October 2009

October 2009

Volume 6, Issue 2

The Phoenix The Voice of the Conservative Movement at Wabash

The Death of the Student Judiciary

Plus: Maynard on Healthcare Henke on “Co-ed Never” Dixon on Chapel Sing And Much More...

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 S. Blix ‘70 staff Jason Allen ‘10 Justin Froedge ‘10 Kyle Nagdeman ‘10 Curtis Peterson ‘10 John Bruce ‘11 Adam Current ‘11 Nolan Eller ‘11 Adam Kirby ‘11 Steve Maynard ‘11 Michael Nossett ‘11 Kevin Stevens ‘11 Ben Williams ‘11 Bob Cassady ‘12 Adam Cooper ‘12 Steve Henke ‘12 Carl McInnis ‘12 Jake Nettnay ‘12 Zachary Rohrbach ‘12 Rudy Altergott ‘13 Michael Brown ‘13 Robby Dixon ‘13 Alex Robbins ‘13 Philip Robin ‘13

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,

As we began doing research and conducting interviews for this issue’s cover feature on the now-dead Student Judiciary, we realized that we were often telling two different stories: one from the perspective of students, and the other from the perspective of the administration. The same was true as we investigated rumors that Chapel Sing was facing significant alterations this year. The theme of our main features in this issue quickly became trust. Wabash has suffered a severe lack of it in the past year.

Our cover feature in this issue tells the story of both students and the administration attempting, in various forms and all to no avail, to regain that trust.

Of course, we have various other stories of interest for you. Be sure especially to check out Luke Blakeslee’s profile of Wabash Conservative Union speaker Joseph C. Phillips - and also, don’t forget to attend the lecture itself, “He Talk Like a White Boy,” October 29, in Baxter 101 at 8:00 pm.

I hope you enjoy this issue and our upcoming events program.

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:

Cover Feature The Student Judiciary

Adam Brasich Austin Rovenstine Brad Vest

14

Page

Last year, following the disbandment of Delta Tau Delta, talk of a Student Judiciary to get students involved in the disciplinary process was prevalent on campus. This semester, the idea is all but dead.

In this issue, Adam Brasich, Brad Vest, and Austin Rovenstine conduct a thorough investigation of the Student Judiciary, outline its troubled history, and explain why the idea was misguided from the start.

6

The Dreaded “W” -Austin Rovenstine ‘10

8

Co-ed Never -Steve Henke ‘12

9

Brave New World -Kevin Stevens ‘11

12

He Talk Like a White Boy -Luke Blakeslee ‘11

18

Atlas Shrugged -Jason Allen ‘10

20

Civil Debate -Alex Robbins ‘13

21

Chapel Sing -Robert Dixon ‘13

22

Healthcare Solutions -Steve Maynard ‘11

24

Wabash Traditions -Dr. David S. Blix ‘70

26

Science and the Liberal Arts -Zachary Rohrbach ‘12

The Phoenix

PAGE 4

OCTOBER 2009

Around Wabash Senate Candidates at Wabash

The Will H. Hays College Republicans are deserving of some praise this semester: They have been able to secure lecture dates for all four of Senator Evan Bayh’s potential Republican opponents. You may think that these candidates are unimportant given Senator Bayh’s seemingly invincible political standing in the state.

But we would remind you that it was during similarly tumultuous political and economic times that a relatively unknown politician—who graduated from the pitiable institution to our south, no less—was able to defeat another seemingly invincible senator named Bayh in 1980. So we encourage you to attend these events. You may well be getting a chance to meet your next senator.

Population Control

On September 29, journalist Alan Weisman visited campus to deliver a lecture on his 2007 bestselling book, The World Without Us. Most of the talk was a thought experiment in which Mr. Weisman imagined how nature would return in all of its glory after humans hypothetically disappeared from the earth. The conclusion of his talk, however, seemed to be pulled directly from the worst, most paranoid nightmares of Glenn Beck.

After indicating that he disagreed with those in the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement,” who believe that humans need to stop procreating in order to save the world, Mr. Weisman proceeded to explain his own solution to the world’s alleged population problems. And his models for that solution: China and Iran.

Weisman praised China’s “one child

policy” and Iran’s pre-Ahmandenijad widespread condom distribution and abortion-on-demand. He blasted the Reagan administration for ceasing funds for abortions abroad, claiming that such “population control” is needed to maintain a sustainable environment.

Panic about overpopulation is not new to our time. Environmentalists have long fretted the coming resource shortage due to too many darn humans. Even before the modern environmentalist movement, intellectuals would have periodic panics over food shortages, advocating cutting down the population by controlling the reproduction rates of undesirables in society—usually the poor. Mr. Weisman’s book may be original, but his proposed policies are tired, stale, and already disproven.

The Shirts In a semester in which we plan to host lectures with titles like “He Talk Like a White Boy” and “Nation of Bastards,” we never would have guessed that our most controversial act would be the selling of t-shirts with the phrase “Wabash Forever, Co-ed Never.” Yet our decision to make the classic Wabash apparel available to students on campus once again seems to have provoked the outrage of certain members of the community.

According to some, the shirts are “an affront” to the women on this campus. Others claim that they subtly imply that female faculty are not welcome. Yet another argument is that the shirts reopen the scars of the divisive co-ed debate of 1992, much in the same way, it has been asserted, that flying the Confederate flag reopens the painful scars of slavery.

It is worth noting that during that painful debate in 1992, about twothirds of the faculty supported the admission of women. The students and alumni, obviously, disagreed, and

a fight ensued that made last year’s campus upheaval look like peace in the valley. Most of the opposition to our shirts has come from people who were here on campus through those trying times.

We understand their concerns about maintaining a respectful discourse, and The Phoenix has always endeavored to attack even the most objectionable ideas with the utmost respect for the people who hold them.

Everyone can be assured that the “Wabash Forever, Co-ed Never” shirts do not represent an attack on any group of people, but rather a statement of support for something most Wabash men hold dear.

Levi Johnston Blues

Musician Ben Folds recently visited Wabash and treated his audience to a song about former Governor Sarah Palin’s former son-in-law-to-be, Levi Johnston. Here is a sample of some of the lyrics:

Woke up this mornin, what do I see?

3,000 cameras pointed at me.

Dude says, “You Levi?” I’m like, “Yes that’s me, sir.”

“Well you just knocked up the VP nominee’s daughter…”

I’m a f***in’ red neck, I live to hang out with the boys, play some hockey, do some fishin’ and kill some moose. I like to shoot the sh**, do some chillin’ I guess. You f*** with me, and I’ll kick you’re a**.

So we talk and it turns out we don’t believe in abortion and sex outside marriage is against our religion. And when I try to tell them I’m 18 years old, they say, “Levi, it’s too late, you’ve got to do as you’re told.”

We here at The Phoenix continue to be impressed by the class and sophistication of the artsy left.

The Wabash Conservative Union Presents:

Mr. Joseph C. Phillips

Actor, Author, and Political Commentator

“He Talk Like a White Boy” Baxter 101 Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:00 PM

The Phoenix

PAGE 6

OCTOBER 2009

Features

The Dreaded “W”

A Story of Tradition and Lost Trust

Public Affairs Photo

Austin Rovenstine ‘10 Editor-in-Chief

As a sophomore a couple of years ago, I helped organize Chapel Sing and Homecoming activities for the independent freshmen. Every night for the first month or so of my sophomore year, we would meet behind the Sparks Center to practice the words of “Old Wabash” and go over what was expected of them as new Wabash men. I remember one night early on a freshman asking me what it really meant to get a W during Chapel Sing.

“It’s a mark of shame,” I replied. “It means you don’t care enough about Wabash to know the words to the song, and everyone will be able to see that once you get a W branded onto your shirt.”

“Will I be shunned?” he asked, naïvely.

“Yes,” I lied, “But you don’t have to worry about that because you’re not going to get one.”

He did wind up getting one, as did two more of my freshmen that year.

But they quickly discovered, if they did not already know, that I had no intention of shunning them. “I know that you know the words,” I was sure to tell them. “You just messed up a little in the chapel. You got nervous.

It happens a lot.”

My earlier claim that they would be shunned was made not so much in the spirit of malice as it was in the spirit of fun. It was what I’d been told, and what I believed, my freshman year.

If I had not told them that failure in Chapel Sing had serious implications,

they would not have taken Chapel Sing seriously. And had they not taken it seriously, they would not have had fun.

We temporally suspended reality, as we often do at Wabash, for the sake of a grand game. There was nothing ungentlemanly about that. We had the freedom to do that. That was the way Wabash traditions worked my sophomore year.

Wabash has changed since then.

It is not just the lack of alcohol at freshmen-related events—although that is the first thing most people think when they hear the phrase “Wabash has changed.” As a law-abiding citizen and a teetotaler, I don’t particularly mind its absence. No, the change is more atmospheric than alcoholic.

Since the death of Johnny Smith a year ago this month, our sense of freedom has changed. Our sense of trust—our trust in the administration and the administration’s trust in us—has been lost.

This was very apparent in the lead up to this year’s Chapel Sing competition. As we approached Homecoming, a string of rumors began to spread across campus. There were various different incarnations, ranging from the notion that the painting of W’s would be banned from the competition, to the accusation that Dean Raters had somehow managed to ban the Sphinx Club itself. The rumored causes of the changes ranged from the idea that there would be lawyers in the audience, out to prove that Wabash students haze their freshmen, to the idea the Dean Raters was arbitrarily attempting to remake Wabash in his own kid-friendly vision. I already had a Phoenix interview with Dean Raters concerning the Student Judiciary scheduled for the week of Chapel Sing, and I decided to address the various rumors while I was speaking with him.

“To my knowledge, there aren’t changes,” he began after I asked him about the rumors, and then he confirmed that he had spoken with the Sphinx Club. He said that he expected the Sphinx Club “to emphasize with greater clarity” this year certain facts about Chapel Sing. Dean Raters wanted it to be clear that Chapel Sing was

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 7

Features “a positive event” and “a gentlemanly event [that] demonstrates responsible citizenry.” On the issue of the dreaded W, he wanted to make certain that everyone knew that it was “a tally sheet” which helps the Sphinx Club keep track of everything during the chaos of the event.

When I asked what spurred these discussions with the Sphinx Club, Dean Raters claimed that such discussions happen every year, but added that “during last year’s tension, we’re foolish if we don’t reexamine what we’re doing, and so I think the Sphinx Club has reexamined what we’re doing.”

“You know,” he reflected, “the Chapel Sing I’ll see on Thursday will be similar but a whole lot different from the one I participated in, very different from the one that Dean Bambrey participated in as well. Similar but quite different from the one a student here five years ago participated in. It is an evolutionary event, but one where we need to again, as I mentioned in my note to the community: ‘at all times’ includes homecoming week—it includes Chapel Sing. And it includes preparation for Chapel Sing, so we all need to understand that. Sometimes we don’t.”

