Category: Opinions

An opportunity has arisen for Houghton to create a policy that ensures the use of sustainably-sourced printer paper for its academic departments. Sustainably-sourced paper is not necessarily 100% recycled, but is chlorine-free, sourced from responsibly-logged forests, and has some recycled content. Most paper is made through irresponsible logging methods that have negative effects on biodiversity (important for the roles each species has in sustainability), virgin growth forests (meaning old forests that have never been touched), and local environments. Standard paper production techniques release enormous amounts of chlorine and other toxic chemicals into the environment, resulting in major pollution problems for local communities.

Many faculty members already try to use as little paper as possible, which I really appreciate. However, when professors do feel the need to print things, why not print on paper that hasn’t destroyed an ecosystem, been illegally logged, or polluted the environment with toxic chemicals?

Making the switch to sustainably-sourced paper brings us one step closer to living in sync with what we say we care about. Back in 2008, President Mullen signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment which shows Houghton’s ongoing commitment to reducing our impact on the environment. We’ve done a lot already. Our cleaning products are earth-friendly, we have hand-dryers in most bathrooms, we have motion-activated lights, our printers are set to save paper by printing on both sides, we have composting at the townhouses, we have recycling bins absolutely everywhere, we have energy-efficient laundry facilities, I already mentioned that many faculty members have committed to using less paper… oh yeah, and we have a solar ray! Switching to sustainably-sourced paper is consistent with what we are already doing. Therefore it is clear: we should make this step towards further improvement.

If this policy were implemented, the college would only see an overall annual increase of about $1,200 which covers all departments. Half of the departments would see less than a $10 increase in costs and 85% of departments would see less than a $30 increase in costs. There is no difference in paper quality and we would be buying third-party certified paper, ensuring environmental responsibility.

Administration wants to see student interest in sustainably-sourced paper before making a decision. Students purchasing paper at the campus store have already shown a willingness to pay $1.50 more for recycled-content paper. Twenty percent of paper sales at the Campus Store are from sustainably-sourced paper already. I urge students who do not already purchase sustainably sourced paper to make this small personal sacrifice and do so.

Lauren Bechtel, the driving force behind this proposed change, reports that the petition has 152 respondents so far, with a 4:1 Student to Faculty/Staff participation. Thus far,  96% of responses have been positive, and Lauren welcomes any comments in a box provided in the survey. The petition/survey will close on April 13, 2015. Do your part and share your student voice in support of this cause.

As Christians we are to be examples in stewardship. We imitate God when we care for his earth and the people who live here. Not only is creation care Biblical, it is one of the simplest ways we can affect the lives of people living around the world. Sure, cheaper paper saves some money, but the problem with cheap things is that someone is paying for that lower price and it is usually those who can afford it least. With cheaper paper, the communities affected by chemical pollution and deforestation pay the price. Surely Houghton can afford to absorb the cost it takes to produce something that we use to our benefit. It is simple: we should make this change for the better.

In the present day and especially in Christian circles we often find it uncomfortable to talk about issues and topics involving race. As our culture becomes more politically correct we choose to revert to language such as “but I don’t see color.”

Segregation and discrimination — whether against the African American population or against people of other ethnic and cultural backgrounds — appear to be systemic and deeply ingrained in our culture. As a result, we tend to label one racial group as the antagonist, insinuating that racial tension is somehow one-sided and narrowly defined.

Integration has been historically stagnant.The US is not alone in its pursuit of integration; humans tend to define themselves relative to other groups of people. For example, a patrician as compared to being a plebeian, or even a Christian as compared to being a Buddhist. So how do we overcome those definitions?

We generally believe that racism is partial or biased and that it favors one particular group, but we all put each other into unhealthy categories. As a white American, I am automatically grouped into the “white” category. I find myself lumped into a massive group of white, privileged people; I lose my individual identity. Living adjacent to a city populated by a large number of Latin American and Hispanic families, I often hear comments or phrases that explicitly define me by my skin color.

