Opinion

Home

Opinion

Faculty Senate makes faulty decision

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 20:33 Allison Brown

Butler University had a legitimate opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice to speak at the 2010 commencement. However, the Faculty Senate decided that he is not qualified for such a task.

Butler Senior Class President Lindsay Rump and Vice President Brian Zahn worked with Student Affairs staff, the president’s office and Chief Justice Roberts’ niece, a Butler senior, in drafting a proposal to send to Roberts’ Washington office to request his attendance at commencement. But before sending the request, the class officers had to get approval from Faculty Senate—a group of elected faculty members that decides who is eligible to receive the honorary degree given to all commencement speakers. With the stars aligned as they were and the opportunity of a lifetime on the horizon, the Senate should have swiftly approved Roberts’ candidacy. But the Senate did just the opposite. They decided he was not worthy of an honorary degree.

Meeting minutes are hard to find, and the vote was done through a secret ballot. But through conversations with faculty members, I have come to understand that faculty members spoke out against Roberts’ candidacy for several weak reasons. Primarily, some senators had issues with Roberts’ anti-abortion beliefs and conservative values. His views are in contrast with many of the left-leaning faculty members who preach openmindedness and acceptance. But instead of looking past differences, like what these faculty members teach, the group decided to shut down someone who may not have voted for President Obama.

Additionally, faculty senators felt that having two conservative commencement speakers back to back. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels spoke last year) would be unwise and would go against Butler commitment to providing its students with exposure to diverse ideas.

On the surface, this argument looks valid. Indeed, it is important for the commencement speakers, and all speakers invited to campus, to represent the differing viewpoints and beliefs of the faculty and student body. If this same commitment of having one conservative for every liberal was consistent throughout the honorary degree process, this argument would be solid.

However, like with many things on this campus, consistency is nonexistent. A simple look at the 2007 and 2008 commencement speakers proves this argument is shaky. In 2007, the campus welcomed Eugene White, superintendent of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), to speak at graduation. White is an accomplished administrator who has done many things for Butler and the Indianapolis community.

While he did not refer to it in his speech, White’s policies as an administrator align with the Democratic Party. Then the very next year, Susan Solomon, a scientist who had worked on climate change issues alongside former Vice President Al Gore, was brought to campus.

Solomon is brilliant, successful and an avid Democrat. Yet, having two Democrats speak back to back seemed to be anything but alarming to the Senate. Both speakers were confirmed with ease. This inconsistency is hypocritical and evident of a double standard. But in the case of White and Solomon, the Senate did the right thing.

To not invite Solomon to campus, an incredibly successful and well-known scientist, because she shared the same political views as the person who spoke before her would be a mistake. Doing the same with Roberts is a mistake as well.

I find it ridiculously pompous and closedminded of Senate members to ruin this great opportunity for students because of political ideology. In terms of a commencement speech, Robert’s stance on abortion and same-sex marriage is no more significant than his stance on the bailouts, or even if Peyton Manning is better than Brett Favre at throwing a football.

These beliefs would play absolutely no role in his speech. Commencement speeches are, at best, generic. The speaker praises the class for their work during the past years and inspires the graduates to make a difference in the world. It is a fairly rigid formula that leaves very little room for political or social indoctrination. Roberts would not have mentioned his thoughts on Roe v. Wade, as it would have been inappropriate and incredibly awkward.

However, Roberts would have been the most high profile commencement speaker in Butler history. His attendance here would have reflected incredibly well on the senior class, the university and the Indianapolis community. But Roberts is indeed not coming. The Senate decided that his Hoosier heritage and Harvard Law Degree were of less importance than his stance on stem cell research. They told him he was not invited. However, the blame does not rest on every member of the Senate. Nor does it rest on Faculty Senate Chair Jeanne Van Tyle. In my four years, Van Tyle has been nothing but an advocate for students.

As a former Student Government Association president, I can attest to the fact that a chairperson's job is to facilitate discussion, not to influence the vote. Van Tyle should be praised for her work with the Senate, along with those members of the committee who were reasonable enough to see how important Roberts’ attendance would be.

But those members who let their political beliefs blind them into telling them the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice that he is not good enough to get a degree from Butler should be shamed and embarrassed for what they destroyed for me and my classmates who have worked incredibly hard to get to graduation.

Ryan Waggoner
Contributing Writer

Butler University had a legitimate opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice to speak at the 2010 commencement. However, the Faculty Senate decided that he is not qualified for such a task.

