March 2009

MARCH 2009

Volume 5, Issue 2

The Phoenix The Voice of the Conservative Movement at Wabash

Moving Forward Blakeslee on Admission Standards Rovenstine on the Winking Effect Stevens on the Wabash Appeal And much more inside

The Phoenix editor-in-chief Austin Rovenstine ’10 managing editor Adam Brasich ’11 business manager Andrew Forrester ’11 events coordinator Nicholas Maraman ’10 design editor Brad Vest ‘11 copy editor Luke Blakeslee ’11 faculty contributors David P. Kubiak Stephen H. Webb ’83 staff Sean Clerget ‘09 Tyler Gison ‘09 Trent Hagerty ‘09 John Moton ’09 Kevin Andrews ’10 Kyle Nagdeman ’10 Curtis Peterson ’10 John Bruce ‘11 Adam Current ’11 Adam Kirby ‘11 Michael Nossett ‘11 Kevin Stevens ’11 Ben Williams ‘11 Mike Bellis ‘12 Bob Cassady ‘12 Adam Cooper ‘12 Steve Henke ‘12 Ryan Leppert ‘12 Zachary Rohrbach ‘12 Tyler Wade ‘12

Subscription inquiries & letters: Wabash Conservative Union Post Office Box 375 Crawfordsville, IN 47933 www.wabashunion.org To reach the staff: editor@wabashunion.org

A Letter from the Editor: Dear Reader, Since our first issue in the spring of 2007, we at The Phoenix have recognized just how important the Admissions Department is to our school’s well-being. In Admissions, we determine how our school is sold—and in Admissions, we determine which prospective students we ultimately “buy.” You will see the two sides of this coin represented in our two cover features.

During the tumultuous events of last semester, these issues bubbled to the surface again and again. Any effort to move past last year’s pain must involve taking a serious look at the way we recruit and the way we admit new students. In this issue of The Phoenix, we attempt to do just that—and to give our advice for how to best move forward.

As always, we have a variety of other features as well, including a conservative commentary on the Gentleman’s Rule by Adam Brasich, and a truly touching tribute to the late Professor Bill Placher

by Dr. Webb. Bob Cassady, Adam Current, Steve Henke, Michael Nossett, Kevin Stevens, and Zach Rohrbach round out another full and interesting issue. I hope you enjoy.

In Old Wabash,

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 ditorial PP olicy olicy

A l l opin ions expressed herein ref lect t he v iews of t he ind iv idua l w riters. They do not necessa ri ly ref lect t he views of The Wabash Conser vative Union, The Phoenix, or Wabash College. Especially Wabash College.

In THIS Issue: 4

Around Wabash

8

Moral Farming

9

Why Wabash?

Editorial Staff

Bob Cassady Kevin Stevens

Tradition at Wabash

10 Cover Features 16 The Gentleman’s Role Adam Brasich

Michael Nossett

Moving Forward

Pro Life Approach

17 Watchmen 6 12 18

Austin Rovenstine Luke Blakeslee Pages

Zachary Rohrbach

Steve Henke

&

The Admissions Department plays a vital role in recruiting, admitting, and maintaining a student body that represents our best ideals of Wabash. In two separate pieces, Luke Blakeslee and Austin Rovenstine examine the department’s successes and shortcomings, and offer their advice on how to move forward after the school’s painful fall semester.

19

Sinner

20

Thoughts for Placher

Adam Current Dr. Stephen H. Webb

The Phoenix

PAGE 4

MARCH 2009

Around Wabash College Bowl Here at the Wabash Conservative Union, we don’t much like to brag, but we feel it is important to congratulate the team of Adam Brasich, Michael Nossett, Zach Rohrbach, and Andrew Forrester—WCU members and Phoenix contributors all—who achieved a significant victory in the College Bowl competition this past month.

We further feel that it is worth noting that the team they beat in order to achieve that victory was the Wabash College Faculty. And we further feel inclined to note that this was the first time in the history of the College Bowl competition for such a defeat to take place. Again, we are not bragging— just reporting the facts.

Comps We should also congratulate two senior members of the Wabash Conservative Union—James Inman and our former Editor-in-Chief, Sean Clerget— who received the score of distinction on their comprehensive examinations.

Just reporting the facts…

Racism We recently learned of a tense Wabash College faculty meeting, where a certain professor launched accusations of racism against a number of superiors and department colleagues. We mention this incident not to embarrass or demonize the professor involved,

but rather to make a serious point: Accusations of racism should not be taken lightly—but they should not be made lightly either. The College will doubtless investigate and examine the merits of the professor’s complaints— as they well should—but while doing so, they must be careful not to allow Wabash culture to degenerate to the point where perfectly decent men and women can be tainted by unfounded smears.

Smearing someone as “racist” can be a very powerful weapon, especially in our academic community, where racism amounts to the most egregious and unforgivable of sins. We should know. It is a weapon that has been used against us in the past. If we truly want to have an open academic environment, we need to move away from the childish name-calling that has characterized discussions on race in the past. In order to have an open conversation on race, we first have to learn to respect each other.

Roger Billings While we welcome Mr. Bennett’s visit, we still prefer a more complex understanding of Lincoln. Earlier this semester, Roger Billings ’59, a member of the Board of Trustees and a professor of law at the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, gave a Chapel Talk on the President. The talk, entitled “My Paramount Object is to Save the Union: Was Lincoln Really the Great Emancipator?”, happened to fall upon the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth. Prof. Billings gave a balanced view of Abraham Lincoln, reminding the listeners that, while Lincoln may have used salty and racial humor and speech, he used it about all people. Lincoln was equal in making fun of everyone. To view Lincoln in such negative light as to see the president as a bigot would be a mistake, Prof. Billings claimed. We thank him for presenting a positive view of the Great Emancipator. He did our college proud while honoring a great president.

Lerone Bennett

Expelled

While we are on this issue of race, we have a correction to make. In our last issue, one of our stories claimed that Lerone Bennett, Jr. would not be coming to Wabash College to deliver his planned lecture on President Lincoln and his alleged white supremacy.

It now seems that Mr. Bennett will indeed be delivering his lecture later on this April. We welcome what is a very provocative point of view, and look forward to the discussion it generates.

We are grateful to Dr. Stephen H. Webb for organizing a showing of Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed last month. We were happy to sponsor the event, and we think it went well. The film raises some very important questions. Those who reject the movie outright as religious fundamentalism miss its most important point—that ideas which challenge the status quo of Darwinism are systematically suppressed in academia. Such a paranoid culture is not beneficial to critical thought, and we should do all we can to guard against it.

MARCH 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 5

New Contributor Bob Cassady hails from South Bend, Indiana, and is a freshman here at Wabash. He is planning on majoring in Latin and also doing pre-med.

He is a member of the Newman Center, Students for Sustainability, and Wabash’s soccer team. His interests include reading, gardening, and ballroom dancing, and his life goal is to have at least ten children.

Wabash Conservative Union Events Left: Members of the Wabash Conservative Union dine with conservative alumni at Little Mexico.

Right: The WCU poses for a photo during a weekly meeting.

The Phoenix

PAGE 6

MARCH 2009

Cover Feature I

A Wink and a Nod How Do We Sell the Gentleman’s Rule?

Austin Rovenstine ‘10 Editor-in-Chief

Wabash College has an admissions brochure that is famous among prospective and current students. “It won’t be easy,” it says of the Wabash experience, “but it will be worth it.”

The mailing, received by hundreds upon hundreds of prospective students each year, is brilliant in its salesmanship. Like explorer Ernest Shakleton’s legendary call for men to take a “hazardous journey” for the rewards of “honour and recognition in case of success,” the Wabash brochure summons men to sacrifice their comfort for the sake of something higher. It is a rugged and effective pitch, but is it how we should sell other aspects of our college, particularly the Gentleman’s Rule?

On paper, the answer to that question may be yes. Admissions brochures practically dare young men to live in a community with only one rule, the subtle implication being that responsibilities increase as a result of the freedom they acquire. But a number of students have somehow received the opposite message. They have come

to believe that the Gentleman’s Rule represents unlimited freedom to act without regard to any restrictions whatsoever—legal, moral, or otherwise. And it would seem that many students received this impression from their early visits to campus.

