November 2007 by Wabash Conservative Union

The Phoenix November 2007

Volume 2, Issue 2

The Rebirth of the Conservative Movement at Wabash

Tenure Process Revealed

PLUS:

Quality of Life Survey Dissected Wabash Conservatism Studied What Are We Doing to Train Leaders? And Much More . . .

The Phoenix editor-in-chief

Brandon Stewart ’08 managing editor

Josh Bellis ’08

business manager

Wes Prichard ’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

Bryce Chitwood ’08 Austin Faulkner ’08 Ryan Grand ’08 James Inman ‘08 Ryan Nuppnau ’08 Sean Clerget ’09 Trent Hagerty ’09 Brent Kent ’09 Joseph Merkley ’09 John Moton ’09 Kevin Andrews ’10 John Henry ’10 Daniel King ’10 Nicholas Maraman ’10 Kyle Nagdeman ’10 Curtis Peterson ’10 Austin Rovenstine ’10 Adam Brasich ’11 Andrew Forrester ’11 Brad Vest ’11 Subscription inquiries & letters: Wabash Conservative Union

Post Office Box 375 Crawfordsville, IN 47933 To reach the staff: editor@wabashunion.org

A Letter from the Editor: This second issue of the fall semester focuses on a number of topics ranging from defining conservatism to chronicling the update in the strategic plan. A main portion of the issue, however, is dedicated to learning more about the College faculty. Tenure is an issue which few students know much about and so the article on page 10 is an attempt to explain how it works. The following pages were designed to help show where tenure-track professors were in the tenure process. The Quality of Life Survey has been a hot topic on campus for the last week. However, the discussion has not fully addressed some of the more serious implications, which The Phoenix attempts to do in this issue. Enjoy,

Mission Statement

“The Phoenix, a student-run publication of The Wabash Conservative Union, seeks to promote intellectual conservatism on the campus of Wabash College through thoughtful debate and civil discourse. Following the best traditions of the conservative movement, The Phoenix will attack ideas not people and will do so with both honesty and integrity.”

Editorial Policy

All opinions expressed herein ref lect the views of the individual writers. They do not necessarily ref lect the views of The Wabash Conser vative Union, Th e P hoe n i x , or Wabash College. Especially Wabash College.

In november’s Issue:

4 8

Dr. Webb weighs in on AN e-mail controversy about religion in government, and presents a conservative defense of the First Amendment how do conservatives at wabash view themselves? To which ideology are they most sympathetic? Adam brasich takes a look the faculty’s ad-hoc quality of life committee recently produced a controversial report ever wondered how tenure works? brandon Stewart and josh bellis take an insider look

the lack of a comprehensive, wabash-based leadership program is discussed

Ryan Grand discusses the upcoming visit of Dr. leonard sax, a leading advocate of single-sex education to the wabash campus

In September we introduced the returning members of the wabash conservative union. Now meet some of our new additions to the staff

Sophomore john henry writes takes a look at what faculty need to believe to work at wabash

6 10 16 19

Another look at the stratgegic plan reveals how the plan has been progressing since september The second installment of “Around Wabash”, our take on the interesting policies, issues, and conversations taking place on our beautiful campus each day

The Phoenix

PAGE 4

NOVEMBER 2007

An Idiot’s Guide to the First Amendment

A Response to Professor Morillo by Dr. Stephen H. Webb ’83 Faculty Contributor I have great respect for Prof. Morillo. He is a master of military history, and he is an enthusiastic teacher. We do not have enough professors with passion at Wabash, so I commend him for the strength of his convictions. I do not even envy him for the many honors and awards he has won at Wabash. Dean Phillips chose him as his first selection for the teacher of the year at Wabash, and Prof. Morillo makes a lot more money than me. He has been given tremendous power to shape the history department, and he is surely the leading voice for liberal faculty at Wabash. I suppose that, for the administration and much of the faculty, he represents all that is good and worth cherishing at Wabash. I realize, then, that I represent an ideological minority at Wabash. Nonetheless, I would like to respond, politely and respectfully, to Prof. Morillo’s most recent public statements about religion and the Constitution. I have read some recent studies bemoaning the state of American history on college campuses. Some history departments no longer teach much American history, and some historians do not even know much about

the founding fathers. This is sad, but there were those who saw these trends developing. Pierre Goodrich, for example, was a great Wabash man who set up an independent foundation with his fortune because he thought Wabash had moved away from classical education in the great books tradition. Everyone at Wabash—even historians!—should stop and take a week to read the Founding Fathers.

saying in an all campus e-mail that it was “great news,” because now the government “is producing coins for ALL the people, of any religion or NONE (also note: that latter category constitutes at least 10-15% of the population, down whose throats you apparently want to shove your private beliefs).” The original e-mail, by the way, lamented the missing words on our coins, but it was rude to say that this staff member was shoving his beliefs down this professor’s throat. Prof. Morillo then went on to say that “god [sic], whether he exists or not, has nothing to do with our money,” that “if anyone is offended by this new coinage ... just give em to me,” signed his letter “your friendly atheist in the History Department” and then, oddly, apologized for using the !everyone e-mail in the act of using !everyone e-mail. Prof. Morillo thinks that monetary systems are clearly and totally an obvious example of secular problem solving, as he has told me. This is so uninformed that it is hard to know where to start, but I would recommend that Prof. Morillo read Catherine Eagleton, Money: A History, which examines the origin of money in temple rituals. Ancient coinage was almost always a tribute to a pagan god, which gave coinage its value and established its sacrality.

WORDS

WEBB The latest controversy at Wabash began when Prof. Morillo responded to an e-mail that was sent out by a staff member of the College. That e-mail concerned a rumor that coins were being minted without the words, “In God We Trust.” In fact, there were some coins minted without that phrase, but that was an accident, and those coins are now worth a lot of money. Prof. Morillo responded to this rumor by

NOVEMBER 2007

Bartering in the ancient world was a ritual activity, and even theories about interest rates are rooted in Jewish and Christian writings about usury. That Prof. Morillo, who teaches world history, is so ignorant about the role of religion in the development of economic systems is, well, unfortunate for our students. Prof. Morillo also thinks that only a theologian could deny the fact that the founders established a secular government. How could the leading historian at Wabash believe such a thing? Let’s look at the evidence. The first people who came to America wanted it to be a place that would maximize religious freedom and expression. The people who founded our government thought that religion in general and Christianity in particular was absolutely necessary for the new country. George Washington spoke for all Americans when he said, in his Farewell Address (which should be required reading for all history professors as well as students) that “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports … A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” Even Thomas Jefferson, the least Christian of the founders, wrote in his First Inaugural Address, that one of the chief principles of sound government is the “sacred preservation of the public faith.” Even as late as 1848, Horace Mann, the founder of universal public education in America, said this about religion: “Our system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible; and in receiving the Bible, it allows it to do what it is allowed to do in no other system—to speak for itself.” Mann thought that specific theological debates were barred from the classroom, but he could not even imagination a form of education that marginalized or eliminated Christian morality and the

