Yes, ladies and gentlemen, its that time of year again - when Houghton is most frequently portrayed as a christian liberal arts school and least frequently exemplifies it.
Yep, its that last chance that the admissions office has to convince prospectives not to take the blue pill and not attend Houghton before the red pill is shoved down their throats. Similar to being released from the matrix, the real thing is not nearly as pleasant as the fake.
No, the meals are never as enticing, the movies and concerts only happen when other prospective students are on campus and people aren't nearly as accommodating as they are when you firmly clasp that all revealing blue folder in your arms.
No, that presidential signature on your letter from Houghton isn't actually from the president, the chapels aren't always that entertaining and you can certainly bet that the picture in the Houghton brochure that contains several multi-cultural students happily enjoying each others company isn't real. In fact, Houghton is almost as far from that truth as possible, being about 98.5% non-black.
Yes, come to houghton - we have all these things that you'll never see again. As long as we have your money, that's all that matters. Why do we do it? If you ask, you'll get the three year old "because everybody else does it," the answer that has had parents rolling their eyes for decades. Likewise, I'm sure God does the same with us - assuming of course that he's not pulling the Matrix over our eyes with this world we're in.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Time to (Smart)en Up
If the Star truly edited for decorum, Houghton would be the last place a pro-smoking argument would appear. If you’re reading this, you likely know of the two articles which I refer to. Professor Meilaender asserted that “there are no good reasons for a ban on smoking,” and “Smoking threatens harm to no one other than the smoker.”
As for there being no good reasons to ban smoking, Will’s article on the following page is a good resource. Smoking is fiscally taxing (pun intended), reduces life expectancy and smokers “receive poorer medical treatment.” Meilaender’s arguments against drinking also apply, such as sickness, wasted weekends and social (olfactory) negatives. Who wants to hang around someone that smells like smoke? “Not I” said the duck.
As for the absurd claim that smoking only threatens the smoker, the American Lung Association and I would disagree. According to the ALA, second hand smoke is responsible for nearly 40,000 deaths a year (more than car accidents), 176,000 cases of lung cancer (which, by the way, went unmentioned in both articles) and 140,000 cases heart disease – I’d say that’s harmful. Even if they smoke outside, it would still aggravate two growing trends in America: asthma and allergies. By the way, why do you support kicking smokers outside, I thought smoking only threatens the smoker.
If we truly want students with “healthy minds, bodies and hearts” then you’d be foolish to think that smoking will aid that goal – we want to increase our numbers, not kill them off. “What cruel person would wish to punish these poor souls any further?” Apparently you and Professor Meilaender would by desiring that they be allowed to continue smoking. Each article stated that smoking was its’ own punishment. If so, why do we want to allow Houghton students to punish themselves?
There’s this work of Christian literature called the Bible which contains this fragment called a verse letting us know that ‘our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit’. Most readers will know that Jesus didn’t take too kindly to a defamation of His temple last time around and smoking isn’t exactly spraying Febreeze around the place.
If either of you know anything about your field, you’d know image is everything. If Houghton allowed smoking, they wouldn’t be very qualified to claim a healthy, environmental Christian campus. The ‘Houghton Puff of Smoke’ isn’t as alluring as the ‘Houghton Bubble.’ In President Mullen’s advice suggesting we try to “be Houghton” to others, I don’t think giving them lung cancer is what she had in mind.
Will, this is the second article of yours that has been pointed out to be poor. I’d say stick to poli-sci, but from Professor Meilaender’s lack of wisdom, it doesn’t look like his tutelage will get you very far. Don’t worry Professor Meilaender, there’s at least one more prejudice in the world, especially in the academic community – that against unintelligence, like that displayed by uneducated statements like “there are no good reasons for a ban on smoking.” We don’t need to get high from smoking. This is Houghton, we’re high on Jesus.
As for there being no good reasons to ban smoking, Will’s article on the following page is a good resource. Smoking is fiscally taxing (pun intended), reduces life expectancy and smokers “receive poorer medical treatment.” Meilaender’s arguments against drinking also apply, such as sickness, wasted weekends and social (olfactory) negatives. Who wants to hang around someone that smells like smoke? “Not I” said the duck.
As for the absurd claim that smoking only threatens the smoker, the American Lung Association and I would disagree. According to the ALA, second hand smoke is responsible for nearly 40,000 deaths a year (more than car accidents), 176,000 cases of lung cancer (which, by the way, went unmentioned in both articles) and 140,000 cases heart disease – I’d say that’s harmful. Even if they smoke outside, it would still aggravate two growing trends in America: asthma and allergies. By the way, why do you support kicking smokers outside, I thought smoking only threatens the smoker.
If we truly want students with “healthy minds, bodies and hearts” then you’d be foolish to think that smoking will aid that goal – we want to increase our numbers, not kill them off. “What cruel person would wish to punish these poor souls any further?” Apparently you and Professor Meilaender would by desiring that they be allowed to continue smoking. Each article stated that smoking was its’ own punishment. If so, why do we want to allow Houghton students to punish themselves?
There’s this work of Christian literature called the Bible which contains this fragment called a verse letting us know that ‘our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit’. Most readers will know that Jesus didn’t take too kindly to a defamation of His temple last time around and smoking isn’t exactly spraying Febreeze around the place.
