Category: Opinions

Houghton should increase the amount of language credits required for integrative studies in order to support the school’s mission of global service. With the increasing globalization of technological communication, it is important for students to learn a second language in order to relate in a world that thrives on interpersonal relationships. Because technology provides an easily accessible route for conversation, verbal communication has become a lost art for many modern students. The language learning process encourages cross-cultural communication that extends beyond words, helping a speaker to identify with cultural values.

Like any difficult task, language learning requires motivation in order for proper growth to occur. Most people think language aptitude, the mental ability to acquire a new language, should be the primary motivation for language learning. However, according to a study done at McGill University, “when measures of aptitude are correlated with grades in language courses, the validity coefficients show considerable variability from situation to situation.” Fear of inadequate aptitude should not hold anyone back from learning a second language. Instead, one should, with confidence and enthusiastic interest, strive to learn another’s language.

Houghton students strive to help others across the globe. However, we cannot achieve these goals if we assume that all cultures should conform to English as the one supreme language. This conformist view enables a subtle manifestation of ethnocentrism. Learning a foreign language combats ethnocentric tendencies by forming relationships between oneself and another culture.

Professor of Spanish, David Kinman, believes “the reason to learn another language is to be able to value the speaker of that language.” With the common bond of language, one better identifies with the other on a deep level. This approach transcends utilitarian uses of language by creating a foundation for building relationships of trust with people from other cultures. Professor Kinman disproves the misconception that only language majors have a purpose and motivation for learning a foreign language.

Not only does language learning promote valuing other cultures, it supports the Christian ideal of service to others. Professor of French, Jean-Louis Roederer, spoke from personal experience saying, “As Christians, it is critical that we understand people of other cultures in order to minister better. “

For instance, Roederer recounted an experience from when he was a student to demonstrate his point. He and wife, Sandy Roederer, took part in a ministry at Houghton called Torchbearers. The group went door to door sharing their faith in Wellsville. Upon arriving at a certain house, Roederer asked in English if he could share his faith with the woman. She politely declined, but as he was leaving, he heard her call in French to one of her children playing in the yard. Roederer turned around and began speaking French with the woman. Upon hearing her heart language, she welcomed the conversation and invited him inside to hear more about his faith.

This simple anecdote exemplifies how important learning a second language should be at a school thats mission statement prioritizes global service. In order to fulfill the command in Ephesians 5:21 to “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” we must strive to relate to other cultures by conquering language barriers.

Throughout the years, Houghton has slowly gotten rid of the Classics major combining Latin and Greek studies, the German major, and the French major. The only language major that still exists at Houghton is a Spanish major.  Houghton students used to be required to take 12 credits, or four semesters, of language before they could graduate. Now, only 2 semesters of language are required. Most students test out of this requirement.  Houghton risks losing its language departments because the Administration worries that enrollment will go down if the school requires language credits for each student, regardless of previous experience. Fear of decrease in enrollment should not hinder Houghton from making decisions that will increase the growth of students. According to Roederer, Houghton sends out more international workers, missionaries, and linguists than any other Christian school in the nation. These students should be equipped with language learning tools in order for effective ministry to

When I finally found myself caught in a self-contradictory tangle of pop-activist ideals and “PC” jargon I decided it was high time to rethink my position on the political spectrum. As I have organized thoughts, ideals, opinions, and beliefs, I have encountered more than a few complicated “isms,” and the ever-popular feminism is one of them. Unfortunately, discovering the meaning of feminism for Western people today seems like an impossible task.

Feminism has become a catch-all term used in a variety of contexts, from internet comment threads to political and literary texts. Our common discourse is overrun by opinions, and not a few of them seem blatantly heretical in their barest, ugliest forms. A multiplicity of definitions detracts from meaning, and feminism loses its concision and strength.

If an ideal is a belief or standard that influences action, defining feminism by what it does may be the place to start. While I’m at an immediate loss for what exactly feminism should do, I certainly have a few thoughts on what feminism shouldn’t do.

Feminism should not shame housewives and conservative women. Feminism should not categorically label and degrade men. Feminism should not encourage anger or violence. Using feminism as a soapbox or a sob story to attract attention to individual people accomplishes nothing for the greater good of the whole. Rejecting people because they don’t fit the bill weakens the name of the cause.

If feminism seeks equality for women, it is on the basis that all people deserve respect. No matter the race, sex, gender, orientation, beliefs, or identity, freedom to operate without fear of discrimination is a primary goal. If feminism so eagerly applies its force to free women from the bonds of sexism, it seems that feminists should be as eager to stand against discrimination across the board.

Which is why I find myself sadly disturbed by the conversations flowing around me on a daily basis, espoused by people who would claim to be feminists but willingly degrade and disrespect others on the basis of sexual orientation, religious belief, or political ideology. Too many “feminists” fall into the trap of blaming and stereotyping men rather than educating and empowering men and women alike. Women who choose to live a lifestyle of religious conservatism that is interpreted as oppressive are mocked and patronized. The internet can be a snake’s den of hatred masked by anonymity.