The Phoenix centrality of the Bible. Very few people could imagine such a thing before the nineteen sixties. Up to the middle of the twentieth century or so, most Americans thought that religion was an absolutely necessary support for every aspect of American government, including its issuance of coins. Prof. Morillo will no doubt point out that the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion. Of course! The founders wanted religion to prosper and grow, and they knew that state supported religion suppresses religious freedom and creativity. They did not treat religion as a virus to be controlled and contained. Moreover, the prohibition of establishment only applied to the national government and did not impact states until the Supreme Court, in the 1940s, interpreted the 14th amendment to incorporate the first and made it binding on states. At the time of the revolution, ten of the thirteen colonies had established churches. Massachusetts kept its established church until 1833. The New York constitution established Protestantism by denying rights to Catholics, and the Maryland constitution denied equality to atheists. I’m not saying this was right, but it certainly disproves Prof. Morillo’s thesis that the leaders who shaped America wanted it to be a purely secular nation. Indeed, the Supreme Court as late as the end of the nineteenth century could refer to America as a Christian nation without anyone protesting. It is true that we live in an increasingly secular society, and it is true that liberals want our government to be secular as well, but the founders certainly did not intend that the government be hostile or indifferent toward religion. So how on earth could a history professor say that the founders intended a secular government? I would like to think that Prof. Morillo is ignorant about religion, rather than prejudiced against it. I would also like to ask everyone at Wabash whether the college made a big mistake in not listening to Pierre Goodrich. We missed out on getting his vast fortune, but it hurt us much more by ignoring his ideas.

PAGE 5

Here is the text of Dr. Morillo’s !everyone e-mail: Hey, thanks for the great news, that >New $1.00 Coin >You guessed it >’IN GOD WE TRUST’ >IS GONE!!! At last, our secular government (note: the Constitution does not mention Christianity, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion) is producing coins for ALL the people, of any religion or NONE (also note: that latter category constitutes at least 10-15% of the population, down whose throats you apparently want to shove your private beliefs). >By omitting these words, our politically correct, secularist leaders >made a conscientious decision that ... ...god, whether he exists or not, has nothing to do with our money, which is useful because the secular state makes it so. Oh, and if anyone is so offended by this new coinage that they don’t want the coins, just give em to me -- I’ll be happy to take em! your friendly atheist in the History Department Stephen Morillo, apologizing for responding via !everyone to a message which I feel is an abuse of !everyone

The Phoenix

PAGE 6

WABASH

NOVEMBER 2007

True Diversity

A Portrait of the Wabash Conservative Community by Adam Brasich ’11

Staff Writer

What comes to mind when one thinks about diversity at Wabash College? A number of institutions or groups may pop into the head—perhaps one will consider the Malcolm X Institute for Black Studies, or maybe images of the Muslim Student Association, ’shOUT, or Unidos Por Sangre might come to mind. But what about that other form of diversity—the form that often does not merit scholarships or affirmative action programs? Is ideological diversity is present at Wabash College? More specifically, does ideological diversity exist amongst campus conser vatives? Conservatives are much maligned as being monochromatic goose-steppers whose ultimate goals are to impede progress, expand a Pax Americana throughout the world, and quash any straying from the party line. This stereotype is horribly incorrect, as the conservative community of Wabash demonstrates. The diversity of conservatives becomes quite obvious Conservative once one asks a seemingly tives simple question: “What is conservatism?” Surprisingly, there is no truly precise answer upon which all Wabash conservatives can agree. A survey was recently taken of active Wabash conservatives, and very few of the answers to this question gave the same definition. One respondent answered: “Personal responsibility [instead of] public/governmental interference.” Another wrote: “Trying to preserve the best of the past and applying it to the future.” Yet another said: “To fight for traditional

values in society – mostly social issues, but also economic … it is a political way to declare ‘I have morals.’” These answers are simultaneously similar and different: the first answer highlights annoyance with governmental interference; the second emphasizes tradition; and, the third stresses morality. All three of these answers, while placing emphasis upon different aspects of conservatism, exemplify a very broad definition of conservatism when combined. Dr. David Hadley, department chair of the Political Science Department and former Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Party, said in an inter-

community. There is a great factional diversity among Wabash conservatives. The survey of conservatives asked the respondents with which conservative faction they identify themselves. The answers to this question revealed a stunning ideological diversity—there is no dominant conservative faction on campus, as the conservative spectrum consists of five nearly equal stripes. Eleven percent identified with neo-conservatism, which stresses the importance of foreign policy and advocates an interventionist foreign policy (much like the foreign policy of the current Bush administration). Religious conservatives, who place great stock in social/moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, accounted for 22% of the respondents. Twenty-two percent of survey respondents were libertarians who value above all individual liberty, strict opposition to governmental intervention, and free trade. Liberal/moderate conservatives, consisting of 22% of the respondents, have fewer issues with governmental interference, but oppose ideologies among self-reported Wabash conserva- the raising of taxes. Paleoconservatives accounted view that “conservatism has three major for 17% of Wabash conservatives, and they pillars: acknowledgement of individual oppose an intervention foreign policy and liberty, devotion for tradition, and the would also see social and cultural issues as recognized necessity of order. Different being vitally important. One respondent factions within conservatism emphasize did not identify with any of the five major one pillar more than another or disagree conservative factions. Interestingly, some with how a pillar is interpreted. However, of the factions have grown in recent years. the three pillars remain constant all of the Dr. Stephen Webb said that religious conmajor strains of conservatism.” There is servatism (particularly Catholic conserdiversity with this unity. It is ideological vatism) has become more vocal and more crevices such as this that compose the true popular on campus during his time at the diversity within the Wabash conservative Continued on page 20

“America’s Promise Realized: Getting Beyond Race” A lecture by Mr. Ward Connerly Founder and President of the American Civil Rights Institute

Thursday, November 15th 7:00PM - Ball Theater • author of Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences • “Courage in Leadership Award” from Black America’s Political Action Committee • leading advocate in the fight against racial preferences • former member of the University of California Board of Regents where he led the effort to end the use of race as a means for admission

The Phoenix

PAGE 8

NOVEMBER 2007

WABASH

Quality of Life Survey Publication of Report Gives Insight Into Faculty Concerns by Brandon Stewart ’08

Editor-in-Chief

The newly formed Quality of Life Committee recently released a report to the faculty regarding the quality of life among faculty members. The report, aptly (if unoriginally) titled “Faculty Quality of Life Survey Report: Executive Summary” was created with data gathered from an anonymous online survey taken by 93 faculty members last semester. The committee includes Drs. Jennifer and Michael Abbott, Dr. Amanda Ingram, Dr. Ann Taylor, Dr. Peter Thompson, and Dr. Neil Schmitzer-Torbert. With the publication of the survey, the committee “hopes that this report will occasion a wider [sic] dialog that will lead to specific and measurable improvements in faculty life in support of the mission of the College as a liberal arts college for men.” The report was based off the Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey. Although a few questions were added or removed to tailor the survey to Wabash, the basic structure of the survey was the same. The full survey was available for faculty online, but the executive summary attempted to condense the information and highlight “questions that pertained to faculty quality of life,” as well as questions “for which Wabash faculty scored significantly better or significantly worse than the national sample.” Among the areas where Wabash faculty rated higher was job satisfaction. Roughly 66% of Wabash faculty responded that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their salary and fringe benefits, compared with 51% nationally. None of the respondents felt that the faculty was regularly fighting with the administration whereas 12.1% of faculty did at other

