becoming worse. What if a large enough alumni population refused to give to the College until obvious changes were made? Would the college listen? I doubt
“
it. Please do not misinterpret this as a threat. It is merely a legitimate question worth considering. Essentially, why would you give money to a college when you strongly oppose its actions? For example, changing the curriculum to force feminism down the throats of students—bad idea. Even considering a gender studies area of concentration— bad idea. Continuing to hire female faculty—very bad idea. Wabash is a college for men who should be taught by men. A mentoring program at Wabash would be a tremendous asset to the students and male faculty. Unfortunately, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell this
head first into the liberal quagmire, and Mr. Rudrow refuses to support the administration that has permitted it. Mr. Rudrow continues with another reason for withdrawing support: the Malcolm X Institute. He asks, “Why is there a Malcolm X Institute on campus? Another concession to political correctness? Wabash has a perfectly good library with all the facilities to accommodate meetings by all students. To set the blacks on campus apart is a further way to divide and keep race on the forefront.” I could not agree more. Mr. Rudrow continues by stating other reasons for refusing to support Wabash and concludes his letter by stating, “It seems to me that all the conservative Christian principles on which Wabash was founded are gradually slipping away and there is nothing I can do about it if people won’t listen.” Unfortunately, liberal Wabash is not willing to listen. Actually, they do not even acknowledge that there is a problem. The only problems they see are vocal conservative students who must be silenced. I shared a few excerpts from this letter for two reasons. First, I am not the only one who does not support Wabash. I am very confident that there are more alumni who share similar opinions. One thing is certain, though: Mr. Rudrow loves Wabash or else he would not have written this letter. He wants change because it troubles him to see the leftist agenda tear apart his college. The second reason is as equally straightforward: people will withhold support because of the self-destructive path Wabash has chosen. Ultimately, what I have proposed is a very reasonable response and plan of action to a disease eating away at our college. In conclusion, if Wabash wants to jump off a cliff that is fine, but do not expect me to hold its hand on the way down.
No one stops to consider that everytime someone says ‘Jesus Christ,’ or ‘Goddammit,’ out of frustration or anger, that it is highly offensive to Christians. In fact, you have just reduced my Savior to a swear word.
”
would happen because women cannot be role models for men. Therefore, this program would be dead on arrival since the current trend around campus is that if women cannot participate, no one can. I wonder how many people realize that our college exists for the students, not the faculty. I want to conclude by quoting a few lines from a letter written to all Wabash alumni by Mr. Leland Rudrow ’50 on October 17, 2003. From the letter it appears that Mr. Rudrow has financially supported Wabash over the years. However, Mr. Rudrow states, “I am withdrawing my support for Wabash for a number of reasons that have accumulated over the years.” One of his reasons includes the hiring practices of the College. He writes, “Then we have the hiring of liberal men and women instructors. I could abide this if they kept their liberal views in their private lives.” It is no mystery that our college has plunged
The Phoenix
PAGE 12
MARCH 2007
WABASH
When the Torch is Passed...
Will Wabash Men be Prepared to Lead the Messy World? by Austin Rovenstine
A
Staff Writer
merica’s future is now inextricably intertwined with the future of the Middle East. That was the first sobering message that prominent Islamic expert Vali Nasr brought to the Wabash campus this past February. As much as we would like to wash our hands of that region, withdraw our troops, and deem it “hopeless,” we cannot escape its importance to our nation’s future, prestige, and freedom. The second sobering message Mr. Nasr brought to our campus was that America’s current leadership shows little to no knowledge of the Middle East’s people and politics. The terrorist attacks of September 11th sucked an entire generation of Americans, for whom the Middle East had been little more than a particularly oil-rich square on the chess board of the Cold War, into a culture they had long ignored and barely understood. Even after five and a half years of war, most American leaders, let alone most American citizens, can still not satisfactorily explain the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Even Democratic Representative Silvestre Reyes, the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recently displayed startling ignorance of the issue, proclaiming al-Qaeda to be a “predominantly--probably-- Shiite” organization (Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization which views Shiites as heretics). It would seem, given such stunning incompetence at high levels of government, and given such incredible importance to the war we are currently fighting, that there would be particular interest in
the lectures of Mr. Nasr, who has written five books on the Middle East and has even briefed President Bush on the subject of Iraq’s sectarian violence. And both of his talks were indeed delivered to full audiences. However, those audiences seemed to consist primarily of professors and aged residents of Crawfordsville. While it is certainly encouraging to see any citizen attempting to learn about the problems which confront our country, it is the younger generation, our generation, which will inherit those problems, and our generation should have been represented more heavily at those lectures. The War on Terror has posed a particular problem in garnering the attention of students. There has perhaps never been, in all of the history of our college, a major American war from which Wabash men have had the luxury of remaining so detached. Aside from those few who have relatives in the armed services or have themselves enlisted, the War on Terror has played out for most students like a television drama, in which bad news is brought to us by the venues of CNN and the Fox News Channel as opposed to a soldier with a solemn telegram. The televised and disconnected nature of this war has given us the false impression that it is an optional part of our lives; that we can literally turn it off if we so wish. But that is not the true nature of any war. And this war, more than most, has the potential, indeed even the probability, of spilling over onto American soil. The haunting image of another attack on the United States like September 11th is not, as some would have you believe, simply a fabricated scenario concocted by the sinister
Dick Cheney in order to scare people into voting Republican and throwing away their civil liberties. It is a real possibility and a frightening reality of the new century we have entered. Such an attack, if and when it takes place, would immediately shatter the illusory notion that this is a war we can watch pass as bystanders. Hopefully that day will not come, but we cannot go on as if that illusory notion is real. In order to prepare ourselves for the great challenges ahead, we must educate ourselves about the Middle East. You may be thinking that this all sounds a bit lofty. Why does everyone have to learn about this? Perhaps you are a math or biology major. You want to be a doctor, a chemist, a real scientist. You are not at all interested in this topic, which ventures into the realm of political science. What reason do you have to dabble into this complicated area if it will not affect the career of your choice? If you are not drawn to learn about the Middle East through your own intellectual curiosity (that is to say, your desire to think critically), then there are plenty of other reasons to do so. Even if you wish to be nothing more in life than a voting citizen, it is important that you learn of these issues in order to choose the best leaders to manage them (i.e. to act responsibly as a citizen). If, on the other hand, you are one of the many Wabash men who dreams of being a leader of some kind, then it is obviously important to learn about the region in order to avoid the mistakes the current generation of leaders have made. For democracy to function at its best, the entirety of the voting public must be well-informed. This current struggle is an experience that we are going through collectively, as a nation, which is the best
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 13
WABASH way to succeed. Wabash College has the capacity to prepare you for these tasks, but only if you let it. So how does Wabash College prepare you to confront the challenges that face our country? Well, to begin with, it brings speakers like Vali Nasr to campus. He was almost certainly one of the most important speakers to come to campus all year, but as such, he is in good company. Wabash delivers no shortage of important speakers. John Ashcroft’s speech in the Chapel earlier this month represented the opposite side of the coin Nasr presented: national security. He delivered a similar call for our generation, telling us that we would inherit the world’s complicated problems and ultimately devise our own solutions (developing a formula from which we can preserve our freedom and remain protected in this dangerous new world). Ashcroft’s speech certainly had better attendance than Nasr’s, yet there were still those who didn’t show up. Though it was certainly their right to do so, it was odd to see students, few as they may be, boycotting an event of such importance. They embodied an attitude which is particularly harmful to efforts to educate citizens. In order to learn about the Middle East, or any other part of the world for that matter, one must listen to views
which don’t line up with your own. Discerning the truth in the complex web of cultures and opinions of the world is a difficult matter. Claiming that you will not listen to another point of view be-
cause that view is somehow “biased” is not a valid excuse because every point of view, in some way or another, is biased. Vali Nasr was not an untainted god who graced this campus with his infallible truths, and neither was John Ashcroft.