This is evidenced by the discontent of last semester. Much of the anger that Wabash students directed at their college administration last semester can be traced to a sense that the administrators were being disingenuous. The phrase “a gentleman always follows the law” was repeated often in the wake of Johnny Smith’s death, and we were assured by the Deans that it was in fact repeated often before his death as well. But many students sensed that the College was changing the rules mid-game. They felt that the sudden calls from the Administration for Wabash men to follow drinking laws amounted to self-righteous hypocrisy, and that Wabash always allowed underage drinking, at least implicitly.

That was certainly the impression I received from my first tour of the campus three years ago. I remember attending a question and answer

session with college representatives, and the question of alcohol inevitably arose. I do not remember anyone saying, “a gentleman always follows the law.” If it was said, the fact that I do not remember it testifies to its relative insignificance in the conversation.

What I do remember is something along the lines of, “we’re not going to come looking for you.” The emphasis was on what the College was not going to do, rather than on what the students were expected to do.

For the second part of the event, the administrators left the room and allowed current and prospective students to talk amongst themselves.

Blunt questions were asked, and honest answers were given. It was clear from these talks that underage drinking occurred often at Wabash, and, from the perspective of the students, the College did not care. Violence and plagiarism would get you in trouble, we were told. Nothing else.

I tell this story to demonstrate how easy it is for prospective Wabash students to get the impression that the school permits underage drinking.

And my story, of course, is not unique.

Since the disbandment of Delta Tau

MARCH 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 7

Cover Feature I Delta, it has become clear that the student view of the Gentleman’s Rule with regard to underage drinking, and the Administration’s view as articulated since the death of Johnny Smith, are very much contradictory.

President White has dubbed the phenomenon of students believing Wabash College endorses underage consumption of alcohol “the winking effect.” The actions of Wabash’s representatives during student visit days, whether intentional or not, can lead prospective students to the belief that the school gives a pass to lawbreaking.

This is a significant problem. The division between Wabash students and the Administration last semester was not healthy for our college environment, and as long as we continue to send prospective students contradictory messages, that division will not go away.

So how do we address this problem?

First, the Administration should acknowledge its fallibility. Last fall, when “a gentleman always follows the law” suddenly became the defining corollary of the Gentleman’s Rule, the Administration chose to feign shock that underage drinking was taking place. In President White’s mandatory Chapel Talk, he announced with disappointment that investigations had uncovered underage drinking in Johnny Smith’s pledge class, and he proclaimed that such actions “cannot stand.” Unfortunately, this was probably the first time that the Wabash community had heard such a clear and definitive statement on the issue.

The effect of this was to make the Administration seem self-righteous in its response—especially after the disbandment of Delta Tau Delta. It was a very painful semester, and all the blame for that pain was shifted onto the students. It was students who were being lectured, and students who were being punished. It would go a long way toward healing our old wounds if the Administration would admit that they are imperfect too—that the expectations for drinking at Wabash were not always made clear, and that they too have made mistakes in the course of

the past year.

For our part, we students need to understand the responsibilities inherent in the Gentleman’s Rule. Freedom and responsibilities have a positive correlation: the more you have of one, the more you get of the other. If and when we drink, we need to do so responsibly—or else invite more rules and regulations from the Administration. And if and when our friends drink, we need to make sure that they do so responsibly as well. We have a responsibility to govern ourselves and look out for each other.

These ideas must be implemented in the Admissions Department. Their message on the Gentleman’s Rule must be unified, both in their mailings and their personal contacts with students.

Last semester—and every year, for that matter—our student tour guides faced inevitable questions about alcohol.

Some were put in the uncomfortable position of not knowing the correct answers. When the Administration and the students were so divided, how could they know? It is important that we as a college work out a shared understanding of gentlemanly behavior with regards to such important issues, and it is important that every tour guide understands those expectations.

Most importantly, we need to sell the Gentleman’s Rule with a strong emphasis on responsibility. This goes for all of us—students, Administration, and Admissions. We all come into contact with prospective students, and we all have an obligation to explain what the Gentleman’s Rule really means. Too often, students come away from visits to Wabash with the impression that the Gentleman’s Rule means, “you can do whatever you want.” If we sell the rule like this, we are selling the College as easy.

It is not difficult to run into troubles once in a while trying to sell a college as unique as ours. We lack certain superficially attractive features that other colleges have. How do you sell a college without women to a bunch of teenaged high school prospects? There are two common answers: either lie to them about weekend buses full of

women, or promote Wabash’s unique level of freedom. The latter being the more honest, it is probably the wiser argument to make. But true freedom can never be unchecked. In an autocratic society, or an autocratic school, the people are kept in line through the power of an imperious authority. In a free society, as Wabash seeks to be, the people must keep themselves in line. They cannot use their freedom to do anything and everything they want, and push the boundaries too far. If they do, then they will inevitably face the increasing power of the

“ To o of t en, s t udents come away from visits to Wabash with the impression that the Gentleman’s Rule me a n s , ‘you c a n do whate ver you want.’ If we sell the rule like this, we are selling the College as easy.” government, or in our case, the College administration. Free societies cannot be maintained without responsible citizens.

Responsible citizenship should be a prerequisite for admittance to Wabash College, and prospective students need to understand that. They need to understand the concept of personal responsibility, and they need to be good at exercising it. They need to understand their responsibilities to their continued on page 22 (Wink)

The Phoenix

PAGE 8

MARCH 2009

Perspectives

Moral Farming The Innovation of Joel Salatin Bob Cassady ‘12 Staff Writer

Most students were probably not aware of the fact that a bio-terrorist visited campus a few weeks ago. Joel Salatin, the owner of Polyface Inc., has given himself many names including: Christian, farmer, Libertarian, lunatic, Capitalist, and environmentalist, but he has been called bio-terrorist by his critics. Polyface Inc., Joel’s familyowned livestock farm, is situated in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and is esteemed as the ultimate sustainable farm. The sustainability movement, which calls for sustainable practices in every aspect from architecture to farming, is blossoming throughout the country and Salatin is at the front of the phalanx leading the charge.

Salatin, through a slight Southern drawl but with a generous helping of Southern humor, explained the theories that comprise his farm to a packed Ball Theatre. He began by attributing his practices to God, and continued to explain that God has created a rational world with certain underlying principles. These principles essentially consistently run the world, and he believes that they must be followed throughout life. The aim of his work is to understand these laws and manage them in the most efficient and productive manner possible.

Salatin is not bashful to proclaim that an element of morality exists in farming practices. His goal at Polyface Inc. is to accept things as they are and treat the elements of a farm according to their natural existence. With this devotion, Salatin stands as a stark minority against the vast machine of agribusiness, which has accused him of being a bio-terrorist because of his foreign farming practices. The inconsiderate and volatile entity that modern large-scale agriculture is today takes little care or notice for the natural behaviors of the organisms

upon which it acts. Salatin attempts to do everything to the extent of his ability to promote the “pigness” of the pig or the “chickenness” of the chicken according to their God-given natures.

The modern agriculture machine, however, treats the pig as simply bacon and ham, and the chicken as a six-piece meal from KFC. He believes in holism in stark contrast to the prevailing mantra of today which routinely considers the world as simply a sum of its parts. Whereas many “experts” will say that the only way to learn about an organism or phenomenon is to break it down and study its components, Salatin feels that in addition to this reductionism every attempt at grasping something must be done by looking at the said thing as a whole.

Salatin argues that the mentality of today’s food cultivators creates an unethical and dangerous society for everyone in that society, not just the animals. His reason is this: how can one respect one’s neighbors if one cannot respect simple things like a chicken or turkey or pig. He further claims that this American culture is given little or no respect throughout the world. In comparison, Polyface attempts to foster an environment of mutual respect for the animals with which they concurrently depend and work. As he says, “I am in the business of creating a moral culture that can be respected by the world.”

Regardless of his message of just and good farming, none of it would carry an ounce of weight without some backbone. Well, Salatin can carry quite a load, for Polyface Inc. is truly an incredible organization. Some of their farming practices are unbelievably interesting and practical. He says that the farm is centered on harvesting the sun. Anyone with knowledge of the agricultural practices most widely used in this country would think this quite an odd statement, but the point

Artwork by Adam Cooper ‘12

is that the farmer harvests the energy of the sun by capturing it in the grass, which is then eaten by animals, which are then consumed by humans.

