| Lending a Hand
At least 11 Texas A&M University students were killed and 28 others injured early Thursday morning when the log structure they were building collapsed. According to reports from The Associated Press, 60 to 70 students were on top of the logs at the time the structure fell. They were preparing for Bonfire, an annual rally to get students excited about the football game against their archrival, the University of Texas at Austin. Tens of thousands of people have participated in the Bonfire since it began in 1909. It is a tradition that was canceled only once before - after President John F. Kennedy's assassination. It was a tragedy that never should have happened. But it did happen, and now it is our turn to do something about it. The Student Government Association sent an e-mail message to all students encouraging blood donations. Make the short drive to Carter BloodCare, 5429 South Hulen St., and donate blood for the victims. It will take only a small portion of your day, but it can save a life. Attend the prayer service at 5 p.m. today in Robert Carr Chapel. Send a letter of sympathy and support to A&M. Any show of support we can give them will be appreciated. Call your friends that attend A&M to let them know you care. Many of us have friends there, and we would want them to do the same for us. Do it for Christopher Breen, Jerry Self, Jeremy Frampton, Byran McClain and the five other students who were killed. Do it for the injured and for those that are still missing. Your support can go a long way.
Classes should allow different views This week I attended a meeting where a professor made the comment that academics have stopped communicating with the public. Later in his talk, the professor noted that 50 percent of freshmen in his classes reject a Darwinian view. Putting these two statements together, I think the professor was saying that the lack of conversation between academics and the public has resulted in ignorance. From this, it is not too much of a stretch to say that he probably thought the 50 percent of freshmen that rejected Darwinism were speaking out of ignorance. And I don't think he is alone in this view. It seems many professors feel that students arrive at TCU relatively ignorant. This is true to a certain extent. Often students have been in a sheltered environment with others determining what information they receive. Professors do have a duty to challenge students' ideas. Professors do have a right to point out inconsistencies in students' thinking. But professors also need to realize that some students hold positions, not out of ignorance but for other reasons. For instance, in studying origins, some students have studied evolution and creation and reached a different conclusion than the majority of scientists. Growing up in east Tennessee (Scopes' trial territory), I attended a public high school where biology teachers taught evolution. There were no other theories mentioned in the textbooks, and the teachers confined their discussion of origins to evolutionary theory. But I had one biology teacher that offered equal time to any student who wished to explore alternatives to evolution, provided he or she had some evidence. At this point, I read several books concerning evolution and creation, and I found that the theory of evolution wasn't as absolute as it was presented in textbooks. I later took what I learned and presented creationist ideas to the class. I discovered that at TCU, however, this openness in discussing alternative theories of origins doesn't exist. While I have not taken any biology classes at TCU, the issue of origins frequently occurs in other classes I have had. And a creationist world view generally isn't even considered. For some time, most academics have considered the discussion closed. This is an example of the breakdown of communication between scholars and the public. And this breakdown has engendered an attitude of condescension among academics and distrust among the public. I recognize that many professors consider evolution to be the only viable theory and discussion of any other alternatives fruitless. But where does that leave students who think differently? If universities are supposed to help students develop their own views and learn to think for themselves, shouldn't there be some effort to at least address students' concerns? An outright dismissal of creationism not only silences discussion of other alternatives but can leave students confused about whether genuine discussion and learning are truly desired. While recognizing that all opinions are not equal and some ideas are undeserving of class discussion, issues in which there is widespread disagreement are often legitimate topics of discussion. Many of us come to college not endorsing a Darwinian view largely because of what we have been taught by our parents or churches. But are we any better if we leave believing in evolution because that is what we have been taught by our professors? Let us try to find some middle ground. As students, we come to college to learn. In this learning process, we are going to come into contact with ideas we disagree with. Refusing to even listen to other alternatives undermines learning, so we must be willing to entertain (but by no means accept) other points of view. Professors have a duty to expose students to a wide range of thinking in helping students develop themselves. And while professors may see only one way in which people can think and be correct, they need to be ready to accept that students aren't always going to think that way. And sometimes students who disagree with academics aren't doing so out of ignorance but because they have a legitimate viewpoint. The real issue with which we wrestle is not so much the arguments concerning creation and evolution but the decision that it is a legitimate topic for discussion. While professors might not think it is such a topic, many students think otherwise. And students should have some say in determining what can be discussed.