Even here, in Houghton, New York, I see how my skin separates me from others. In church one Sunday, the pastor encouraged us to “share a word of greeting with one another” before the sermon started. I watched as a girl came running across the aisle and past me to greet my housemates, saying, “Good morning my fellow black girls!” I know that wasn’t meant to hurt me, but it did.

Racism is not just one group against another; there is a degree of mutual resentment between various ethnic and racial groups. Take, for example, the discussion about the Ferguson incident that Dean Jordan hosted last December. A few comments that pertained specifically to “white Americans” caught my attention. One individual expressing her anguish commented, “You will never understand what it feels like.” This comment alludes to the perception that issues of racism, discrimination, and prejudice are a one-sided battle, one group against the other. To some extent that is true, but sometimes this perception does more harm than good. It lies in assumptions made about the other group.

Houghton College’s doctrinal statement asserts, “We believe that there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Many people, including myself, recognize the unfortunate terminology used in this statement and here is why. In our present world many, sadly not all, people recognize the importance of gender-inclusive language. Why does our college not? When referring to God, instead of saying, “Father” our language should be inclusive, perhaps using words such as “Maker” or “Creator.”

Many of you reading this article may strongly disagree with this opinion. Others may agree, but ask, Why is gender inclusive language so important?

First, God is not male. The bearded white man in the clouds is just an image from your picture book bible. Throughout the bible numerous references to God as male and God as female are made.

For example, in a recent workshop at the college, Sarah Derck, professor of Old Testament, mentioned the Hebrew word “Shaddai” which is used 48 times in the Old Testament. Since the 1930s etymological and linguistic research done has found convincing reason to think that “Shaddai” has been falsely translated in the past.

Traditionally, the word has been translated as “Almighty” or “God Almighty” but with further research, scholars have found that “Shaddai” is from a different Akkadian root word signifying the word ‘breast,’ Derck stated, “Theologically, the significance is an astounding reference to the nourishment and nurture of God signified by female anatomy, as part of the range of metaphors used for God.” Metaphorical language and imagery fills Scripture. Biblical language references God with both male and female terminology- neither is literal.

Personally, though I grew up in an egalitarian home, I was still under the misconception of God as male. At church I was always told of God the male shepherd looking for his lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7). However, I never read a children’s book or had a single Sunday school class centered on the very next parable in the gospel of Luke. The first verse of this parable: “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” (Luke 15: 8 NIV). The shepherd and the woman serve the same purpose: comprehensive metaphorical language representing God’s love for humanity.

Now onto the question: “Why should one care if God is referred to as male?”

The answer seems obvious: using inclusive language includes everyone. In her book, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir discusses the detrimental effects of having men be viewed as the norm in society. De Beauvoir writes, “A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.” In society, men have historically been seen as the ‘Absolute’ or ‘norm.’ More particularly, in American history, white men have been seen as the Absolute, while minority races and women have been the derivative from the norm: in de Beauvoir’s words “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute- she is the Other.” If female is the Other, she then feels that in order to validate her own capabilities and be part of the ‘norm’ she must conform to the Absolute or ‘male.’

When God is repeatedly referred to as ‘male,’ women feel as if they are the Other and men are the Absolute. In relation to biblical language, Kristina Lacelle-Peterson, professor of religion, stated, “Given that Scripture depicts God sometimes with feminine imagery and God as the one over everything in whose image we are mad, male and female, it is a huge reduction of God to assume God is male.”

Not only are we reducing our view of God when we say ‘male’, we are also ordaining men with inherent God-like qualities, which are denied to women. This type of thinking then encourages the harmful image of men as sole ‘master,’ ‘provider,’ ‘spiritual leader’ the list goes on and on. Women are more than capable of leadership roles and this includes spiritual life leadership. The false view of God as ‘male’ perpetuates the unhealthy view of male as pre-ordained leader.