In his own words, the farm is an “elaborate dance” that again attempts to mimic the patterns of natural herds such as buffalo. The ingenious method by which Salatin simultaneously grows his cows and chickens cannot go without mention. It all begins with the grass, which is the foundation of the farm. It starts out simply enough in that the herd of cattle are directed onto a certain portion of the pasture and then left to graze. This simple action is heavily layered, however, because the timing of the grazing is essential.

Nature, according to Salatin, relies on a certain amount of destruction to format further growth. Take body building for example. The muscles are torn in lifting weights and then repaired to become stronger. As the cows consume the grass much of it falls to the ground and is then stamped down by the cows’ hooves. This razing allows the bacteria and other organisms in the soil to get at the grass and break it into nutrients thus creating a more healthy soil.

So, after the cows have more or less eaten everything on the pasture, they continued on page 22 (Salatin)

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

PAGE 9

Wabash

Why Wabash?

A Reflection

Kevin Stevens ‘11 Staff Writer

“Why Wabash?” I have been asked this question frequently ever since I first opened that letter of acceptance back in the Spring of 2007. I was fortunate that I got in since it was my last option in hoping to go to school out of state. That being said, another question I’m always asked is “why leave sunny Florida for something else?” Both are

“ Howe ve r, t he r e is so much more than that. There is somet h i ng about t he c o l l e ge t h at gives off an aura of romanticism that makes you fall in love with it.” simple questions and I am always more than happy to answer them. I often answer with a smile and tell the same story.

It was by random chance that I even stumbled upon the name Wabash. I was in the market my junior year of high school looking for a good private college that fostered an excellent academic environment, was small in terms of class size, and more importantly was located outside of Florida. I had been schooled for twelve years in Florida, and though the weather is pleasant most of the time, I wanted to challenge myself.

I’ve never been away from home for

long periods of time and I wanted to experience living in another part of the country. It just so happened that I picked up the recent issue of Newsweek magazine which had an article about the top liberal art schools in the nation. What made Wabash stick out to me was that it met all the criteria I was looking for in a college and more.

One of the appealing features to me was that a common major chosen by students was history. That led me to assume that Wabash must have a good history department. I told my parents I was really interested, and we sat down and did some research on the college.

When I later discovered that it was an all male school my interest grew. The idea of going to an all male liberal arts college reminded me of the movie The Dead Poets Society, which appealed to me since it seemed like an interesting experience living in a community that fostered a spirit of brotherhood. My mom asked me if I wanted to take a trip to see the college and I said, “Sure, why not?”

So a flight was booked, and we set off to the rolling plains of Indiana.

Upon arrival I was nervous about how the campus may look, but once I saw the red-bricked buildings and the architecture I knew that this may be the real deal. I met with Chip Timmons and he gave me the 411 of Wabash.

A tour of the campus revealed more of the true beauty of Wabash which included a chance for me to sit in two classes, one with Dr. Warner on Latin American history and the other with Dr. Abbot on rhetoric. At the end of the day I was really impressed and added Wabash to the top of my list of colleges. Yet, my mom was a little apprehensive at first. “It’s a really beautiful college,” she told me “but I don’t think we can afford it. And do you think you can handle being 16 hours away from home?” Chip Timmons overheard her and said “Oh don’t worry. We wouldn’t have you come all the way up here for

nothing.” Just saying that confirmed to my Mom that there was something special about Wabash and that it was worth the risk. After I received the letter in the mail and later learned that I was granted a scholarship, I began the transition moving up north. I became very nervous and wondered if I couldn’t handle it and if I would have to come back to Jacksonville and go to the city schools. Yet I had a smooth transition and started to learn to live a Wabash life. I still remember President White’s speech at the ringing in of the class. What really stood out was him telling the parents “don’t think of this as you losing your son for four years.

But rather, think of this as gaining a college for a lifetime.”

Nonetheless, I don’t think this story fully answers “why Wabash?” I still seek to answer that question every now and then. The easy answer would be that Wabash is an excellent liberal arts school that fosters an exceptional academic environment. However, there is so much more than that. There is something about the college that gives off an aura of romanticism that makes you fall in love with it. As the late Professor Bill Placher once said, “walking around this campus at night with a new fallen snow, I always fall in love with it all over again.” It can also be that despite the recent losses we as a campus can still come together and proclaim Wabash Always Fights.

Whatever the answer may be, I continue to revise my responses over time.

The reason being is that as I continue to attend this school I see more examples of what the answer is, for the answer simply cannot be explained in words. It is just part of the experience the College offers— an experience I’ll admit that I am and will likely be ever grateful for. I’m sure that even as an old man with my college days long past, “when future days shall bring its name before me” still “my greatest joy will be to shout the chorus…”

The Phoenix

PAGE 10

MARCH 2009

Wabash

Tradition at Wabash Moral Idiocy, Piety, and the Gentleman’s Rule Adam Brasich ‘11 Managing Editor

“The student is expected to conduct himself at all times, both on and off the campus, as a gentleman and a responsible citizen.” I remember, when I was a prospect, seeing this one sentence on some promotional material sent out by Admissions and thinking that this is a really neat idea. A college – indeed, a brotherhood – in which there are no rule manuals, no subsection exceptions to rules, and no rigid absolutist regimentation. The concept of the Gentleman’s Rule is awfully appealing.

While it is still a rule, and being incredibly nebulous probably open to abuse, I figured that the Gentleman’s Rule provided for a certain measure of liberty that allowed one to live a good life and learn from one’s mistakes.

T he G ent lem a n’s Rule is indeed a magnificent aspect of Wabash College. However, it is also seemingly faulty as well, as recent issues have forced us to see. Fundamentally, the problem with the Gentleman’s Rule is inherent in its very imprecise and translucent nature. It begs the question: “What is a gentleman?” Well, who wants to take up that question and answer it? Surely not the Administration. Why is that?

Perhaps it would be beneficial to look back at one of the most important books of the 20th century in order to answer this question. In 1948, Richard M. Weaver, an English professor at the University of Chicago, wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences .

It was a profound and appropriate critique on the problems with Western (particularly American) culture in the mid-twentieth century. In the introduction to his treatise, he wrote

that the dilemma that his generation and society face was the “appalling problem…of getting men to distinguish between better and worse.” He continued: “There is ground for declaring that modern man has become a moral idiot. So few are those who care to examine their lives, or to accept the rebuke which comes of admitting that our present state may be a fallen state, that one questions whether people now understand what is meant by the superiority of an ideal.” These are strong words. However, before the reader undergoes a conniption fit, remember that Weaver wrote long before notions of political correctness had invaded, c a p tured, and salted the ground of the I v o r y To w e r .

Perhaps it would be best to think of a “moral idiot” as a person for whatever reason incapable of making correct moral judgments.

What is a “moral idiot”? Above all things, a moral idiot would have to lack a correctly developed sense of judgment. He lacks the virtue of discrimination. Discrimination today is considered a wicked word (due to its unfortunate Civil Rights era connotation), but it must be remembered that there is such a thing as good discrimination. Discrimination simply means to be able to make right choices between good and bad, and so it is a crucial skill to right living.

However, how does one obtain the ability to discriminate well? Discrimination relies upon being taught by one’s elders. When one is a child, he is taught caution from his parents, who

“Well, who wants to take up that question and answer it?

Surely not the Administration”

warn him not to take candy from the stranger or wander away too far in the mall or park. Through constant guidance by knowledgeable and responsible adults, discrimination naturally forms in a child to the extent that when an eighteen- or nineteen-year-old leaves home to go to college, they have been given the proper skills to know the difference between right and wrong and have the basic ability to act upon those decisions.

That handing down of experience and wisdom from the elders can simply be called tradition – a concept much discussed and apparently adored here at Wabash. My definition, which I acknowledge to be woefully inadequate as a comprehensive definition, of tradition is that which is handed down from individual to individual, generation to generation. An example of this “lower-case ‘t’” tradition could be Chapel Sing, where we pass on “Old Wabash” to a new year of Wabash men. Naturally, though, my definition is aimed at higher things than simply Chapel Sing.

The German philosopher Josef Pieper, in his treatise Tradition: Concept and Claim, wrote that “To hand down does not mean simply to give somebody something, to bring it, share it, or deliver it. It means rather to deliver something that has previously arrived in your hands, which was consigned to you; to share something that was handed over and handed down; to hand on something that you received – so that it can be received and handed on yet again.” We share our values and customs with those younger or newer than us. We received them ourselves from those who came before us. But where did they get their values? Where does tradition start?