colleges. Although only 63% of faculty nationally felt that there is “adequate support for faculty development” that number is closer to 82% at Wabash. However, the survey did not just highlight areas in which the faculty members were content with their position. The open ended questions at the end of the survey were an opportunity for faculty to speak “frankly and passionately” about their concerns. According to the Quality of Life Committee, “if length of response is any indicator, faculty seemed to appreciate the chance and need to respond to these questions.” One of the complaints was of a pervasive sexism on campus. Most serious were lines like “worn out by almost daily slights, sexist comments and behaviors, and indications that I am not to be taken as seriously as my male colleagues” and “women’s lives/contributions/human values are devalued”. These are weighty claims that should concern everyone. Even assuming that these slights are completely true as presented, however, I would say two things: 1.) To begin with, this is a college full of young men learning to become adults. The very ethos of the College, as signified by the Gentleman’s Rule is that this is a place where we are allowed to falter and make mistakes. None of us are perfect, and men here do stumble along the way. 2.) The other aspect of the Gentleman’s Rule, along with the recognition and acceptance of human fallibility, is the principle of mutual accountability. For those professors who feel slighted by a sexist remark made in class, how often do you correct the student? After reading these comments, I am left wondering whether the women on campus who feel so jilted recognize how powerful it would be to be admonished. I’m not calling for some sort of roving political correctness task force, but rather think it a matter related to the

ethos of accountability and one-on-one communication that are inherent in the Gentleman’s Rule. One respondent complained that our single-sex college lack a perspective without women students in the classroom and that our “learning is hurt” as a result. I would agree in part to this statement: I agree that there is a woman’s perspective missing from many classrooms. However, I would suggest that there are few among the professoriate that can make that claim. From my perspective both as a conservative and a Christian, men and women are intrinsically different. Each sex is different which is one of the things that makes the unity of the two during marriage such a blessing. However, I feel that those who preach incessantly about the lack of difference between men and women are being intellectually dishonest when they attempt to simultaneously claim that there are differences significant enough that we cannot exclude women from our college without hurting our educational experience. Again, I have issues with this line of thinking: 1.) this “missing perspective” is balanced by our female faculty and all the focus dedicated to “gender criticism” in classes across campus; and, 2.) although I do see a difference between men and women, I think that the perspective we lose by not having women must be weighed by what is gained by having men by themselves. There is a unique environment formed with men living and learning together that is worth preserving. Now, by these comments I am not trying to belittle acts of real sexual harassment. However, I feel that this is a term that has been systematically abused and parodied to a point that it has no discernible form. I would challenge any professor or staff member that feels that they have witnessed many substantive acts of harassment to shoot me an e-mail or stop

NOVEMBER 2007

The Phoenix

PAGE 9

WABASH me on campus. I would really like to have a conversation with anyone that feels this way and have a discussion about the issue. I wager that we could both learn from such an exchange. In my time here, there has not been a real discussion of the issue that has proven anything substantial. Upperclassmen will remember the last time a concerted effort was made to chastise Wabash students for sexist behaviors. Visiting Professor Karolyn Kinane, who was by all accounts a great teacher, but perhaps an unlikely candidate to bemoan sexism, wrote an editorial to the Bachelor listing a number of “sexist” events that had recently occurred on campus. However, in the windfall that took place after that editorial, it was revealed that many of the events were greatly aggrandized for effect. Displays like that one, especially when the indictment was extended to all Wabash students, cause students to second-guess other criticisms. Another area of concern for the committee was over the “religiosity” of the College community. I was disturbed to see comments like “excessive emphasis on Christianity among students and some faculty” and “what has happened to the College’s ‘secular’ identity?” Chief among the complaints was that “religion too public an issue.” Despite everything I’ve learned about the hypocrisy of modern higher education, it was still shocking to me to see those comments in an official report. I can speculate quite emphatically that those comments would never have been published if they were directed at a minority group whether racial or religious. Can you imagine an official college report expressing concern over the number of black, gay, or atheist students? Keeping with the schizophrenic nature of most large bodies, a college faculty being no exception, the very next page had a section labeled “Spirituality” in which it was mentioned that “student spirituality is underserved.” Apparently, it is important that students have faith in something … just as long as it isn’t the Christian God and they don’t talk about it too much. Perhaps most unsurprising were lamentations over our single-sex status. Despite repeated assurances from both Dean

Phillips and President White that there is no question about our intention to remain an all-male institution, this continues to be a source of considerable consternation for some. Some respondents were positive about our status. “Single-sex environment provides freedom for men to test/extend their abilities,” wrote one professor. “Good for teaching gender since men might not otherwise take these classes” commented another. Nevertheless, the majority of those that answered the question bemoaned our status. Obviously, during the Ford Administration, conversation regarding our singlesex status was suppressed. Considering the divisive 1992 decision by the Board of Trustees, the move was certainly understandable. However, the College has so many new faculty members who were not here in 1992 and for whom the question is not settled. This College is a place where free expression should be championed, but every organization must be grounded in its purpose in order to progress successfully. Any other institution would expect its employees to accept its basic mission as a basis for employment. To do otherwise is to invite chaos. One can hardly imagine doctors at St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital making their rounds wishing the hospital would focus on more than just children. Similarly, faculty at Wabash should understand and accept our mission as a college which teaches men. It is on that common ground that the totality of the College’s work should be based. There were, however, some concerns about all-male education that I agreed with. I agree that “we do not make a good case for why we are all-male.” I have been encouraged by the work the Center of Inquiry and the Dean of the College’s office has been doing lately to bolster this area. Nevertheless, this honest concern is not shared by all who criticize the College’s charge. Responding to a recent e-mail by Dean Phillips inviting faculty to attend the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education’s third annual conference, Economics Professor Humberto Barreto responded to the entire staff with a sarcastic reply. Among his many com-

ments: “Finally, I think it’s clear that the single sex solution will work only if the environment is really all-male. Wabash has gone far by discriminating against women in admission, but it needs to lead the vanguard by banning all women from this campus. We must be pure to get the maximum benefit from the single sex solution.” It is a shame that those who want to honestly explore this issue are eclipsed by those who hope, as one professor’s website states, “that one day soon Wabash College will end its policy of gender discrimination in admission.” One of the most bizarre comments related to single-sex education was the section that stated “objectionable behaviors and/or values” supposedly created or allowed by single-sex education. Among the startling list of indictments was “emphasizes unpleasant and damaging values and behaviors (anti-intellectualism, parochialism, conservatism, [sic] hypermasculinity).” Amazingly, if unsurprisingly, the College has produced an official report which equates conservatism with antiintellectualism and writes them both off as “unpleasant and damaging values.” None of this commentary is meant to belittle the hard work of faculty who teach at Wabash. I think the College should take very seriously the concerns of faculty regarding time for research and committee responsibilities. After all, most professors at Wabash put more much more time into the community than they have to in order to fulfill a contract. Beyond teaching classes, engaging their students, conducting research and grading assignments, professors routinely attend fraternity dinners, sports events and a whole host of other college activities. Ask any alumnus to explain why his time at Wabash was so memorable and it will not be long until he identifies one or more faculty who were instrumental in shaping their lives. That said, the College needs to own up to some of its institutional failings, especially now that it has codified them in such an official capacity. The College would be better off recruiting faculty who are comfortable, for starters, with our mission as a college for men and who are not allergic to religious expressions by faculty and students.