Butler Senior Class President Lindsay Rump and Vice President Brian Zahn worked with Student Affairs staff, the president’s office and Chief Justice Roberts’ niece, a Butler senior, in drafting a proposal to send to Roberts’ Washington office to request his attendance at commencement.

But before sending the request, the class officers had to get approval from Faculty Senate—a group of elected faculty members that decides who is eligible to receive the honorary degree given to all commencement speakers. With the stars aligned as they were and the opportunity of a lifetime on the horizon, the Senate should have swiftly approved Roberts’ candidacy.

But the Senate did just the opposite. They decided he was not worthy of an honorary degree.

Meeting minutes are hard to find, and the vote was done through a secret ballot. But through conversations with faculty members, I have come to understand that faculty members spoke out against Roberts’ candidacy for several weak reasons.

Primarily, some senators had issues with Roberts’ anti-abortion beliefs and conservative values. His views are in contrast with many of the left-leaning faculty members who preach openmindedness and acceptance. But instead of looking past differences, like what these faculty members teach, the group decided to shut down someone who may not have voted for President Obama.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Meaning eludes emerging pop

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 20:11 Allison Brown

I had a near death experience last week.

I was listening to the radio, showering after a run at the HRC, when the DJ confidently told me that what I was about to hear one of the hottest new tracks of the year. The sounds that burst from the speaker for next two minutes and 52 seconds, haunt me unforgivably to this very day. I nearly drowned right there.

I regained consciousness to hear that the singer calls herself Ke$ha (dollar sign included), the new hit track sits at the No. 8 spot on the Billboard Hot 100. Titled “Blah Blah Blah,” it’s a ravishing work that would make a Planned Parenthood rep cringe with lines like:

“Don’t be a little bitch with your chit chat/Just show me where your dick’s at.”

The song finds a niche for a new all-time low (right next to the LMFAO song “Shots”).

My problem lies not in the pop genre altogether, but in the emerging sub-genre I will call “consumer-pop.” Yes, pop music wants you to consume it, it makes no false claims about this. From Justin Timberlake to Lady Gaga and Beyoncé, they all want you to not only buy their music and paraphernalia but also their created image.

Each one of these musicians wants to burst forth and make culture as they go. Consider the all-too-discussed fashion sense of Lady Gaga—undoubtedly avant-garde with its interesting use of giant plastic bubbles and cloth that covers too little or too much in many ways. Lady Gaga’s attire is an original and forceful statement, even if we don’t know exactly what it means.

Consumer-pop is an altogether different entity. It does not want to create culture; it wants to get rich, drunk and laid from culture consumption. Consumer-pop incurs no risk of failure in its creation only because it lacks creative power altogether. The entire Ke$ha album is a tribute to pre-teen wastefulness. She sings about backstabbing gossip and being hit on by creepy, older men. At no point does it challenge the listener. She sings only for blissful intoxication and that complete lack of responsibility every teenager searches for on Spring Break.

The surest way to get famous as a consumer-pop performer is akin to how any middle school student would dominate the playground—talk smack, wear flashy colors and have a rich enough parent to get you out of any trouble. You don’t have to actually represent anything yourself, you just have to mirror pop culture back in caricature form. If you look bright enough, people might think you are.

The distinction rests on one key thought, key words from my own mother, “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” The great pop artists want to speak and create meaning, they practice intonation and inflection and introduce new symbols into the language of musical meaning. They say things you may not understand, but also can learn to understand.

The consumer-pop artists only want to use meaning, digging up old, worn-out themes and strapping aftermarket spinners on them in the hopes you will mistake them for more than what they are. They are altogether too easily understood. Where we used to accuse the candy pop of Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears (pre-head shaving of course) of sexualizing youth in an implicit manner; Ke$ha’s consumer-pop brazenly states, “I wanna be naked and you’re wasted.”

What intrigues me is this changing face of musical expression. Teenagers pray to consumer-pop idols and Proactiv ads instead of idolizing songwriting and musicianship—the part of music that actually involved making it, the part of music that was a response and a reaction to society instead of an embellishment of it. This growing trend rejects the sadness, anger or happiness of other genres in favor of intoxication and intentional illusion. I wonder what it says—not about itself but about its own consumers.

Robert Warren
Contributing Writer

I had a near death experience last week.

“Don’t be a little b---- with your chit chat/Just show me where your d---’s at.”

The song finds a niche for a new all-time low (right next to the LMFAO song “Shots”).

Write comment (0 Comments)

Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 March 2010 20:45 Read more...

College would create divisions

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 20:03 Anne Wilson

After several meetings on the formation of a College of Communication (COC), I find myself motivated to put my thoughts about this into writing.