But there were things to be learned from both speakers. There were arguments to be made for and against both speakers and discussions to be held. This same principle applies to classes at Wabash; another way the College can help you prepare to confront our nation’s challenges. Too often, students will boycott classes, both literally and intellectually, because the professors are perceived to have a certain political bias. Only through taking those classes, listening to biases of all sides and understanding them, however, can one get to the truth. Finally, if you don’t want go to important lectures or take classes pertinent to the problems our country faces, then Wabash offers two more indispensable tools for understanding the Middle East: free newspapers and high-speed broadband Internet access. Two of the simplest of Wabash’s gifts are two of the most valuable sources of information. The New York Times (again don’t be afraid of liberal bias) provides in-depth reporting, analysis, and commentary from the Middle East and all around the world. As far as the Internet goes, the more biased you get, the better. Websites like Continued on page 31
The Phoenix
PAGE 14
MARCH 2007
WABASH
Wabash, Tear Down This Wall Wabash’s Botched Attempt to Diversify by Josh Bellis
P
Managing Editor
art of the experience of becoming a Wabash man is learning to think critically about all issues and aspects of life. Diversity is one such issue that I have chosen to consider. On a campus where diversity is placed on a pedestal and looked upon as an important aspect of Wabash for its very survival, it appears to me that we are not doing that great. I have been criticized many times before for ignoring what some refer to as “systems of power” that exist within society, but I will continue to assert that these systems in terms of race will never be eradicated with the amount of attention some choose to place on them. However, it may take a conservative to teach a liberal how to properly respect diversity, but only because the powers that be have forced these issues. In my personal opinion, all of this is completely nonsensical and unnecessary because it is not possible to give equal attention to each minority group. Equality should not be defined as giving attention to minority groups, but rather as treating each person with the same amount of respect and due process. We have many student groups on campus that reach out to all kinds of groups in terms of race, nationality, etc., but why have African Americans or blacks been held in such esteem while other
minority groups have been given no special attention? It is clear that the admissions departments at colleges nation-wide are placing an emphasis on minority recruitment. We even have programs here at Wabash that focus on minority recruitment. But why are we only focusing on one or two groups? It should be noted that although the Admissions Department hosts a minority recruitment weekend (AAHL) that focuses on two groups, African Americans and Hispanic/Latino students, there are indeed other minority groups on campus besides African Americans and Hispanic/Latino students. Furthermore, in the larger scheme of things if the college is truly trying to achieve their picture perfect definition of diversity there
“
ry about without having these other debts to eradicate. Everyone has been offended or put off by someone else at some point in their life, and though it doesn’t make it right, we should be focusing on fixing the problems we have created, and not on problems of past generations that died years ago. At Wabash, we should be teaching young men how to live and co-exist with other men with differing ideas and opinions, and not continue to build walls that keep us from teaching this basic concept. It is my understanding from the Wabash Archives that Wabash has been educating black men since 1856, which is over 150 years, and is almost the length of its entire existence. After all, it seems clear that in order to maintain consistency on a campus where the recently coined phrase, “Wabash Always Listens,” is frequently tossed around, we should not only be listening, but also be doing something about it. The fact is that Wabash does not always listen. In terms of diversity, Wabash always hides. Instead of being proud of the culture that Wabash students have created over the years, we are forced to hide it and provide alternatives for minority students, or rather for the only group to complain about it—the black students. The only reason for the 1967 creation of the Afro House (What would become the Malcolm X Institute) is because this minority group refused to fully partake in Wabash traditions. If you have read up on your MXI history you would know that the Afro House was
The Malcolm X Institute of Black Studies cannot be the umbrella organization for all minority groups.