Tara Pope is a senior religion major from Longview, Texas. She can be reached at (tpope13@aol.com). Don't ignore character in political debates People aren't talking much about politics lately. And when they do, it's about who's Republican, who's Democrat and who's Reform. It's about who's conservative, who's liberal and who's moderately riding the fence. It's about who might have snorted coke, who smoked marijuana in college and who won't shake hands with people. We can look at their issues, we can look at their profiles. George W. Bush is the compassionate conservative, Bill Bradley is the hard-edge liberal. Al Gore has the personality of my sock drawer, and Donald Trump provides enough fodder for me to write a whole other column. All of these candidates have important stances and viewpoints that must be examined before pulling levers. Hopefully, decisions aren't made because Candidate X is a Republican, and you think elephants are much cooler than donkeys. Let's forget for a moment about party divisions, labels and affiliations and look instead at the big picture. The issue here isn't about who's for cracking down on violence or eradicating the drug epidemic plaguing the country. I've yet to hear a politician say, "I think the new proliferation of violence in schools is a positive trend for America. That, along with the promising number of drug addicts in the nation, can only benefit us in the long run." Beyond some major distinctions in what they stand for and what their party stands for, these fellas all want the same thing, and they'll all use the same catch phrase of "leading the country into the next millennium" to convey it. Their styles may vary (Perot will make some 50 graphs showing how he will lead the country into the next millennium), but their goals are similar. So what are the candidates' focal points? The trick is to differentiate and get past all the superficial political rhetoric and look at the candidates themselves. The issue here is about something elusive and harder to detect than pro-life promises or tax reform proponents. It's something bypassed so often, people really don't even examine it anymore. The issue here is one of character. Uh-oh. Nobody likes that word. How can character possibly be pertinent to work performance, decision-making and communication? What does it have to do with the way someone does a job or the way someone conducts themselves in a public setting? Well, pretty much everything, actually. People are reticent to admit it, but character is the reflection of the very root of our individual lives. Ramifications stem from its presence or absence. It is at the innate core of everything we do. It is an integral part of who we are. Our lives are largely a reflection of our character and what we believe. Our standards, our ethics and our perceptions are all parts of our character. And unfortunately, character has become a discarded and largely unimportant topic in politics because people are too busy warring over the political issues. Should we expect our leaders to be Christ-like figures, incapable of error and omniscient in all they do? Of course not, because that's impossible for humans. Should we expect our leaders to be the moral representatives and ethical examples of our country who strive to uphold dignity and integrity as best they know how? The answer is an unequivocal yes. And it's a lot to ask, but it's something imperative to do. The candidates aren't perfect, and their track records show this. But regardless of ancient history, examine the candidates' present lives and how they've conducted themselves for a few years prior to their new thrust into the political spotlight. Look at what they're doing now and how they behave off camera when they're not smiling into the crowds. Certainly overlook mistakes made and poor paths taken from decades ago, but recent events should illustrate an accurate depiction of character and integrity. I point to the present leader of our country as a man who is no doubt an extremely skilled, qualified and gifted politician but also is a man who greatly lacks depth of character and integrity. His lack of good judgment, and his lack of character are two wake-up signs that Americans should be scrutinizing in the next election. Our president not only lied to and cheated on his wife but also proceeded to do the same with the American people. From claims of not inhaling to not knowing what the definition of "is" is to shady real estate deals, he has craftily evaded most of the controversy and calamity surrounding his reign. His poor decisions have almost cost him his presidency and nearly destroyed the reputation of his office. There is no distinction between his private life and his public life, as they are both parts of the whole. His policies and decisions are, and always will be, subtly influenced by what he believes and what composes his character. Is he trustworthy in his marriage? No. We should therefore be skeptical about what he tells us. What worries me more is that few people seem to care about this fact. Even more frightening is the fact that whom we elect is somewhat of a reflection of our character. So as we make our way through the political smog of ambiguity and doublespeak, we should always focus on the pertinent issues and the goals of everyone clamoring to be president. But beyond those aspects, we should also keep in mind the character and integrity of the leaders because it largely determines the choices they make to lead our country. Some of these politicians are going to be blowing lots of smoke in our general direction. We just need to remember not to inhale.
Kevin Dunleavy is a junior advertising/public relations major from Spring, Texas. He can be reached at (kduns80@airmail.net). |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |