Author: Editorial Staff

Categories
Opinions

Students Shouldering Unnecessary Responsibility

It may seem as if all The Star ever writes about is Senate, but perhaps that is because interesting things do in fact take place there.

xtlxsec7c0vzramwas1mSometimes it is not even the funding requests or committee updates themselves, which are the real issues and discussion-starters for Houghton’s student government, but rather the implications that come with these seemingly basic requests.

Climbing Club approached the Senate with a request for $1,000 to go towards renovations for the climbing wall and shoe closet. Usually the Climbing Club makes a request for $1,000 toward a specific climbing trip’s expenses. In the past, the club has gone to Colorado, Canada, and several other prime climbing locations.

This year, the club chose to forfeit their trip in order to use the funds to repair the climbing wall. As of now, the small holes and other damages to the wall pose a problem to climbers, particularly small children, who come to the wall on Mondays when it is open to community members.

It is not surprising that the club is making the effort to pay for repairs and renovations to the equipment that they use every day. They take pride in what they can offer to students and community members, and they want to see everyone safe and satisfied.

What is surprising is that a student organization on campus has to go to another student organization in order to find the funding to repair part of Houghton College’s facilities. We at the Star are not entirely sure when the maintenance and upkeep, and the necessary finances, of the college’s facilities and grounds ever became the responsibility of students.

And though the SGA has plenty of money to pass around to different clubs and organizations on campus, it is not the SGA’s responsibility to see that renovations are made to a climbing wall that poses safety hazards. According to Tyler Kempney, president of the club, the wall has recently passed inspection, but that does not mean that a small child could not get his or her fingers or hands stuck in small holes and cracks in the wall while climbing. This could easily lead to serious injuries and the damages could also lead to a loss of interest in rock climbing.

We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Climbing Club to provide a safe environment; what we take issue with is not their actions. But what we can not reconcile is why they have had to even take these actions. The Equestrian Society is not responsible for buying arena footing, though members are arguably the ones doing the most riding. The Gadfly Society does not have to pay for the chairs and desks they use while philosophizing, even if they should break one. Mercy Seat is not responsible for painting Presser Hall or fixing a leak in the roof of the chapel, and so why does Climbing Club find itself having to pay for renovations if they want them done? How do Houghton’s commitments to excellence and community line up with a potentially dangerous facility?

Ultimately, though, the issue is larger than the climbing wall. This is not the first time that SGA has funded events or projects that, as Senator Wynn Horton put it, “It’s not our responsibility to pay for.” Why is it that students seeking to attend an academic conference specific to their major have had to turn to SGA to get there? Is there a disconnect between these academic departments and the funding they need to make the learning experience truly beneficial and better than at other institutions’?

If so, and if SGA has to continue funding trips to conferences and repairs to facilities, Houghton College, as an institution, can not then make the claim that it provides students with wonderful opportunities and outlets. In reality, without students allocating the limited funds they can control, other students could not have the experiences for which they hope in coming to Houghton.

We may indeed be more powerful than we think, but this power should not come at the price of the institution shirking the simple responsibility of safety.

Categories
Opinions

Restructuring Senate: The Answer for SGA?

“The last thing Senate needs is to worry more about Senate.”

This sentiment was recently expressed to a Star staff member, telling a student’s frustration with the latest amendment effort springing from the Student Government Association.

This amendment, alluded to by the said student, is a push by SGA toward “re-structuring Senate” in hopes of more accurately representing the Houghton student body within SGA itself. It would appear that a side hope of SGA regarding the possible structural overhaul would be an increase in student body interest in their representative body.

Currently, there are three senators per class, and eight senators-at-large. There are no other pre-requisites besides being a member of their class, and/or interest in being a senator. As a result, the general population of the Student Senate may be dominated by students from a certain demographic, such as a political science major.

The proposed changes would transform this Senate into an assembly composed of three senators for each class, a senator from each residence hall or area, one senator from varsity athletics, and a senator representing each academic category (of which categories there are seven). As of yet, SGA has not reached a consensus on how many senators would comprise the final group—the only word so far, is between 6-8. This brings the final potential total of senators between 24-26, since each senator may only represent one category.

That the Senate currently struggles with representing the student body at large is not a question the Star staff debates. Restructuring the student’s representative body in a way that better reflects the student body is a noble, worthy aim. Accurate representation is always something to be appreciated, and one that has obvious merits. Rather, our question has to do with the apparent hopes SGA has cast upon this proposed change: hopes that by increasing the accuracy of their representation, they will increase their relevance to the student body.

During a recent Senate meeting, a question was asked that sums up the heart of what is at stake. The student’s question asked what exactly has brought on the need for this proposed amendment. The answer given by SGA Vice President Ben Hardy was that “there is a massive disconnect between other students and the students in this room about what the Student Government does. Sometimes it’s just a joke, but sometimes it seems serious when people ask what we do besides Donut Day. Hopefully a [forum] will give us a better sampling.”

As noble as a more accurate representation is, increased relevance to the student body does not necessarily follow from this proposed change. The last thing Senate needs to become more relevant to the current student body of Houghton College is to look inside, and change itself. Too much introspection on the part of Senate, and too much inward, SGA-focused work is exactly why Houghton students seem tired of giving attention to SGA, as indicated by comments such as the one given by the student above.

The Student Government would do well to expand outside itself, if it wishes to be known for more than its donuts. It well-enacts this outward focus in notable, appreciated areas such as the regular blood drives, and the various service days and projects it undertakes. Through these efforts of uniting the student body with community members, SGA performs valuable, visible work. It is through these visible, external projects that the Student Government forms a face and identity by which it may be known to students, and known for its impact.