If either of you know anything about your field, you’d know image is everything. If Houghton allowed smoking, they wouldn’t be very qualified to claim a healthy, environmental Christian campus. The ‘Houghton Puff of Smoke’ isn’t as alluring as the ‘Houghton Bubble.’ In President Mullen’s advice suggesting we try to “be Houghton” to others, I don’t think giving them lung cancer is what she had in mind.
Will, this is the second article of yours that has been pointed out to be poor. I’d say stick to poli-sci, but from Professor Meilaender’s lack of wisdom, it doesn’t look like his tutelage will get you very far. Don’t worry Professor Meilaender, there’s at least one more prejudice in the world, especially in the academic community – that against unintelligence, like that displayed by uneducated statements like “there are no good reasons for a ban on smoking.” We don’t need to get high from smoking. This is Houghton, we’re high on Jesus.
Monday, February 11, 2008
SPOT
Situation: This semester's spot theme was "finding a spot theme"
Outlook: Besides being incredibly unorigional and lame, I kept thinking of a much more appropriate SPOT theme: Discretion. Theres always been some discrepancy as to whether SPOT is a talent show or a comedy show. However, if an act has neither talent or humor, dont waste our time by making a longer show filled with acts that waste time.
The math poem was interesting im sure to math majors but displayed neither talent nor humor. The song about the hick girl who just 'caint say no was talented in the broad sense of the word, but lacked humor and enough talent to use up the 10 minutes it took (some of which was setting up, not just the act)
This SPOT was one of the best in the four years i've been here but three hours was too long, especially considering many people waited an extra half hour or so in the lobby waiting to get in. Next year, try and show some discretion
Outlook: Besides being incredibly unorigional and lame, I kept thinking of a much more appropriate SPOT theme: Discretion. Theres always been some discrepancy as to whether SPOT is a talent show or a comedy show. However, if an act has neither talent or humor, dont waste our time by making a longer show filled with acts that waste time.
The math poem was interesting im sure to math majors but displayed neither talent nor humor. The song about the hick girl who just 'caint say no was talented in the broad sense of the word, but lacked humor and enough talent to use up the 10 minutes it took (some of which was setting up, not just the act)
This SPOT was one of the best in the four years i've been here but three hours was too long, especially considering many people waited an extra half hour or so in the lobby waiting to get in. Next year, try and show some discretion
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Chapel Scanning
Situation: people don't go to more than 2/3 of chapels and the last 1/3 is embarassing. However, Houghton feels it is necessary for students to have spiritual nourishment (appropriately so).
Outlook: A certain prof suggested we go back to assigned seating and hope that those who truly want to be in chapel will positvely influence those who do not. It will also prevent the 'homework doing' in the back of the balcony. However, I think it will more likely disrupt those who try to get something out of chapel and make things seem more authoritarian. As I said in the first post, I dont think Will's idea will work. It's essentially what happens the second and third last weeks of the semester - after people have largely completed their requirement (and no longer have to go to chapel) and before those who have put it off to the end are required to attend the rest.
What I suggested to the aforementioned prof is that we have a chapel on monday and wednesday, and require faculty to lead small groups as an analysis and application time. This will allow for faculty participation, increase the funding for the chapels by 33% (hopefully making them better), allow for a more realistic "what can we do?" application, allow us to interact with students that we wouldn't normally get to know, and still have time to get to our 11:50 classes :-)
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Outlook: A certain prof suggested we go back to assigned seating and hope that those who truly want to be in chapel will positvely influence those who do not. It will also prevent the 'homework doing' in the back of the balcony. However, I think it will more likely disrupt those who try to get something out of chapel and make things seem more authoritarian. As I said in the first post, I dont think Will's idea will work. It's essentially what happens the second and third last weeks of the semester - after people have largely completed their requirement (and no longer have to go to chapel) and before those who have put it off to the end are required to attend the rest.
What I suggested to the aforementioned prof is that we have a chapel on monday and wednesday, and require faculty to lead small groups as an analysis and application time. This will allow for faculty participation, increase the funding for the chapels by 33% (hopefully making them better), allow for a more realistic "what can we do?" application, allow us to interact with students that we wouldn't normally get to know, and still have time to get to our 11:50 classes :-)
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Over the past few weeks, there has been some discussion regarding the chapel attendance policy. There have been a few suggestions, through editorials to the star and through individual conversations, such as requiring faculty attendance, reducing the skip count, and Will’s test of will (to go to chapel). But then, the conversation stopped. I’d like to prevent that. I’ve created a blog/forum so that this and other similar conversations like it, don’t stop, that they continue to either a mutual understanding or a change in policy.
I think requiring faculty attendance will accentuate the lack of participation in the last third of the semester and that people will not voluntarily go to chapel (whether for busyness or other reasons). What do you all think? Perhaps through these conversations your opinion may be heard. I plan on posting different issues similar to this, like the fiscal responsibility of SGA to fund or not to fund ROTC, among others on a regular basis.
I think requiring faculty attendance will accentuate the lack of participation in the last third of the semester and that people will not voluntarily go to chapel (whether for busyness or other reasons). What do you all think? Perhaps through these conversations your opinion may be heard. I plan on posting different issues similar to this, like the fiscal responsibility of SGA to fund or not to fund ROTC, among others on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)