Finally, on the concern over the W’s, he said, “The potential problem is, that you got a W, and now, are you crushed? Are you ridiculed? And, more specifically, are you, even with the W, are you made to feel like you did something from a positive perspective?

And I do think that’s where the Sphinx Club is going to be more intentional on Thursday.”

The Sphinx Club did seem more intentional, and seemed to be on the same page as Dean Raters, by the time Chapel Sing rolled around later that week.

“This is a positive event in which students and faculty new to the college can participate in traditions of the past and members of the community can gather to celebrate the higher standards and aspirations that Wabash has come to represent over the years,” Sphinx Club President Will Hoffman announced before the competition began. “Ws will be used

by the Sphinx Club as a tally system to help determine which pledge class has mastered the song.”

The Journal Review also covered the story, quoting Sphinx Club member Steve Popovich as emphasizing that “the Ws on the shirts are a way of tallying scores.” The Bachelor ran pieces emphasizing how Chapel Sing is a positive event, and denouncing the rumors on campus as divisive.

The smoke, disgusting photos, and “humping dog” that I was taunted with my freshman year were all removed from the competition. Photos featuring freshmen with Ws were not used on the Wabash College website.

Freshmen who received Ws during the competition were given an opportunity to “redeem” themselves by singing the school song at Chapel the following week, after which they would be presented with a clean white t-shirt.

There was obviously something at issue with the W’s this fall. It is perhaps the nature of the post-Johnny Smith “new normal” at Wabash that we will never know what. Given this lack of evidence, it is difficult for me to make any judgments about this situation. So I won’t. But I can still make observations.

The situation with Chapel Sing this year highlights the lack of trust on our campus. The talks with the Sphinx Club highlight Dean Raters’s lack of trust in Wabash students to continue their own traditions in a gentlemanly manner. The fact that rumors about that meeting spread so quickly, and that so many were willing to believe the absolute worst, highlight the students’ lack of trust in Dean Raters.

This is far from the ideal situation for Wabash.

Dean Raters used to tell a story about his experience at Wabash in 1982, when the Dayton Flyers football team came to town and used the Wabash mall as their own practice field.

After receiving a call from a baseball teammate, Raters gathered together some Wabash men and traveled to the north side of campus. The Flyers, it seemed, were staying in the Lew Wallace in that night, and the men of Wabash wanted to get their revenge for

team’s invasion of Wabash turf. The time was one o’clock in the morning, and the sound of “Old Wabash” filled the town of Crawfordsville just off campus, as the Little Giants crowded into the Lew Wallace parking lot, singing loudly. The singing was then mixed with taunts and jeers from both the Flyers and the Wallies.

Wabash Dean of Students Norman C. Moore then made his way to the Lew, unbeknownst to the singing students. He was not happy about the disturbance. He told all of the students to go home, or else. The students decided that going home was the better of those two options, and they made their way back to campus. On the way back, however, they were able to hear Dean Moore, from his office window, whisper, “Nice job, boys.”

I don’t know if that could happen at Wabash anymore. I don’t know if Wabash students could steal the Monon Bell from the DePauw campus anymore. I don’t know if I would tell my freshmen that a W is a mark of shame anymore. I don’t know if I’d yell at them to prepare them at Chapel Sing practice anymore. I don’t know if my idea of a gentleman lines up with Dean Raters’s idea of a gentleman. We live with uncertainty now.

In his first Chapel Talk as Dean of Students, Dean Raters claimed that his new job was all about balance. The point of his story about Dean Moore was balance—balance between “mercy and standards,” as he put it. That balance has been thrown off since the events of last year, and it has become more and more difficult to achieve. I don’t think that we have found it yet.

That is not to say that we won’t, or that one side or the other is particularly to blame for the current imbalance.

Again, I don’t really know enough to blame. But here is an observation: The struggle of our College for the next few years—while I’m here, and after I’m graduated—will be to find that balance again. I hope that we do.

Because what we had my sophomore year is sorely missed.

PAGE 8

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

Wabash

Co-Ed Never

Reflections on the Core of Wabash Traditions Steve Henke ‘12 Staff Writer

When I first heard about Wabash, I thought it sounded ridiculous. An all-male institution? College is when you’re supposed to meet hoards of women, right?

All of that changed when I visited campus. From the quirky traditions to the fervent pursuit of knowledge, I knew that Wabash was special. And as unnatural and weird as the all-male aspect seemed to me at first, with time and discipline I’ve come to appreciate it as a strong component of my education.

So when the Conservative Union began selling “Wabash Forever, Co-Ed Never” t-shirts, I didn’t think anything of it. This community is defined by this sort of fierce pride in virtually every aspect of its existence.

But to some people, this wasn’t just another little spot of Wabash pride.

Some professors felt threatened by the shirts or afraid to buy them. A minor email war erupted.

It all came as a surprise to me. As a student, I am surrounded by likeminded individuals who strongly believe in the value of a single-sex education. Wabash men are in Crawfordsville, Indiana, because they want to be here.

I’m struck by a quote from Fiske Guide to Colleges, “Intense bonding is an important part of the Wabash experience, and few co-ed schools can match the loyalty of Wabash alumni. All-male Wabash has not only prospered but also remained true to its conservative academic and social traditions.” Maybe it is bonding by trauma, but the results are undeniable.

Could this bond be formed at a co-ed institution? Perhaps. But what has repeatedly struck me is the instantaneous sort of conversations that happen when Wallies congregate, even outside of the classic halls. Bring

four Wabash men from any corner of the world, and you’ll at least have an excellent conversation. I am convinced that with the right tools, Wabash men united in purpose can accomplish anything. We are united by something in our core, and part of this deep tradition stems from deeper traditions of masculinity. We are proud to be men—we are proud to be brothers.

This fierce pride seems sexist to some. But I think Wabash students understand it best. I asked Corey Buehner ’11 his opinion: “The pride does not come from the lack of women students but in the unique atmosphere that has developed because of it. Would taking pride in your ethnic background be racist?

I don’t think so.”

Institutions like Unidos por Sangre or the Malcolm X Institute f lourish at Wabash because of a proud respect for unique cultures of various forms. And pride like this isn’t exclusive to ethnicity or gender— even the Laser Tag club derives some exclusive honor from their mission.

Likewise, it is the unique mission of Wabash College—to foster the learning and brotherhood of a community of men—that creates pride in being a Wabash man. It is the single-sex nature of Wabash that gives students their swagger.

This alumni pride hardly necessitates an all-male staff. Though for women, I would guess, teaching a classroom filled exclusively with men would be quite the different experience, it’s definitely not impossible for women to succeed as honorable pro-

fessors here. Though they may have more ground to cover before they can identify with students as easily as, say, a college alumnus, female professors have historically thrived at Wabash; indeed, some of the best interactions I’ve ever had have been with female faculty on this campus.

Wabash is about discourse, of course, but, and equally important, Wabash is also about unity. While we shouldn’t silence debate on issues, we must never lose sight of who we are.

This is the most d i sconcerting part of the entire issue.

The all-male aspect is certainly one aspect of Wa b a s h , a nd undoubted ly the defining aspect for many when viewing Wab a sh C ollege from the o u t s i d e . Ye t Wabash should be defined first and foremost by an unquenchable desire for education and community. If the best method of learning to think critically, act responsibly, live humanely and lead effectively is to completely transform Wabash College, then make your case and let’s get on with it. I, for one, believe that Wabash is its greatest when we return to the status quo ante - days when men looked first for wisdom and next for brothers in their quest. Here, if anywhere, I have found people that care about learning, care about results, and care about each other. If Wabash changes at all, let it change for the better. From all that I’ve seen, that means co-ed never.

“We are united by something in our core, and part of this deep tradition stems from deeper traditions of masculinity.”

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 9

Perspectives

O Tempora O Mores!

How we are Amusing Ourselves to Death in a Brave New World Kevin Stevens ‘11 Staff Writer

and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capaci-

Humanity today exists in privileged times. As we approach the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century we have seen the astonishing effects of technology on society. The rise of Internet 2.0 (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube), the introduction of the iPod, smartphones, and the reformatting of televisions has now allowed individuals to have the extraordinary ability to connect with one another throughout the world. Instead of venturing out into the world we now have the ability to bring the world to us. Yet, despite the ingenuity, there exists a gloomy reality hidden under the veneer of these technological advances.

It may seem that societ y is progressing towards admirable goals, but at what cost? What is the price of blissful happiness for all? What is the price of progress when all that is progressing is the degeneration of the human spirit?

Two novels that are considered among the most influential of the twentieth century are George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Both predict a dystopian future, Artwork by Austin Rovenstine ‘10 but the similarities between the two depart from there. As Neil ties to think. In short, Orwell feared Postman illustrates in the foreword that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley, of Amusing Ourselves to Death, “We however, feared that what we love will were keeping our eye on 1984. When ruin us. In brief summary, he believes the year came and the prophecy didn’t, that our oppressors are not in the thoughtful Americans sang softly in physical form of the jackboot to the praise of themselves. The roots of lib- face, but rather in the mental form, eral democracy had held…But we had for our minds are being subdued by forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark a culture of trivial information which vision, there was another - slightly attempts to satisfy “humanity’s infinite older, slightly less well known, equally appetite for distractions.” chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New If one seems to doubt this claim I World . Contrary to common belief would encourage you to turn on the even among the educated, Huxley television and watch the misnamed

“reality” shows. These so called “reality” shows are devoid of what the common individual does in everyday life. Rather, these shows offer a window into another world, one of trivial randomness, allowing us to participate with the members of the show without actually being there on the set. We can experience living on a tropical paradise for 30 days trying to outwit, outlast, and, outplay on Survivor; we can experience living amongst seven strangers on The Real World; we can experience losing weight on The Biggest Loser. Yet, all of these “reality” shows offer nothing more than an hour of entertainment, offering a glimpse into a the lives of others in order to experience what it is actually like to be there. The recent case of the death of Farah Fawcett offers a great example. The former sex symbol and star of Charlie’s Angels had a two hour special on NBC, chronicling her painful experience with terminal cancer.

It gave the world a chance to experience the life and death of another person with cancer—on television. Another example is the popular show American Idol, a show which saw more Americans vote in the 2004 season than in the 2004 presidential election. Why care about how your country is run when you could be singing along with your favorite idol on television?

Televised news is also being degenerated from its original purpose.

Instead of actually reporting events that are worthy of the brand “news,” networks such as MSNBC and FOX are reporting opinions on incidents such as President Obama killing a fly to Paris Hilton’s tenure in jail. Talking heads with opinions have replaced the substance of what used to be continued on page 27 (Brave New World)

PAGE 10

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

New Staff

Justin Froedge is a Beta senior from New Market, IN, who is a history major with and area of concentration in education. While he is new to the Phoenix staff, Justin plans to bring his passion of conservatism through his views as a libertarian in order to make an impact in his short time left at Wabash College. He is very interested in history and politics with a specific lens on constitutional rights for all Americans.