Through advocacy for gender-inclusive language I am stressing the reality that all people, male and female,  are made in God’s image. God is non-gendered and our language and terminology should reflect this fact. Our college’s spiritual life, academic life, and all other facets should support equality and inclusion by adhering to gender-inclusive language.

I was six the first time I saw a meteor shower. I woke up at around midnight to my sister shaking my shoulder and pointing to the window where hundreds of lights were zipping across the blackness of night. I remember running outside and staring into the sky, even long after the meteors had stopped their frenzied flight. My half-sister from Chicago was with us, and she remarked that she had never seen so many stars in her life: sadly, there are not many places left with skies as dark as my rural New York hometown.

If you look at a satellite picture of the world at night, you will see what seems like an endless number of lights peppering the landscape, concentrating most thickly in the U.S. Each point shows the artificial light thrown from street lamps and buildings in various cities. This “stray light” which is cast into the sky is known as light pollution, and it is effectively putting an end to night.

Not only does darkness allow us to gaze at the stars, it is essential to the life and health of many creatures. When baby sea turtles hatch on the beach, they do so under the cover of night and are guided to the water by the bright horizon over the ocean. Millions of hatchlings die each year because they are drawn away by artificial lights. Migratory birds often travel by night and navigate using moonlight and starlight. Artificial lights can confuse them and cause them to veer off course, often into brightly illuminated buildings.

Animals are not the only ones who suffer from this unnatural situation. In 2012, the American Medical Association stated that “many species (including humans) need darkness to survive and thrive.” Humans have an inner clock (or circadian clock) which tells us when to sleep and is governed by light and darkness. The hormone melatonin is essentially what puts us to sleep at night, and it functions best in complete darkness. When we are exposed to unnatural light during the night, our bodies have trouble detecting whether it’s time to sleep or time to be awake.

According to an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, “disruption of the circadian clock is linked to several medical disorders in humans, including depression, insomnia, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.” Artificial lights allow us to stay awake much farther into the night than our ancestors were ever capable of, and the orange glow from cities make it impossible to ever truly experience dark nights. Much like the baby turtles and the migratory birds, humanity is experiencing the negative effects of light pollution.

Light pollution is an issue which, on the surface, may seem impossible to resolve. After all, our culture has been dependent on artificial lighting for over a hundred years. Fortunately, however, this is not a matter of powering down our buildings and streetlamps and returning to candlelight. On the individual level, we can help by closing our blinds at night to keep the lights inside our homes from throwing light pollution into the sky. We can also become more conscious of turning off unused lights, which has the added benefit of cutting energy costs. On a larger scale, specialized outdoor lighting has been developed that reduces the glare cast by inefficient streetlights. This type of lighting has been proven to increase visibility while simultaneously shielding the sky from stray light.

Overall, Houghton’s campus does not drastically add to the problem of light pollution: our campus is small and the light sources we use tend to be more environmentally friendly. For instance, the specialized dome shape lights, which reduce glare, are used around campus. However, the simple task of turning off indoor lighting when a building is closed should be better enforced. Multiple facilities around campus, such as the music building and the athletic fields, should become more conscious of the light pollution they cause. The KPAC light emission can be seen from a far distance and this must change. Our campus should make these small steps and more in order to effectively decrease light pollution.

The stars have fascinated humanity for thousands of years, giving inspiration to folktales, poetry, and backyard stargazing. The night sky is part of our culture, part of our heritage. As it disappears, it takes with it the possibility that our grandchildren will ever experience the sight of the Milky Way or the splendor of a meteor shower. What would the world be like after the death of night?

About a week ago I stumbled across a shared photo on Facebook that read these words: “Apparently it is now bigoted and intolerant to be straight and proud in this upside down, politically correct society we live in. I invite everyone who is straight and unashamed to post this on your wall.” I was shocked to find other pictures like this on this person’s timeline. I, personally, had never encountered anyone with the belief that there needed to be a “Straight Pride.” I understood the concept, be proud of who you are regardless of your sexual orientation, however a straight pride movement does more damage than it does good.

Therefore, I would like to get one thing straight; Straight pride does not exist. I want to be clear with what I am not saying. I am not saying that people should be ashamed of their heterosexuality. I am not saying that you should not be proud and happy with who are.

The LGBT Pride movement began for the single purpose of making others aware of their existence. To make others aware that they, like heterosexuals, are human. It began with the single mission of achieving the rights they deserve, the same rights as those who identify as straight.

When I was a first year here at Houghton, even speaking about this issue was so taboo that people would come up to your table in the cafeteria and ask you to stop talking. Houghton has come so far in it’s acceptance of LGBT minorities since then. But as is often said, Houghton is but a small part of this beautiful world created by God. While Houghton has improved, there are places in the world that are in drastic need of tolerance and acceptance.

In Russia, Members and Allies of the LGBT community face death on a regular basis for simply wearing or distributing anything that could be perceived as LGBT paraphernalia.  Gay men and women face increasingly dangerous prejudice, violence, and discrimination in Uganda. In America, transgender teens are committing suicide due to the alienation they receive from family, peers, and church. It is Illegal to be gay in 76 countries. That is roughly 40% of this world. Just to put this in perspective, being a Christian is only illegal in 54 countries.

So why is there not a straight pride movement? Why does it not exist? Journalist L.Z. Granderson said it best, “Gay pride was not born out of the need to celebrate not being straight, but our right to exist without prosecution.”  There is no need for straight pride, because those who identify as heterosexuals already posses the rights that those who are part of the LGBT community are fighting for. No person has ever been alienated by their church congregation because they were straight. No one has been unjustly fired from their job because they were straight. No person has ever been kicked out of their parent’s home because they were straight. American Congress has never passed a law that forces heterosexuals to hide their sexual orientation from their peers and colleagues. A straight person has never been told they were going to hell, that they were disgusting, that they have a disease, that they do not deserve to be alive all because of their sexual orientation.

There is no straight pride movement because heterosexuals do not need a movement. There cannot be an equal rights movement for the already privileged members of society. There is no white and proud movement, other than the KKK and Aryan Nations, because people who are white have the social and economic world constantly working in their favor. A straight pride movement is unnecessary and mocks the importance of an LGBT pride movement.

Be proud of who you are, regardless of your gender, skin color, and sexual orientation, straight or gay. But do not take away the importance of the movements that fight for the equal rights of underprivileged minorities.

Over my time at Houghton I have heard many students complain about the greediness of corporate America, and the unfairness associated with the division between rich and poor. These students never discuss their own greed or how appeals to it motivate them to helpful and efficient action.

Famed English political economist, Adam Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own interest.” Smith argues that in order to have sustenance, we must appeal to the self-interest of those around us.  In economics, we learn that this is both an effective and efficient way to run an economy.

Without even knowing it, we all are part of a system that relies on appeals to others’ self-interest.  Schools prompt you to learn by giving you grades, employers pay for your performance, and governments subsidize good choices.  The same self-interested behavior that we display is the motive for businesses as well.

Businesses emerge to fulfill a want or a need, and they succeed by providing it at a lower price, or with a higher quality, compared to others.  By doing this, they create a competitive advantage that allows them to use resources more effectively than the average person can.  For example, a bread maker must buy ingredients to make the bread, mix the ingredients, knead the dough, let it rise, and finally bake it before it can be sold.  The bread maker can leverage the size of his operation and expertise so as to make a hearty loaf for much cheaper than the average person can, especially when considering the time it takes to gather and process those resources.  For the bread-maker to do this, he will require some sort of compensation which comes in the form of profit.

The word profit causes many Christians and other advocates for non-profit organizations to cringe, but profit is actually Biblical and necessary for our economy to advance.  Businesses operate by giving money to their most efficient uses, and profits are no different.  Businesses need profits to grow, to research, and to pay back what they have borrowed.  Profit can also be used by businesses to support local sports teams, food pantries, and church groups.