I certainly do not have all of my own beliefs figured out, let alone a confident grasp on some of our culture’s most popularized beliefs today. But I can say that it seems to me there is a glaring contradiction in a feminism that despises and discriminates. Feminism begins with respecting, uplifting, and encouraging people for the pure fact of their humanity. Therefore, it is an originally justified idea and this respect should carry beyond the limits of sex and gender.

Maybe this topic is overwrought, but I’m tired of the hypocrisy. Regardless of how we identify as individuals, we should offer the same respect we expect for ourselves to everyone else. Besides, wouldn’t Christ do the same?

If there’s one unarguable fact about the digital age, it is that images dominate our lives. Every day we’re bombarded by advertisements, Snapchats, Instagram notifications—an unstemmed tide of visual narrative.  If you’ve ever taken a class with Professor Dave Huth, you’ve undoubtedly heard what opponents of our image-saturated age think of this flood of images; how they destroy our culture, decrease social capital and interaction, and ultimately make us a bunch of gibbering idiots covered in x-pro filters.

At this point, you’re either tired of hearing this argument, terrified that we’re all going to devolve into those chair people from Wall-E, or, like the skeptical Houghton postmodern that you are, you’ve decided that images can’t be the end of human intelligence. In a way, I identify with all three of these perspectives. On the one hand, I see what appears to be a rapid decline in what has classically been defined as ‘society.’

People statistically talk face-to-face less often, hang out in shorter increments, and on the face of it, literacy and basic common sense seem to have been pushed to the side by our new, selfie-stick-wielding, 24-hour-news-cycle-watching overlords. Recently, this hit me as, ironically enough, I watched the 1963 film Contempt by French director Jean –Luc Godard. Characters in the film consistently quoted from memory the likes of Dante, Virgil, and Homer. And not only did they quote, but they APPLIED what they quoted. The words that they committed to memory, astonishingly enough, impacted their lives.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I find that our culture can barely remember which 125 characters we sent five minutes ago, let alone a passage from Dante’s journey through the bowels of Hell. The likes of media critics would assert that this is due to our increased dependence on our televisions, phones, and computer screens and the resulting ‘death’ of word-based, literary culture. In short, when a phone or a computer becomes your primary means of information gathering, you condense your thought life into a measly 125 characters.

However, before we finish unplugging our routers, deleting our contacts, and in some case (I see you, Neil Postman) fashioning tinfoil hats, I urge consideration of a blended co-existence with technology. While the dangers of technological dependence are well-documented, albeit highly contested, the benefits are often overlooked. Through computing power, we can create twice as fast, reach an exponential number of people with our ideas, and pretty much do ten times the work that we normally could. For instance, the current business idea of the ‘lean startup’ would be largely impossible without the ability of a small staff to work efficiently and effectively—two game-changing characteristics of technological improvement.

In short, our tendencies are to create binaries—we can either have this or that, but not both. But that does not have to be the case in regards to our interactions with technology. If we foolishly allow ourselves to become entirely absorbed by yakking, snapping, and tweeting, we miss out on a significant portion of beneficial literary and interpersonal communication. Concurrently, if we focus only on the interpersonal and literary, we miss out on the benefits of mass communication, entirely disregarding the current trends of overlap between these two. Ultimately, by applying some self-control and a little creativity, the two often “opposing” parts of modern life can be brought together into a continuous whole.

So here’s my advice: go read a book, discuss it, and then snap about it with your friends. *
*(data and message rates may apply)

Racism is a problem in America, throughout the world, and yes in Houghton as well. Racism, as I want to simply define it here, is a systemic and sometimes very unintentional devaluing of the lives of people of color. It is not limited to rude remarks; it’s most damaging roots lie in institutions which destroy lives through  denying people of jobs, housing, and freedom. Houghton graduates will have the chance to fight against this sort of racism as they go out into their fields of work- but to do that they must first be educated on it.

Houghton has tried to be more intentional when talking about racism in organized discussions. As a student of color, attending these discussions has shown me that even my peers who truly care about racial issues do not know how to approach the discussion. I believe without education everyone is a racist. We are shaped by our society and human nature to believe certain stereotypes. Unless we educate ourselves and try to break harmful patterns of conduct, we will be ensnared by racism.

Frequently in regards to racial issues, I hear Houghton students say “There are no races, I don’t see race.” But if we are not sensitive to race we can’t be intentional about combating racism. Sensitivity is a huge problem for discussions about racism, particularly when the majority of the participants are white. When I was in high school multiple times everyday I was referred to as “Black Emma” or other things that made me constantly aware that as a mixed (Black and White) girl I was an unwanted minority. Not seeing color was a privilege I was unable to have. Both fortunately and unfortunately this isn’t true for the “average Houghton student”; it is good that not everyone experiences racism even though it makes it harder for them to understand the issue.