”
are certainly more minority groups we should be recruiting. Of course, we could always go the route of playing, “what minority was/is oppressed the most” thereby giving more attention to the group that deserves more reparations for the wrong doing of generations of dead people. How many more generations must pay for social debts of their past? I think most will agree that the real national debt is large enough for the next couple generations to wor-
The Phoenix
MARCH 2007
PAGE 15
WABASH created because two black students messed up during one of our greatest traditions, Chapel Sing, and were going to have ‘W’s shaved into their Afros. Of course the students didn’t want this. But who really did? But the fact was that the students felt their Afros were a cultural symbol of pride, and were unwilling to give this up for “Dear Old Wabash.” Perhaps, if these students had simply learned the song, then they would not have been in this predicament. The issue is that EVERY STUDENT who did not know the song had to have a ‘W’ shaved into their heads, not just the black students. So, why was there such a fuss? This was a known tradition. Why did this suddenly become an issue when the repercussions for not knowing the song were being enforced? This is not an issue of the College favoring whites and ignoring blacks or giving them worse treatment, this is EQUAL treatment. If I were to join a military academy, then I would have to adhere to the admissions standards they set—I would have to eat, sleep, and do what I was told. In the same way, if I were to move to France, I would have to presumably learn French, eat what was available and adhere to the laws set by their country, not of my native country. This is the price one pays to venture out into the world, even in the same country or city there are different cultures and rules that must be followed if you want to be a part of that respective group. Therefore, is it truly the case that we need to be diverse and make sure that all voices are heard and recognized in some fashion? Or, is it the case that the squeaky wheel gets the grease? If we as a college are to claim
that we are diverse, perhaps those who are liberal-minded should have come up with similar solutions to this problem of Wabash diversity, prior to their recent investment in the MXI. A new plan must be discussed and put in motion to fix the injustices on this campus in relation to the rest of the minorities on campus. In order to fulfill
“
the student body of what the respective group’s cultural contribution to society was or is. I mean, it only makes sense that if we are trying to embrace diversity that we would be building other centers besides the Malcolm X Institute of Black Studies to make our point. Fiscally, the reason is quite clear. Wabash does not have the space or the funds readily available to create such centers and to keep up maintenance and compensate a staff for each, as is done with the MXI. With a student body of less than 1,000, this move doesn’t make much sense, but then again, it doesn’t make much sense to build a building to ensure that one minority group’s voice is heard over others. Certainly, one would think that groups with the most people should be represented as well, but I have yet to find the office of European or Hispanic/Latino studies anywhere on campus. Perhaps someone could direct me to it? The second solution is one in which most colleges and universities have embraced because it is a seemingly proper solution to appreciate minority groups and leave room for expansion should other groups demand representation. This is the correct way to demonstrate that the College is attempting to diversify. Clearly, if we were trying to be sensitive to the needs of minority groups we would create a system that is non-offensive and equal to all parties who would like to be involved. We would certainly not show favoritism to one minority group, because that opens oneself up to criticism, accusations and scandal.
We have re-segregated, in an attempt to diversify; we have put up walls that continue to eat away at our very existence as an all male institution. We have infected the brains of students into thinking they have done something wrong, or that they deserve something because of skin. the goal of diversity that this college is working so hard to attain, we should have to create institutes or centers for each group in order to make sure that no student ever feels ostracized or like he doesn’t belong at Wabash. This model will require the college to increase the funding for each of these groups to build a two million dollar building and the respective maintenance fees covered. All of this is much too extravagant for my taste, but it is a solution nonetheless. In order to lay out what most liberal audiences would consider true diversity; one must consider the challenge with which we have been given. Perhaps, in relation to Wabash, this begs the question, “Where is the European Studies, Hispanic Studies, Middle-Eastern studies, American Indian studies, Asian studies, Women’s studies, or any other politically correct term you can think of studies center here?” I have not heard anything about a comprehensive plan to begin construction on the rest of these centers to study the histories and inform
”
continued on page 24
The Phoenix
PAGE 16
MARCH 2007
THE WCU
The Wabash Conservative Union Presents:
The Phoenix
Th
ent: m e t a t S f The n o o i n s o s i i t ix M ublica romote p n u r e Phoen t
p studen n, seeks to a , x i nio pus of d oen U h m P e a v c e i t h e a “T onserv vatism on th ul debate an C h s a Wab conser oughtf raditions of h l t a u h t g c intelle e throu ng the best t nix will g e l l o i oe hC Wabas ourse. Follow ent, The Ph with em so sc civil di ervative mov and will do le ns the co eas not peop ity.� gr id attack esty and inte on both h
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 17
THE WCU
The New Wabash Conservative Movement The creation of this group signals a continuation of the work that was started last year to create an effective, gentlemanly voice for conservatism on campus. The Phoenix will attempt to respectfully engage in a battle of ideas about the goings on in the College and the world. Conservatives have a lot to say about the current state of affairs in both. This publication seeks to give a voice to conservatives who wish to challenge the liberalism and secular orthodoxy that has becomed entrenched on far too many campuses. This staff plans to be active promoters of a traditional Wabash, one that recognizes that the College’s strengths lie with, among other things, its all-male heritage, its solid foundation in the liberal arts tradition and the continued autonomy of the Gentleman’s Rule.
The Phoenix
PAGE 18
MARCH 2007
WABASH
The Revolving Door Many Question Admissions Department’s Strategy
by Ryan Grand
T
Staff Writer
he Admissions Department has gone through numerous changes in the past few years in an attempt to increase the interest level of high school students in attending our institution. Some of these changes have been viewed as positive, while others see them as detrimental to the quality of future student bodies. There are a few events that I believe the College does exceptionally well. The Top 10 and Top 20 scholarship days are an excellent way to lure outstanding students to Wabash College. Prospective students are guaranteed a certain level of scholarship money, just by attending these special visitation days set up by the Admissions Department. The two days reward what Steven Klein, Dean of Admissions, describes as the single greatest indicator of success at Wabash: performance in the high school classroom. The early exposure to the Wabash campus and monetary incentives provide a valuable experience to prospective students that are at or near the top of their class and increases their interest in attending Wabash. Despite these programs and other well-received scholarship days, such as the Lilly and Honors Scholarship weekends, some disturbing changes and events have taken place recently and have made many in the Wabash community wary of the impact and thinking behind these issues. The foremost of these events occurred a year ago during AfricanAmerican and Hispanic/Latino (AAHL) weekend. The weekend fell on the same
