Ferrari's Future
Chancellor moves TCU forwards

Chancellor Michael Ferrari doesn’t spend much time wavering, huh?

Now entering his third year at TCU, Ferrari’s dynamic policies and resolve to embark on a new future have made TCU a much more exciting place to be than say, 10 years ago.

Before a packed audience at the Fall Convocation on Tuesday, Ferrari delivered his third State of the University Address since he began in July 1998. And, as in every preceding address, Ferrari announced his 10 goals for the year, giving deadlines for five of them.

Some of these goals included plans to increase the school’s academic profile, diversify the undergraduate student body and upgrade campus facilities.

Lo and behold, most of these things have been accomplished — to some degree — throughout the past year.

TCU’s academic reputation increased — slightly — in the U.S. News and World Report’s annual rankings. Numbers of international and minority students are up and the John Justin Athletic Center recently opened. Ground was broken on the Tucker Technology Center, renovations to Foster Hall have almost been completed and other facilities are soon to follow.

From this list, we know that Ferrari makes plans ... then follows through on them.
Whether it’s launching the Commission on the Future of TCU or changing the school’s mission statement, Ferrari has been at the forefront of change.

While our chancellor can’t be considered responsible for all of the positive changes occurring at TCU, at the least, he’s been here while most of them happened. Moreover, he’s not just setting goals. He’s taking steps to achieve them. And that’s got to count for something.

Violence needs censorship

Throughout ancient Greece, custom required that violence never occur on-stage during a performance. Violence, such as the blinding of Oedipus, could be included, and was even necessary to the plot, but simply had to transpire where no one could see. Greek reasoning stated that theater was a teaching tool and, thus, should not bring lessons in savagery into the common culture.

By some, it might be deemed a double standard that the Greek city-states, which were brutal in their battle tactics and laid waste to nations and cultures that refused to bow to them, would shy away from showing violence in its culture. At first, I considered the idea a form of hypocrisy, but as I continued to think and discuss it with others, I began to reconsider.

Then, it was called to my attention: certainly there are similarities between our culture and the ancient Greeks in the way we discuss the portrayal of violence.

The United States is undoubtedly a powerful nation, and we’ve been known to wage war and drop bombs on occasion. Yet, amidst these violent and, at times, justified acts, the same government that voted to enact them attempts to fabricate methods to limit TV and movie violence.

Is this a contradiction? Well, it is and it isn’t, depending on how it is dealt with.

The wish to protect the country from accepting brutality as “mainstream” is good when education is brought into play. However, if the wish to entirely shield the culture from media violence fuels the crusade, then the government would not only be hypocritical but also fatuous in its planning.

The ancient Greeks disallowed staged violence because women and children were spectators of the plays. Men, who had experienced real violence as warriors, wished to separate violent behavior with societal culture, therefore, the two were never viewed together.

This concept flows into the present; violence certainly exists in our world, but children of our society need not be exposed to it at an early stage. Early exposure to media violence should be limited; this is not to say I endorse the elimination of all violence from our viewing. On the contrary; not only would its obliteration be unfeasible, it would also limit the spectrum of our recreation.

Let’s all be honest here: at times, staged violence can be downright entertaining, and can even be useful in teaching a lesson or proving a point. If the movie, show or literary work considered is “good,” then its violence is not gratuitous but is used to an end. If you can’t believe this, refer back to “King Lear” and the blinding of Gloucester or the violence in “Fight Club.”

Blocking all exposure to violence is impossible in our culture; the concept of V-chip is ridiculous. To avoid witnessing violence in the media would require living in a cave alone, for even if sitcoms and movies were required to strip themselves of violence, we would still be able to turn on the news and witness real-life violence from the comfort of our own homes.

This is a true separation between the ancient Greek culture and our own. It was possible for the Greeks to withhold all violence from the eyes of their society because their technology could not televise episodes such as the battle of Troy, whereas our generation was able to view the Gulf War from our classrooms and homes.

Instead of focusing on the elimination of violence in the media, we must concentrate on withholding it from the young until they have been taught good from bad, right from wrong, real from unreal. Parents need to give their children this education. It is the lack of this information that causes children to think violence is all right. It is not the fault of the TV shows they watch or the movies they see.

We must adapt the ancient Greek concept to our own time, but must also recognize that our two cultures face each other from across a canyon of ages.

Miranda Nesler is a freshman English major from Houston.
She can be reached at (m.g.nesler@student.tcu.edu).

Sitting in mass this past Sunday, Father Charlie Calabrese brought to the congregation’s attention that the Vatican has reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s stance that Catholicism is the sole path to spiritual salvation for all humanity.

Apparently, this statement was issued to correct “the errors and ambiguities” of certain moderate Catholic theologians and to condemn the spread of “religious relativism.”

In one instance, the document acknowledged that individual non-Christians could be saved. However, it quickly switched back to its almost radically conservative core, by stating that they can’t be saved through their own religious practices, which lack divine inspiration.

Then it continued into the ridiculous by saying that non-Christians can only be saved by a divine grace that comes from Jesus Christ.

Of course, it was left unexplained how people who may not have ever heard of Jesus are mysteriously filled with his divine grace.

What really bothers me, though, is the apparent hypocrisy of Pope John Paul II, who was said to have given his full approval to the document, when he has tirelessly exerted himself throughout his tenure as the pope to create peace between Christian churches and understanding with non-Christian religions.

Now, not only is the Catholic Church virtually condemning most non-Christians to hell, it is also claiming that Christians from other religions are sinning by not observing the pope as the head of the church.
I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, it’s not the pope that people pray to for salvation.

I respect the pope, and I see him as a wise and devout man, but I don’t go around doing service in the name of John Paul II. He is the primary representative of the Catholic Church, not some sort of rectified symbolic deity.

If the Catholic Church just signed a joint declaration with the Lutheran World Federation saying they agree on most dogmatic issues, then why do Catholics have such a better chance at achieving salvation? It just doesn’t make logical sense.

It’s a very bleak and disturbing world we live in if people are marked for eternal damnation just because they don’t recognize the pope’s authority or fill out Roman Catholic as their religious denomination.
I feel that a Muslim who does a great deal of charity work because he wants to and makes those around him feel better about themselves has a much better “chance” to make it into heaven than a Catholic who goes to church out of obligation.

One of the greatest points that Jesus preached in the Bible was not to judge others. However, too often it seems the more religious we feel we are, the more we feel a need to condemn and correct others, while usually maintaining a condescending attitude.

Of the few Catholic priests I have gotten to know well, none preach such an intolerant attitude towards other faiths.

I am a proud Catholic, and suddenly I am finding myself embarrassed by the top of the religious totem pole.

Even those I know who have staunchly conservative Catholic views feel the Vatican has gone over-the-top by reaffirming such seemingly outdated dogma.

So please, all Christians, Muslims, Jews and even atheists, do not judge other religions by their dogmatic beliefs. Get to know the individuals of these respective cultures and consider their personal moral character before shaping an opinion of them.

As cheesy and cliché as it is, most of the world believes in a similar God, and we are all created equally.

Jordan Blum is a sophomore broadcast journalism major from New Orleans, LA.
He can be reached at (j.d.blum@student.tcu.edu).