Pieper said that Tradition (capital “t”) comes from above. “If it is really an essential part of the concept of tradition that everyone who transmits it, even the earliest in line, hands

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

PAGE 11

Wabash over something he received – that is, something that cannot be acquired or achieved by his own insight – from where and in what way does this first one receive…what is to be handed down from this day forward? When Plato answers this question with a reference to the gods and the proclamation that comes to us from them, he is also saying that anyone who accepts and “believes” that tradition is relying, strictly speaking and fundamentally, not on the ‘ancients,’ but on the gods themselves – and, to be sure, also on the fact that what was given in this very first communication in the line of tradition has reached him and sounded through the ages and the generations… the ‘ancients’ are closer to the divine sphere than the average man; they are ‘better’ than we are…by which he probably means they possess a richer fullness of being…they are the first recipients of a proclamation which f lows f rom a divine source and which they then hand on to human beings.” Ancient, time-tested values come from a time closer to Creation and man’s once literal walk with God. What does this all have to do with Wabash? Well, I believe that I have located the fundamental issue with the College’s problems concerning the Gentleman’s Rule. Wabash possesses tradition, but we lack Tradition. In the winter of 1832, Wabash was founded by a group of Presbyterian ministers.

The official account of the establishment includes a notice that they knelt in the frigid snow and prayed invoking the Name of the Trinity. Wabash was established within the Tradition of Christianity. However, somewhere over the next 175 years or so that Tradition was lost. Luckily Wabash is blessed with a student body that by and large has a basic grounding in this Tradition, but the College itself has largely divorced itself from it – and this is at the heart of the College’s Gentleman Rule problem.

How can the College pass on what

it doesn’t possess? At the very base of the Gentleman’s Rule is an expectation that the student more or less comes to Wabash with a modicum of common sense and Christian upbringing.

Thankfully, for a presumable majority of Wabash students this is still the case. However, what is the College to do when this is not the case? What happens when it is faced with a case of moral idiocy? I would suggest that the College take it upon itself to attempt to instill piety into its students.

I’m certainly not suggesting turning Wabash College into a Bible college, where it imposes strict “modesty” dress codes, officially censors language, and imposes curfews. I will not even advocate for a return of the legendary (and infamous) mandatory Chapels, which were actually religious (and Christian) in nature. I firmly believe that such measures, aside from being simply rid icu lous, would be count er pro duc t i ve.

Howe ver, t h at does not mean that the College should maintain a policy of religious neutrality that amounts to nothing less than a moral self-castration.

To discuss piety, I will again have to turn to Richard Weaver. In Ideas Have Consequences, Weaver wrote that “Piety is a discipline of the will through respect. It admits the right to exist of things larger than the ego, of things different from the ego.” In other words, piety is not equivalent with any notion of radical individualism, a philosophy that is at the heart of the Gentleman’s Rule violations on Wabash’s campus.

When someone intoxicates himself and damages property or hurts someone or himself, he is not through his actions recognizing “things larger than the ego.” He must remember that he has obligations to himself, his community (in our case, Wabash College), and his God. Modernity offers something completely different from this. Instead, it promotes an odd combination of an emphasis on individual, hedonistic freedom with a devotion to an amor-

“Wabash possesses tradition, but we lack Tradition.”

phous “brotherhood of man.” Indeed, as Weaver writes, “in the vocabulary of modernism, ‘pious’ is a term of reproach or ridicule….Now modernism encourages the exact opposite of this, which is rebelliousness; and rebellion, as the legend of the Fall tells us, comes from pride.” For this reason, “Modern civilization, having lost all sense of obligation, is brought up against the fact that it does not know what is due to anything; consequently its affirmations grow feebler.” How can modern civilization recognize its obligations without the enlightening guidance of Tradition?

For this reason, it is necessary for Wabash to reassess its non-policy towards piety and its relative from its founding Tradition. To reconfigure the slogan of Sen. George McGovern’s 1972 Democratic National Convention speech in Miami, “Come Home Wabash!” Wabash needs to return to its righteous, pious heritage in which it developed into one of the great liberal arts college in the nation. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of the Gentleman’s Rule? If the College does not desire to advocate for some form of piety (irrevocably tied to Tradition), then the Deans might as well either publish a Talmud of the Gentleman’s Rule with the official interpretations according to the proper authorities or simply throw up their hands and declare the nation’s first officially anarchic college, thus condemning Wabash to the ash heap of history. There is no need for either of those, but at the same time it is not necessary for the Gentleman’s Rule to be a nebulous concept about which we have conversation after conversation, after which everyone walks more confused and embittered than they did when they first walked into the forum. My enthusiasm for the Gentleman’s Rule has not diminished over freshman and sophomore years.

The Rule is a truly astounding thing that is worthy of protection. However, perhaps it is time that the Gentleman’s Rule actually means something.

Perhaps it is time for the College to reclaim the Tradition which it has forsaken to save the tradition which it so precariously holds.

PAGE 12

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

Cover Feature II

Starting at the Base A Thorough Look into the Wabash Admissions Department

By Luke Blakeslee ‘11 Copy Editor

In our last issue we talked a lot about our outlook on things in the wake of, and yet in the midst of, some of the rougher times in the history of our College. In fact, even to add a slightly romantic touch we stuck in a poem about the literal view one might see gazing nostalgically across campus.

But to take that view and turn it in to something kinetic, we’re now talking about walking, and not just looking, down the rows of Halls, and trees, and springtime fauna. We are turning around and pushing off, one step at a time. We believe that thoughtful, intentional, confident steps will take us from where we are to where we want to go. In the theme of looking ahead and providing a solid future for Wabash, we felt it necessary to start at our base—recruiting and admissions. As for myself, I decided a good beginning for this work would be to research our Wabash Admissions Department, not out of critical spite, but just to learn a little about it. I certainly ended up learning more than just a little.

For those unaware, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid Steve Klein and his staff is located in Trippet Hall, on the far north end of campus. For many outsiders, Trippet provides the first glimpse of Wabash, and it is without doubt one of our greatest ambassadors. Beautifully furnished with artwork and stately interior architecture, it greets all visitors to campus, especially visiting prospective students, with a warm handshake and a classic grin, and offers them a splendid view of our dear campus from wide, spotless windows.

Fresh coffee, plush chairs and abundant literature invites guests to sit and relax, and maybe wonder what it might be like to spend a college career on such a serene campus. But a short exploration reveals that this inspiring view is seen only from the front of the building. Down the stairs and towards the back, that view becomes just a vague memory.

It’s suddenly clouded out by closed doors, cubicles and drab gray walls that lack personality.

Unfortunately it’s in this disconnected environment where you’ll find the Admissions and Financial Aid Offices.

Now, I don’t mean to say that these departments live lives disconnected from the rest of the College. To be sure, Dean Klein and his staff work unbelievably hard to stay connected

and in touch with the spirit of the school. As Dean Klein reported to Jim Amidon in an early February interview celebrating the 1,456th received application for the fall ’09 semester, “We recruit students the old-fashioned wayperson to person. We build interpersonal relationships with families that endure. As we build those relationships, we’re also utilizing new technologies- our website, blogs, Facebook, and even YouTube. What it boils down to is a fully integrated, campus-wide approach to recruiting” (“Applications at an All-Time High”, Feb. 9, 2009).

Yes, this seems in excellent accord with the spirit of Wabash. The latest edition of “Our Core Values: What We as a Community Believe In”, published with the latest draft of President White’s Strategic Plan, places a firm emphasis on “A personal context to teaching and learning that encourages…candid, respectful, face to face conversations.”

Recruitment techniques are obviously right on track with this. But I noted that in his interview with Amidon, Dean Klein also said, with reference to the slipping economy: “We’re in unprecedented circumstances this year. We usually rely on historical data for building our freshman class; we have predictive models that indicate the percentages of our admitted students who will enroll here in the fall. [But] this year is unpredictable.”

This struck me for two reasons: First, I was curious what these so-called predictive models were, and how they related to our famous personal touch; and secondly, I wondered to what extent economic duress affects recruitment methods, specifically how it changes the balance between “personal” and “predictive”. I directed these questions to Dean Klein but due to scheduling difficulties was ultimately unable to meet with him. I decided instead to sit down to talk with Charlie Blaich, Director of the Center of Inquiry and former Associate Professor of Psychology at Wabash.