Philip Robin is a Tau Kappa Epsilon freshman from Hazelwood MO, who plans to major in Political Science. A Conservative with a strong Libertarian influence, Philip has worked on local campaigns within his city for both elected officials and issues such as eminent domain and 2nd Amendment rights. Philip’s interests are politics and economics applied to subjects like public policy, international relations, and criminal justice.

Robert Dixon is an independent freshman from Kokomo, IN. Though quarrelsome and with a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, he is still a nice guy. He is currently planning on majoring in history, and is also interested in theology, literature, language, and math.

Alex Robbins, from Bedford, Indiana, is currently the Beta Theta Pi Pledge Class President. Alex plans to major in Political Science and minor in Religion or Rhetoric. After Wabash he plans on attending law school and wants to run for political office.

OCTOBER 2009

Members

The Phoenix

PAGE 11

Jason Allen is a senior biology major and a member of Theta Delta Chi. He is also a member of the Woodwind Ensemble, American Model United Nations and the Biology Society. He currently plans to teach either biology or English abroad after college.

Nolan Eller is junior independent living in Morris Hall from Lafayette, IN. He is a history major and a political science minor who doesn’t know what he wants to do after Wabash. Before coming to Wabash he was not very politically active, but Wabash and its students helped him discover his political identity. He is now secretary of Will H. Hays Campus Republicans and is actively working to make it the most respectable club on campus.

Steve Maynard is a junior member of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity. He is majoring in political science and minoring in French. At Wabash he has been involved with various activities, including Moot Court, Student Senate, the Glee Club, and now, the Wabash Conservative Union.

Rudy Altergott is a freshman from Hinsdale, Illinois, a conservative suburb of Chicago. A religious believer of small government and personal freedom, he sees government as a problem, not a solution. He is an Eagle Scout and member of the National Eagle Scout Association. He is a card-carrying member of the Independent Men’s Association, the videographer of the football team at Wabash, and he is a Cubs fan. He plans to major in history and go on to become a college professor.

The Phoenix

PAGE 12

OCTOBER 2009

Events

Mr. Joseph C. Phillips:

Author, Activist, and Common Man Luke Blakeslee ‘11 Copy Editor

On October 29, the Wabash Conservative Union will be proud to host one of the nation’s most active thinkers and writers, Mr. Joseph C. Phillips. Mr. Phillips will be delivering a lecture entitled “He Talk Like a White Boy”, based on his nationally bestselling book of the same name. In his lecture, as in his book, he will investigate the problem of institutionalized and socialized racism and the politics thereof, racial diversity in society and academia, and what it means to understand one’s identity. Although on his website, www.josephcphillips.com, he never claims to be an expert on any of these topics, a genuine authenticity felt throughout all of his work lends well to his credibility of being worthy of a good listen on all of these topics.

Mr. Phillips is well-known for being versed in all manner of issues outside of politics and race as well.

Having once been a Hollywood actor (starring as Lt. Martin Kendall on The Cosby Show), he has a particular taste for movie and television analysis, and being—though perhaps in his own mind—a master chef, he entertains a penchant for sharing recipes. By and large, the evening is sure to be both highly thought-provoking and enjoyable. We invite you, in the words of his website banner, to “take your shoes off and make yourself comfortable… [and] talk some more about movies, television, cooking, books, or politics.”

But Phillips does not just talk and entertain, falling prey to the common temptation of spewing largely vomitous matter in an age of blogs and Twitter. As a man whose eloquence and performance is bolstered by uncommon insight, when Phillips talks, people listen. He has gained wide credibility for his work, especially his moving book, He Talk Like a White Boy, as already mentioned,

as a nationally syndicated author of his column, “The Way I See It”, and frequent guest of conservative radio talk shows across the nation, such as News and Notes with Ed Gordon, a popular NPR show. His essays have been published in Newsweek, USA Today, BET.com, and the Indianapolis Recorder, among others.

His deadly combination of skill and credibility make him an ideal candidate to speak at Wabash. Here, we fancy ourselves to demand words backed by substance. We are pleased when speakers display exceptional speaking ability and moral conviction, but our aspirations toward deeper, probing thought empower us to quickly identify pithy words and hollow character when we see it.

And here at the Conser vative Union, we’ve done our homework.

We’ve found a philosophy rich with authenticity in Phillips’s work, one that strives to approach every topic from an honest, well-researched perspective.

We trust that in his lecture he will deliver on a conviction we’ve found as a common thread in his published work. “[Word and deed] must be grounded not in legalese or political correctness, but in the terra firma of moral correctness,” he says in his June 29, 2009, column “Becoming Post Racial”.

This is a high statement coming from an actor and merely self-made author, columnist, and activist. We are excited to test Phillips on his word.

Testing our guests is also something we value at Wabash. There is little so invigorating as catching a speaker in some minor contradiction, or in some counterpoint they perchance overlooked. As with every guest lecturer hosted by the Conservative Union, after Phillips’s talk will be an opportunity for the audience to engage him in vigorous discussion. These discussion periods are often the highlight of the event, the chance for Wabash wisecrack (or not so wise-crack) to catch

the speaker stumbling and send him out confounded by some brilliant new idea. Opponents of our guest lecturers often attempt to achieve this, and we welcome all audience participation.

But be warned: although there is no such thing as a dumb question, there do exist petty interjections that serve only to embarrass the dignity of the entire audience.

Of course, petty or not, Phillips will likely welcome all critique or question with thoughtful consideration. At least in print, Phillips strives to maintain a civil, although at times heated, conversation with his audience, both supporters and critics alike. On his website are listed 265 frequent comments and commonly asked questions, ranging from “What is your opinion on Oprah?” to “I think you are out of touch with the black community”, and “Do you feel that you have contributed to the demise of the Republican Party?” Although Phillips takes these all in stride, giving detailed responses to each, he is very clear about his beliefs and never afraid to defend them.

This is what I find most engaging about Phillips. Beyond his idealism and aim for authenticity, it his willingness to go out on a limb, even if alone, that draws my respect for him. There are too few public thinkers like him willing to broadcast and hold to strong personal convictions on important issues. Consider, for instance, his stance regarding nationalized healthcare. In his October 19 column, “What is Pornographic? What is Hip?”, he likens leftist ambitions to pass a single-payer, universal healthcare bill to the perversion of pornography: “It is the ambition of the left to establish a whole new set of rights – rights not found in nature or revealed by nature’s God,” he says, sentiments which Phoenix staff writer Jason Allen shares also in his piece “How’s This a Right?” But Phillips continues, increasing the volume of his gutsy claim: “Rather, they are the

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 13

Events product of the anointed and all too power seekers and power keepers will ambiguous progressive vision… Cer- not soon relinquish.” Phillips pulls no tainly there is nothing obscene about punches, writing as he sees things no the desire to educate children, aid the matter what the issue, and no matter poor or ensure that the sick receive who the audience. care. But to devise laws and policy However, it is this disregard for his based on ambitious, ambiguous and audience that has some critics quesoften arbitrary descriptives is, well, tioning his effectiveness to persuade downright pornographic.” Statements and hold weight in the political arena. like this are certainly worthy of the Publishers Weekly writes of his book highest form of Wabash thought. and column, “[Phillips is] acute on Or consider his words regarding the the absurdity of racial perceptions, as present situation of race in America, when he gets scripts that call for “an as featured in his August 24 column, African-American neurosurgeon with “Town Halls on Race”: “No, we are not fearful of race; what we are is reluctant to move our discussions of race beyond the narrow confines of black grievance and white guilt… In the pursuit of a magical “level playing field” this generation continues to lay the veneer of race over every discussion of policy. The result is a continuing dialogue filled with terms like disparate impact and psycho-historical effect.

These are all just variations on the same misguided attempt to assign worth to skin color.

We talk all the time but never learn the lesson that before men can be equal men must first be free - free of judgments based on their race or ethnicity.”

In light of such outspokenness, it is easy to imagine sharp criticism from the left, the right, and the black community every where in between. Americans in black Artwork by Adam Cooper ‘12 communities of all camps have at times been taken aback by his street smarts.” But his political essays sometimes traitorously-seeming work, often read like blog entries, heavy as in his October 14 column, “Racial on outrage and rhetoric (the latter Schizophrenia”: “I am only surprised sometimes snappy), and feather-light that it took the left the better part of on nuance and evidence (the latter a year before they began to play the sometimes dubious). They may draw race game in earnest… Race provides cheers from those who share his faith them with a sense of security; they in G.W. Bush, but won’t persuade those believe that through race they are able who don’t.” I humbly agree. Though his to keep their emotional and moral remarks reflect considerable insight, it equilibrium. And because the left is is a warranted critique that Phillips’s emotionally tied to race it is a potent aggressive attitude on occasion clouds political weapon the use of which his meaning. But though his vigorous

form of debate can be problematic for a confused audience, it can be rallying to those eager to be inspired critical engagement and wrestling with truth.

Indeed, Phillips’s approach would fit well with the type of spirited parliamentary debate which staff writer Alex Robbins discusses in his article, “You Lie! The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate”.

Yet where he alienates, Phillips resolves, consistently returning to values shared by all members of his audience. He Talk Like a White Boy, his most prominent work thus far, reveals a down-to-earth author struggling with the same conf licts present across the entire spectrum of humanity.

He addresses a highly personal struggle with identity, faith, and purpose. This is evident as a common thread all throughout his work, as Publishers Weekly states further on in their review, “Phillips’s opinions (e.g., on faith, character and the pitfalls of affirmative action) may be the driving force behind his writing, but it’s his lived experience that is likely to persuade readers of all colors—black, white, red or blue—that he has something to say.”

Yes, he is outspoken, and yes, he holds strong—if not polarizing—convictions. But above all else, Joseph Phillips strives in his work and daily life to maintain a genuine authenticity with those around him. As any Rhetoric major might attest, this is the defining quality of a dynamic speaker. And as any member of the Wabash community might agree, it is authenticity and a common drive towards a common purpose—figuring out the complex puzzles of this complex life—that holds Wabash together.

The Wabash Conservative Union therefore warmly invites you to join with us and Mr. Phillips for what promises to be a stirring and thoughtprovoking probe into a few of these puzzles.

The Phoenix

PAGE 14

OCTOBER 2009

Cover Feature

The Death of the Student Judiciary The Inside Story of the Idea’s Rise and Fall Adam Brasich Managing Editor Austin Rovenstine Editor-in-Chief Brad Vest Design Editor Rebellion was in the air in the fall semester of 2008. As Student Senate elections approached, students eager to display their disapproval of the Wabash College administration ran on combative platforms—proposing, in various different forms, a “student judiciary” to counter the power of the Dean of Students in disciplinary decision-making.

“Here’s what I would advocate if elected to the student senate,” wrote Andrew Forrester ’11 during the campaign, “A Gentleman’s Rule Panel, comprised of students who would be responsible for taking action when a fellow student violates the Gentleman’s Rule.” As for the makeup of the panel, Forrester claimed that it would be comprised of “a select group of students – some appointed by the administration and others elected by the student senate.”

