At the point that we have substance-free housing, at the point that the administration blatantly ignores the concerns of a majority of students regarding tuition increases and other matters, at the point that swastikas can appear throughout campus and the only response of students is to “march against prejudice and hate crimes” and form a committee “to discuss hate crimes and discrimination,” self-governance is dead.
Self-governance is really quite simple; however, it seems that many of my fellow students either have no clue as to what self-governance, or invoke self-governance as a trump card to explain why they should do whatever they want—much like the right wing of the Republican party, which now makes every issue a moral issue (if anyone can find the verse in the Bible that says “social security is immoral,” I will personally give them $20). Self-governance can be boiled down into two simple points: (a) take responsibility for your actions and stupid things you say; and (b) be respectful of other people, even if it means not doing everything you want to do.
What are the implications of such a simple, boiled down, easy to understand interpretation of self-governance? For starters, it might mean not puking in the hallway, and if you do cleaning it up yourself instead making the janitor clean up your own bodily fluids. But it would also mean that substance-free housing would not be needed on campus because those who want to get drunk would be respectful of those on their floor and on campus who do not want to deal with bodily fluids all over campus. It would also mean that people who don’t want to drink would have to interact and ask that their position is respected, lets say at least 90 percent of the time. Self-governance would also mean that you don’t vandalize campus, and if you do you immediately take responsibility for it and pay to get it fixed. Those who take part in hate crimes, should go before the campus community, publicly apologize and be willing to carry out whatever community service, or other requirements that their peers feel necessary to repay the debt they owe to the campus community.
At the point that all individuals cannot figure out how to actually practice self-governance, we must accept the administration doing away with self-governance. The college must seek to stop vandalism if for no other reason that it is expensive to constantly replace windows and other broken property, but more importantly because vandalism and hate crimes are ILLEGAL! If students cannot stop their peers, or are unwilling to force their friends to be accountable for their actions, what choice does the administration have other than allow the police on campus and set up other rules that infringe upon self-governance? If students cannot practice self-governance which we all love so very much do our words actually mean anything? If our words don’t mean anything why should the trustees care what we think in regards to steep tuition increases?
—Warren Claflin ‘05
It was around 12:30 a.m. when that e-mail was sent out. I don’t think I need to tell you which e-mail I’m talking about. Needless to say I was shocked. Not that somebody had scrawled such a thing onto a poster. No, that’s expected. It’s a reality of life that no matter how liberal and open an environment is, there will always be people with narrow minds and angry hearts in it. It’s an unavoidable fact.
Nor am I shocked because of what it represents. I am used to hatred, threats and violence. One of the lessons I learned in Indonesia during my eleven year tenure there is that is so easy for other people to misunderstand one another, to prejudge, to let hate take the place of understanding. In the years following 9/11, I became a target for being an American, despite the fact that I in no way agreed with anything the U.S did overseas. Perhaps even worse off were those who were targeted not for being American, but merely for associating themselves with Americans. Numerous terrorist threats against my school and others shut it down for almost a month. I lost a teacher in the Bali Bombings. However, one can always take comfort in the fact that, ultimately, those that hate most hurt themselves. I know for a fact that multicultural groups can, no, should get along, and I know what happens if they don’t.
The reason I was so shocked by this was because of how whoever did it chose to say it. This is not representative of the Grinnell spirit. Grinnell is better than this. Such a supposedly liberal and understanding community should be able to listen to all opinions, no matter how controversial or disagreeable that opinion might be. The reality, however, of Grinnell is that it’s not as understanding and accepting as we’d like it to be.
The recent reactions to the Campus Republicans’ posters is evidence enough of that. Is it any wonder that whoever scrawled those swastikas inside Lazier would do it in the middle of the night and without letting it be known who he/she was? Can you imagine the backlash that this person would’ve gotten from our “liberal” and “understanding” campus? Perhaps it’s time to be honest. We’re not as open as we so often like to hype, and not all views will be accepted. Hell, even something as relatively mild as Republicans are frowned upon here!
What Grinnell seriously needs is a good, hard look at itself. What whoever vandalized Lazier needs is a forum for expressing himself in a manner that will not immediately draw boos and protests, but create a serious discussion in which prejudices on both sides will be cast off and everybody will be heard equally and fairly. Then, and only then, will Grinnell truly be deserving of its title of a “liberal and accepting community,” and until, we’ll only be fooling ourselves.