—Hi, Charlie, I said. Do you have a second? —Of course, he said.

Dr. Blaich not only answered my questions, he answered them with a nice plethora of helpful information besides. He talked about how the recruiting process can be modeled like

MARCH 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 13

Cover Feature II a funnel, where large numbers of names and mass mailings sift down over time to increasingly more manageable numbers and increasingly more personalized attention. “The recruiting process will always focus on students with specific backgrounds—athletes, academic and theater standouts, etc.,” he said. “But it’s hard work to find young men who will thrive in this place.” He noted that recently there’s been debate around whether recruiting should focus on admitting well-rounded classes or well-rounded students, which is a fascinating debate, but did not say whether that was true or not of Wabash. But he continued, echoing Dean Klein: “The economy has a large effect. Things are different this year and no one knows what to expect.” In regards to the most personally direct recruiting and distribution of limited scholarship money, he explained that, “It’s complicated.

There comes a point when the Admissions and Financial Aid Offices have to make some critical decisions: Which types of students best fit our mission and core values? To which students should we give the most financial aid?”

Complication in point: Several years ago Dr. Blaich and other honorable Drs. from various departments at Wabash conducted a study to determine what role athletics, a single aspect of college life among many, play in the environment of small liberal arts colleges, especially Wabash.

They then posed researchbacked questions as to what role athletics should be playing based on those institutions’ missions statements. I did my own bit of research on the official Wabash College Mission Statement, and surprisingly found that nowhere among our listed core values is athletics clearly enumerated. Whereas “A culture of competition without malice” might include athletics, it is not a necessary correlation. Although Blaich noted that not all athletic sports shared the same results, the Drs.’ study “How does the Game of Life Play at Liberal Arts Institutions?” revealed that “Athletes at these institutions typically entered college with slightly lower standardized test scores and high school academic performance than non-athletes”, a fact that might seem initially contradictory to a Wabash core value that is clearly enumerated in our mission statement: “A rigorous liberal arts education that fosters [among other things], ‘a local scholarly community’, and ‘a dedication to the serious pursuit of learning’”. Yet the study also revealed that “Athletes showed higher levels of engagement than non-athletes on several aspects of student engagement, including student-faculty relations.” So, although they may not be up to par on some core values, athletes excel regarding others. It’s a complicated process for any institution to decide which values are truly more valuable.

But this problem is not seen in athletics alone. It’s just

an example. For the study results continue: “Such questions about athletics are no different than the questions faculty can and should ask about study abroad, undergraduate research, academic majors, and other programs on our campuses.” At Wabash, just as the worth of these different programs can never be precisely, quantifiably measured, men are not judged to be “exemplar” or “poor” students based on their performance of core values in individual areas alone, but rather on their embodiment of the spirit of the College mission statement as a whole. Blaich summed it up for me: “Chemistry, Psychology, football, theater, publications—they’re all just means to an end: to think critically, for instance.”

Very well. I do not envy Dean Klein and his staff the complicated sorting out of this hugely complex system of analysis. But in spite of these inherent complexities, at least one thing is clear: When the day’s paperwork is done and the final numbers are tallied up, the Admissions Department decides who makes up each freshmen class—and effectively who makes up the Wabash student body.

Therefore, the importance of looking closely at prospective high school seniors should never be underestimated. But something still nagged me. It was clear that we do an excellent job letting prospects get to know Wabash, and that we invest a lot of thought and research into what types of students we want here, but it was as yet unclear to me just to what extent Wabash works to get to know the prospective students themselves.

When it comes to determining admittance to any college, the step between admitting student types and student faces is a great leap. Perhaps I do not need to mention all the various reasons why. We can all imagine the many possible bad consequences that can result when students are admitted based on apparent attributes, yet are able to hide much of their true personalities. Of course, the appearance vs. reality binary is inherent in all things, and there are unavoidable limits to even what might be the Admission Department’s best attempts to find prospects’ true identities. But the attempt to do so is still entirely necessary.

In my research I happily found indications that Wabash still does strive to get to know its prospective students. As I learned from Mr. David Clapp, Director of Off-Campus Studies and International Students, the most recent development in his role in the admissions process has been no less than the greatly increased personalization of international recruitment. Beginning last summer and continuing throughout this year, he and his staff have been using the modern internet marvel “Skype” to connect on a face to face basis with international recruits half a world away.

“From my desk I can talk with prospective students from all around the world, and we can even take them on campus tours or help guide them through complicated paperwork.

I can get a much better idea of their English and personal-

“The impor tance of look ing closely at prospec t ive high school seniors should never be underestimated.”

PAGE 14

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

Cover Feature II ity through personal conversation rather than e-mails, and they can get a better understanding of the campus and the Wabash personality this way, too. After they’re accepted I can then [using Skype] prepare them for the all important Visa Interview at the US Consulate- by role playing- which is another much added benefit.” Mr. Clapp’s work is a great example of that key goal of personal touch which Dean Klein so heavily stressed, but it’s fundamentally different.

Clapp’s work of getting to know the prospective students personally takes place before they are admitted, not after, so that their admittance depends upon how well the Admissions staff thinks they will thrive in this challenging environment.

This puzzles me. Why should personal discrimination of any sort, let alone discrimination based on personality, occur just in regards to international recruiting? Granted, some might say that this isn’t the case, that it just happens earlier for international students than it does for United States residents, and that the Dean of Students performs this judgment when necessary; certainly every year there are cases where students are removed from the College by the Dean’s Office for all manner of ungentlemanly behavior.

But, I would argue, why should that removal have to wait?

Why couldn’t that ungentlemanly behavior be sorted out in the admissions process beforehand? Are there no signs apparent during the senior year in high school that might seem telling of future behavior, signs that would be caught by in-depth personal interviews? One can only speculate.

But while the case for wholesale, required interviews to sort out the bad apples could surely be made, there is a very strong case otherwise as well. It’s no small fact that there exist stories upon stories of students radically turned around by the Wabash culture and the very installation of core Wabash values. Indeed, it would not be far-fetched to assume that every graduating senior has been fundamentally altered by their Wabash education. Required interviews for all students, while helpful to some extent, would limit the possibilities of a genuine Wabash-induced transformation.

There are many sides to this incredibly complex issue, and I will not profess to have come up with any genius solutions. The experienced, hard working, intelligent others in high places, whose success is evident and continual, I will not in good Wabash faith critique. In closing, I find that the issue, regardless of yet unresolved problems, can be solved at least in part by a fundamental constant: Whether students arrive on campus as prospective high school seniors attracted by the personable approach of a genuinely smiling recruiter and a tempting scholarship check, or as freshmen Wallies who, by the chance of an impersonal recruiting model chose Wabash as the playground of their late teenage years, it is absolutely necessary that they are immediately and continually bombarded and infused with our core values. In their future Wabash careers, then, no matter where they find their steps directed- whether across a glistening campus on a bright spring afternoon or down carpeted stairs leading towards the coldest fringes of their

environment- they’ll be strong men well-able to carry the trust of their peers—brothers and professors alike. As Dean Klein remarks at the end of his interview with Amidon, “We’ve always been able to do what it takes to get the job done. We’ll keep working hard, moving forward, and seeing what happens, and as a result we’ll be that much smarter heading into next year.” Exactly.

Upcoming Events

Dr. Peter Kreeft

Mr. Curt Levey

Wenesday, March 18, 2009 at 8:00 PM in Baxter 101

Ms. TAMMY BRUCE

PAGE 16

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

Wabash

The Gentleman’s Role An Insider’s Defense of Student Government at Wabash Michael Nossett ‘11 Staff Writer

Over much of the last century, a half-dozen or so members of each respective class have been called upon to serve the interests of our student body in either the Student Senate or the Senior Council. Yet, as many a passing issue of the Bachelor will attest, the purposes of these organizations are called into question these days. Does student government at Wabash serve any legitimate function in the Twentyfirst century, or is it only a waste of time? As a member of the Student Senate since my arrival here at Wabash, some might consider my opinion to be tainted by an inherent bias toward the value of student government. Yet, for those who would take issue with me, I beg you, hear me out: Yes, any Senator or Councilman will concede that the affairs of student government can seem quite tedious and even frivolous at times; and yes, each of us has a bone to pick with certain administrational procedures of this undergraduate bureaucracy. But far from being futile, the student government of Wabash College is actually one of the best educational tools this institution has to offer, providing Wabash men with an excellent hands-on opportunity to not only embody the mission statement of this College, but to also grow more and more into the “Gentlemen and Responsible Citizens” we claim to be.

As the Preamble to the “Constitution of the Student Body of Wabash College” states, the student government is responsible for the regulation of any “…matters delegated by the College to student control,” which today have come to be a myriad of duties. Chief among these, however, are these: first, the dispersion of finances; second, the promotion of campus unity; and third, the representation of the Student Body en masse to the

Administration of the College.

Probably the most publicly visible and most often criticized duty of the student government at Wabash is the dispersal of the vast sums of money allocated from the students each semester via the “Activities Fee”, which, over the course of the year generally adds up to around a half-million dollars. These funds are allocated to the more than fifty clubs recognized by the Student Senate through its Audit and Finance Committee, which must prepare the budget spreadsheets, handle all relative affairs with the Business Office of the College, and operate under the policy guidelines set by the Senate as a whole.

While that duty may often prove to be a divisive one (to which this semester’s budget disputes speak), the student government is also charged with doing its utmost to bolster the unity of the student body. Given the oft uneasy state of relations between Greeks and Independents – which is thankfully becoming one of less prevalence these days – maintaining a cordial and interactive student body can prove to be a challenging affair.

Nonetheless, this duty is one entrusted to the student government to deal with appropriately.

Though both of these duties are of importance, the most consequential role played by the student government at Wabash is ultimately the representation of and mediation between the “…members of the Student Body, and the faculty and administration of the College.” In the Student Senate, every Wally is represented by at least a halfdozen members – four Class Representatives, one or more Living-Unit Senators, and the Vice-President – and in the Senior Council, each one is also represented by at least two members – the President of the Student Body, and the President of either the Independent Men’s Association or the Inter-Fraternity Council, respectively.

These, as well as the other members of each particular governing body, serve as the direct voice of the students to the authorities of the College, and are permitted to have a say in the selection of curricula and other affairs that concern every Wabash man.

So what is so important about these duties, and how do they provide those involved with a more well-rounded educational experience? Well, quite unlike Vegas, what happens in the Senate and the Senior Council does not stay there. The duties delegated to each member of the student government require the development and refinement of many of the practical skills that we men of Wabash will need upon graduation. Indeed, what better training grounds could there be for dealing with potentially divisive financial matters than the AFC of the Student Senate? – or for maintaining the unity of a company, state, or family, than by maintaining unity amongst the members of the Student Body? – or for mediating between parties in a legal dispute than by making sure the Student Body and the Administration of our dear Alma Mater are in harmony? These are most certainly not inane or useless abilities, but rather embody the essence of our mission statement, causing participants to “think critically”, “act responsibly”, “lead effectively”, and “live humanely”.

Therefore, while it remains true enough that the effectiveness of some of the methods of student governance at Wabash by right ought to be a subject of debate, there can be no denying the inherent value of letting the students of this great school learn by experience the skills necessary to life in this increasingly-complex world.

Perhaps if every Wabash man took a chance to try his hand in student government, we could all learn more quickly and effectively what it means to be a more gentlemanly and responsible citizen.

MARCH 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 17

Perspectives

Rethinking the Pro-Life Approach A New Strategy Zachary Rohrbach ‘12 Staff Writer The Pro-Life movement in America is in a crisis. With the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) looming in the air and the perceived prospect that it may be enacted, the abortion debate has once again reached a feverish pitch.

Faith-based groups have mobilized, websites such as FightFOCA.com have sprung up, and eighty-four Facebook groups dedicated to the topic have been created. But despite all efforts, the Pro-Life cause seems to be falling short. At this time, the movement needs to take a deep breath, and reconsider its tactics. The fact of the matter is that Pro-Life groups have lost their ability to persuade. We need to regroup and consider alternative arguments not based on theology, begin to send a more positive message, and be willing to think and deliberate before we talk.

The abortion debate has become polarized along faith lines, and the Pro-Life argument tends to take two general forms. Some argue that abortion is wrong because the child has a soul and is thus human; others argue that it is wrong because it encourages a warped view of the purpose of sex.

If we examine the basis of these two arguments, we should not be surprised that Pro-Choice advocates spurn them. Both of these assertions imply that God exists and He condemns abortion. By allowing these implications into the debate, the Pro-Life movement narrows its audience. As a matter of fact, it narrows the audience to the point that we start to talk only to ourselves. If the majority of Americans and politicians truly agreed that God exists and that He condemns abortion, we would not have a debate.

But, considering the circumstances, we need to rethink our argumentation style.

Practical arguments would do well in convincing people to not support specific legislation to propagate abortion. For example, in the case of the Freedom of Choice Act, we often emphasize that the act ought to be opposed purely on the grounds that women should not have the right to choose abortion. Instead, we should explain how the legislation infringes upon the rights of doctors and medical workers to refuse to participate in an action that they deem morally dubious.

By appealing to this right of freedom of expression that most Americans cherish regardless of their political views, we can be more inclusive in who heeds our arguments.

We also ought to employ scientific arguments, as well. In 2002, George Mason University published a study that found a positive correlation between the legalization of abortion and the number of patients with gonorrhea and syphilis, presumably because partners became more sexually active after abortion was legalized. While here is not the place to argue the validity of this study’s conclusions or their relevancy, this particular example illustrates the types of research that the Pro-Life movement can complete in order to press its points. In our scientifically minded world, statistics and practical arguments carry more weight than theological arguments, and the Pro-Life cause ought to make more use of them.

The Pro-Life movement also needs to refine its message from a negative to a positive one. In this respect, we ought to remember that we disagree with abortion itself, and not those who seek abortions. Unfortunately, many in the Pro-Life movement have resorted to ad hominem attacks against abortion supporters. Evidence of this fact can be found on nearly any blog or news discussion forum that examines this issue and on chain emails and personal conversations. This tactic is harmful

“In our scientifically minded world, statistics and pract ica l a rg u ment s carry more weight t h a n t he olog ic a l a rg u ment s, a nd the Pro-Life cause ought to make more use of them.” to the cause as a whole, since there is no surer way to deafen the ears of those we most need to convince than to attack their character.

But even those Pro-Life advocates who avoid ad hominem attacks need to focus less on the negative aspects of abortion and more on the positive aspects of bearing the child. Before the Super Bowl, one faith-based group, CatholicVote.org, produced a commercial that is an exemplary illustration of this approach. Though both CNN and NBC both refused to put this commercial on the air, it is available on the CatholicVote.org website. The commercial attempts to refute several popular Pro-Choice arguments while playing uplifting music and telling a story of triumph. It shows an ultrasound picture of a fetus while telling the story of someone the public knows well. “This child’s future is a broken home…despite the hardships he will endure, this child will become the 1st African American president.” This is an excellent template of a positive, uplifting campaign against abortion continued on page 22 (Abortion)

PAGE 18

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

Book Review

Conservative Watchmen?

Lessons on society in Alan Moore’s Work Steve Henke ‘12 Staff Writer

What would happen in a society governed by superhumans? A lan Moore’s graphic novel Watchmen explores an alternate 1984 America in a society that had outlawed costumed vigilantes.

One of many questions raised by the novel seems particularly relevant after the events of the past dec ade: doe s add it iona l p ower, i ntelligence or information give individuals the right to do all that is necessary t o ach ie ve a specif ic end?

From this point on, a thematic and character spoi ler wa rn ing is in effect.

The characters of Watch men revea l several differing positions on the issue.

Dr. Manhattan (that’s the blue naked guy) holds virtually unlimited power.

Yet rather than becoming intoxicated with his power, Manhattan begins to slowly withdraw from the world.

Instead of overthrowing the world, destroying it, or even acting out of selfish motives, Manhattan becomes essentially apathetic—the abundance of his power creating little necessity to act on “smaller” nuisances of mankind’s worries.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Ozymandias possesses unmatched intellect. The perfection of the human form, Ozymandias comes to the undeniably logical conclusion that mankind needs intervention to achieve a peace. Ozymandias provides a… violent solution to the unbalance and provides complete peace at least for the moment.

Rorschach provides the narration for t he majority of the novel.

Wit h a st rong belief in black and white morals and a refusal to compromise for the greater good, Rorschach ignores the theoretical greater go o d i n f avor of rig hting a l l wrongs. Playing the classic role of sleuth, Rorschach abandons his rules of cont a i ne d ju s t ic e upon gathering information on a kidnapper, whom he kills brutally.