Billy Evans ’11 similarly proposed a “Judiciary Committee,” which would be comprised of “Students, Faculty, and Admin.,” to be used as “a learning process and for handing out rulings on whether students break the rule, or an appeals process from a judgment that has been handed out by the Deans.”

As part of his “5 point plan to reestablish student autonomy at Wabash College,” Anthony Tellez ’10 proposed “[t]he establishment of a Judicial Branch appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” This new branch of student government, he claimed, would “be responsible for judging actions taken by students that are declared as ungentlemanly.” The reasoning behind such a panel, he claimed, was to allow “students to police themselves with recommendations from the Dean and define cases of when the Gentleman’s Rule is being broken,” adding the qualification that the panel “would cover minor issues and not take over the complete role of the Dean.”

Following the elections, and a full semester of committees looking into the proposals, we now have the final result: the Dean’s Presidents Council, a small group of club presidents that meets with Dean of Students Michael Raters on a regular basis to discuss various complexities with regards to the Dean’s decision-making. “It’s a discussion,” says Dean Raters of the Council. “It’s not an appellate court.

It’s not a trial-level court. It’s a discussion. It’s a council.

It’s a two-way council.”

So how, after all of the upheaval and rebellion on the part

of students, did we end up with a “discussion” instead of a judiciary? This is the story of the Wabash College student judiciary – its conception, and its ultimate death.

The Breakdown of Trust Delta Tau Delta freshman Johnny Dupree Smith died of acute alcohol poisoning early on the morning of October 5, 2008. Many, if not most, students at Wabash received the news of his passing as early as breakfast. Everyone was talking about the freshman Delt who had passed away after Homecoming—everyone, that is, except the Wabash College administration, who at least publicly kept quiet on the matter. The media apparently heard the news as well. By dusk, the Channel 8 News van was parked on the corner of Wabash and Grant. Some students received phone calls from media outlets, asking for confirmation of a death. The College was notified of these calls, and a brief “!everyone” email from President Patrick White concerning the death was sent to the Wabash community later that night.

Even in the first hours following Johnny Smith’s death, the seeds of distrust between Wabash students and their administration had been thoroughly sown. In the following weeks, the divisions would grow even deeper. Following a mandatory Chapel Talk, in which President White expressed his disappointment with the ungentlemanly, but still unidentified, actions which had been discovered in the Delt house leading up to Smith’s death, the decision was made to close the fraternity down entirely.

“I think that it’s not unfair to say that there was a breakdown in communication in a lot of ways,” says Dr. Rick Warner, who served as Associate Dean of Students at the time. Not only were the students—the Delts included— taken aback by the sudden closing, the faculty were also not notified until about four hours after the decision was made.

“The ball was dropped,” Dr. Warner says with regards to communication with the faculty. As faculty members dealt with shocked and angry Delt students in their classes, without any knowledge of what was taking place, the divisions with the administration grew even deeper.

By the time Monon Bell season rolled around, the name of Dean Raters frequently replaced that of DePauw in the

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 15

Cover Feature traditional “DePauw Swallows” chant. The Senior Council hosted a special “town hall” with Deans Raters and Warner, in which it became clear to students that they were not going to learn any details about why the administration was taking the actions it was taking. “I know what I know, and I can’t not know it,” was the most definitive information Dean Raters was willing to provide about the Delt closing.

Both the students and Dean Raters were impassioned and raised their voices at the forum, and little common ground was found.

The breakdown of trust that semester was a two-way collapse. “Trust and confidence had been shaken,” says Dean Raters of those times. “Most of that discussion was from the students towards the administration, towards the Dean’s Office. I think that by the end of the semester, it was obvious that—I wouldn’t say ‘trust’ necessarily—I’d say confidence from me to students had been shaken. I still am really surprised and disappointed in what I found by some of the behaviors in our students, decision-making by our students, and the reactions by our students to things.”

Wabash was experiencing, as Dr. Warner puts it, a “cultural crisis.” It was within this context that discussions about a student judiciary began to take place.

The Raters Committee In late October, Dean Raters called a “Gentleman’s Rule Summit” to begin to address the issues raised by Johnny Smith’s death and the tumultuous weeks that followed. The summit was an invitation-only event which consisted of administrators, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and students.

Two separate committees were formed as a result of this summit. The first was the Health and Safety Committee, chaired by Dean Warner, to look into issues of safety with regards especially to alcohol. The second was the Judicial Committee, comprised of faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and students handpicked by Dean Raters.

The Raters Committee looked into three options: 1) creating a judicial branch of student government that would work as an appeals board, 2) creating an advisory board that would offer its advice to the Dean’s office in disciplinary decision making, or 3) keeping the system the way it is.

Details about the individual choices were never fully worked out. But broadly speaking, the appeals board was meant to function as a venue for students who were unhappy with the disciplinary decisions made by the Dean of Students. They would have the option to take their case before the Student Judiciary, which would then have the ability to consider and debate the decision, and express its approval or disapproval to the administration. The Dean of Students would then make the final decision.

The second option—the advisory board—would function as a supplement to the Dean of Student’s decision-making process. The student to be disciplined, in certain circumstances, would be able to first go before the student judiciary, which would be given information on the particular case. The Judiciary would then make a recommendation

to send to the Dean of Students, who would make the final decision.

According to Dean Raters, the committee very quickly ran into complexities with the first two options. “A lot of questions came into play that we spent a lot of time on,” he says, “the most significant being, ‘So who will be on this board?’” The committee discussed the possibilities of creating an “honor board” of prominent Wabash students, an elected board, or an appointed board. “So there was a lot of discussion about the organization of such a thing,” says Dean Raters, “regardless of which way it went.”

Eventually, the Raters Committee began to tend toward the advisory board model. This was a cause of concern for some students, but Jacob Moore ’11, who was involved with both the Raters Committee and the separate committee created by the Student Senate, claims that he favored the Raters approach. “I think personally—and I know that a fair amount of people disagree with this—that Dean Raters’ committee would work better because an appeal to a decision that has already been made, in my opinion--it’s a little bit harder to have something change,” he says. Providing student input before punishments are made, he claims, creates a greater opportunity to influence the decision. With the appellate board, the Dean would still make a decision completely independent of student opinion, and “99.999 percent of the time, that punishment is going to stick.”

The Nossett Committee Following the disbandment of Delta Tau Delta, members of the fraternity were asked by the administration to resign from their leadership roles in clubs on campus. As rumors of forced resignations began to spread across campus, the Student Senate decided to respond. Invoking the Student Organization Leadership Act (SOLA), the Student Senate condemned the administration for tampering in student affairs. Also that night, they began work on a Student Judiciary panel.

“It was written the night of…the meeting where some of the Delts were asked to give up their roles and responsibilities in clubs on campus,” Class Representative Cody Stipes ’11 recalls, “That’s where the legislation came from originally.” At the next Student Senate session, former Phoenix Editor-in-Chief and then Senator Sean Clerget ’09 proposed a resolution calling for the assembly of an exploratory committee in the spring semester to look into creating a student judiciary. It was passed overwhelmingly.

Campaigning for the student government elections began shortly thereafter. Many candidates publicly advocated a Student Judiciary as a part of their campaigns, with the notable exception of Mark Thomas ’10, the representative who would ultimately be elected Student Body President.

“Instead of creating more committees and councils,” Thomas wrote in his campaign platform, “I will use my power within Senior Council to address the issues that are in conflict with the Gentleman’s Rule.”

After becoming Student Body President in January,

PAGE 16

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

Cover Feature Thomas nonetheless appointed a committee as prescribed by the earlier resolution. He appointed Michael Nossett ’11 to chair the committee, which was comprised of members of the Student Senate. “Personally, I was at first fully against that idea because I did not want to expand our student government just to [create a new branch],” Thomas now says, “but through the thorough research done by our committee, I soon found myself looking at several possibilities.”

Nossett took a similarly cautious approach while investigating the possibilities of a judicial branch. His first goal with the committee, he claims, was to fix the problem of Wabash’s ambiguous disciplinary process. He wanted to make the process more clear, not necessarily to check the Dean’s authority. “We’re 950 students,” he says, “We’re only here seven to eight semesters, and so you can’t get that much experience. You can’t know everything at 18 to 22.

And you shouldn’t be put in a position of authority over your peers. The Dean’s Office is the authority in charge.”

“The only thing that student government can rightfully do,” he says, is write a letter to the Dean in support of the student being disciplined. “In the end of the day, student government can only do so much.”

In the pursuit of creating a clearer disciplinary process, the Nossett Committee proposed a Student Disciplinary Bill of Rights, which included the right to appeal. It was approved nearly unanimously by the Student Senate. Morris Hall Senator Kyle Nagdeman ’10, was a lonely vote against the measure, claiming the bill was redundant and that it paved the way for an unnecessary judiciary. “The student has rights as it is,” he says, “Why have a bill or a law that states the same damn thing that they already know that they have?”

As the investigation went on, many students on the committee began to tend toward the appellate model. Cody Stipes believed it was a much better model than the one being formed by Dean Raters. “Basically, it seemed like the Dean’s committee would be more of a situation where Dean Raters would go to them with limited amounts of material in terms of what the decision he made was. It didn’t seem to me it was enough for anyone to make a full, critical assessment of the situation and then be able to make a decision off of that,” he says. “I felt like it was very limiting to the members involved and that it really wouldn’t do a lot of good, to be honest…I felt [the appellate model] would do more than the Dean’s committee would do because they would be able to gain as much information as the member was willing to share, and then from there make a decision based on the decision that was made by the Dean and say, ‘You know, I just don’t think that was the right decision.’”

The Mock Trials Initially, the Dean’s Office was unaware of Nossett’s committee. “Shortly after the Gentleman’s Rule Summit, the Student Senate began, independent from us, and quite frankly, unbeknownst to us, a look at similar sorts of elements,” says Dean Raters. Dr. Warner agrees with that

assessment of the situation. “I wasn’t aware of the Student Senate piece of this for quite a while,” he says. “They don’t report to the Dean’s Office.”

The Student Senate, however, was very aware of Dean Raters’ committee. Quoted in the April 17 issue of The Bachelor, Sean Clerget claimed that having two separate committees was “counterproductive to the process.”

“It is a clear conflict when the Dean handpicks a group of students to work on an idea that was meant, originally, to check the Dean’s power,” he said. “If the administration really wants student involvement, I urge Dean Raters to bring the different committees together under the leadership of the Senate committee to make a proposal. We need a fair process for students when disciplinary action is taken, and we get off on the wrong foot when the process for creating that process is hijacked.”

After learning of the Student Senate committee and the growing discontent, Dean Warner advocated bringing the groups together. “My own personal style about dealing with things like this is to bring people in,” he told Dean Raters, “so let’s join the two groups.” After thinking it over for a while, Dean Raters agreed.