PAGE 10

The Phoenix

NOVEMBER 2007

PERSPECTIVES

Academia’s Job Security An In-Depth Look at Wabash’s Tenure System by Brandon Stewart & Josh Bellis Many Wabash students receive letters requesting that they participate in the tenure process by reviewing a particular faculty member, sometimes multiple times within their college career. But how many students are aware of how the tenure process works? Students generally don’t know how this process works or why it exists, nor has the information been clearly defined or presented. Even those who may know something about tenure might be misinformed, as there are many false ideas about tenure, such as the idea that faculty with tenure cannot be fired. Explanations for this and other misnomers about tenure have all been researched because it is important to be informed about how a process works before criticizing or defending it. The old saying may be “ignorance is bliss”, but the College’s charge to “think critically” can only work when students are fully informed. Many times students and others think that the college can simply open its unlimited coffers and create a position for faculty who are only here on a one or two year contract. However, the decision to grant tenure is an important and expensive decision. The process is somewhat more complicated and better defined for faculty and administration. In order to enlighten those who are unsure about how the tenure process works this article will attempt to clearly outline the steps. For further understanding, the following pages show where all untenured faculty are in their effort to gain tenure. According to Dean Phillips, tenure is “an institutional protection that faculty enjoy”. Due to a growing secularity of institutions, “it became important to teach regardless of sectarian affiliations” said Phillips. At Wabash, the tenure process is fairly

straightforward. According to the Faculty Handbook, “Appointment to a tenuretrack position means that the faculty member shows the qualities and potential that may lead to tenure.” When hiring a professor, he or she is either hired as a visiting professor or a tenure-track professor. Tenure track candidates are listed as Assistant Professors. If they have not yet finished their dissertations and are without their doctorate, they are listed as an “instructor” until they obtain their PhD. Each assistant professor is listed as a Byron K. Trippet Assistant Professor for their first two years. The only exception is minority professors who are listed as Owen Duston professors. For tenure-track professors, there are four formal review processes: first year review, second year review, fourth year review, and a final six year review. First year reviews are conducted by the Department Chair during the spring of the first year. Although this is the only formal review during the first year, conversations have ideally taken place between the Department Chair and the new faculty member throughout the year. This review is led by a review committee which is composed of all tenured members of a particular department and the department chair. If the department is particularly small, or the majority of its members are untenured faculty, the Academic Personnel Committee can add tenured faculty members from other departments. The results of the review are discussed with the faculty member and subsequently with the Division Chair. The report that results is then passed on to the Dean of the College and is placed in the faculty member’s review folder. The purpose of this review is mostly for mentoring, focusing on the professor’s development as a teacher as well as “discussing plans for research/creative works and service to the

College community.” For second year reviews, the Dean of the College and the untenured faculty member compile a list of students from a “broad range of teaching and learning experiences, including all-college courses.” Of these students, some will be interviewed about their experience with that professor and will receive a call from either the Department or Division Chair. The other students will receive notification from the Dean of the College soliciting written comments. Summaries of both the interviews and the comments are placed in the untenured faculty member’s review folder with all identifying information redacted. The fourth year review follows the basic outline of the second year with a few key differences. First of all, the students solicited for this review should have had significant contact with the professor since the completion of the second year review. During the fourth year review, the faculty member’s colleagues are also encouraged to submit letters. Together, the Dean and the untenured faculty member draft a list of goals related to teaching and research for the next few years. The sixth year review, the final step before being granted tenure, also follows the format of the fourth year review, but with some noticeable additions. This final review is almost exclusively conducted by the Division Chair and the Dean of the College, with the department chair serving in a lesser capacity. Along with current students and faculty colleagues, alumni who have graduated in the previous five years will be contacted for their written observations regarding the candidate. Half of the alumni contacted will be those requested by professor, the rest will have been chosen at the discretion of the Dean of the College. Continued on page 20

NOVEMBER 2007

The Phoenix

PAGE 11

Second Year Reviews

An Overview of all Second Year Professor Reviews For an Overview of Fourth and Sixth Year Reviews, see pages 12 and 13. Name: Martin Madsen Name: Neil Schmitzer-Torbert Name: Rebecca Sparks-Thissen Position: BKT Assistant Professor Position: BKT Assistant Professor Position: BKT Assistant Professor Department: Chemistry Department: Psychology Department: Biology Hired at Wabash: July 2006 Hired at Wabash: July 2006 Hired at Wabash: July 2006 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007, Second Year Review Second Year Review Second Year Review Name: Agata Szczeszak-Brewer Position: BKT Assistant Professor Department: English Hired at Wabash: July 2006 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007, Second Year Review

Name: Patrick Burton Position: Assistant Professor Department: Biology Hired at Wabash: July 2007 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Second Year Review

Name: Karen Gunther Name: Isabel JaĂŠn-Portillo Name: Elizabeth Morton Position: BKT Assistant Professor Position: BKT Assistant Professor Position: BKT Assistant Professor Department: Psychology Department: Spanish Department: Art Hired at Wabash: April 2007 Hired at Wabash: February 2007 Hired at Wabash: April 2007 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Second Year Review Second Year Review Second Year Review

Name: Timothy Lake Name: Chad Westphal Name: Paul Vasquez Position: Assistant Professor Position: Assistant Professor Position: Instructor Department: English Department: Mathematics Department: Political Science Director of MXIBS Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Hired at Wabash: March 2007 Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008, Second Year Review Second Year Review Second Year Review

The Pho

PAGE 12

Name: Jeremy Hartnett Position: Assistant Professor Department: Classics Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Name: Amanda Ingram Position: Assistant Professor Department: Biology Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Tenure R

An Overview of all Fourth and

For an Overview of Secon

Name: Jennifer Abbott Position: Assistant Professor Department: Rhetoric Hired at Wabash: July 2002 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007,

Final Tenure Review

Name: Peter Hulen Position: Assistant Professor Department: Classics Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Name: William Turner Position: Assistant Professor Department: Math/Comp. Sci. Hired at Wabash: July 2002 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007,

Final Tenure Review

Name: Peter Mikek Position: Assistant Professor Department: Economics Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Name: Richard Warner Position: Assistant Professor Department: History Hired at Wabash: July 1998 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007,

Final Tenure Review

Name: Jona Position: Assista Departmen Hired at Waba Next Tenure Rev

Final Tenu

oenix

PAGE 13

Reviews

d Sixth Year Professor Reviews

nd Year Reviews, see page 11.

athan Aden ant Professor - LF nt: History ash: July 2001 view - Fall 2008,

ure Review

Name: Paul LePlae Position: Assistant Professor Department: Chemistry Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Name: Lon Porter, Jr. Position: Assistant Professor Department: Chemistry Hired at Wabash: July 2003 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008,

Name: Brian Tucker Position: Assistant Professor Department: Modern Languages Hired at Wabash: July 2004 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2008, Fourth Year Review

Name: Michelle Rhoades Position: Assistant Professor Department: History Hired at Wabash: July 2002 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2007,

Name: Michele Pittard Position: Assistant Professor Department: Teacher Education Hired at Wabash: July 2002 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2009, Fourth Year Review

Name: Jonathan Baer Position: Assistant Professor Department: Religion Hired at Wabash: July 2002 Next Tenure Review - Fall 2008,

