Author: Houghton STAR

By Caroline Zimmerman ’24

Houghton College has given me so many good things in the short amount of time I have been here. I have found support, love, knowledge, and new perspectives within the walls of this institution. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met are pursuing and providing education here. As with any institution or organization, however, there are flaws not only in set stances, but also in the unwritten and inferred stances. Acknowledging the ways that Houghton College has unintentionally fostered harm for marginalized students should not be seen as a problem on this campus. Foremost, acknowledging pain that has occurred within any community—and working to stop the furthering of that pain—should not be seen as attacking an inherent part of that community. 

Although Houghton has been subject to various criticisms throughout the years, there have been several interwoven situations that have amassed more concentrated amounts of criticism this semester. The We Are All Houghton exhibition began conversations on Houghton’s role in the negative experiences LGBTQ+ students have endured while attending this institution. Some students used this conversational platform to further explore LGBTQ+ issues on campus, and with voices beginning to be heard more people began to speak and share. This was shown in many different ways, as it was not an official organization or group, but rather the responses of individuals to the We Are All Houghton exhibition. Some students began having more conversations with friends and those holding opposing views. Others took to more tangible forms of expression: placing small, rainbow-painted rocks around campus, putting pins on jackets or backpacks, or wearing apparel with symbols of queer pride. Several individuals also came together to paint the Spirit Rock on campus with the colors of the rainbow. Unsurprisingly, painting the symbol of queerness on a prominent and highly visible symbol of campus caused a great deal of controversy. 

As I speak to the intentions of these and similar actions I need to be clear that although I myself am queer and have talked to many other members of the queer community at Houghton regarding these instances, I am not claiming to be anything close to the singular voice speaking for the LGBTQ+ presence on campus. This would be an absurd claim, as people in the LGBTQ+ community are just as diverse in thought and motivation as in any other community. That being said, the painting of the rock was meant, to me at least, as a way to show queer existence. Not queer acceptance, affirmation, or the demand for systematic change on this campus. So many of the problematic aspects of our society as a whole are rooted in the lack of exposure to people outside of our own realm of existence. The dehumanization, separation, and tale of superiority that is ingrained within the privileged at a young age foster an incredible amount of hatred and justification for discriminatory actions. This is far more apparent to the people affected by these harmful perspectives on a regular basis, and can appear to be nonexistent to the opposite side. Over the past week especially, I have seen this play out. Queer students are frustrated over the countless situations and hardships we have endured while on this campus, and the people who have not dealt with these same issues see no legitimate reason for the school to endure or validate the concerns presented by the queer community. 

This ignorance has far too much power in smothering the voices of the marginalized, and this is the main criticism I see of Houghton. One of the biggest misconceptions about any group trying to further their own humanization/validation in their existence is that their motivations are large and antithetical to the people/group being addressed. The individuals who painted the rock rainbow had no expectation of changing Houghton College’s stance on homosexuality with their paint. The intention was to express themselves, to increase their visibility as a part of the student body, and to compel those who have tried to paint over queer voices in the past to acknowledge the existence of these people. Immediately after this, assumptions of motivation were wildly thrown around, with many people being easily convinced that the rainbow rock was a demand for the morally righteous Houghton to change its stances, accepting all sexual expressions. Although I personally know that this was not the point of painting the rock, this example is rather unhelpful as the intentions of the original rock painters were in no way public. So, I look to a less interpretive example. 

The We Are All Houghton exhibition has been extremely clear and public in their mission and intended effects. According to the website for this exhibition, “… the goal of the piece is to amplify the voices of students who have felt marginalized in regard to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity…” at Houghton. Providing a platform for those who have silently suffered does not equate demanding theological change from a religious institution. Acknowledging and elevating the narratives of pain from students on this campus should not be dismissed for attacking the institution’s moral stances. It should be the groundwork on which conversations take place. It should be accepted for what it brings to the table, and should be used as a resource for what can be done to strengthen and support the community. Houghton College may face many criticisms, and many of them may be unjustified. A platform that is explicitly designed to amplify voices of the marginalized should not be viewed this way, however. When one looks at something and interprets and spreads the idea that it is trying to attack an institution that person has a strong affinity for, the well intentioned platform loses credibility and much of its ability to make a difference. Instead of looking at We Are All Houghton or even the Spirit Rock’s painting and repainting as divisive existences meant to challenge the very ideals of Houghton College, the discussion these things were meant to begin is cut short. This leaves the same voices unheard, and the same pain invalidated. Please, simply acknowledge that pain exists on this campus, and that whether or not the administration and their stances had a direct hand in administering this pain, they do have power to change the way everyone reacts to these instances. The support given by the administration to marginalized students does not require them to change their stances. It only requires them to prioritize people and their experiences, and take steps to create a less hate-fueled and pain-inducing atmosphere for students of all backgrounds and identities.

By Christian Miller ’21

Before writing this opinion, I attempted to reach out to the artists responsible for the We Are All Houghton art exhibit. My goal was to gain insight into the subject itself and the intentions of their artwork, as well as to discuss its impact. Unfortunately, this request was denied. It had almost led me to alter the subject of this article to the question of dialogue and its quality. We are in danger of losing the positive elements of meaningful communication. Where once the Roman Forum and the Greek Agora produced the discourses of Cicero and Plato, today Facebook has become the American Forum. Social media imitates face-to-face dialogue but strips it of that which reminds us of our humanity, such as presence, time, proximity, and impact. Contrast for one moment the nature of the comments on the Houghton YouTube streams, with the discourse between persons in the video itself, and, even further, of in-person conversations. Like the breakup which occurs over the phone as opposed to in-person, we are all too familiar with how the medium alters the nature of the dialogue. 