Let me say that I fully support the argument for convergence of the programs involved. My reservations stem from the argument that this convergence must take the form of a college.

This is a very serious decision. The formation of a new college has not happened at Butler University since 1951. Such a decision will have long-term impacts that many have tried to foresee, but no one can truly predict what those effects might be on the university as a whole.

At most of the meetings I attended, the main argument was a new college was required to provide the best professional training for the students.

If this is to be the primary mission of the new COC, then the liberal arts training of the students will be secondary and delivered primarily by the remaining parts of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS).

It has been my experience that you cannot serve two masters, and professional training will be the focus of the new college regardless of desire to participate in liberal arts-like activities.

I believe that members of LAS are most saddened by the sentiments expressed by some of their colleagues supporting the formation of the new college, specifically that they feel that they don’t or can’t belong in LAS.

In the liberal arts, we value thinking in all the forms that this takes. Creative expression, scientific exploration and supporting an argument in writing are all part of the critical thinking that are the foundations of the liberal arts, and we feel that there is space for all our colleagues in communications to join us. We find it troubling that faculty members do not share our vision and feel they would be more valued by seceding from our college.

In an era of polarization and division found at the national level, as well as in areas of local concern, I would like to see more discussion on what we can do together rather than what sets us apart.

The creation of a new administrative unit in the form of a college is perhaps inevitable. I do hope that there is recognition of the commensurate sorrow that this causes.

Anne Wilson
Contributing Writer

After several meetings on the formation of a College of Communication (COC), I find myself motivated to put my thoughts about this into writing.

Let me say that I fully support the argument for convergence of the programs involved. My reservations stem from the argument that this convergence must take the form of a college.

At most of the meetings I attended, the main argument was a new college was required to provide the best professional training for the students.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Utah legislature passes reckless bill

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 18:12 Allison Brown

Two weeks ago, the Utah State Legislature passed a bill threatening the welfare of pregnant women. If signed into law the proposed bill, HB12, would criminalize the killing of a “live unborn child” if carried out by means other than legal abortion.

Essentially, women whose pregnancies fail would become candidates for prosecution. They would only need to be “intentional, knowing or reckless” to be considered criminal. Considering the ambiguity of these conditions and the frequency of miscarriage, the legislation promises to be a disaster if signed into law.

We at The Butler Collegian believe any attempts to institute a policy of such vague criminalization to be profoundly misguided. Utah’s legislation is an assault on the mental and physical wellbeing of pregnant women. If made policy, it would all but guarantee the prosecution of victimized individuals.

The incident inspiring the legislation is a telling example.

HB12 was introduced last month after a pregnant woman paid a man $150 to violently beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. This woman’s action deserves to be punished with charges of homicide, according to Utah’s legislature.

One would hope a body of elected officials could rise above such a dearth of reason and empathy. While the case inspiring the legislation is certainly tragic, Utah’s attempt to respond is way off the mark. Rather than address the circumstances that drove this woman to finance her own assault, Utah legislators have instead chosen to criminalize the victim.

This trend is sure to become a norm if the legislation is made into law. If the termination of a pregnancy needs only to be “reckless” to be criminal, women of all sorts will become candidates for prosecution.

For example, should the woman who rides the wrong roller coaster or stays too long in the hot tub be considered guilty of homicide?

Moreover, what is the legal status of the woman who returns home to an abusive spouse? Perhaps her behavior is “reckless.” If so, and if she is beaten into a miscarriage, it would seem she has committed homicide.

How can this possibly be the right approach?

While the Utah Legislature has correctly perceived an imperative for action, its response has been counterproductive. When a woman’s abortion takes the form of her own assault, it is not time to punish the woman. It is time to give her the help she needs.

Utah legislators should direct their efforts toward prevention rather than punishment. Instead of paying lawyers to prosecute victims, they should pay schools to teach sex education and fund hospitals to provide prenatal services.

In the meantime, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert should veto this bill. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Staff Editorial
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

OUR POINT THIS WEEK: Utah’s proposed bill, HB12, punishes victims and endangers the rights of pregnant women.
alt
Two weeks ago, the Utah State Legislature passed a bill threatening the welfare of pregnant women. If signed into law the proposed bill, HB12, would criminalize the killing of a “live unborn child” if carried out by means other than legal abortion.

We at The Butler Collegian believe any attempts to institute a policy of such vague criminalization to be profoundly misguided. Utah’s legislation is an assault on the mental and physical wellbeing of pregnant women. If made policy, it would all but guarantee the prosecution of victimized individuals.