The beauty of this system of appealing to another’s self-interest is that it does not just help the rich; instead, it helps everybody. Much that we use on a daily basis has been created as a result of somebody figuring out a way to produce and sell it at a profit.  While it seems that the rich keep getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, generally people are better off today than they have been in the past because of for-profit businesses.

The one caveat here is that efficient commerce requires a strict set of moral values on which businesses, and the nation are built.  For Smith and others, commerce must be guided by enlightened self-interest. America has done a great job creating a strong sense of ordered liberty, tempering justice with freedom that have allowed businesses to flourish.  While our system is not perfect, and examples of abuse arise constantly, I am thankful for the self-interested behavior that has provided me with the amenities I enjoy everyday.

“Media cannot reflect society, if society is not reflected in the media.” This slogan for Creative Access, an organization devoted to increasing diversity in the media, is a call for greater representation of minorities in popular media.

The goal of media is broad and varied – entertainment, advocacy, education, escapism – and within media the emphasis placed on each of these goals varies. Regardless, media in all forms represent some combination of what has been, what is, and our vision of what could be. There are two versions of representation problems with minority groups in mass media: the absence of representation and the portrayal of the single story.

Failure to represent a minority is preemptive erasure. It implies that people of this minority group simply do not exist or worse, are somehow unworthy of acknowledgement. Minorities who do not see their identity represented by people they interact with in their daily life stand to benefit the most from media representation. Representation is essential for aspects of identity that are easy to conceal such as gender identity, sexual identity, or religion. Similarly, even if racial minorities, people with disabilities, and age minorities are not isolated from other individuals of their minority group, they may turn to the media for representations of people in their minority group with relatable ambitions.

Lack of representation is an issue, for example, in popular superhero films. Superheroes are models of human ideals that have been magnified and made larger-than-life. They are utopic, god-like champions of good. Yet if film portrays superheroes almost exclusively as white, straight, cis-males, it implies that these characteristics are somehow necessary to the message – that they are part of the ideals being portrayed.

The problem of the single story, as it is described by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, is the acceptance of the representation of an individual or culture by a single trait. “The consequence of the single story is this,” Adichie said, “It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar.” The single story is a narcotic, offering one dimension to placate our desire to understand someone while shutting our eyes to their complexity.

As a result of the Chapel Hill murders, social media and some news outlets have revived discussion of long-standing concerns about the single story the media portrays about Muslims. Fariha Naqvi-Mohamed of the Huffington Post wondered if the reason the media did not call the murders a hate crime was because the victims did not represent “the burly, secretive, conspiring and dangerous image of Muslims so commonly thrust around in the media….European media did a better job of covering the events then American media. That in itself speaks volumes.” Balanced representation is essential because it is powerful: it will either polarize or unite. Despite social media, mass media still holds many of the volume controls determining whose voices are heard across the nation.

Admittedly it is about as effective to throw accusations at ‘the media’ as it is to jump out of the path of a tsunami, but all of us are to some degree in positions to affect change by being conscientious. Writers, artists, and musicians are primary contributors to popular media and, therefore, have the greatest responsibility. However people in all fields – business, communications, political science, history, psychology, etc. – will in all likelihood at some point be influential in how representation is handled. Sometimes the task is as simple as choosing images for a presentation, but it is situations like these, where the images used are not the primary focus, where we are most likely to resort to a corrupt default, an imitation of flawed mass media.

More importantly, we are all media consumers. It is ineffectual to sit back and wait for mass media to change. Media content changes in fits and starts that must constructively accumulate to affect large-scale changes. Searching out multi-dimensional representations of minorities can be a challenging but rewarding task. Supporting creators and media outlets that offer better representation leads to greater quantities of balanced media being produced.

We live at a time when so much media content is available that we can easily consume large quantities of media without ever encountering a perspective that challenges us; as such, we must be deliberate.