Name: Veronique Zara Position: Assistant Professor Department: Modern Languages Hired at Wabash: July 2005 Next Tenure Review - Spring 2009, Fourth Year Review

Final Tenure Review

The Phoenix

PAGE 14

NOVEMBER 2007

PERSPECTIVES

Lobbyist for Leadership by Bryce Chitwood ’08

Staff Writer

Standing atop a barstool in a smalltown barbershop in southern Oklahoma, at the age of four, I declared my candidacy for President of the United States, while the older gentlemen in the room shared a laugh at my blind ambition. However, I took my declaration seriously and I have been interested in leadership ever since. Growing up, I engaged in a number of leadership opportunities—I served as president of every student group that would let me at my high school and also served as president of my Page class while spending nine months in Washington D.C. as a Page for the United States House of Representatives. My experiences in Oklahoma, and especially in D.C. were instrumental to my development as a leader. I chose Wabash College because I saw an opportunity to be developed and transformed as a leader on a deeper level, and I entered Wabash with a strong desire to make Wabash an even better place and a strong need to continue in my development as a leader. Unfortunately, I’ve been disappointed with the leadership opportunities at Wabash to date. In fact, I was unaware of any programs on campus geared toward leadership development other than Head Football Coach Chris Creighton’s “Leadership Series”, a program I applaud, but one concerned primarily with leadership specific to athletic teams. My disappointment led me to begin searching more feverishly for other leadership development programs on campus. A simple search of the College’s website revealed very little about leadership programs at Wabash. All I found were hits for work by the Wabash Center, an advertisement for a fraternity on campus, and a couple hits talking about the Campaign for Leadership. However, I did a more in-depth search last year and found an article about a multi-million dollar

grant the College had received from the Lilly Endowment in an issue of “Wabash Magazine” in 1996. This piqued my interest, and I began to talk with various people on campus about the grant and resulting program. Among other projects, the grant allowed Wabash to construct a ropes course for the purpose of “leadership development”. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent constructing a firstclass ropes course that included both low and high-level challenges. The funding for the grant ended in 1998, and Dean Bambrey, who had recently been hired as Dean of Students, decided it was not in the “best interests of the College” to continue with upkeep on the ropes course. Sadly, the expensive project, which the College had spent over one hundred thousand dollars on, was dismantled and donated to the local chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

little consensus on how best to do that. The most disturbing aspect of the College’s failure to address this critical aspect of preparing young men for life after Wabash is that the College is blatantly disregarding a key component of the mission statement—“Wabash College educates men to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” Wabash College does not do enough to educate men to lead effectively. We could be doing so much more. I would estimate that I have spoken with forty-five members of the Wabash community about the need for a leadership development on campus and only Dean Bambrey, has expressly said that Wabash does not need to address the issue of leadership. Bambrey believes that the very “culture” of Wabash trains them to be effective leaders because they can both fail and succeed in leadership roles on campus.

“Over the past year I have spoken with faculty, staff, administration officials, students, and members of the community to discover why Wabash does not have a leadership development program.” This led me to ask more questions about leadership programs at Wabash. Over the past year I have spoken with faculty, staff, administration officials, students, and members of the community to discover why Wabash does not have a leadership development program. The answers I received are troubling, but also encouraging in a number of ways. One theme has been common in the many conversations I have had with people on campus is that Wabash College needs to work harder to develop leadership. However, there seems to be

Though I respect this opinion, I don’t consider it valid, as it does not provide any sort of a program to help students hone their leadership skills, and it does nothing for students who do not feel equipped to serve as a campus leader. More positively, though, everyone else that I spoke with was in agreement that Wabash needs to address leadership development. They agreed that it is important for Wabash to remain true to its mission of training young men to lead effectively. Near the end of last year, conversations

NOVEMBER 2007

The Phoenix

PAGE 15

PERSPECTIVES I had been having about leadership finally began to bear fruits. President White admitted to me last May that Wabash needs to be doing more to develop leadership skills in students, and he expressed his desire for a leadership development program to be included in the new Strategic Plan. He and I brainstormed about what kind of leadership development program Wabash should offer. After an extended conversation, I left his office with the assignment of developing an “experimental” leadership development program that would provide the campus with five different examples of how leadership training could be presented. I worked throughout the summer and developed a program that included five different sessions during the fall 2007 semester that were rooted in Wabash tradition and culture. The program called for alumni presentations, as well as experiential, hands-on learning. The leadership development program I created under President White’s guidance was intended to be open to all members of the Wabash community, and the plan called for an evaluation at the end of the semester, at which point a determination would be made about the kind of leadership development program should be included in the Strategic Plan. However, and most unfortunately, this plan came to a screeching halt when I received one particular all-campus e-mail this summer. After working for three months on a comprehensive leadership development program for Wabash College, I received the same, standard message as the rest of the campus. The L.E.A.D. program was proudly introducing the National Society of Leadership and Success. As I read the e-mail, I was extremely bothered by the content of the message. I felt as though I should be sending the e-mail to announce the new leadership development program I had developed. Yet as I kept reading, I discovered many differences between the program I had developed and the one described in the e-mail. The program proposed by the L.E.A.D. Committee offered satellite video conferences for seven different nationally-televised speakers. The committee touted Goldie Hawn as one of the speakers, and it also called for Wabash students creating a “leadership society”.

“It is essential that Wabash College create a leadership development program that is unique, creative, and firmly rooted in a Wabash way of life.” In order to join the Wabash Leadership Society, students would be required to pay $65 to join the National Society of Leadership and Success. This membership came with a t-shirt, a pin, and a completion certificate. The fundamental problem with this type of program is that it is in no way specific to the culture of Wabash College. I could join the same group, hear the same speakers, and receive the same certificate at any other college in America. In e-mail exchanges with members of the L.E.A.D. committee, I encouraged them to not move forward with this idea. Furthermore, I asked them to work with me on creating a unique leadership development program—one rooted in the ideas and traditions of Wabash. Scott Crawford, Director of Career Services, rejected my offer saying, “We’re going ahead with our program, but best of luck with yours.” This troubled me, and I returned to campus in August with a re-ignited passion for bringing the very best leadership development program to the Wabash community. During more conversations with those involved in bringing the National Society of Leadership and Success to campus, I became even more convinced that Wabash must be doing more to develop a unique, creative leadership program that is personal and meaningful for Wabash students. President White and I had yet another conversation about leadership at Wabash. Even though he knew little about the National Society, he agreed with me that the best form of a leadership development program at Wabash would be one created specifically with Wabash students in mind. He encouraged me, though, to give the other program a chance and to critique the format they used. President White’s biggest challenge for me, however, was to see myself as a “Lobbyist for Leadership”. He referred to this role as an

unofficial position of the Strategic Planning Committee. He called on me to work with members of the committee to raise the importance and need for a strong leadership development program on campus. This task is one I do not take lightly. It is essential that Wabash College create a leadership development program that is unique, creative, and firmly rooted in a Wabash way of life. This program should involve guest alumni speakers who are currently applying critical leadership skills. The program should be open to all students regardless of GPA, class rank, major, or living unity. A successful leadership program is multi-faceted and is taught through hands-on learning and theory based ideas. Leadership development at Wabash should involve the inclusion of important questions like: What does it mean to be a man and a leader? How can a Wabash education be applied in situations that call for leadership? How does the Gentlemen’s Rule relate to leadership? These are all questions that a successful Wabash Leadership program should ask. The program should also include a certificate of completion, allowing students to show future employers that they have received leadership training in a unique program that will help them compete in a working environment. In order to run a successful program, Wabash should employ a director of Leadership Development. Creating a program like this is too critical to be left as a side project for a college staff member with no understanding of leadership. Finally, leadership development at Wabash must be about Wabash and the struggles and challenges that Wabash students are facing. Though Wabash has failed to provide resourceful leadership development training for their students, the school has the continued on page 19 opportunity