—Kevin Marcou ‘08
Dear S&B,
As I read the article on VP Jonathan Brand’s new appointment to Doane College, I was simultaneously relieved and distressed. In the article, the S&B notes the continued lack of race and gender diversity in our administration. The article seemed considerably less cynical than a similar one published several years ago, when the S&B ran its first version of “Who’s in Charge Here?”
The level-mindedness of this article was pleasing because it seems as though the S&B has changed its stance on blindly criticizing the administration based on gender and skin color. I hope that this change reflects an increased awareness and appreciation of the genuinely difficult task of hiring new faculty and staff. While such a task is difficult anywhere, it is especially tough in Grinnell, Iowa.
The college only receives a limited amount of interest in many of its hiring searches. The best and the brightest nationwide seem reluctant to move their lives to Grinnell, where finding challenging work for spouses and strong education for children can be real challenges. The town lacks not only the entertainment and excitement of larger towns, but also the economic and cultural appeals that invariably accompany our nation’s largest cities. But more importantly, the town lacks something else – diversity.
Apart from college faculty and international students, Grinnell is as white as its administration. Local businesses seem just as prone to gender politics. Still other minorities – such as GLBTQQ members – remain marginalized to varying degrees both within the college and the town.
For all of these reasons, it is tough to attract the best faculty and administrators. Accordingly, when the college does find someone who is the best, they should not hesitate to offer them a position just because their skin color or gender will not help improve our statistical numbers on diversity.
“Diversity” is a misleading term. It overemphasizes artificial (and by that I mean humanly created) distinctions between skin color, gender, birthplace, or even hobbies. Most of the time, the term’s use gives no consideration to thought or action. These are areas where diversity is most valuable, which brings me to my point.
Over the last few weeks, Grinnell had the opportunity to hire one of the best teachers that I have ever met. Professor Caterine, who is on the cutting-edge of his field, is here this year as a temporary hire in Religious Studies. The college, much to their credit, considered offering him another year at Grinnell because of strong enrollment and praise from students. When that consideration became a challenge to create a new position, the college gave up. And as a result, one of the best professors on this campus will end up teaching somewhere else.
Although I have no way of knowing for sure, it is my suspicion that the college would have made a different decision if this professor had been some “race” other than white.
At any rate, the college passed up a wonderful opportunity for diversity. Professor Caterine specializes in Latin American and Latino/a religions. More importantly, his ideas, methodology, assignments, and communication with students are all unique.
Professor Caterine also constantly inspires his students to challenge the hegemonic discourse of race, gender, and class in our society. And by our society, I also mean Grinnell. At every level – from the classroom to the town to national politics – Professor Caterine is one “white” guy who embodies the term diversity.
Brian Clites ‘05
The swastikas found on campus over the past weekend have left many Grinnell students feeling hurt and frustrated. While originally a positive symbol in Buddism and Hinduism, the swastika has been morphed into a symbol that many people see as representing deep hatred and bigotry. It also represents the ideology that fueled the destruction of millions of people in Europe during World War II.
There are almost thirty students enrolled in the course on Holocaust literature, taught by German professor Jenny Michaels, this semester. The students have had the opportunity to read several survivor testimonies, such as those by Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, and Gerda Weissmann Klein. Students have also read in depth about the history of the Holocaust and done their own independent research. The large enrollment of students in the course demonstrates that Grinnell students are interested in learning about these important issues of racial hatred and the destruction that can stem from it. As we have seen on campus this past weekend, acts of racial hatred under the banner of the swastika continue.
However, as students of Holocaust literature, we ask those who drew the swastikas to perhaps read the story of Elie Wiesel or Gerda Weissmann Klein. Read how the Nazis systematically destroyed these authors’ communities, families and souls and those of millions of others simply because of who they were. Maybe after reading these works they will see the true significance of the swastika.
—Daren Daniels ‘07, Claire Patterson ‘08, Nathan Greenfield ‘08, Raji Pokhrel ‘08 and Prof. J. Michaels, German.
Arts | News | Opinion | Features | Sports | Archives | About Us