date as the O.A.R. concert, one of the national acts brought in by the College that semester. According to Dean Klein, the Admissions Department had never had to deal with this kind of issue during that weekend and was unprepared to offer the prospective students other entertainment options. The prospects were given the option of being taken to Purdue for the night on a Wabash-sponsored bus. Many of the prospects embraced this option and spent part of their weekendvisit to Wabash on another campus. Needless to say, this decision became a controversial topic almost immediately. Dean Klein defended the decision with the following response, “My understanding was that the entertainer that weekend did not appeal to AfricanAmerican students … also I don’t think that the MXI scheduled any activities for that weekend … We were basically looking for something enjoyable for them to do that evening.” I understand the logic that the prospects should have a fun and memorable experience when they visit Wabash College, but what kind of message are we sending an African-American student when we bus them away from the College during their visit because they visited on a weekend when there happened to be a concert that did not specifically appeal to them? It seems to me that this action planted an extremely negative view of Wabash is the minds of prospective students. This was one of the largest party weekends of the entire semester, and there were literally hundreds and hundreds of females on our fair campus, thus making the actual concert only a small portion of the night. The College was implying that if students wanted to have a good time on
the weekends, then they would have to leave campus for greener pastures. I find this thought to be positively repulsive. I can understand if prospects and students don’t have any interest in a national act, but the concert was only a single ingredient of the weekend. By sending the high school students to Purdue, the Admissions Department was effectively telling them that Wabash wasn’t even worth staying at for an entire weekend. The prospects missed out on valuable time that could have been spent with current Wabash students figuring out whether or not they are a good fit for our admittedly unique campus. Instead, they were half-an-hour north with other college students who could care less if they want to attend Wabash College. While I do want all students to have a fruitful experience when they visit Wabash, I want them to remain on her grounds during their entire stay. After discussing the matter with Dean Klein, it does seem that this was a onetime occurrence that was a reaction to the National Act. I hope this remains true, as I fear that the message being conveyed by this action is that Wabash is not conducive to the future social life of an African-American prospect. The decision to make the application essay optional is another issue that has been widely discussed. Dean Klein was able to enlighten me as to why he believes this change was an improvement, “The ACT and SAT now provide an objective writing score and we are able to obtain access to those essays (that the students have written) … there’s also a concern that as people write essays … you don’t know what kind of help
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 19
WABASH they’ve had.” Dean Klein also commented on the fact that many high school students are continuing to send essays, despite the lack of necessity. He was unable to provide numbers at this time, but claimed that they were significant. The new format of these popular standardized tests now allows colleges to judge the writing of prospective students that is taken from a setting where the student is left to his own resources. There’s no way that mommy, daddy, or a favorite English teacher could have heavily edited or even co-written the essay to make the prospect appear to be a literary prodigy. This is the advantage to looking exclusively at the writing done by students during these tests. However, there are a variety of factors that may play into the quality of the writing done by the student on a standardized test. One issue is that the student has to slog through some of the most mind-numbing Saturday morning hours of his entire life. The sheer drudgery and tediousness of the SAT may have an impact on the focus, creativity, and attention to detail of any teenager attempting to write an essay that may have quite an impact on his future college decision. The time limit that the SAT imposes upon the student may also taint the writing because of the need to crank out a full-length, error-free essay regarding a previously unknown topic. I like the notion that the Admissions Department is heavily considering the results of the SAT or ACT writing section, but I feel that there are too many flaws within the testing system to rely only on that one piece of writing when determining the quality and polish of the writing skills of a senior in high school. Standardized tests should be used in conjunction with an essay required on the application. If a student is indeed being completely coached through their application essay, it should be readily apparent to the reader that the student’s style is radically different in the two documents. The application essay should be more polished and better written, but this difference should be attributable to the ability of the student
to prepare and develop a more meaningful essay than to the outside influence of adults. Both essays are useful measures of an incoming students writing ability and I believe they can both serve a purpose in determining whether a student is capable of handling the academic rigors of Wabash. When discussing why the essay became merely an option, Dean Klein did make one statement that troubled me. “You’d be surprised at how many people get everything in, but they just draw things out when they get to the es-
to Wabash College, what does that say about the student’s chances of surviving, let alone succeeding, in this intense environment? This reflects one of the problems that have always affected institutions of higher learning across the country: a need to fill a certain class size and increase application numbers, rather than solely attempt to attract the very best student possible. While I know that Wabash strives to attract men that will be able to meet the high standards required of them, it appears that this latest change
say … we saw this as a way to help high school students get their applications complete while at the same time not sacrificing any rigor in our review.” I understand the logic behind Dean Klein’s statement, which is to encourage more applicants to apply to our college. I also understand that teenagers procrastinate, but the essay is another way of showing commitment and caring enough to take the time to submit a well-crafted writing sample. If a prospective student can’t even set aside enough time to write a relatively short essay to gain entrance
is one small step in compromising the quest to find the very best possible “Wabash men” for our college. I realize that playing the numbers game of attracting as many applicants as possible and thereby lowering the percentage of accepted students makes the College look more impressive, but is it really indicative of stronger classes coming through dear old Wabash? Only time will tell, but my feeling is some of the recent changes need to be re-evaluated and a different direction taken in terms of some of the recent developments that have taken place.
The Phoenix
PAGE 20
MARCH 2007
EVENTS
A Lesson in Un-Civil Discourse The Controversial Former Attorney General Visits Wabash by Sean Clerget
Staff Writer
Thursday March 15th, 2007 marked a historic day for the conservatives of Wabash College. John Ashcroft’s speech in the Pioneer Chapel served as the highest profile event to visit campus since Ann Coulter. Moreover, events that transpired later that same evening led to a shift in conservative organizations on the campus of Wabash College. These events caused details regarding the Ashcroft event to be overlooked, a problem which this article hopes to remedy. Many people questioned and criticized Mr. Ashcroft for being combative in the question and answer session following his speech. However, before I comment on that, I should review the events that took place earlier in the day. In the planning of the event, Tyler Gibson ’09, who served as the event coordinator, secured time in Mr. Ashcroft’s schedule to sit in on Professor Scott Himsel’s class entitled “Civil Liberties in War and Peace”. Mr. Ashcroft does not normally do these sorts of things, but agreed as a favor. All junior Political Science majors were invited to join the class for the event. The plan did not include inviting professors outside of the Political Science department, although several showed up. Before the session began, Professor Stephen Morillo, who is not part of the Political Science department, walked in, sat down, and said “I’ll listen to what he has to say, but I won’t believe a word of it.” The