The Phoenix

PAGE 16

PERSPECTIVES

NOVEMBER 2007

Welcome to the new staff m

These profiles complete our staff biog For the rest of the staff bios s Brad Vest ’11

Curtis Peterson ’10

Brad Vest is a freshman and plans to major in physics and do the 4-2 program with Columbia University. Off campus, Brad spends a lot of time in a Boy Scout organization called “Firecrafter,” for which he currently serves as Vice-Chief. On campus, Brad is involved with College Republicans, Wabash Card Players’ League, and Physics Club.

An independent sophomore, Peterson is a Political Science major and History minor. He resides in Carol Stream, Illinois and considers himself a moderate who leans right on key issues such as abortion. In his free time, he volunteers as a football coach.

Andrew Forrester ’11

Daniel King ’10

Andrew Forrester is a freshman from Madison, Indiana. His passion for politics and conservative ideals makes him very excited about being associated with the Wabash Conservative Union. He also is looking forward to making a difference on campus through the Wabash Christian Men and College Republicans.

Daniel is a Psychology Major and Rhetoric Minor from Memphis, TN. On campus, he is a brother of Beta Theta Pi and is pledging the APO service fraternity. He joins the Wabash Conservative Union this year to explore what it means to be a conservative.

Kevin Andrews ’10

Kevin Andrews is a sophomore Religion and Classics major and Economics minor. Besides being active at the FIJI house, Kevin is a member of Alpha Phi Omega, the Outdoorsmen Club, and also plays golf for Wabash.

The Phoenix

NOVEMBER 2007

members of The Phoenix

graphies for the 2007-2008 school year. see the September 2007 issue. Austin Faulkner ’08 Austin Faulkner is a senior Religion major and member of Phi Delta Theta. He serves as the Secretary of the Pre-Law Society and plans on attending IU Bloomington Law School next year.

Ryan Nuppnau ’08 Ryan is senior Mathematics major with an Education area of concentration. A native of Valparaiso, Indiana, he is active in a number of clubs on campus, most notably the War Council.

Brent Kent ’09

John Moton ’09

An advocate of small government and libertarian politics, Brent is from Martinsville, Indiana. A junior Political Science major, Brent is also a Marine Officer Candidate.

Hailing from Batesville, Indiana, John is a junior political science major and religion minor. He enjoys participating in Student Senate, College Republicans, and singing in the Glee Club. John aspires to own a number of automobile dealerships and participate in politics in the future.

Adam Braisch ’11 Adam Brasich is a proud conservative from Madison, Wisconsin. A freshman independent living in Martindale Hall, Adam is planning on studying political science and religion. Adam is involved with the College Republicans, sundry Wabash College religious organizations, and the Independent Men’s Association. He is a conservative because he recognizes that there are absolute truths in the world and that a people can be more productive without government interference.

PAGE 17

PERSPECTIVES

The Phoenix

PAGE 18

WABASH

NOVEMBER 2007

Leonard Sax

Influential Author, Researcher to Visit Campus in November by Ryan Grand ’08 Staff Writer

In just a few weeks, our campus will have the honor of hosting Leonard Sax, an expert on gender and how it has an impact on the education of both sexes. Dr. Sax completed his bachelor’s degree in biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and his Ph.D. in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. He works as a family physician, but also has published numerous articles and books. He has even been featured on “The Today Show” with Al Roker to discuss his expertise on matters related to gender. His best-known work, Why Gender Matters, is an exposé on the biological and psychological differences between boys and girls and aims to examine the best methods for raising and educating children of each sex. Dr. Sax argues that there are distinct disciplinary and teaching techniques that work better with one gender. For instance, he describes certain auditory differences between girls and boys. He notes that girls generally hear much better than boys do, which raises a number of important issues concerning the classroom. He states that girls tend to sit in the middle to front rows when picking seats, which can have an adverse effect when a male teacher speaks. The teacher may think that he is using a normal voice, but the girls in the front rows interpret his normal volume level as overly harsh or even yelling. Meanwhile, the boys in the back rows are distracted because their less sensitive hearing makes it difficult for them to hear and concentrate on what the teacher is saying. Herein lies a serious problem in co-educational learning environments, as many teachers are unaware of or choose to

deny this basic genetic difference between the children in their classroom. Dr. Sax presents a multitude of these examples of subtle variations in how the brains of the different genders are wired and offers plausible solutions to many of the problems posed by these differences. He bases his observations on proven biological facts and attempts to solve them by playing to the strengths of t he d i ffe r-

Dr. Leonard Sax ent genders. Another example that he cites regarding differences between girls and boys relates to levels of stress that they feel and how they cope with that stress. Dr. Sax claims that boys are inherently better performers when under stress, but that high levels of stress inhibit the abilities of girls. He

goes on to list examples in education where these differences can be used to the advantage of the students. One such example of this is a story about how a class of all boys was motivated to do their best by having to answer questions in a group in a short span of time. He says that the boys were under duress because only a few seconds were given to the answer the questions and they were competing for pride against their peers. The boys loved the exercise and were able to learn the material better through the creative way that it was presented. On the other hand, he relates an example from an all-girls school where the girls were never given time limits on their tests. The teacher let them stay and take exams for as long as they pleased. The girls loved it because they were able to think fully through every question and work out the best answer. Dr. Sax shows the important characteristics that define the two genders and emphasizes that it is folly to ignore them, and he provides ample evidence that pretending that these differences don’t exist only hurts the children and does little to erase the gender gap. He sees these strong and weak traits of boys and girls and inherent and not as social constructs and places much of the fault for the continuing emphasis on total equality on the feminist movement and its aftereffects. Dr. Sax does not try to place one gender as superior to the other, but rather sees them as different and also equal. Naturally, Dr. Sax is a big proponent for single-sex education. He sees the unique ways that boys and girls are both getting let down and underserved by our current met ho d s of Continued on page 20

The Phoenix

NOVEMBER 2007

PAGE 19

PERSPECTIVES

Educators or Policy Creators? Differences of Opinion Among Faculty Can Be Either Be Beneficial or Destructive by John Henry ’10 Staff Writer Wabash College has recently been host to numerous debates on its inherent qualities and culture. From criticism of the all male educational system, to the demeaning of some long standing College traditions, no topic has been safe from the vicious conflicts of the recent past. In the wake of these debates the campus now finds itself in a relatively peaceful and solid position on some of its most historically controversial issues. In this calm one would expect to find solidarity amongst the College’s highest levels, mainly the administration and faculty, and in some instances this consistency of mission is the case; many members of the faculty and administration share a purpose or understanding in the College’s quest for excellence in education and the continual attempts to evolve and reform the curriculum to suit the ever changing students. However, there is still lingering dissent on some of Wabash’s core issues, especially in its position as an all male educational system. Dr. Humberto Barreto of the Economics Department says this dissent is “a good thing, it lets students see there are differing views.” In some ways this is true but at the same time this dissent, if presented in a destructive manner, can be detrimental to other areas of the college when involving core issues. The way men are educated at the college