So late in the semester, the two groups came together and began to hold mock trials. The committees held trials using both versions of the Student Judiciary, and they began to run into trouble with issues of privacy rights, small school politics, and the judiciary’s makeup.

Some students changed their position on the idea following these sessions. “I liked the idea of a Student Judiciary from the beginning,” says Class Representative Andrew Forrester ’11, “but the more that we’ve looked into it, I’ve realized that it’s not as feasible or clear-cut as it is at other schools.”

“I think that we learned what we liked and what we didn’t like if we were going to have one,” says Nossett of the mock trials, “but I don’t think that it convinced anyone that we needed one.”

Dean Raters claims that both committees eventually found common ground. “Going through those hearings, I think, both groups had an eye-opening experience—that situations are more complex than they might appear, that there is a reason that we’ve had the system that we’ve had as long as we’ve had it,” he says. “My sense was that both groups agreed that we weren’t at a place at that point to have a specific, well-designed ‘X,’ and if you don’t have a specific, well-designed ‘X,’ then to tinker with something is not a good idea.” By the end of the semester, the two groups had stopped meeting.

Dean Raters says that he was able to draw good ideas from the efforts. There was “a whole lot of hard work, good thought, really pushing the envelope, thinking outside the box, a lot of creativity,” he says. And from those ideas, he claims, he decided to create a “Dean’s Presidents Council,” which consists of the presidents of the Student Body, the IFC, the IMA, the Sphinx Club, and the MXI. He claims that the council is all about “keeping one’s cool, taking one’s time, dealing with the facts, rather than reacting to

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 17

Cover Feature opinion.” At their first meeting, they discussed issues relating to Chapel Sing. Dean Raters intends to meet with the council every other week, in a manner similar to his meetings with fraternity presidents.

Our Take It might seem odd that we are writing an article on the student judiciary issue after its timely demise. The powers that be in the Student Senate recognized that having a student judiciary panel would be problematic, as was earlier detailed. However, it is fitting that we discuss some of the basic reasons why, in hindsight, the concept of a student judiciary panel as it arose out of last year’s events should be doomed to the ash-heap of history.

We do not deny that there are legitimate concerns rising out of the events of last year. As Dr. Warner acknowledged, there were serious lapses of communication between the administration and the student body (and the Wabash community in general). While actions were condemned, no one was informed as to what those depraved actions were. A fraternity house was closed without much prior knowledge on the part of the fraternity brothers. Rumors were allowed to fly across the campus with little done by the administration to provide contrary information. All of these were failures on the part of the administration with regards to the death of Johnny D. Smith and the closing of Delta Tau Delta.

That being said, those problems require a look at how the administration acted – not a student judiciary panel which will stand in judgment over their peers. In relation to the events of last year, it is doubtful that things could have been handled differently had there been a student judiciary panel. Legal matters were undoubtedly in play throughout the situation. Such matters are responsibility of the administration – not the student body or some elite gathering of student judges.

While we students are an integral part of Wabash, we must remember that we alone do not make Wabash. The administration – including the Deans – maintains Wabash and her traditions by acting as guardians. Whether we students recognize this or not, this is undeniably true.

This does not mean that we need to agree with their every decision. However, this does mean that a certain deference is owed to the administration. Even if we do not agree with the administration’s decision, we should not question their dedication to the College or the students.

It was through such questioning that the recent manifestation of the student judiciary panel came into being. The unspoken premise behind the panel was that the Deans

wronged the student body through their punishment of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity, and so there needed to some basic check on the power of the deans. This is not to say that the members of the Student Senate who supported the concept at its various stages held this premise themselves.

However, it is safe to say that much of the general support for the panel was due to this questioning of the intentions of the administration.

To some extent, the concept of the student judiciary panel was based upon some doctrine of the deserved omniscience of the students. Students should know everything that happens at every level at the College, and students can make rational decisions that are inevitably best for the College. Michael Nossett said it best when he said that we as students cannot know everything at the ages of 18-22.

We do not know what the best courses of action are. Some of us may be quite mature and seemingly wise beyond our years, but that doesn’t mean that we have the absolute right to have an authoritative say at every level of decision making at Wabash College.

Let us take a quick look at the mission statement of our college: “Wabash College educates men to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” Note the verb; it’s active. Wabash “educates” us. Over our four years here, we learn to do those four things through both personal devotion to the ideals of the Gentleman’s Rule and the careful, occasional prodding of our faculty and administration. We are still works in progress, and are therefore liable to err. While it is one thing to give a peer advice, it is another to lay down a punishment that could have uncertain ramifications and consequences.

The idea of the student judiciary panel has come and gone. May the good Lord have mercy on its soul in the next life and prevent its ugly resurrection here at Wabash. Insofar as the concept of the panel was to create student ownership over our college, it was positive. However, there were dangers that lurked in the background of this. At its heart, it forgot that we are students. We are young and prone to err, and it might behoove us to remember that. This does not mean that we should blindly accept the administration and not occasionally challenge them. However, that should be done with respect and with the recognition of who we are. If we remember the Gentleman’s Rule, and if we remember that we are students, we will find that the student judiciary panel is unnecessary.

“In relation to the events of last year, it is doubtful that things could have been handled differently had there been a student judiciary panel.”

The Phoenix

PAGE 18

OCTOBER 2009

Book Review

How is This a Right?

“Atlas Shrugged” and the Healthcare Debate Jason Allen ‘10 Staff Writer

Last semester I had the rare privilege of studying abroad in Segovia, Spain. On of the things I packed was a copy of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, something I had been meaning to read for a while but had yet to begin reading. Little did I know that I would find such a defense of capitalism and (for lack of a better term) classic liberalism/libertarianism. My surroundings while reading this book allowed me to also view a nation that portrays just how our nation might end up if we continue down our current path of increased government intervention in our daily lives.

First, for those who don’t know, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is a Russian novelist who immigrated to America in 1926.

She wrote several novels dealing with Communist Russia in her early years, but later in life began to concentrate on her own political philosophy. Atlas Shrugged is commonly referred to as her magnum opus, as it sums up her thoughts on capitalism, socialism, government and the individual. While her book takes place in a fictional United States in what was then modern day (circa 1954), her characters certainly can describe people who exist today, with their thoughts and words still retaining meaning.

In recent years the common perception of just what a right is has changed significantly. While we all still agree that we have, to name a few, rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as freedoms (or rights to) speech, religion and trial by jury, some Americans would also add rights to education, healthcare, food, a job and shelter. I think even conservatives would say such things are necessary and therefore good. However, a good question to ask about such entitlements would be—Are education, healthcare, food, work and shelter

truly basic rights?

To answer this, we must first answer, what is a right? In Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows us that these things, though good, cannot possibly be basic rights. Through her characters and their dire situation, she shows that these entitlements are not so easily secured because they must be provided by someone. In her novel, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure everyone has a job when the majority of the greedy capitalist pigs who created the

Photo of Ayn Rand

jobs have disappeared. It becomes impossible to feed, clothe and house everyone when even the richest have trouble finding a few morsels of food.

How then can we equate a right like the freedom of speech to healthcare?

The answer is we cannot. On one side of the equation we have something like the right of free speech. This right is a condition of existence for all men and women; it is not given by anyone but comes from ourselves-this is clearly evidenced by the fact that you are able to speak unless someone forces you to be quiet. On the other side of the equation we have the right to healthcare. Is

a person born with his or her own personal physician? The answer is clearly no; how then does a person acquire healthcare? He or she must trade with someone able to give healthcare. For one to force a doctor to provide him or her with healthcare is to become a tyrant and partially enslave the doctor.

On this point Rand and I are of the same mind: a right is something that exists intrinsically; anything that can or must be bought or sold is not a right; but something else—a good.

At this point, dear reader, you are likely either seeing some validity to my argument or can’t believe I would be so heartless to suggest that humanity isn’t entitled to education, healthcare, food, clothing and shelter (how can the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights be wrong?!) However, we must realize that no matter how necessary healthcare or food is to human existence, it must be created using human effort. What effort created our right to free speech? What effort created our right to assemble peaceably? The answer is that no effort was required; that is what makes those freedoms basic rights. When a government tries to mandate that a good is also a basic human right to which every person is entitled, the consequences are never good and are at their worst, disastrous.

Let’s look at an example from Rand’s novel that shows the government’s handling of the distribution of an ‘essential commodity’, in this case, a metal stronger and cheaper than steel.

“Nobody had known how that [Fair Share] Law was to be observed...

He [Rearden] had not known how to give every consumer who demanded it an equal share of Rearden Metal...

They were not orders any longer, in that old, honorable sense of trade; they were demands. The law provided that he could be sued by any consumer who failed to receive his fair share [500 tons] of Rearden Metal...Five hundred tons of Rearden Metal could

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

PAGE 19

Book Review not lay three miles of rail...it could not provide the bracing for one coal mine...He said nothing. Everybody had a right to his Metal, except himself.”

Now mentally insert, in the place of Rearden Metal, the word healthcare.

Doesn’t this sound an awful lot like the current debate on healthcare reform?

However, the elephant in the room is the question ‘Who will provide the healthcare?’ The answer, as far as I have found, is “Don’t worry, the doctors won’t go anywhere. They’ll always be willing to provide us with healthcare.”

However, is it reasonable to assume that doctors will always be available and willing to practice? To quote Representative Shelley Berkley, (Democrat of Nevada) “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty.” Already we are faced with a shortage of physicians, how much longer can we continue to pile on regulations and red tape and expect to have healthcare at all? The shortage of people willing to provide perceived ‘rights’ is not limited to healthcare but also extends to education. An article in the April 7, 2009 New York times cites a study published by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) as follows, “‘The traditional teaching career is collapsing at both ends,’ the report says. ‘Beginners are being driven away’ by low pay and frustrating working conditions, and ‘accomplished veterans who still have much to contribute are being separated from their schools by obsolete retirement systems’ that encourage teachers to move from paycheck to pension when they are still in their mid-50s....”

To me it is no small wonder that the two sectors which have seen the most government intervention and regulation in the name of the public good are now the ones in crisis and in ‘need’ of even more government and regulation. By labeling healthcare and education “rights” we are claiming that physicians and educators are obligated,

whether they wish to or not, to provide us with their services. I ask again, how much longer can we expect them to labor as public slaves?

While the term ‘public slave’ is admittedly harsh, what is the situation when the government orders that some person perform his or her job, even for pay? The government, which is our representative, uses its force to require a person to, without consent, work and give away the fruit of his or her labor.

The question of pay doesn’t enter in to this situation; if any individual tried to do this, he would be denounced for enslaving his fellow man, but if the government enslaves a person in the name of the public welfare, it is lauded as noble and honorable. I find this directly opposed to our nation’s founding platforms.

One of the foundations of our constitution is that a man has the right to his life and the right to sustain his life.

According to Rand, “Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life”.

I understand that for many, the ideas of Ayn Rand may seem a bit strange, if not outright unworkable; however, her basic premise is that a person has the right to his or her life and the fruits of it. Only a capitalist system also affirms this basic right, socialism and government restrained “capitalism” do not; they hold that a person’s labor and effort are the property of society and to be disposed of by the government. The individual is lucky to keep what is left over after the “public good” is accomplished.

The final point to be made, especially in regard to the healthcare debate, is that a capitalist solution does not preclude providing healthcare or any other basic service to those who cannot afford to purchase them.

I know I am not allowing in donating of my time and my money to the less fortunate in society and I ‘profit’

“A right is something that exists intrinsically.”

from doing so in the sense that I feel rewarded for doing good. This is a capitalist phenomenon: I ‘paid’ my time or money and received a value—the contentment that comes only from charitable behavior. To claim, as Ralph Nader did in 2000, that “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity”, is absurd. A society that takes, using government force, money from those that have and give to those that need is not more, but less just. A society that gives willingly of its excess to those most in need is not only more just but more compassionate. As the debate on healthcare, education and other issues continues to rage, we cannot forget that support of a congressional bill or political candidate does not help the sick and unfortunate unless the bill is passed or the candidate is elected. Our efforts would be better spent doing what we claim we want to do: help the needy.

I sign off, leaving a list of some of my favorite healthcare charities in hopes that while we await some resolution on America’s issues, we won’t forget those we are trying to help.

Mayo Clinic New Rochester, MN 55905 507-284-8540 200 First Street SW

` The Children’s Health Fund 215 West 125th Street Suite 301 New York, NY 10027 (212) 535-9400 Shriners Hospitals for Children 2900 Rocky Point Dr. Tampa, FL 33607 813.281.0300 City of Hope 1500 East Duarte Road Duarte, California 91010 626-256-HOPE (4673)

The Phoenix

PAGE 20

OCTOBER 2009

Perspectives

“You Lie!”

The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate Alexander Robbins ‘13 Staff Writer

has seen in the past several decades, and one two-word statement steals the spotlight. This got me thinking, “Were Joe Wilson’s actions actually wrong?

Or were Democrats simply upset because someone had had the guts to call out their Chosen One?” The answers to both are debatable.

There once was a time when Congressional debate was not so necessarily politically correct. Historically, American political debate was modeled off of that used in British Parliament. The British idea of acceptable Parliamentary behavior is fundamen-

On September 9, much was at stake as President Barack Obama and both Houses of Congress met on Capitol Hill for his speech on healthcare reform. His speech, which was widely considered by both critics and supporters to be a make-or-break moment for Obama and the Democrats’ healthcare crusade, was a 3,000 word sermon to Congress, and more importantly, to the American people, that this legislation is a necessity for the well-being of the nation.

However, on September 10, no one was talking about the President’s words; instead, the focus was on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his two-word comment that sent the chamber into a frenzy that sounded more like Wabash students shouting their opinion of the school located 25 miles to the south, rather than a convening of Congress. “You lie!” shouted Wilson, a fierce oppo- Congressman Joe Wilson nent of the healthcare reform bill, after Obama stated that the bill would tally different from what exists in not cover illegal immigrants. today’s American Congress. Although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s originally the American version closely jaw almost hit the floor and House and resembled Parliament, since those Senate Democrats alike quickly began early days modern political correctto let their feelings on the outburst be ness has greatly affected the seriousknown. And so it began; the Liberals ness of United States Congressional came out of the pits of the earth to debate. When a proposition is brought start making every claim imagin- to Parliament or a speaker is on the able. They demanded that Congress floor, Members will boo, hiss, shout punish Wilson. (Apparently they had in approval, clap, and even yell such forgotten that the First Amendment insults as “For Shame!” at the speaker, allows Republicans to speak freely, as forcing speakers to know carefully the well.) They asked for the Republicans merit of their words. When Wilson in Congress to reprimand Wilson, spoke up during the address, then, he after prominent members of the GOP could easily have been confused for a had already made public statements Member of Parliament. denouncing his actions. Sen. John “Why doesn’t this come to the McCain (R-AZ) claimed Wilson was United States?” you may ask. Well, in “totally disrespectful” for his choice a way, it has. words.

Intercollegiate Parliamentary De3,000 words on what is arguably the bate, for example, has been a phenommost important legislation the nation enon on college campuses all across

the country for quite some time. The American Parliamentary Debate Association hosts tournaments all across the country for college students to show off their skills and to promote the Parliamentary Debate format. Also, many colleges, including Wabash, offer a course on Parliamentary Debate (Rhetoric 143 at Wabash, taught by Prof. Motter).

So, if this st yle has worked in Britain and is so popular around the nation in the arena of academia, why did it cause such a commotion when Wilson blurted out during Obama’s speech? And an aside: How does it differ from when George W. Bush was booed during his state of the union address in 2005?

The answer to these questions is quite simple: Because a Republican called out a Democrat. Is it politically incorrect to shout in front of Congress and a national television audience that the president of the United States is a liar? Unquestionably. But is political incorrectness exactly what it will take to get that message across? Probably.

Shortly after the conclusion of Obama’s speech, Wilson released a statement apologizing for his actions.

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the healthcare bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

But, neither Democrats nor the media could let it end there, continuing to hound Wilson. Eventually, the Democrats forced Wilson to apologize on the House floor.

For shame! I guess we’ll have to wait for a Republican to be booed or called out for such behavior to be acceptable again.

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

PAGE 21

Wabash

Tradition Freely Chosen Independents in Chapel Sing

Robby Dixon ‘13 Staff Writer

After I had decided to come to Wabash, my next decision was whether to join a fraternity. I had gathered the impression that belonging to a fraternity was necessary to get the full Wabash experience, that otherwise one would somehow not be all the way in. In addition, I saw that The Phoenix, which I really liked, commonly ran articles about how great the fraternity system was. I knew that fraternity life was cheaper than independent life after freshman year, and had higher average GPAs. But most importantly, I knew that if you are part of a fraternity, you will never walk alone. You will always be surrounded and supported by friends and brothers, and if that has its own dangers, at least you will be saved from yourself.

I consider that no small matter.

When we leave home to go to college, we are dropped into an environment very different from anything we’ve known before. There are many perplexing and intimidating situations to deal with. For someone like me who is not naturally gregarious, the most natural way to deal with this is to withdraw into a sort of shell, doing only what is necessary to get through and avoiding unnecessary interaction with others. But yielding to that temptation is obviously fatal. I am a far worse companion for myself than most of the people I should be associating with.

There is one of the disadvantages of independent life—it makes this mistake easier to make, because more effort is needed to avoid it. Until a few years ago, however, there was another disadvantage, which is even more serious: independents were unable to participate in Chapel Sing. Now, the other homecoming activities are all fun (or exciting or disturbing according to the individual) but Chapel

Sing is the important one. Singing the Wabash College fight song (we Wabash men should be proud of having the longest fight song in the nation) for forty-five minutes straight while Sphinx Club members distract us and try to make us mess up requires concentration and endurance. It is deeply symbolic. After we leave college, for the rest of our lives, we will find that the concepts at the heart of Wabash College, scientiae et virtuti, knowledge and virtue, learning and manliness, science and faith, are scorned and mocked by the world and the devil. They will be doing their utmost to make us mess them up, and then to stand alone before God in the celestial chapel, get a red W on our soul like a bolt of bloody lightning, and go to Hell. To resist them will be incredibly difficult, but it will be the most important—ultimately the only important—task of our lives. It too will require tremendous concentration and endurance. That is what Chapel Sing is about, and why it is so important.

It is easy to see why it was mandatory for all students from its inception. No other ritual could so perfectly inculcate what a Wabash education is for. Of course all the freshmen need it. However, after it ceased to be mandatory for all students, the independent freshmen stopped doing it. For the fraternity brothers who continued with it, it was an excellent way to strengthen bonds of brotherly love, but from this the independents were excluded. From this, probably, the double stereotype of independents arose—that they were loners, and that they had no real love for the College (or if they had, without participation in Chapel Sing it must remain an unconsummated marriage).

That was the state of affairs until a few years ago. Fortunately, things changed in 2005, thanks to the efforts of sophomore Josh Bellis ’08.

Bellis had been a de-pledge from Phi Kappa Psi the year before, and, though he had chosen independent life, he was unhappy with the situation the independents were in. So in 2005, he led a small group of other sophomore de-pledges door-to-door across campus, forming a group of freshmen who wanted to participate in Chapel Sing and the other homecoming activities.

This energetic action made Wabash history. For generations of independents yet unmatriculated, the face of Wabash life gained a whole new aspect. It was now possible for them also to experience the spiritual adrenaline rush of this sacred Wabash ritual.

Thus, for the two disadvantages for independents which I mentioned above—serious matters both—arose a double salvation. No longer must their love for Wabash remain unencouraged and unfulfilled; no longer did they lack a barrier between them and the black pit of loneliness.

I hasten to add that the solution they have is not the same as the fraternity one. It is even more meaningful, because it is freely chosen, which is not usually the case for fraternity pledges. Having participated in Chapel Sing as an independent, I can testify to the double aspect of its benefits. First of all, it proves that our love for the College is sincere, and is not produced by brainwashing but by a loving intellectual movement of the will. Furthermore, it means that my classmates with whom I did the various homecoming activities are not people who have been thrown together with me essentially by chance.

They are friends on a much deeper level, because they share with me a great love: for critical thinking and humane living first of all, but even more for the “classic halls” in which we have the opportunity to develop these qualities for a few short years.

The Phoenix

PAGE 22

OCTOBER 2009

Perspectives

A Glimmer of Hope

Taking the Last Stand to Really Fix Healthcare Steve Maynard ‘11 Staff Writer

Health care costs too much and something must be done about it now.

Let’s all at least agree on this. This time, opposing health care reform doesn’t make you a patriotic smallgovernment conser vative; it just makes you a fool. It is in the interest of all of us to support radical reforms in health care. These reforms have the potential to lower our insurance premiums, accelerate the development of new technologies and drugs that improve our health and the treatment of our diseases, and provide better access to good health care for all Americans. The sugar on top?

You’ll never hear the phrase “Public Option” again.

At present, we are in the middle of an unprecedented financial crisis.

Our outstanding public debt, currently accelerating past $10 trillion, doesn’t even begin to compare to our unfunded liabilities to the entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Nevertheless, in 2008 we spent about $2.4 trillion (about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product) on healthcare. Therefore, when the President and Congress are talking about destroying one-sixth of our economy with a single act, some attention is required.

Before moving onto the issues and the facts that led this author to his humble suggestion for reform, let’s make one more thing quite clear: everything you have heard during this debate about the efficiency of government programs is a lie. We are told that Medicare and such are far more honest because there is almost no overhead to the programs (whereas the big, nasty insurance companies are robbing you blind!). This is, in fact, technically true; but what the public option proponents don’t want you to know is that this so-called “efficiency”

is the product of a rigid, bureaucratic rule that pays hospitals and doctors far less than they need to recover the real costs of care.

The sad truth is that, while 33% of Americans receive their healthcare coverage from the government, spending on their behalf exceeds 53% of those $2.4 trillion! The 59% of us (which includes some of those also on government programs) who are covered privately account for only 42% of healthcare spending. Why a ren’t p e ople paying attention to these startling f ac t s? A ga i n, the answer is a s ad t r ut h : t he stor y ha s been changed.

During the 20 08 primar y season, the debate raged between Senators Obama and Clinton over how they wou ld ac h ie ve “ healthcare refor m .” D u r i n g the general election campaign, Senator Obama continued to stress his plan for “healthcare reform.” Evidently, the Democratic Party no longer believes that “healthcare reform” is a worthwhile goal, because now the President and his loony liberal lackeys in Congress speak only of “health insurance reform.” This, more than anything else, demonstrates how the problem shifted from the high costs of healthcare with lackluster results to the liberal plan to destroy health insurance companies and institute a single-payer medical system. Not convinced by this conspiracy theory?

Go watch some videos of healthcare town halls- not the videos with the crazy people screaming about the evils of socialism, but the videos of

leftist Members of Congress who are wildly cheered at the mere suggestion of single-payer. These people don’t care about covering the uninsured; they just want to punish insurance providers. If you don’t believe that there are people in this country who honestly think that the system that has bankrupted every country it has touched while simultaneously destroying their medical results is the miracle we need, then I have some sad truths for you my friend.

For these reasons (bot h t he le g it i m at e problems of the hea lt hc a re i ndustr y and the partisan desires of some to destroy our insurance industry), it is clear that the future of healthcare in America is bleak; but you were promised a plan to fix it, and a plan you sha l l receive.

First, though, let’s understand the real facts of American healthcare.

Let’s begin with the issue of the uninsured. To create a foundation for his “health insurance reform,” the President makes frequent references to the fact that 47 million Americans are uninsured. Now, the number that I have (from the National Survey of America’s Families, an academic poll without any ideological biases) is 45-49 million, so I will grant him this number. But do not be deceived by this statistic. This is merely a cold number of people who do not have health insurance.

37% of “uninsured” people have an annual household income over $50,000, with a full 7.3 million earning over $84k a year but choosing

“These people don’t care about covering the uninsured; they just want to punish insurance providers.”

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

PAGE 23

Perspectives not to purchase insurance. Another 9.1 million are only temporarily uninsured, as they move from job to job in this poor economy. A further twelve million are actually eligible for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, but do not use them! And 9.5 million are not citizens of this country (I am not speaking of illegal aliens, but of the people living legally in this country without being affected by a government health program). Add these all together, and we can understand that the real number of uninsured living in this country is between 7.1 and 11.1 million, not fifty million. So since only about 2.5% of people living in the U.S. are genuinely uninsured (instead of the 15% lie), why should our government be asking us to shoulder a trillion-dollar health insurance program?

Let’s make another thing clear: single-payer ultimately means government healthcare. Don’t be deceived by people pointing to the United Kingdom or France as examples of government health done rig ht. These cou ntries a re currently mired in financial woes directly caused by their inefficient health systems (and their people experience significantly poorer results than Americans). Don’t be led astray by promoters of a Canadian-style system. The Canadian Supreme Court recently struck down the law prohibiting private health providers in Canada on the basis that single-payer directly makes healthcare worse. The court said that, “Single-payer without waiting lines is a contradiction in terms.” We all saw how horribly the government was treating our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed; do we want that standard of care for our parents or our children?

Finally, let’s clear up the myth that U.S. government insurance programs

have been efficient and reduced cost.

As I wrote earlier, the lower costs are the result of paying doctors and hospitals nowhere near what they need to actually perform a procedure. This engenders the cheating and waste that makes Medicare and Medicaid cost 35% MORE than private insurance! Also, according to a new study

by PriceWaterhouse Coopers, any public option will cause the insurance premiums of people with private insurance to skyrocket! This is because hospitals will start charging their better- that is to say privately- insured patients more to make up the losses from treating those on the government option. So basically, majority of Americans, the government has decided to screw you in the name of covering seven million more people.

S o now, a fter finding out that basically everything you’re hearing from the W h it e Hou s e , C ong ress, a nd t he med ia is a lie, you’re feeling a little depressed about our chances to fix health care.

But have hope! There is a plan to reduce the waste in the industry and help all Americans get coverage! You can remember this brave, new plan with three simple words: taxes, cooperation, and common sense.

We should begin with a cut in the taxes of everyone who currently has private health insurance. What this means is making every penny you spend on healthcare tax-deductible.

This will greatly lower costs for companies and individuals, especially those who are self-insured. This will encourage some of those who currently choose not to pay for insurance to do so.

Next, we need to force the government to stop fueling the cycle of waste, reducing the costs of healthcare for everyone while simultaneously making the system more ef-

“... everything you have heard during this debate about the efficiency of government programs is a lie.”

ficient. If our existing government health programs reimbursed hospitals and doctors honestly and fairly, many needless operations would not occur, saving millions. State governments can then feel better about encouraging cooperation amongst the insurance providers. Already, states like Montana are bringing all the different providers to the same table to work out deals and cover more lives.

This process works, and involves only private insurance.

Finally, the government and insurers can start using some common sense. For insurers, this means accepting the fact that all Americans deserve health insurance, regardless of what diseases they have. No one should be abandoned in a hospital bed just because he’s already there.

For the government, this means crack ing dow n on med ica l ma lpractice. Dramatically reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits will not only save the industry millions in trial costs, but it will also free doctors from the bondage of defensive medicine- which, similarly to the unfair reimbursement system of the government- has decreased quality while increasing costs. Take Texas as an example here, where a serious limitation on what qualifies as medical malpractice has costs way down and has created a surplus of doctors wishing to practice in the state.

Demand the truth from your lawmakers and leaders! Do not accept rhetoric when your life and livelihood are at risk! We need better tax policy, government cooperation with insurers (and vice versa), and some real common sense to lower the waste in healthcare that has created our present crisis. Above all, recognize that healthcare is a personal issue first, and that you owe it to yourself to push for the best system possible. So support a plan that will make healthcare better, not just make us feel better.

After all, that’s not a cure, it’s just a hallucination.

The Phoenix

PAGE 24

OCTOBER 2009

Wabash

“That Was Then, This is Now”

Editor’s Note: With all of the talk about changing traditions during this year’s homecoming, I felt it would be fitting to publish this, one of my favorite Chapel Talks on the subject. Dr. Blix graciously agreed, and the following are excerpts of his talk, delivered originally on September 13, 2007.

David S. Blix ‘70 Faculty Contributor

I would like to talk to you this morning about what it was like to be a student at Wabash in the late 1960s.

More precisely, I would like to talk to you what it was like to be a student from 1966, when I entered Wabash as a freshman, and 1970, when I was graduated…I’d like to do this in two parts. First, I’d like to talk about some experiences that I shared in common with other students. Second, I’d like to talk some experiences that happened to be specifically my own, at least as far as I know. I tell these stories in the spirit of fellow who was a student at the College in my day, who used to live in Martindale, on the 4th floor.

He was a religion major, if I remember correctly, and a very funny fellow. In the spring, it was his custom to fill his waste basket with water. He’d then station himself by his window, and wait for some unsuspecting wretch to pass under it. From four stories up, he’d stick the waste basket out the window, pour the water on the student below, whilst crying out at the top of his lungs, “Repent, and be baptized!”

He’s now a Presbyterian minister. So here’s a deluge of stories to baptize you with.

First, then, what was it like to be a student in general in the late 1960s?

Let me begin with my freshman year.

In particular, let me begin with that aspect of the freshman year which had very little to do with academics and the classroom, and a lot to do with what was then called “Freshman Indoctrination.” As some of you may know, back in the late 1960s, the College had in place a program called Freshman Orientation or Freshman Indoctrination. This program applied to all freshmen—independents as well as to students in fraternities.

What did this mean in practice?

Well, a whole bunch of things. Let me just go down the list, in no particular order. All freshmen wore hats called “pots.” These were green beanies with red brims and red buttons on the top, much like what the Phi Delts wear now. All freshmen were supposed to tip their pots to four groups of people: all faculty members, all members of the Senior Council, all women, and all visitors on campus. (Of course, when you came out of class, and had to cross campus, you had no idea of who was who, so you had troops of freshmen wigging their pots up and down, from one end of the Mall to the other, like caps flipping off beer bottles.) While freshmen were wearing their pots, upperclassmen played a version of “capture the flag.” Upperclassmen were at liberty to chase you, tackle you, seize your pot, and rip it up and hand it back to you. Freshmen were not allowed to sit at the round tables in the Scarlet Inn, lest they pollute the College seal which, in those days, was embossed on the backs of the chairs. Freshmen were not allowed to walk on the College seal, which was laid in linoleum the floor of the front entrance of Lilly library. Actually, nobody was supposed to walk on it, not just freshmen.

(There’s carpet there now, a little past where the security gates now are. I wonder if the seal is still there.) Freshmen could enter or leave the Chapel only by the side doors—there used to be a door into the Chapel on the east side too. This was important because, in those days, we had required Chapel twice a week—once on Monday, and once on Thursday. You had an assigned seat. All freshmen sat up in the balcony, just as all sophomores sat at the back of the main floor, all juniors sat in the middle, and all seniors sat up front. All faculty sat in the part of the balcony that’s above the Chapel

entrance. Attendance was required, and attendance was taken. You were allowed 10 cuts. If you missed more than 10, you were expelled from the College, no questions asked.

It goes without saying, of course, that all freshmen had to learn “Old Wabash” and the “Alma Mater.” There were two Chapel Sings, as we termed them then. They were much like what we have now, except that the Alma Mater sing took place outside, not inside. And, of course, as I suppose everybody knows, if you messed up in the end, you received, not a red “W” on a T-shirt, but a W-haircut on your head. As for other infractions—if (for instance) you accidentally walked on the College seal, or failed to tip your pot—you were summoned before the Senior Council. For the first offense, if I remember correctly, you were given a warning. For the second, you had to wear green long johns over your clothes for about a week. And for a third infraction, you also received the W-haircut.

Finally, I ought to mention the legendary event known as the pole fight.

This took place just before Thanksgiving. There was a tall pole that used to stand just west of the plant, near the east end of the football field. In this event, a pot was placed on top of the pole, and the pole was slathered with grease. The sophomores gathered around the foot of the pole to defend it.

The freshmen gathered some distance away in an attempt to conquer it. They were allowed three charges. That is, they could charge three times, attempt to clamber over the writhing mass of sophomores (whose arms reached up, Scylla-like, to drag you down into the well-churned mud), climb up the pole, and seize the pot. If they did—and if certain other conditions were met— the entire freshman indoctrination program ended, then and there. If the

The Phoenix

OCTOBER 2009

PAGE 25

Wabash freshmen failed—which was usually the case—the program remained in effect until the end of the semester.

Such, then, were some of the common experiences that all students at Wabash underwent in the late 1960s.

But what personal experiences, specific to this or that individual student?