Student Government’s current quest for greater relevance and a more visible face is better pursued by a continuation of their external activities and community projects on a larger scale than by another focus on inward dynamics.

Categories
Opinions

South Park and Sex: Censorship at Houghton

Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/
Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/

Censorship is one of those ever-present issues on campus that seem to only accentuate the disparity between the student body and the administration. Let’s be honest: who here has not received one of those obnoxious “web filter violation” notifications? The worst part is reading the category in which it throws those websites you always thought were innocent before coming to Houghton. The bright side is that we all get a kick out of it when a professor tries to pull up an educational site that is classified under pornographic material. The question, however, that we need to grapple with is not simply whether or not fart-sounds.net should be blocked, but should anything be censored?

Censorship is a tricky issue due to the fact that most items fall into a fairly large grey area. With drugs and alcohol it is fairly easy to regulate. Don’t drink. Don’t use illegal substances. But how do you legitimize not watching South Park? Is its content more objectionable than that of some of the DVDs in the library’s collection?

The issue of censorship inevitably comes down to how much is too much. We ban pornography, but what about movies and shows whose entire premise revolves around sex? And honestly, what show on American prime-time TV does not revolve around casual sex? Friends? How I Met Your Mother? New Girl? The Mindy Project?  The innocence of Leave it to Beaver is long gone. Yet I can guarantee that most of the student body and a significant chunk of the faculty watch these very shows, if not similar ones.

As far as the usage of language is concerned, Houghton College attempts to maintain appropriate standards. In the student guide for the 2012-2013 year it is written, “Houghton College students are expected to honor God in both speech and lifestyle. The taking of God’s name in vain or the use of offensive, abusive, profane, crude, racist, sexist, or obscene language is prohibited and may result in disciplinary action.”

We, the editorial staff, are disturbed by the threat of disciplinary action for an area of life with such ambiguous standards. Define any one of their descriptors for inappropriate language. For some there are few words in the English language that they would deem inappropriate. For others, however, that list may span quite a significant chunk of Webster’s dictionary.

The fact is that it varies from person to person. The issue with censorship is that it inevitably limits a large group for the sake of the comfort of a few.

2011-2012 Star Opinions Editor Elisa Shearer wrote an editorial a year ago in which she was grappling with the issue of sexuality. The reason we think it is so important and relates to censorship is that it isn’t clear cut. Yes, sex can be scientifically explained; but what about all the other ways in which our bodies and minds are stimulated? As a Christian should we feel guilty for hugging someone of the opposite sex? How about kissing them? Or making out? Now cuddling? Even without going into more detail, it is clear that the line, for some, dividing sin and not-sin does not reside in intercourse alone. Where does the loss of virginity then occur, from a moralistic point of view? It is decided by the conscience of the individuals involved.

This same reasoning can be applied to almost anything (besides maybe murder). What constitutes offensive language varies greatly. What constitutes adult material varies significantly. What defines appropriate dress attire? if you’re an international student from Asia Minor or North Africa you might see a bunch of loose promiscuous women walking around campus; on the flip side, if you’re from southern California you may see a bunch of conservative odd balls. The fact is that some things cannot be defined by a general overarching statement; and this is exactly what censorship does.

There are too many grey areas in life to be able to regulate in such seemingly clear cut ways. Ban sex, alcohol and drugs, but once you begin disciplining adults for what they wear, say and look at, it becomes much too difficult to maintain appropriate standards.

Categories
Opinions

Women in Combat, A Next Step Toward Equality

Women in Combat
Women in Combat

In case you have missed the recent headlines, one of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s final significant policy decisions, the military’s ban on women in direct combat situations has been lifted.
We as an editorial staff collectively say, “Finally.” We find compelling the case presented by the four servicewomen who sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the ban, pointing out that women have already in essence been serving in combat situations, and yet have not received formal recognition for their work and their sacrifices.

In an interview with Eyder Peralta for NPR, former Navy Lieutenant Carey Lohrenz said, “We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them.” This denial of formal recognition and promotions has gone on too long, and Panetta’s lift of the ban is, in the words of Democratic Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a “great step toward equality.”

Others who read and commented on Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker’s New York Times coverage of the story don’t see it as such. A New York Times pick comment on their website by the username Harry from Michigan reads, “Next feminists will tell me that women can handle a man in hand to hand combat. How about we have women play in the NFL or any other pro sports…”
First, this comment villainizes feminism, a movement that has made and continues to make great strides in human rights issues for years. Next, to the dismay of Harry, we would point out that some women actually can handle men in hand to hand combat. There are many women who are more athletic than men, just as there are many women who are less athletic than men.

Veteran and Republican Senator John McCain has issued a statement supporting Panetta’s decision, and he added that, “As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Women will now have an equal opportunity to enter direct combat positions, but they do not expect any special allowances. In fact, the key is that servicewomen do not want to be treated any differently from servicemen.

Another online commenter on the New York Times article going by the username Keeping It Real wrote, “Why do American women want to be men? (Or is the real question, “Why are American women not allowed to be women?”)” New York Times pick commenter Academia Nut from Canada retorted, “Why would you limit a woman’s choice to be whatever she wants to be and is capable of being?”

Women have been moving into spheres traditionally occupied by men for years, and as Lohrenz said to Peralta, “We have women in combat roles right now… They’re on the ground in Iraq; they’re on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are.”

The backlash from commenters such as Harry and Keeping It Real seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the blurring of lines between what is masculine and what is feminine that in the past have been more clear. They are focusing on the differences between men and women when the differences among men and women are much more significant.

This change in policy is not the first of its kind; New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland all already permit women to serve in direct combat. There is no word as to whether women have ruined professional sports in these countries yet.