Leadership Continued from page 15

to take advantage of the Strategic Plan and create a program that will truly benefit students. In the end, this college will not

is extremely dependent on the professors. “The role of a professor at Wabash exists at two levels. The first is as a teacher; the second is as a guiding force for the student to student learning and teaching. Both are equally important,” said Assistant Professor of History Dr. Richard Warner. With this role in both teaching their respective subjects and guiding the interactions and learning of their students on campus, it is very important that the professors share an understanding at the core levels of the Wabash education. It would prove almost impossible to educate young men to lead effectively

sex education without attempting to alter or attack it. If they at least understand it, accept that there is some value to it, and do not try to pit themselves against it in a destructive way, there is still the ability to accomplish the goals of the institution despite personal beliefs. Ultimately there is no room at the college for someone who wants and actively seeks a selfish personal goal of destroying the all male institution that Wabash College is. At some level all people need to understand what Wabash College is as an institution. “Wabash College is a great school that just happens to be educating

“If [professors] at least understand [single-sex education], accept that there is some value to it, and do not try to pit themselves against it in a destructive way, there is still the ability to accomplish the goals of the institution despite personal beliefs.” without a good example of leadership within the College itself. Without the ability of all professors to at least understand some of the most fundamental points of the Wabash education, like the all male element, it is impossible to fully accomplish the main goals of educating men who “think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively and live humanely.” Although it is important for a sense of uniform understanding amongst the faculty and administration, it is not an absolute necessity for any of them to personally believe in all male education. Quite the contrary, they can personally oppose the idea of single

men,” as Dr. Warner described it. It is as simple as that. The College itself is a place that prepares a group of society to become some of the most successful members within their career fields. Nothing shows the success of this institution better than the alumni it has developed and as former president Andy Ford said, “It works.” Wabash College is dependent on the belief of not just the students, who personally experience all male education at work, but on the belief or understanding of the professors and administrators who are entrusted to carry Wabash College into the future.

be known for the architecturally stunning buildings, the sweeping, colorful landscape, or the fleet of college cars. Wabash College will not be known for the petty faculty arguments, the wireless connectivity, or the dinners and events—in the end, Wabash College will be known for the

students it fostered and for the difference they made. Let’s work together to create a leadership development program to make sure that Wabash is living up to its mission of educating men to lead effectively and is equipping them with the necessary tools to make a difference.

PAGE 20

The Phoenix

NOVEMBER 2007

PERSPECTIVES Sax

Continued from previous page

education. Moreover, he is a strong supporter of the segregation of children into schools by their gender because he feels that their strengths can be better emphasized and their weaknesses more improved because of the homogeneous nature of the student body. The ability of teachers to relate to their students’ needs is greatly increased in such environments because they are able to use techniques that work in favor of all of the students in the class, rather than appealing to only half of them and possibly alienating the others. Obviously, Dr. Sax’s ideas about single-sex education have relevance to the students and faculty at Wabash. As one of the last few bastions of all-male higher education in America, we, as members of the Wabash community, are in a unique position in regard to being able to apply his theories to single-sex college life.

Diversity

Continued from page 6

college. As “mainline” churches are losing membership and conservative churches are gaining congregants, fewer students come from those liberal denominations and more come from more conservative churches. This, according to Dr. Webb, is the reason for the influx in religious conservatives. However, this rising tide has by no means swamped the other conservative groups. All factions have coexisted in the diverse community. Factional adherence is not the only source of diversity within the conservative community. When asked which Republican presidential candidate was considered the most genuinely conservative, 28% thought that Mike Huckabee was the most genuinely conservative, 22% Ron Paul, 17% Fred Thompson, 17% Mitt

In one of his articles, he examines the growing divide between the numbers of motivated young men and women who have a sense of purpose and direction in their life through their twenties. According to the article, “What’s Happening to Boys?” one in three men between the age of 22 and 34 live at home with their parents, while only about half as many women are in the same situation. The most disheartening theme that runs through the article is that these young men don’t even see a problem with having no future prospects and no path towards even leaving the shelter and comfort of their childhood homes. There is a deep problem in the way boys are being raised and educated today when such enormous numbers of men don’t even feel the drive to succeed and accomplish feats that have never been attempted in the past. This problem of instilling the need for excellence and growth is something that even our beloved Wabash must face as we look to the future. Part of the solution may lie inside our walls, as we believe strongly

in the idea that students at an all-male college are receiving an education that extends far beyond the classroom and guides young men towards happy, successful lives. In addition to our always important focus on challenging and insightful academics, the Wabash mentality has always been to prepare its students for life outside of the four years of the undergraduate experience. We pride ourselves on the fact that Wabash men can use what they have learned from the classics of Aristotle or the structure of an organic compound and be able to solve problems in all assets of life with the lessons they’ve learned. However, we can always improve upon the base that we have set up here at Wabash, and I believe that Dr. Sax will have further insights into the learning environments that men thrive in and the keys to gaining a positive outlook and drive to be successful in an ever-more competitive world. With that, I would like to welcome Dr. Sax to Wabash and hope that the men of our college will attend what is sure to be a memorable speech on gender studies.

Romney, 11% John McCain, and 6% for Sam Brownback. Again, there is clearly no unity upon which candidate is a true conservative—namely because there is no consensus upon what it means to be a true conservative. With regards to the War in Iraq, Wabash conservatives are surprisingly divided. Out of the 18 respondents, only 44% would support the preemptive invasion on Iraq based upon the information the government had in 2003. When ranking the relative importance of issues that influence their personal conservative philosophies, Wabash conservatives are also much divided. Thirty-three percent of respondents labeled social issues (i.e. abortion) as being of primary importance for conservatives, while the same number responded that it is the least important. Thirty-nine percent feel that economic issues are most important to their conservatism, and only 17% said that foreign policy was the primary reason for their

conservatism. Also, 39% said that gay marriage/civil unions are a states’ rights issue, while 50% said that the federal government should deal with it. Clearly, there is a great deal of diversity within the Wabash conservative community on a variety of issues. Diversity is too often characterized as racial diversity. Controversies concerning affirmative action and other racial issues are evidence of this. However, this ignores perhaps a more important diversity—ideological diversity. A community is rather weak if it does not have a myriad of perspectives and occasional disagreements. Social scientists and admissions staffs of institutions of higher learning consider diversity to be a great strength—the greater the diversity, the greater the strength of the institution. Under this standard, the portrait of the Wabash conservative community is that of a community with a Herculean strength.

Tradition . . .

Morality . . . Excellence . . .