Well, there’s really only one person whose personal experiences I know about, and that’s me. So, if you will kindly indulge me, I’d like to say something about how I personally experienced Wabash in the late 1960s. By this I mean two things, sort of mixed together—my personal experience of the common experiences I just described, and then personal experiences which, as far as I k n ow, were, well, specificall y B l i xo nian.

But first a word of caution.

O b v i ou sly, a l l this was a good many years ago now. And if I were to compose this talk in a month’s time, I might well remember other things. These are the things I remember this week.

I also think it’s important to resist two extremes in recalling experiences like these. One extreme is to romanticize these experiences—to recall them through scarlet-colored glasses, to say how great they were, and to sigh nostalgically at the very telling of them over many a mug of beer. The other extreme is to intellectualize these experiences—to analyze them intellectually, to explain them through some theory or another (you can possibly conceive of a Freudian, psychoanalytic theory of the pole fight), and thus to distance yourself from the experiences themselves. I wish to do neither. I don’t find either of these extremes very helpful.

The romanticizing extreme is uncritical. If you go that route, you run the risk of being self-indulgent. And the intellectual extreme is superficial. If you go that route, you run the risk of stifling the power of your imagination.

Better, I think, simply to recall these experiences as best one can, and try to say, more or less, what they were like.

To begin with freshman indoctrination, I actually found it to be kind of fun. It was like a great game. True, I was never actually chased and tackled to the ground for my pot. But I do remember walking once past what is now the Dean’s house on Wabash Avenue, or at least somewhere near it.

At least I remember that there was an iron-wrought fence. On the one side

meant, among other things, that I was very skinny, and had no athletic ability whatsoever. The good thing about being a nerd is that you learn to make your nerdiness work for you. Not only could I not imagine taking part in it, I couldn’t even imagine what good I could do. So during the pole fight, I stood up on the railroad tracks, safely out of harm’s way, and watched it from a safe distance.

And what about Chapel Sing? Not a problem. I learned the songs cold. I still remember where I stood in front of the Chapel, both times, staring at the top of the flagpole. Some upperclassmen did haze me, shouting and yelling. But I was unshakable. No W-haircut for me. But I should add— as an antidote to romanticizing—that there were a couple of fel lows i n our year who did get the Whaircut. They found the experience to be hu m i l i at i n g , and they subsequently left the College. Not good.

Let me fini sh w it h one last story. This too is about my freshman year. In the late 1960s, the College had instituted a new honors course called “Freshman Humanities.” In retrospect, it turned out to be a precursor to what later became freshman tutorials. Anyway, we were assigned a book to read before we came to the first class. If I remember correctly, it was a book by the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, called Existentialism and Human Emotions.

From my vantage point now, I probably would not recommend it as a first book for a College freshman to read.

Anyway, I recall sitting in the Lilly library reading it, just before classes started. I was struggling with it. I glanced up, and there, across the way, sitting in another chair, was another

WORDS FROM

WABASH was a group of upperclassmen playing a vigorous game of touch football. On the other side was me, wearing my pot and walking humbly on the sidewalk, hoping not to be seen. As I walked past, an upperclassman suddenly reached over the fence seized my pot.

Instinctively, and without thinking about it, I reached back across the fence, and seized the pot out of his hand, and slapped it back on my head and kept walking. I then glanced back, thinking he might be chasing me. But he wasn’t. He looked stunned and then broke into a smile. “Hot damn,” I thought. Well, not really, since at the time I didn’t use words like “damn.”

But that was the feeling.

What about the pole fight? You will remember that I said I was a nerd. This

continued on page 27 (Tradition)

The Phoenix

PAGE 26

OCTOBER 2009

Perspectives

Science and the Liberal Arts Zachary Rohrbach ‘12 Staff Writer

Out of all academic disciplines, the sciences always seem to stand apart. At any university and college, from Wabash to MIT, people seem to regard science as somehow different.

America is a scientific culture. We look to science in the forms of medicine, agriculture, and energy production to solve our problems. Thus, it is no surprise that science is set on a pedestal in academia. But is the praise it receives warranted? Viewed in the context of the liberal arts, the value of science is questionable. Here at Wabash, we are educated “to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” Does science meet these high standards of a liberal arts education? It is important to first consider the limitations of science before drawing a conclusion in this respect.

Only by weighing the pros and cons of science can we truly make an informed decision on its usefulness.

Thinking Critically A great portion of undergraduate science education, particularly in physics and in chemistry, is the use of mathematical formulas to achieve answers. To put it more bluntly, a good chunk of science is plugging in given variables into a formula and pulling out an answer. There is no critical thinking involved in this process.

Granted, these formulas are often quite difficult to derive and solve, so science may not be easy, but there is a huge difference between thinking hard about a problem and thinking critically about it. Thinking critically almost necessarily involves taking a risk that the answer is not correct. For example, when we think critically about how to solve the health care problem in our country, we make a sort of educated guess that might be disproven when tried. When we think hard about the amount of energy needed to push a

2-kg object up an inclined plane raised 24° above the horizontal at a speed of 5 meters per second, we can always check our answer and have not doubt in its accuracy.

Acting Responsibly Science, when taken in a vacuum, is a hindrance to responsible acting. Our culture’s obsession with science has made us less responsible as a society.

Since the scientific development in the areas of abortion and birth control, sexual responsibility and morality have given way to promiscuity and broken families. The connection here is often disputed especially by those on the left, but when we apply a little logic to the fact that about half of all marriages end in divorce, that nuclear families are becoming a thing of the past, and that we have moved from teaching our children to abstain from sex to teaching them to have safe sex, the correlation is clear. Additionally, our culture seeks to obscure these issues deeper into the recesses of science by hiding them under the cloak of the term “reproductive health.” Science cannot single-handedly inform our decisions if we wish to act responsibly, and the current state of affairs in our country give prime testament to this fact.

Leading Effectively There are no rules for effective leadership. Flexibility is key in making the decisions demanded from a leader.

Science, which often deals in absolutes, offers little help here. Effective leadership comes about only through experience, trial, and error. Scientific studies on the methods and effects of leadership have limited benefit without being combined with practical knowledge and flexibility.

Living Humanely There is often a sort of battle in soci-

ety that is construed as science versus religion. The most prominent example of this battle is in the area of stem cell research. The humane course of action, I humbly submit, is to prohibit the use of human embryos in these sorts of experiments. Such experiments rob unborn children of their dignity and life. Of course the debate is much more subtle than this, but a detailed enumeration of the arguments is outside the scope of this article. The point is that there are clearly concerns about how humaneness of stem cell research, and they ought to be taken and debated seriously. Science in a vacuum would continue this research unimpeded, at the cost of humane living. There must be something to inform our consciences apart from science.

The Redemptive Qualities At this point, many people will conclude—and some already have concluded—that science should not be considered a liberal art, that it is a demonic force in society, and that it is superfluous knowledge valid for nothing more than speculation and technological advances. However, this totally misses the point of science. So far this article has not done justice to science, and it is important to consider its many merits.

In terms of thinking critically, science is much more than formulas and numbers. The creative knowledge required to expound new theories and to devise experiments to test these theories is incredible. The ingenuity of Ernest Rutherford when he performed his gold foil experiment that discovered the positively-charged nucleus of the atom is an amazing feat of critical thinking, as was Antoine Lavoisier’s revolutionary methods of experiment that form the foundation for modern chemistry. Also, science teaches us a new way to act responsibly when it uncovers the phenomenon of global warming, a phenomenon that many conservatives rather irrationally and

OCTOBER 2009

The Phoenix

PAGE 27

stubbornly regard as political propaganda. The modern scientific advancements in communication and data gathering allow us to gain knowledge to help us effectively lead and improve our businesses, schools, government, and other enterprise. Scientific studies of teaching methods and other areas of leadership can and do, when combined with sound experience and practical considerations, improve the quality of the leaders of our communities.

And without science to increase our standard of living and that of the less

fortunate in society, we would not be fulfilling our charge to live humanely.

So the value of science is undeniable and not to be ignored.

Science is neither a cure-all, nor a depraved discipline, though both of these labels are often placed on it: the former primarily by liberals, and the latter by radical conservatives. Science is an academic discipline vital to life, but it is only beneficial when combined with good philosophy and good politics. It is important, but cannot be taken in a vacuum. The beauty of a

liberal arts education is that we do not have to compartmentalize our knowledge by specializing exclusively in science, philosophy, history, or religion.

Science deserves no special status as a discipline, but neither does any other subject. The true liberally educated Wabash man will respect the accomplishments of science, but recognize its limitations. Science indeed ought to inform our consciences, but our consciences should also be informed by the other academic disciplines we learn in college and in life.

Brave New World

of the newest applications that offer individuals the ability to communicate en masse. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the method of use. During the Iranian elections during this past summer, Twitter was swamped as Iranian dissidents sent 140 character newsfeeds reporting to the world what was happening as the regime cracked down. Yet, the same application is used by millions of individuals who are “following” celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher.

What also should be a cause for concern is how our materialist and individualist society is turning everything into a commodity. Religion, for instance, has taken on a free-market persona in which individuals under the moniker of “follower of Christ” or “nondenominational” pick and

choose what to believe, devoid of any ecclesiastical hierarchy. Sex has been devalued for recreational purposes and is being used constantly in advertisements to promote this idea of a blissful paradise on earth. Marriage has become a relic of the past, sought only for the tax and legal benefits offered by the state.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World seeks to remind us that the chains of bondage need not be the physical wrought iron. The chains of apathy, ennui, passivity, and egoism can serve as instruments of bondage as well, and can arguably be more effective. It may do one well to turn off the television for a few hours, log off the internet, and sit back and enjoy a good book.

laughed and nodded. Then he stuck out his hand and introduced himself.

“Hi,” he said, “my name is Bill Placher.”

From that day forward, we became friends. And that friendship has lasted for—oh my goodness—for 40 years.

For that, too, I am grateful.

So there’s the deluge of stories. I might tell others on some other oc-

casion. But let me now stop. That was then. That was life, for me and my classmates. But this—this is now.

This is your time. Please feel free to learn from the past. Feel free. Please be free, and feel it. You have the freedom to have your own experiences, in your own way, in this great, good place which we call Wabash College.

continued from page 9

considered news and in between the pundits’ opinions are the commercials peddling useless products such as the Snuggie or Shamwow.

Despite the limited mobility of a television set, the introduction of portable devices ranging from smartphones, iPods, and laptops have allowed easy access to the World Wide Web. A plethora of information exists out there in cyberspace, allowing individuals to seek the information they desire in order to satisfy their beliefs. The internet itself is a medium of communication that constantly redefines itself in terms of how people view information in its entirety. Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are some

Tradition

continued from page 25

student reading the same book. “Aha!” I thought, “a fellow sufferer.” At about the same moment, he saw me. He got up out of his chair and came over. He smiled and said, “Isn’t this the dumbest thing you’ve ever read in your life?!” I

Medal Inflation