Quite remarkably, Alan Moore has said to have written Watchmen with the intent to critique Ronald Reaganesque heroes—people put in a special position to guard the world from seemingly inevitable demise. Indeed, there are numerous essential lessons that open-minded conservatives can glean about the very nature of social governance.

First, the Dr. Manhattan lesson.

While power has proliferated since the days of an invincible America, the social influence of the United States

continues to expand. In these times more than ever, America must unite in an effort to start caring about the greatest American export: culture.

Rather than alienating ourselves from the world or giving up on society as a whole, Manhattan’s logical yet inhuman conclusion shows the necessity of taking an active interest in U.S. affairs.

The common citizen must be involved in the government.

Ozymandias shows us a different side of the problem of power. Ozymandias reveals both the limited nature of governmental conclusions and the necessity of some form of democratic consensus. First, governmental conclusions are inherently limited in nature. Similar to the limitations of a field like math or science, it is impossible for governing figures to entirely take into account all factors to achieve an ideal solution. While an ideal solution should not be avoided for this reason, its achievement is hardly the end of all problems.

Furthermore, Ozymandias shows the necessity of a democratic element to society. Though democracy is far from infallible (Winston Churchill: “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”), its inclusion in the decision-making process mitigates the effect of tyranny of the majority and protection of individual rights.

Rorschach emphasizes the need for checks and balances within the realm of the law. Rather than giving the authority to a single individual or group, power must be distributed so that information available only to a select few can be interpreted drastically.

Though Rorschach emphasizes several admirable traits of conservatism, he ultimately fails by rejecting the heart of society he tried to protect.

Though Watchmen certainly contains liberal overtones throughout, valuable lessons can be gained for the observant conservative.

MARCH 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 19

Book Review

A Disturbing Portrait

Reflections of our society in Ted Dekker’s Sinner Adam Current ‘11 Staff Writer

The year is 2033 and America as we know it is a keg of gunpowder, waiting to explode under the fiery pressure of civil unrest. Intent on chaos, a maniacal daemon provides the necessary spark by igniting a vicious cycle of brutal murders and race riots. The bewildered United States government feebly walks on glass as it tries to hold the nation together. In a last ditch effort for peace, the unthinkable is done: The First Amendment is amended, allowing for the passing of the “National Tolerance Act”, which deems any public mention of race or religion as hate speech.

Sinner, by Christian novelist Ted Dekker, follows the story of a sinister evil hell-bent on destruction, a nation on the brink of collapse, and the few that can stop it. Sinner questions the limits of free speech, government intervention, and how far one town will go to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the Way”.

For those unfamiliar with Ted Dekker, he brings to the literary world the emerging genre of the “supernatural thriller”. Like his famous counterpart Frank Peretti, Dekker seamlessly and beautifully intertwines faith and suspense as well as questioning the very nature of good and evil, leaving the reader to ponder the deep spiritual undertones that only become apparent as the book’s last pages are turned.

Let me warn you: This book is hard to put down. One or two sittings is ideal. You might easily find yourself caught up in the whirlwind of the various sub-plots, and suddenly questioning how a government can prosecute an entire town of three thousand.

Another warning—with Dekker, not even the main character is safe from death. In some of his books he has killed the main character—more than once. But in this one the main

characters live; it’s just the very fabric of the United States that dies.

The reasoning behind the National Tolerance Act’s ban on religious speech is very straightforward. Since violence and hate cannot be controlled by mere physical or political force, one mu st si mply restrict the ability (or rather, legality) for certain types of speech—namely religious. Think about it: shouting always prefaces punches. If there is no shouting, then there is no punching. Peace is maintained and all is well—at least for those who thrive on pol it ic a l cor rec tness.

Under the guise of tolerance, dissent is eliminated while our nation, from a religious standpoint, becomes the very thing it sought to fight against. Under the “National Tolerance Act”, if I told you about Christianity or that I am a Christian, I implicitly single you out by proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. It would be considered “a personal attack of heinous nature upon that person’s intrinsic value as a citizen as well as upon the moral character of that person” (238), simply because it questions equality. In this book, ‘tolerance’ as our American society knows it, is played out to its full intrinsic nature: silencing debate for the sake of equality.

But to stray for just a moment, we need not look to fiction for possible restraint of the First Amendment. Look at the antiquated Fairness Doctrine.

A modern day version would function under the absurd view that radio is the main news outlet. Claiming that public airwaves need more diversity,

a modern day doctrine would attempt to provide that diversity by requiring a liberal view be heard along with a conservative view. But look under the mask: this is unreasonable. If a station cannot afford to provide this diversity, they would be effectively silenced.

Think of it in terms of television. We all know that entertainment is decided by the people, so imagine the backlash if the show ‘Joey’ was forced to stay on the air because ‘E.R.’ was more successful.

The Doctrine would force people to tolerate unentertaining shows that on their own they would not watch. There would be no changing the channel: Homogenous entertainment would reign supreme!

Such is tolerance in the non-fiction world. But now back to Sinner.

Oh, there’s one last thing to warn you about: It’s the third in a series. Sort of. Sinner is a mere three hundred and seventy-four page pit stop in a grand circular storyline that spans over six books thus far. Having read all of them except for one or two, I can attest that somehow circular storylines are possible. And entertainingly mindblowing! If you don’t believe me, then pick up a book for yourself!

If you’ve never read Christian fiction before, seriously consider giving Sinner a chance. Before reading Dekker, I too thought that the genre was nothing but hyper creepy peppy evangelical blibber blabber on a paper canvas. But oh, how wrong I was! If you’re willing to get beyond the veil of ignorance that surrounds anything ‘Christian’, what you will find is an emerging genre that is anything but. So trust me: you will not be disappointed!

PAGE 20

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

Perspectives

Thoughts for Bill Placher Stephen H. Webb ‘83 Faculty Contributor

Writing about one’s mentor is a risky task. When you owe so much to somebody there is always the danger that you might subconsciously want to discount your debt in order to minimize the burden of its payment.

Inspecting any relationship of dependence is fraught with the temptation of resentment and envy, but the opposite reaction is no less precarious.

Idealization is a strategy of denial as real as any other. We idealize someone when we do not want to think too hard about how even the best of lives barely makes a scratch in the dust of human transience.

I think I can acknowledge Bill’s life and work without envy or adulation, but I do not know about regret. Like a lot of academic relationships, Bill and I had found ourselves on opposite sides of an escalating wall of differences that finally led to a definitive parting of ways. We did what we thought we had to do, which amounted to protecting each other’s space from any hint of our own presence. So it is hard

“There is no such thing as an abbreviated life, he would say. The only time we k now is t he time God allots us, just as God’s time is the life of Jesus Christ.”

to pay homage to someone when you were barely at the point, when they died, of working up to saying hello in the hallway. What can I say that will not be overshadowed by the ruin our friendship had become? How can I think clearly when everything I think is colored by sadness—and other motives I can hardly admit? If even I do not trust these words, why should anyone else?

Nonetheless, Bill gave me so much that it would be churlish to turn down an invitation to write a tribute to him.

He would not want my praise, but we held back so much from each other that at this point that is the least I can give him. Every conversation about the dead is at least a little bit indiscrete. To be silent about the dead is to do them an injustice, but to talk about them in any tone other than gratitude and respect risks silencing them, since it denies them the last word.

One thing Bill taught me is that God’s judgment of us will coincide, in the final judgment, with God’s forgiveness. In this, as in so many things, God is utterly unlike us. When we forgive each other, we suspend judgment, and when we judge each other, we decline to forgive. What we give always has strings attached, and we forgive only as a roundabout way of giving something to ourselves. Still, it would have been nice had Bill lived long enough for us to forgive each other.

Among the Greeks and Romans, the man of prestige and power could be forgiving because, if he were truly a man, nothing could possibly hurt him. Forgiveness was just an expression of power held back in reserve. Bill and I held back from each other as a first step, I thought at the time, on the way toward forgiveness, but now I see that we held back out of weakness rather than strength. We did not know how to get started talking again about theology without talking about everything else.

I actually dealt with the dilemma of returning a gift to Bill in a very concrete way. Before we had our troubles, Bill gave me a package containing instructions for his funeral and a request that I preach a traditional, Christ-centered Gospel sermon instead of the usual panegyrical oration.