The incident inspiring the legislation is a telling example.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 March 2010 02:14 Read more...

Students should come to college to think, not build resumes

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 18:08 Tom Fryska

The longer I’m at Butler University, the more I realize the irony of college education.

Students are often over-burdened with unnecessary extracurricular activities, needlessly juggling several majors and minors and struggling with the demands of a working life. They are less and less concerned with actually learning in their classes and more with simply getting A’s.

But this in itself is not the true problem. It’s rather only a symptom of a broader approach that’s being taken into the institution of higher learning.

More and more often, students are looking at college as just another hoop to jump through in order to move on to a high paying career. If they do look to get anything at all out of their educational experience, it’s a narrow set of skills which can be applied to a specific occupation.

What’s wrong here is that this career-optimization focus is coming at the cost of that quintessential American strength which has been the force behind our innovation, our ability to adapt and our nation’s ultimate position in the world: the ability to think.

The reasons behind this change are understandable, if slightly misguided. When individuals examine the growing costs of higher education in conjunction with the tightening of the job market, the natural decision is to adapt a cost-benefit-analysis perspective. That perspective, in turn, stipulates that the entire reason for pursuing a higher education is simply for résumé building, networking and the assurance of a career.

The institutions for higher learning respond to this demand in a similar manner. The liberal arts are paid cursory lip service, while the entire process of moving through college becomes streamlined and career-oriented. Students are processed, like in secondary educational institutions, to be part of a cog in a machine, to use their degrees or their skills to fulfill some specialized profession.

But moving the pursuit of higher education toward a Ford-esque assembly line production model is nothing short of an egregious mistake. On the global scene, China and India can both churn out workers from their institutions of higher learning at a faster pace and lower price than we can. What’s more, those workers can be paid a fraction of the cost that we pay a similarly-trained employee in the United States.

Simply said, in a globalized world, trying to compete with China and India in those kinds of fields is an absurd proposition.

What has sustained America in the past has not been our ability to create automatons that can do jobs that are at risk of being outsourced. Rather, it has been our cultivation of the essentials of the liberal arts: free thought, creativity and the ability to connect the dots across various disciplines and concepts.

This trend is reflected in the industries that drive progress in our country. It’s the reason why such esteemed companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft are all based in the United States.

In the same vein of thought, the future of the American economy does not rest on the creation of workers who can function as widgets in a machine. Now more than ever before, it relies on adaptable intellectuals who are willing to take risks, be bold and become entrepreneurs that champion new causes and ideas.

It is through the creation of these ideas and the innovation of new technologies, (such as the green technologies movement or information technology), that growth in America can be sustained.

This understanding is the key to America’s future. While math, careerism and networking all have their place in education, it is the foundations of the liberal arts which act as the primary instigator for the kind of innovation and creativity that drive economic growth and create new idea-based industries. And as Thomas Friedman explained in “The World is Flat,” “There is no limit to the number of idea-generated jobs in the world.” To cede the creation of these types of jobs is to cede the very basis of our economy to other nations.

Fixing this decline in higher education and returning to the heart of the liberal arts is a task that requires the synthesis of many disparate groups. Universities, students and the federal government are all required to take action to alter the status quo to one more conductive to progress.

This means universities and the federal government need to work together on making higher education affordable for students again.

Universities need to take a step back and find a proper balance between advocating for professional programs and nurturing the liberal arts.

On the other hand, students must also be held accountable. The focus should shift from simply surviving classes toward actively immersing themselves in the material. The piling of superfluous responsibilities should not only give way to the simplicity of doing less, but also getting so much the more out of it. The obdurate focus on only mastering a specific skill set should yield to the realization that having the ability to think in a creative, analytic manner is essential for finding a place in the globalized job market.

In the end, college isn’t just about getting a diploma. It’s about learning and thinking. To forget this fundamental truth would be nothing short of tragic.

Tom Fryska
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

alt
The longer I’m at Butler University, the more I realize the irony of college education.

But this in itself is not the true problem. It’s rather only a symptom of a broader approach that’s being applied to the institution of higher learning.

More and more often, students are looking at college as just another hoop to jump through in order to move on to a high-paying career. If they do look to get anything at all out of their educational experience, it’s a narrow set of skills which can be applied to a specific occupation.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 March 2010 02:14 Read more...

thebutlercollegian.com

Faculty Senate makes faulty decision

Meaning eludes emerging pop

College would create divisions

Utah legislature passes reckless bill

Students should come to college to think, not build resumes

Main Menu

Login

Student Resources