What will be the nature of the dialogue that emanates from painting the rock, in either case? The immediate answer was a string of social media posts. The first problem with symbols, as opposed to words, is their inherent vagueness and the vast spectrum of possible interpretations that arise. But words, without elaboration, can still be vague. Something I hoped to ask the alumni artists was what their vision of a “better” community looks like. It is easy to identify problems. Karl Marx and Maximillian Robespierre both identified real problems in their respective societies. The issues with these men arose in their proposed solutions. Therefore, identifying the problem and solving the issue are separate matters. Let us not risk “congratulations that may soon turn into complaints,” as a wise man once said. Thus, we may debate or celebrate identification of the problem, but I shall still hold off on applause before I fully understand the proposed solution. In other words, what is the solution? What is better? I have my own ideas, but to achieve any understanding or even mutual ground, dialogue is necessary. 

Well, perhaps they will see this and write their proposed solution in another article. I will be the first to read it, and happily, for, “you can never be over-dressed, or over-educated.” One last thing about dialogue. Is even this article, my article, the proper means of dialogue here? To begin with, this medium disallows intonation or eye contact, and, furthermore, the word limit constrains the formulation of my words. In-person dialogue would undoubtedly be best. But there is something about the written article that permits delineation and explanation, which goes beyond vague and incendiary symbols, or unspecific words like “hate” and “better.” Very well then, I proceed.

The first thing to do is to delineate, to specify, to define, as best I can, the word Conservative. The word has been hijacked by vague expressions tacked onto formless policies and generalized for argumentative utility. 

Conservatism is what it says it is. Simply, it means conserving that which is good. Consequently, we must know what good is, if we are to conserve it. How then does conservatism occur? The answer is not short, and you are better off consulting philosophers like Edmund Burke for the nuanced and comprehensive answer. For our purpose, I will only say that conservation of the good is rooted in truth and the traditions that carry out truth. Traditions maintain values that arise from the Judeo-Christian ethic (which is an understanding of human nature). I mean traditions like the family, the Church, the Judiciary, common law, and other valuable customs, some of which become institutions. Well and good. We have our shot-in-the-dark definition of Conservatism.

Now, when Conservatism claims to conserve that which is good, the difficulty arises in determining what is good. Bertrand Russell may have to depend upon vague instincts, and the writings of Jeremy Bentham, but we, as Christians, are in the unique position of having the good articulated for us by the Creator of the universe and of humankind. It so happens that Jesus told us what is good, and God allowed the irrefutable good to be written down by others for our convenience and due benefit. He made Truth available to us.

Now comes the really difficult part, in speaking for the Conservative viewpoint on the prevalent subject. Of course, you must bear in mind, this is my understanding of the Conservative perspective, which is not universal.

I would like to distinguish between two things. Individual behavior and what ought to be law – or community covenant. I will address the latter first. Conservatism is an understanding of human nature applied to legislative decision-making. In foraging any determination about what ought to be law, we are really saying: what is moral? Very simply, all law is morality. That which is moral is that which is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. When legislators outlaw murder, they are implicitly stating that murder is wrong behavior, or immoral, precisely because it hurts the self, others, or the Nation. The same is true with theft, forgery, kidnapping, and so on. Even conventional laws, such as speed limits, are implying that without speed limits, chaos would ensue, and wrong, harmful behavior would follow. Therefore, all legal determinations are judgements about morality, at some level. We cannot avoid making moral judgements in questions of law.

The covenant of the Christian community is the statement of values and principles that gives rise to the community. While the United States Constitution may have rooted its statement of values in Natural Law, the Christian Community roots its statement of values in the Bible. Then I would ask this question: is there any reasonable expectation that the statement of values expressed by the Christian Community should be inconsistent with the teachings and rigorously tested interpretations of the Bible? I answer: were that inconsistency to be permitted, the community would no longer be valid. It would be like forming a book club and not allowing books. If the value statements in the Bible are inconsistently adopted, that inherent inconsistency results in fragmentation, and the community will split apart. If you require that the Christian Community not be permitted to be consistent in its values, you might as well not expect the community to be Christian. Houghton would only be Christian in name, not in principle or fact. Is that reasonable, or even desirable to expect or require?

Now onto the other distinction. Individual behavior. This part is much easier to write. Here, the same principle applies. Christianity makes statements about the formation of communities and moral imperatives binding upon the Christian individual, and these include behavior towards those outside the Christian community, or struggling within. These statements of proper behavior are exactly those alluded to in the alumni artwork and espoused in sympathetic social media posts. I am talking about virtues of love, kindness, respect, and so on. 

I am no Theologian. I do not claim to be any kind of expert on Christian behavior, and I myself am riddled with flaws. But, if the example of Christ were all I had, the inference would still be clear to me. These principles of unconditionally loving others, whoever they may be, are absolutely and immutably maintained by the example of Jesus Christ. These then, are also good things. However, we cannot ignore that warning people of harmful behavior is inherent in the nature of love. Christ did this as well. He loved and He warned of behavior harmful to the self. For this, we require dialogue rooted in love. Let us look no farther than Christ for the best example thereof. 

Thus, we have distinguished between two spheres where this question is concerned: what ought to be the community covenant, and what ought to be the individual behavior. Conservatism means conserving that which is good. Conservatism understands the good through the lens of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. Conservatism, then, states that the Community Covenant ought to be one thing, namely, the properly accepted interpretation of Biblical Truth – that is what is good and what is best for the community – but that individual behavior ought to be another thing, namely, the good example set by Christ, of unconditional love, kindness, and respect, no matter the law, or the covenant. We must ask ourselves: What is good? Where we look for answers will determine significantly the answers we get. That is my opinion.