I gave it back to him soon after we stopped talking to each other. I’d like to think that I did what he would have wanted had he been able to express himself in this awkward situation.

After all, why would he have wanted me to speak at his funeral, after what we had been through? Yet how could he ask me to step aside? It would have been rude for him to ask for his gift back, and besides, we weren’t talking to each other! What he couldn’t ask for, though, I could give unbidden, or so I thought.

When Bill came to the Wabash Religion Department to teach, he had graduated from Wabash only a few years earlier. He was the newcomer in a department already quite established, and when he died he was the department’s senior member, having left his stamp on its subsequent transformations. When I had him in class, he was really not much older than me, although even back then he seemed like he had lived with the great minds for so long that he was becoming one of them. All of his students, it seems, have a story about Bill involving chalk and an encounter with the chalk board.

When I was a senior in college, he was just finishing his first book, and he invited me to read it in draft form.

In my innocence, I expected to read something as hard as Heidegger. I was thus amazed that what I read was instead so accessible and inviting that I decided I could write theology too.

I had no idea at the time of how hard such effortlessness is. I think it is interesting to note that as easy as he made writing look, writing did not come naturally to Bill. He worked extremely

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

PAGE 21

Perspectives hard to make hard ideas look simple.

The only time I ever saw him express the least bit of resentment was when he thought others did not appreciate how much work that took.

Bill said to me more than once that there must be something wrong with people like us who write so much.

Writers are creatures of their reading habits, and Bill was an avid reader of detective fiction, a genre which shaped his theology. He had a very systematic approach to writing and a near-compulsion for clarity. One of the problems with trying to give back to Bill is that he worked his prose to the point of elegant perfection, so that when he asked me to read something before publication (which was rare), there was ridiculously little I could contribute.

H e was an impecc a b l e theological styli s t , but he was an even g reater preacher, i n f a c t , one of the best preachers I have ever heard. Many times, listening to him deliver a homily to a handful of students and colleagues during Wednesday morning Chapel at Wabash, I marveled at my good fortune and found it hard to believe that these sermons were heard by so few. When I would grumble about the lack of a local audience for such priceless treasures, he would pass on to me the wisdom Eric Dean, his mentor, passed on to him: you preach the same, whether it is to two people or two hundred.

As much as our differences widened over the years, we also agreed on some fundamentals. We both had a fairly low view of the state of contemporary

theology, and yet we knew nothing better to do with our lives. (Mercifully, Bill died with his boots on, doing what he loved best—he was on sabbatical, writing a book on the Gospel of Mark.)

We both believed in substitutionary atonement, which put us at odds with most of our contemporaries. We also believed in a pretty high doctrine of providence, which helped us to not worry too much about our careers. We both also believed firmly in the incomparable nobility of small schools over research universities. We both loved teaching Wabash students, although in completely different ways. He once told me that when he went from being the older brother to his students to being their father-figure that his teaching

had he been faced with the choice of retiring here or moving somewhere else. I don’t think he would have been happy either way. He was spared that choice. One might think that his death would make it easier for me to stay at Wabash, but I am finding the opposite to be the case.

Bill thought about death a lot, as did I, and we shared those thoughts with each other, as much as one can share something that is so hard to think about. Bill wrestled hard with the Christian hope in the afterlife, and for a long time he was a skeptic about the continuation of individual identity in heaven. That might be the only theological topic I was able to move him on, because I believe he gradually came to affirm the traditional teaching of t h e Church on t he resu rrection.

In terms of t h i s earthly l i f e , though, I am not sure that he wanted a n y more life than what he already had.

There is no such thing as an abbreviated life, he would say. The only time we know is the time God allots us, just as God’s time is the life of Jesus Christ. All of his theology, I think now, was commentary on that sentiment.

Perhaps it is true that asking God for more life would be a bit ungrateful, but God can give back to us what we do not know how to give to him. I am confident that God will give Bill what he was sometimes afraid of desiring.

Even now, I trust, Bill is enjoying the conversations of the saints, and some day we will rejoin where we should have left off.

WORDS FROM

WABASH was harder to pull off. I think he ended up being a kind of wise and gracious uncle, the family relative you always wished you could have gotten to know better and spent more time with.

Before we had our final break, Bill said that we should both try to find jobs elsewhere, on the assumption that perhaps one of us would be successful.

Before that, he had talked about not wanting to retire in Crawfordsville.

Wabash is such a student-oriented school, and Crawfordsville is such a small town, that retired faculty can find it hard to live here without being a part of the relationships that build on the daily labor of the classroom. I don’t know what Bill would have done

PAGE 22

Wink

continued from page 7

friends, and they need to be willing to act on them. Without students who understand and demonstrate these values, our traditional idea of Wabash will quickly fall apart.

Salatin

continued from page 8

move on to the next spot. The chickens then take the lead in the dance, and swarm the recently abandoned pasture. They consume bugs which have infiltrated the manure left behind by the cows. The beauty of the system is the plethora of actions taking place on one area of pasture between two animals. Firstly, no food need be bought for either the cows or chickens.

Abortion

continued from page 17

for the Pro-Life movement to follow moving forward.

Finally, to be taken truly seriously, the Pro-Life movement needs to be slow to speak. Too often, the entire cause loses credibility when a Pro-Life advocate misquotes a fact or statistic.

A prime example of this occurred in January, when, according to the Catholic-based Eternal World Television

The Phoenix

MARCH 2009

This is not the easiest sell for a college. You are not telling prospects that they will have unlimited freedom to do whatever they wish. You are telling them that they will have to govern themselves. They will have to make tough decisions about responsible actions. They will have to look after

their friends to do the same. You are telling them that no one will be there to make tough decisions for them. No one will be there to keep their behavior in check. You are telling them that the freedom they will experience at Wabash will not be easy. But it will be worth it.

Secondly, the animals themselves exterminate any of the “wastes” without use of insecticide. Thirdly, the soil becomes more rich and healthy through the actions of mowing the grass by the cows and the aeration from the feet of the animals. So Salatin takes what are considered to be wastes- manure and insects- by industrial feedlots and turns them into beef and eggs, which are usually higher quality and healthier than what’s regularly found at a local grocery.

This natural but different process has earned Salatin his title of bioterrorist, because it is seen as harmful to other nearby farms. Regardless of his critics, Salatin’s work is beautiful. It expresses what true agriculture should resemble. Whether or not it is feasible for the entire livestock agriculture of this country to run in such a manner is debatable, but the abundant products and humane methods used at Polyface Inc. should be carefully considered.

Network (EWTN), a popular chain email claimed that President Obama would enact FOCA as an executive order on his first day in office. This never happened, and would indeed not have been legal. This scare tactic deprives the Pro-Life movement of its credibility. As a matter of fact, Pro-Life advocates who have been so focused on FOCA these last couple months ought to realize that the act has not yet even been proposed in the current Congress. If the Pro-Life

movement improves its fact-checking performance, we will gain some muchneeded credibility.

In this time of great uncertainty about the future prospects for the sanctity of life, the Pro-Life movement needs to gain a level head. By appealing to our opponents using arguments that are not theologically based, by sending a more positive message, and by thinking before we act, our advocacy of the Pro-Life cause will cease to fall on deaf ears.

Questions?

Comments?

Contact us. editor@wabashunion.org

My Apologies Editor’s note: The person who gave this to us claimed that someone gave it to him or her anonymously to pass on to us for publication.

We applaud whoever wrote it for their confession of hypocrisy but wish they had had the courage to put their name on it.

When they came for the conservative students on campus, accusing them of racism, I did not speak up. I had little sympathy for them.

When they accused the conservative magazine of being racist, I did nothing, because I never read it anyway, and wish it were not funded.

When they went after the conservative professors, I kept my peace, because I was not a conservative, and it is good for conservatives to be taken down a notch or two.

When they accused Christianity of being inherently racist, I said nothing, because I do not believe in defending my own faith, especially if it means someone might be offended. Besides, I agree that Christianity is inherently racist.

When they equated the Enlightenment and the West with racism, I said nothing, because I am a postmodernist.

When they accused the history department of being deeply complicit in racism, I said nothing, because the history department is more liberal than I am.

And then they accused me of racism...and by that time there was nobody left to speak up for me.

Never Forget: Stop false accusations of racism now. It is never right to let others be accused of wrongs they did not commit, no matter how hard it is to defend those you do not like.