lack of open-mindedness displayed in that statement from a faculty member who aligns himself with liberals and Democrats is rather comical, considering that those two groups have been known to preach open-mindedness and tolerance as great virtues. Some faculty members consider themselves to be above opinions that are not in line with theirs, and that is disappointing to see. Professor Himsel began the class by outlining a case in which a federal judge in New York, a Clinton
anyone who has ever heard Dr. Morillo speak about politics knows that being discreet is not exactly his forte. Mr. Ashcroft continued speaking because Dr. Morillo’s comments were just audible enough for the people around him to hear. Next, Dr. Morillo raised his hand and asked a very pointed question. Mr. Ashcroft began to answer when Dr. Morillo interjected with a disagreement. A debate ensued, and again Dr. Morillo interrupted Mr. Ashcroft. At that point, Mr. Ashcroft paused and asked Dr. Morillo if he was a student in
appointee, wrote an opinion and ruled against certain uses of the Patriot Act. Mr. Ashcroft took the floor next and began to defend his position. It took approximately thirty seconds before Dr. Morillo began muttering comments under his breath. Of course,
the class. Upon receiving negative answer, Mr. Ashcroft proceeded to ask if he had read the materials for that day’s class and again received negative response. Mr. Ashcroft then said, “It was my understanding that this was going to be a class.” Finally, a student raised
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 21
EVENTS his hand and said “I am an undergraduate in this class,” implying that Morillo was hogging the opportunity to engage Mr. Ashcroft. After those events, Dr. Morillo stayed relatively quiet for the rest of the session. Again, it must be said that Mr. Ashcroft agreed to participate in a class, not to be lectured to by a history professor. Following that exchange, the group seemed to settle down and resumed its discussion regarding the case at hand. However, that temporary peace was broken when Political Science major Kyle Cassidy ’08 asked a question and then interrupted Mr. Ashcroft’s response. He then engaged in an argument with Mr. Ashcroft, interrupting him with some regularity. This incident eventually led to another confrontation later that evening in the Chapel. By the end of the session, Mr. Ashcroft was understandably frustrated. Later, Mrs. Janet Ashcroft, who accompanied Mr. Ashcroft on the trip, said that although they had encountered protests and arguments at other campuses, no one had been this rude. If students on this campus expected Mr. Ashcroft to just sit back and listen to lectures from history professors and undergraduate students, they were certainly mistaken. Mr. Ashcroft defended his positions all day long and for doing so in such a strong manner, and not deferring to student and faculty attacks, he was criticized in the Bachelor. The reason that Mr. Sterling Carter ‘07, mentioned in the Bachelor editorial entitled “John Ashcroft a Waste of
Student Money,” had a somewhat heated exchange with Mr. Ashcroft was a result of his inability to follow the very clear rules which were explained before the question and answer session began. At one point Mr. Ashcroft told Jason Simons ‘08 not to give the microphone back to Mr. Carter, seeing as Mr. Carter continued to lecture Mr. Ashcroft in-
stead of actually asking a question. It was the political statements made by students, and not the defenses made by Mr. Ashcroft, that took away from the quality of discourse during the event. After the speech, Mr. Ashcroft came down from the stage to greet his wife and friends in attendance. Mr. Cassidy, who had been at the earlier session, then yelled a question at Mr. Ashcroft and began moving towards
him. Mr. Ashcroft responded by saying “No, you don’t get to ask a question because you didn’t play by the rules.” For some reason this student felt that it was his moral duty to confront Mr. Ashcroft and had to be restrained by student staffers. That this student thought he had the right to approach a guest of our college in such a confrontational way and somehow felt empowered to battle for anti-Ashcroft folks everywhere, indicates that he has given himself far too much intellectual credit. Despite the ungentlemanly behavior of a few, the event was relatively well-received on campus and certainly was well attended, considering the Chapel was full. The staff, pleased with how smoothly the event proceeded, wishes to thank everyone who attended Mr. Ashcroft’s speech and behaved in a gentlemanly manner. It is unfortunate that the poor behavior of a few caused the Ashcroft’s to question the quality of behavior at our institution. However, despite these events, by the end of the evening the Ashcroft’s had nothing but positive things to say about Wabash College. Although it should be noted that a great deal of funding for the Ashcroft event came from The Foundation For a Traditional Wabash, with which this organization was previously affiliated, it was the members of what is now The Wabash Conservative Union who, according to Jim Amidon, “…did the work of an entire staff of professional event organizers, and did so with gobs of political baggage to work through.” Some people may have thought that this new group would not be able to funcContinued on page 31
The Phoe-
PAGE 22
MARCH 2007
PERSPECTIVES
Intellectual Conservatism on Campus Has Campus Conservatism Lost Its Way? by Jason Simons
C
Copy Editor
onservatism in the United States is currently in a silent state of peril! How do I figure this, you might ask? After all, we currently have a conservative President, a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, and the Republican Party is standing strong in the midst of criticism from those on the left. I make this claim because few conservatives, including myself, have a solid understanding of issues within conservatism today. Rather than seeking to understand topics by reading books and engaging in meaningful discussion, many conservative students simply abide by what the Republican Party says and take it to be a valid argument. They also fail to seek out the root and basic theories of conservatism, as we tend to favor a more shallow understanding. Great conservative theorists and authors like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet, who once provided the basis of conservative thought, have faded to near obscurity, as I had never heard of these scholars until recently. This is a sad development that ought not to be taken lightly, especially at a place like Wabash where men are taught to think critically and independently. If we are capable of doing so with other topics, then should we not seek to do so about
our political and moral ideologies? Daniel McCarthy, in his article in The American Conservative titled “GOP and Man at Yale,” discusses this development. He notes that conservatism has become a sort of “all-or-nothing” form of Republicanism, saying, “We now parade in shirts proclaiming ‘George W. Bush is My Homeboy.’ The campus Right has almost always been more activist than intellectual, just as the wider movement has been more po-
litical than cultural. But where once students were at least familiar with the names Kirk and Weaver, today they look to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for guidance. They’re little acquainted with the wisdom of the contemporary Right’s founding generation, and it shows.” He also uses terms like “Hipublicans” and “South
Park Conservatives” to critique the mindless views of many conservative students. He places most of the blame on organizations like College Republicans, which in his view “put a low premium on encouraging students to read the canon of intellectual conservatism.” He looks more favorably on organizations like Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), which openly encourage students to read the works of conservative scholars and even provide free books to those who are interested in reading them. I fully agree with McCarthy that conservative-affiliated organizations have failed in promoting an intellectual form of conservatism or in providing a solid basis for critical thought. Certainly, it has been a failure of the conservative movement at Wabash not to have discussed these scholars or to provide an intellectual basis that conservative students can build upon. As the conservative movement is advanced forward by The Phoenix, it is our aim to provide an intellectual basis for conservative thought and dialogue on this campus. In upcoming issues, you can expect to find articles that focus on great conservative scholars and how their work might influence our positions on issues within conservatism, both within and outside of the Wabash community. We will continue to discourage mindless thought on issues and will promote a deeper understanding of such issues through civil discourse.
The Phoenix
PAGE 23
MARCH 2007
TRADITION
A Moment in Wabash History by Kyle O’Keefe
W
Staff Writer
abash College is a scenic experience unlike many other colleges. Throughout this majestic College one will find brick walkways, Georgian architecture, and fields of trees. The College’s tree collection, more commonly know as the Arboretum, has a unusal history. Walking through the Arboretum, one may notice the beautiful variety of aged trees evenly distributed throughout campus. One probably does not notice all of the hard work that was put into arranging such an environment. Parrish Fuller realized the need to teach Wabash College students, and all people, about the importance of good forestry practice, educating about the cultural and natural history of forests in Indiana and displaying some sign of our College’s wilderness heritage. With this realization, Parrish and his wife envisioned a spectacular addition to the College that would capture these biological and educational characteristics of Indiana and combine all of them in a model called the Arboretum. Parrish suggested his ideas to faculty and administration at Wabash including Biology Professor Robert Petty, and President of the College, Thaddeus Seymour. The College chose to preserve the natural aspect of the campus, resisting pre-emption of the land area for buildings. Because of the natural diversity that
has been fostered, it is possible on campus to learn and enjoy all the tree species native to Indiana. Parrish Fuller was born in Madison, Wisconsin on May 21, 1892. He grew up in Boonville and Shelbyville, Indiana. Fuller was a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity at Wabash and graduated in 1915. He then moved to Louisiana in 1919 to pursue forestry and other businesses. A former trustee of the College, Fuller supervised construction of numerous campus buildings as chairperson. He received an honorary LL.B. degree from Wabash in 1954 and the Alumni Award
of Merit from the National Association of Wabash Men in 1960. Fuller never knew that he would play such an important role in establishing Wabash College and contributing to the benefit of society in so many other ways. With the help of alumni and very large financial contributions from Parrish Fuller himself, the Arboretum was officially dedicated to the College on May 14th, 1973. At first, the Arboretum contained seventy different plant species from Indiana, but over the years, addi-
tions have been made to the forest model. Today, after the gradual planting of ivy, holly, spruce, juniper, pine, and hemlock, the Arboretum contains close to 90 different species. Hopefully the Arboretum will continue to expand across campus in future years. The Arboretum has allowed students to study and learn the leaves and structures of all of the great variety of species found here at Wabash. It has been a sufficient resource for botany, ecology, and other biological studies done on campus. The Arboretum also provides an aesthetic quality that cannot be easily acquired at other campuses in Indiana or the rest of the country for that matter. However, the Arboretum is not only an example of all of the tree species found in Indiana, but it also contains an example of the substance from which Wabash College continues to thrive. Tulip trees, sycamores, maples, elms, hickories, basswoods, white ashes, dogwoods, and many other species have been donated, planted, and dedicated to the College from people who truly care and love Wabash dearly. When walking through the Arboretum, you might notice a stone with 28 names carved on it. This was donated along with a weeping willow by the class of 1898. Students, faculty, alumni, and friends leave a part of themselves at Wabash College by donating or contributing a tree to the Arboretum. If the educational and aesthetic value of the Arboretum is not held in high regards to you as an individual, the cherished memories and experiences of Wabash affiliates that have grown with these trees on this beautiful TWC campus should be.
The Phoenix
PAGE 24
Africa
Continued from page 7
We could also talk about Julius Nyerere, who talked about how much he loved poor people and persuaded Western nations to give him money so that he could build a socialist utopia in Tanzania. You guessed it: he left the country in utter economic ruin. But enough, I’m getting depressed. You might think that Western Marxism would have been dis-
Diversity
Continued from page 13
A multicultural center is in order if we wish to truly diversify our campus in a way that is not offensive and truly diverse. The only fair way to create centers of study that appreciate all cultures and aspects of life is to give each group the ability to partake in college resources. If the College wishes not to engage in such activities, then it should have thought this through prior to the completion of phase I (building the MXI) in the Diversifying Comprehensive Plan for Wabash College. A multicultural center would have many offices within it for each group. All of these offices would co-exist in the same space and use the same resources. This all sounds great to anyone interested in truly diversifying the campus, but there is one big problem. The College already put so many resources toward the MXI that anything less for the other organizations would be unfair and bias. The only solution to this would be to build a multicultural center and move MXI into that building as part of the overall center, and use the current MXI building for some other purpose. Another solution to this seemingly awkward proposal is one that I personally favor, that we could simply abolish any such college support monetarily or physically to maintain equality on campus
MARCH 2007
credited by this track record, but you are wrong. Western Marxists have lost their influence in Africa, but now they rule over African studies in history departments, protected by tenure and impervious to reason. Let me end by turning to the work of Lamin Sanneh, a Yale Divinity School Professor and a writer who has had the most influence on my understanding of Christianity in Africa. Sanneh is brilliant, but he’s also a Christian from Africa, and his book, Whose Religion is Christianity?, should be required reading at Wabash. He talks about the way
Christianity, in contrast to Islam, put scripture in the hands of the people by translating it into their local languages. Christianity did not discover Africa. Africans discovered Christianity. Colonialism was a secularizing force that advanced Islam, not Christianity. Africans responded best to Christianity where their indigenous religions were the strongest, not the weakest. The skeptical and secular West will never understand what is going on in Africa. And on and on. Dear reader, weep not only for Africa but also for high-
and keep all groups at a status quo of purely student orchestrated events and organizations that have no additional help outside of their own raising of funds or Student Senate granted budgets, through activities fees. Most would shudder at the thought of a designated building for a European studies center, Hispanic/ Latino center, or even appalled by the idea of an Edmund Burke Center for Conservative Thought. However, a precedent has already been established for student groups to have centers built and maintained with college funding to promote their core belief system. Perhaps the College will consider such Centers in the future. I realize it is unlikely; however, precedence has proven a reliable in predicting future actions of institutions. A n y one can understand the intention of the Malcolm X Institute, as well the studious nature of the College in helping with such an effort. However, a more comprehensive look at diversity and the future of the College should have been at the forefront. At this point, the pieces that represent diversity must be gathered and reconfigured if a goal of respecting a truly diverse campus is to be met. It is clear that the liberal side has royally screwed up once again, despite its best efforts to be helpful. Standards were lowered, traditions were spat upon, and a short term solution pacified the loud screams of inequality. The result of these occurrences was that true equality was quickly
hidden beneath the scarlet sway. Now, one can clearly see that the very thing that was to set us free has once again enslaved us. Rather than banding together to create a sense of unified community, we have created yet another excuse and exemption for those who would rather be on their own. We have re-segregated, in an attempt to diversify. We have put up walls that continue to eat away at our very existence as an all-male institution. We have infected the brains of students into thinking they have done something wrong, or that they deserve something because of skin, or a system of power that some on this campus claim can NEVER be defeated. I refuse to buy this argument, which is merely an excuse for ‘a better world’. The expiration date has long since passed and I refuse to drink from its foul matter. Let us not mask what has been done by using the word diversity, because diversity describes differences in people, and we are not treasuring that. Instead, passivity is the correct terminology, as we are not acting on diversity, but are instead pacifying those who complain. The term black cannot be used synonymously with the word minority. The Malcolm X Institute of Black Studies cannot be the umbrella organization for all minority groups. Once again, a conservative voice is attempting to clean up the mess of one of the most unequal plans ever put into action at Wabash College.
er education in America.
The Phoenix
PAGE 26
MARCH 2007
RELIGION
Is Christ Manly?
A New Christian Movement Seeks to Restore Manliness to Scripture by Brandon Stewart
A
Editor-in-Chief
new type of religious revival for men has been getting increasing attention lately. A men’s gathering called “GodMen: Where Faith Gets Dangerous” sets out to create a space for men to explore their faith “with absolute honesty, transparency and openness - not sugar coated or framed in church language but instead spoken in frankness and maturity where men can see their innermost fears, shames, and secrets brought to light in a safe environment.” The movement was a collaborative project between men like Christian comic Brad Stine and Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy. In an interview with TWC, Stine credits his manager with the initial push to get GodMen started. “It really started with me and my manager, Mike Smith. He had read this book Why Men Hate Going to Church and kind of resonated with a lot of its points.” From that research, the realization emerged that the modern church was failing to address the real needs of men. “I sort of felt like, instead of me just going in and performing, we could go in with a couple of guys and make it sort of an event,” said Stine, “where you’re just giving guys some space to explore their Christian spirituality.” The motivation for the group, said Stine, is that “church in the United States oftentimes seems to not have elements that resonate with men.” Stine
and others like him feel that Christianity promotes the peaceful, “meek and mild” Jesus without presenting the other, more aggressive side of Christ. As Stine put it, “We’re saying that there was another part of Jesus which was just as a true.” After all, Stine continues, “Jesus insulted people. He called religious people a generation of vipers. That’s an insult. He said they are fit for hell. That’s a curse. So this is not some meek, little girly Jesus.” Nevertheless, Stine is emphatic that GodMen wasn’t created to usurp the role of the church. Rather, the group sees itself as an auxiliary to the Christian movement by providing something churches cannot. “Now, we’re not against the church either, we’re not blaming the church,” cautions Stine, “I mean it’s got a difficult situation, it has
“
ers, which was founded in 1990 by former University of Colorado head football coach Bill McCartney. GodMen tries hard to distinguish itself as something separate from Promise Keepers. “This group targets the guys who went to Promise Keepers once and didn’t go back, the guys who believe in God, but relationships in church to them seem forced and fake,” says former pastor Nate Larkin. “There is an underserved market and I think it is a rising tide.” Eileen Finan wrote in her Newsweek article about the movement that one attendee even referred to GodMen as Promise Keepers on crack. But Stine is quick to point out that he is not against the Promise Keepers movement. “I love Promise Keepers. They are doing everything they do because they actually, genuinely care about men and about teaching to teaching them to be great fathers and husbands and lovers.” GodMen’s advantage is in its freshness. “Once you start something, you get branded and it’s hard to get beyond that,” said Stine, “Once you say, this is what we are, people expect you to stick with it.” So, whereas Promise Keepers has traditionally had pastors lead their sessions, GodMen has had from its start laymen who the founders felt would be able to be more real. Stine intimated that laymen better represented the everyman, and weren’t seen as so set apart from the ordinary guy like pastors are. Similarly, the sessions themselves can deal more honestly with real issues facing men. Describing the GodMen events, Stine said, “It’s a little more raw, a little less sugar coat-
Eileen Finan wrote in her Newsweek article about the conference that one attendee even referred to GodMen as Promise Keepers on crack. teenagers mixed in there with old people and middle aged people. It does have men in there and women. There are so many diverse demographics in there, so it’s not as if they can say, tough, we’re just making it for guys. They are trying to reach as many people as possible.” A brazen, independent movement, GodMen is nevertheless often mentioned in relation to Promise Keep-
”
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 27
RELIGION ed. We talk about lust – it’s such a big problem for men.” But whereas most Christian events would speak more abstractly about “temptations,” explains Stine, GodMen hosts a former pastor who admits to the assembled men that he picked up his first prostitute on the way to preach at a candlelight service on Christmas Eve. “It’s that rawness that you don’t see if other events,” says Stine finally. As Finan wrote in her Newsweek article, GodMen “isn’t your Daddy’s religious revival.” But that is precisely what has attracted as many detractors as supporters. A veteran Christian comic, Stine is no stranger to controversy. In his online blog he jots down his thoughts on different contemporary issues. He concludes one entry saying, “I want to see political correctness die in my lifetime, but first...I want to watch it suffer. Anyone along for the ride?” And his latest venture, this GodMen movement, has certainly done its best to take a stab at the PC culture. The Los Angeles Times wrote an article which, according to Stine, “contrived some things to make it seem less…or not what it was. So that was interesting because I’m not used to being spun.” A number of feminist groups have objected for all sorts of reasons ranging from accusations of sexism to the reinforcement of stereotypical gender roles. “All we want to do is have is a men’s event,” sighs Stine, “And we want to say, women you’re not invited. And its not because we don’t like you, it’s because it’s ours. You can start your own event.” (Wabash men might be especially able to relate to this sentiment if they were to replace “event” for “college”.) “In school, when a girl acts like a girl, she’s rewarded for being smart and studious,” Stine continues “When a boy
acts like a boy, he’s given Ritalin because he won’t settle down. It’s this squashing of the male spirit that we want to address. What GodMen is exposing is this attack on maleness in the United States. Look at the sitcoms, men are the idiots. Look at the commercials; we’re the punch lines of society.” But whereas many of the complaints have come from the secular world, others have pushed back for more religious reasons. An excellent article in First
Things seems to object to the movement, not because it doesn’t toe the politically correct line, but because it’s an incomplete view of Christ. “It’s mockable—and yet all such movements are trying to react against the bad and seek the good, writes First Things Assistant Editor Mary Angelita Ruiz, “The Jesus Mean and Wild men are confronting a serious problem. Many Christians are frustrated by the Christianity presented to them: too polite, too sunny, and too nice to help them in their struggles. GodMen uses the straight-talking, gunsblazing atmosphere of its meetings to help its participants deal with sexual temptation and sin.” This is an argu-
ment which engages the issue in a way that other detractors don’t, namely on a religious level. Ms. Ruiz seems to admit that there is a problem facing Christianity – on any given Sunday, over 60% of the attendees are women, which according to David Murrow’s book Why Men Hate Going to Church, translates into 13 million more women attending church than men. The difference is that Ms. Ruiz sees the manly Christian movement as insufficient to bring about a solution. “The aim of meditating on Christ is to know him and love him—all of him: the judge, the spouse, the brother, the child, the friend, the king, the shepherd. The aim of imitating Christ is to become like him,” writes Ruiz, “There are no shortcuts. Slogans, self-help books, rallies, makeovers—these will not substitute for worship of Christ, not as we might like him to be, but as he is.” And yet, Stine readily admits this. “I would never, ever like to remove the merciful God, the forgiving Jesus, the guy who went in while people were in the middle of sin and gave them grace and mercy. All those parts are beautiful parts of Christianity. I mean it’s the only religion that says to love your enemy.” The theological concern, then, is that people understand that, as with most things with Christ, he was both at once. Just as He was both fully divine and fully human, he was similarly both loving and full of compassion while being aggressive and bold. For many the realization is that only Christ can mediate this divide flawlessly. When observed through that lens, the GodMen movement becomes yet another expression of man’s attempt to live a life modeled on Christ.
Do you believe in the power of ideas? The Wabash Conservative Union does. Please contact Brandon Stewart to get involved
stewartb@wabash.edu 573-864-2552
The Phoenix
MARCH 2007
PAGE 29
CPAC 2007
TRAVELS
An Adventure to the Nation’s Capital by Josh Bellis ‘08
O
Managing Editor
n spring break, four staff members, Trent Hagerty, Tyler Gibson, Josh Bellis, and Brandon Stewart went to Washington D.C. to take part in an intensive three day conference. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) began in 1973 as a small group of conservatives. Since that time, the conference has grown into a major national event with Congressmen, Senators, political commentators, and other major players in the conservative movement. CPAC is sponsored by the American Conservative Union along with the Young America’s Foundation and Human Events. The event was unlike any conference they had attended for its sheer size and notoriety for the staffers that made the trip. CPAC was much different from the type of conferences that staffers usually attend. Rather, than 100 - 400 attendees and regimented schedules, CPAC had over 6,000 attendees, both young and old, and so many sessions that it was literally impossible to see and do everything at the conference. Although the sessions overlapped and had no scheduled breaks between, the staffers did their best to attend what they thought would be the most thought provoking and high profile sessions. One particularly interesting thing to note about CPAC is that is served as a staging ground for the majority of the main Republican presidential candidates, by allowing them to bring
their candidacy for the White House to college students. The staffers present were fortunate enough to have lunch with a presidential hopeful Senator Sam Brownback, along with a handful of other college students. After lunch, Senator Brownback presented his plan for the presidency to the small group of students. Later, he received more than a little applause at the conference for his support of life, small government, and the protection of traditional marriage.
The staffers also heard from popular Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is also seeking the White House in 2008. Romney’s campaign is focused more on specifics, while some believe that this is necessary, others said that it is too early in the game to be making promises. Other more well-known candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, who made a surprise visit to CPAC, were also well-received, but also criticized for some more moderate views such as his pro-choice stance. One disappointment was that Senator John McCain declined his invitation to CPAC, which he received much criticism about later.
Perhaps the biggest highlight for the TWC staffers was being front-and-center when Ann Coulter made her joking remark about John Edwards and his run for the Democratic nomination that has been gleefully reproduced again and again on CNN and other news networks. Unfortunately, this was virtually the only sentence that made national news from the CPAC conference, not that anyone should be particularly surprised. The comment was made in a joking manner, and following that she did make a statement that she in no way meant to imply that she was against homosexuals. However, none of that made it onto the six o’clock news. Among the talks the staffers sat-in on were panels such as “Strategies for a Bold Conservative Future” with panelists like Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum) and the Honorable Kenneth Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State and honorary co-chair of the “Committee to re-elect George W. Bush”. They also attended other panels, such as “The Left’s Repeated Campaign Against the American Soldier” and “Are We Safer Than On 9/10? National Security 5 Years Later.” Additionally, there were lectures by Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, and others. The staff also attended auxiliary sessions by various conservative organizations like Young America’s Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and others. Overall, the four staffers had a blast at the conference. They learned a lot from every one of the sessions and came back excited to implement the ideas they discovered on campus in the upcoming year.
MARCH 2007
The Phoenix
PAGE 31
A LITTLE EXTRA al-Jazeera English and the Continued from page 13 Fars News Agency, while they may at first seem outrageous to the American viewer, provide insightful glimpses into the thinking of the people of the Middle East. The Internet offers an incredible wealth of information. It is a great irony that students are so disengaged from the world at a time when so much of it is available at their fingertips. In September of this school year, Wabash welcomed back members of its World War II generation to its hallowed halls. Much has been said and written about that “greatest generation” of Americans; about their spirit, their patriotism, their
Leadership
unity as a nation in confronting the menaces of their time. Today, we look back on those warriors as the men who saved civilization. They were placed by Providence at the forefront of a great and challenging moment in history, and they were equal to the tasks of their time. Any one of them would no doubt tell you that they were doing nothing extraordinary, but merely were confronting the challenges placed before them. However, we can see now just how great the challenges of the Second World War were, and how heroic their generation was in confronting them. Future generations will look back on our time with a similar sense of wonder. We too have been placed at one of history’s great crucibles, and we too have the potential to
rise to the challenge. But potential is not always used, and the course of history is not inevitable. If we are to have future generations look back on us as a great generation, then we must follow the example of the “greatest generation.” The circumstances of our two generations are, to be sure, very different. The blessings of America’s overwhelmingly superior military technology do not require that every Wabash man enlist in the armed services and serve in battle, but every Wabash man must still serve. To win the War on Terror, we must build a generation of educated citizens, prepared to guide our country into a new era of leadership. It is our patriotic duty to do so.
Ashcroft
a short span of two weeks, this group of dedicated conservative students put on one of the largest events in the recent history of Wabash College, and put out a quality publication from scratch. It was extremely rewarding to see the chapel full of Wabash students at the Ashcroft event, just as it has been rewarding to put together this publication from the ground up. Let it be known that conservatism is
not in shambles on this campus. There is a group of dedicated students who are focused on fighting for conservative issues at Wabash College. The same professionalism that was exhibited by the members of The Wabash Conservative Union in the execution of the Ashcroft event can be expected to continue in all the actions of this group including its publication: The Phoenix.
Continued from page 21
tion very well after the split from the foundation, which had provided many resources. Although the funding provided by that group was helpful, this issue of The Phoenix should put to rest any doubts about the abilities of The Wabash Conservative Union. In
During the middle of Mr. Ashcroft’s lecture, the placard for The Wabash Commentary fell down. At the time, it was unfortunate. Now it just seems ... symbolic.