Are these words meaningful to you? Would you like to express these ideals in your own way to your peers and faculty? Do you want to build relationships with those who share these same pillars of character? If so, perhaps you should consider joining

The Wabash Conservative Union editor@wabashunion.org www.WabashUnion.org Tenure Continued from page 10

Additionally, the tenure candidate chooses four scholars he or she would want to evaluate his or her academic work. From that list, the Dean of the College, Division Chair and Department Chair pick two. Those scholars selected are then sent copies of academic work along with passages from the faculty handbook emphasizing “that the College seeks an assessment of the quality, originality, and significance of the faculty member’s research or creative work.” Their responses are collected and considered alongside all the other reviews. The candidate also submits a lengthier academic and research plan along with their proposal for sabbatical. All the material is then reviewed and recommendations are then made to the

President of the College, who also has copies of all the material. The President then informs the professor of his decision. Should the president choose to decline a professor tenure during this stage, he or she will be granted another year of teaching during which the professor can attempt to secure a job elsewhere. Upon successful completion of the tenure process, an assistant professor is elevated to the status of Associate Professor at the beginning of the new academic period (July 1st). Associated Professors can apply to become a full professor anytime after gaining tenure, although as the faculty handbook states, “rarely is an Associate Professor promoted with less than eight years in rank.” To apply, the faculty member must express their interest to either their department or division chair. The appropriate chair will submit their letter of recommendation to the Dean of the College. The professor will also submit

a portfolio of documents demonstrating their prowess as both a teacher and a scholar. Decisions regarding promotion are based on the professor’s involvement in the Wabash community, their teaching record, and their scholarship record within their respective academic field. Testimonials from students and alumni are also considered. Additionally, some staff members are granted the status of associated faculty. For instance Chris Creighton, Head Football Coach, is listed as “Head Football Coach with associated faculty rank of Assistant Professor of Physical Education” and John Lamborn, Head Librarian, is listed as “Director of the Lilly Library and Head Librarian with associated faculty rank of Associate Professor.” Reviews for associated faculty are conducted much like they are for “regular” faculty, with the noticeable difference that associated faculty cannot become tenured.

The Phoenix

PAGE 22

NOVEMBER 2007

PERSPECTIVES

Bit by Bit, Piece by Piece

A Look at How the Strategic Plan Has Progressed by Andrew Forrester ’11

Staff Writer

Wabash students and faculty have gone about their business as usual over the last month, not worrying too much about the first Chapel Talk of the year given by President Patrick White in all likelihood. Behind the scenes, however, there has been a flurry of activity, as the Strategic Plan is beginning to take form in its various committees. Although the plan lined out by President White was not detailed at the time, the details are being worked on within the individual committees. These committees were formed to create a plan based on the answers to the four questions that President White proposed: “Who will be the men of Wabash in the future?”; “What will be the character of Wabash as a liberal arts college for men?”; “What will be the character of Wabash as a community of men and women teaching and learning together, living as a community?”; and, “What will be the role of Wabash College and Wabash men in the larger world?” Each question is being approached by a different committee of members, each one spearheaded by a member of the President’s Staff. Among these chairpersons are: Dean Klein, Dean Phillips, Dean Bambrey, Dean Emmick. These chairpersons have been working within their various committees over the last month to gather the information necessary to present to the trustees at their meeting in May 2008. In e-mail questionnaires with each of the committee chairs, the response seemed to be unanimous in that each committee was going very smoothly and even though it will take a lot of hard work, everyone is committed to getting the plan out as soon as possible and involving the community

and students in the process. Dean Emmick, chair of the “Role of Wabash and Wabash men in the larger world” committee said, “Our committee is in what I call the discovery stage—what do we know about our alumni now? What more do we want to know? What have we accomplished from past strategic plans that might inform our work? What is the gap between where we are now and where we want to go?” This kind of work awaits each committee is to take a broad subject and narrow it down to how it will best apply to the Strategic Plan. There is a bit of apprehension, however, about trying to complete such monumental tasks in such a short period of time. “The timetable is going to press us. We’re going to be tested,” according to Dean Phillips. This timetable is approximately nine months from the time it was announced in August to the May 2008 Trustee meeting. Nine months may seem like a long time, but when you are dealing with something as big as the future plans of the College, it’s nothing to be taken lightly. President White noted this in his Chapel Talk in August: “This [timetable] is somewhat ambitious, but all advise as doable…I have seen strategic planning processes languish over several years without much impact or satisfaction. Better to have the work concentrated, get to an articulation of a plan, and move it to fulfillment.” As President White pointed out in the Chapel Talk, Wabash is stronger than ever. The number of applicants and enrolled students and endowment are very high. Dean Phillips said the process is “Al-

ways about getting stronger and doing it better. Be brave enough to admit we aren’t getting it right. Not being afraid to look at our weaknesses.” And at a college that boasts an endowment that makes other schools jealous and whose applications and enrollment are at record highs, it is hard to be critical of how things are going. But the future is what is at stake here, and the future is not guaranteed in any sense. Involvement of students in the planning seems to be one of the biggest themes that is touched on whenever the plan is brought up. Currently, none of the committees have met with students directly, but each chairperson made it clear that student input is going to be vital. In the first wide-ranging engagement of students in the process, Dean Klein, chairperson of the “Who will be the men of Wabash of the future?” committee recently sent out a survey to students through e-mail asking for their input on qualities of Wabash men. It should also be noted that currently, the President’s Student Advisory Council is working directly with President White, and the individual committees are charged with including the Wabash community in their discussions as they progress. Over the next few months, we should be seeing and hearing a lot about the planning process and how it is shaping up. Take interest in this process, learn about it and get involved, because this will not only affect you, but the future of Wabash. So take a simple survey or participate in an interview, because students wanted to have input, and it’s important not to let the opportunity slip away.

Around Wabash A look at interesting policies, issues, and conversations taking place on our beautiful campus each day

Multicultural Center

use the recently vacated Kendall events. The group has come a long In the first edition of The Phoe- House or the soon to be vacated way and has done a much better job recently of advertising their nix , in Spring 2007, Josh Bellis Hovey Cottage. events and getting the campus ’08 wrote an article about the involved with the organization. problem created by the construcFlag Update tion of the Malcolm X Institute. A little over a week after the previ- Although some of our more subHe suggested that if the College ous issue of The Phoenix hit cam- stantive concerns still linger, they deserve praise for the impressive pus, we received effort they have made. word t hat t he College would be installing a light Blame The Phoenix? of their own on In conversations with faculty the flag pole. We while researching the article about are glad that the the quality of life survey, one facCollege is taking ulty member suggested that this responsibility and magazine may bear some responlook forward to sibility for the level of hysterics the resolution of found in parts of the survey. After all, this person pointed out, one of this issue. the articles contained a student’s wanted a diversity center, they controversial musings about the Overdue Praise should have created something role of women at the College. for all minority groups. In an ap- We have leveled criticism at a This seems odd since The Bachparent effort to prove him Bellis number of organizations on cam- elor, another student publication right, this fall a handful of minor- pus for ungentlemanly behavior, recently published an opinion ity student groups, with the aid of lack of integration in the campus articles by a student which decried the Multicultural Concerns Com- community, and generally not liv- the “bleating drivel of Christian mittee, have been promoting the ing up to their mission. One such sheep”. Considering this example idea of a Minority Student Center. group was the MXI, who we have didn’t seem to be objectionable to They have attempted to get in the publicly criticized as not working many, this staff thinks we could long line of those petitioning to hard enough to advertise their make do without the posturing.

Check us out @ www.WabashUnion.org

From the College’s recently published Quality of Life Survey: “[Single-sex education] emphasizes unpleasant and damaging values and behaviors ( anti-intellectualism, parochialism, conservatism, hypermasculinity. )”