For Instance, when people at Houghton who lead discussions about race are not themselves people of color, discussion is, once again, difficult. These facilitators are incredibly gracious and  they truly care about people of color, yet they lack the experience of racism and thus lack the high sensitivity toward it. Sometimes as a student of color, I have wished that there was a person of color in administration that I could go talk to about racism. It is uncomfortable for me to go to a white male and try to explain my experiences. Also, when there are deep pains in the Black community at large, the white males in Houghton aren’t entirely tuned in to this. Last school year the student body was told that regular chapel discussions about race would take place. However, I was personally upset this past semester when no such discussion became a reality. I checked on the planning process a few times and I was told they were trying to find a better time to hold them, however, I felt that discussions still should have been held while the future plans were in the works. The lack of discussion makes racism seem like something we only talk about when racial incidents take place, rather than presenting racism in its true light as being a constant problem. When we finally had a campus event to talk about Ferguson I felt like this just furthered the idea that if we talk about these topics a few times, then they will disappear. In reality, these topics impact the daily lives of people across the nation and around the world. When I explained these thoughts to the discussion organizers, they were immediately regretful that their efforts had appeared that way to me. I hope that in the future, race can be a continued conversation at Houghton.

Houghton has done a good job opening these conversations so perhaps someday soon we can have a person of color lead them and white students listen. I say white students in particular because I know many white students feel uncomfortable going to talks about racism, especially with the fear of being called racists. This is something we as a community can easily get over to move forward in changing the world- one Houghton graduate at a time.

Last semester I began considering whether science could answer traditionally philosophical questions.  I think this is a common thought for many atheists trying to explain the nature of reality without the use of a god-function.  On the other hand, monotheists whose primary ideologies rest on theological ideas readily incorporate the concept of a god into their world view.  While these two states of mind appear as though they could be radically contrary, I would argue that there is an essential middle ground at which people of different religious orientations can gather.  The middle ground depends primarily on an individual’s willingness to accept the possibility that their ideas about reality may be wrong.  Both a theist and an atheist can hold tightly to their beliefs in a way that may hinder them from considering ideas which they think may be contrary to their own. The most fundamental issue with the discussion of evolution is the strong religious and anti-religious bias of particular biological theories when interpreting data (also known as presuppositions).

The nature of theory is commonly misunderstood.  A theory is means of interpreting data in order to formulate an over arching explanation and relationship between the facts.  A fact or data comes from an observable aspect of nature which is repeatable and verifiable.  As a young physicist, I usually think of facts as data–direct measurements from scientific experiments.  Major issues arise when a person elevates the status of a theory to that of a fact.  Remember that a theory, although supported by data, can at any time be discarded or replaced when confronted by contrary data or a theory with more explanatory power.  Theories are essential for the progression of science.  When developing a theory, a scientist attempts to explain data in the fullest possible way.   Having a theory as a foundation to work off of is important because it often highlights specific unanswered questions–a scientist’s primary driving force in an individual’s research. Currently, the theory of evolution is the prominent theory in the biological paradigm since it not only explains phenomenon, but because it also raises many questions.  Therefore, it is important for scientists to appreciate the questions which evolution asks and answers, but at the same time recognize its limitations and be willing to entertain alternative explanatory theories if they prove to have greater explanatory power.

This raises yet another consideration; how much authority should we give the scientific community to determine the current paradigm?  I respect biologists as a group of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this world.  If the majority of this group of people agree about one idea, who I am to say that I would know better (as a non-biologist).  However, truth is never determined by majority vote.  If a theist or atheist who has little to no background in biology makes sweeping conclusions about the reliability of the theory of evolution, I would urge them to have the humility to admit what they do not know and learn about the perspectives of scientists and make conclusions with assistance of others.

Hopefully these ideas spark some of your own thoughts about this topic.  Some of the mistakes described above often come from people who hold religious biases towards scientific ideas.  Therefore, we, as the Christian community, must not let our religious ideals keep us from respectively viewing scientific ideas.

I hold uncertainty in concepts, from evolution to the existence of God, and yet I appreciate both possibilities these ideas posit.  Though evolution comes with religious conclusions for many, everyone can try to approach the issue in ways that may initially seem contrary to their beliefs, but in the end, may not.

As I write this January 1st 2015, I am truly optimistic about this year’s economic outlook and unlike many experts and analysts, I am bullish America is poised for steady growth in 2015.  Many economists cite a slowing economy due to low energy prices.  It is probable that energy companies will suffer, but since when did we care so much about paying more at the gas pump?  Other economists cite as the economy grows, the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates which will hurt the financial sector. Since when did we start caring for cheap money given to Wall Street?  In the last decade our currency has been devalued but recent events point to the dollar making a strong rebound despite the last two administration’s fiscal policies. Economist Larry Kudlow calls it the rebirth of “King Dollar” which will strengthen our currency and create more bang for the buck on all goods, services, and aids for the middle class who have not seen wealth gains in nearly a decade.  With a new pro-growth 114th Congress, American politics will shift from creating welfare incentives towards creating private sector jobs, which will drive more money back into the economy though repatriation of capital, hiring, and stronger revenues.  A consistent and durable US job growth will increase hours worked, job mobility, raises, and better paying jobs.  I predict the US will strengthen and the economy will grow a steady 3.3% because of low energy, a new political climate, a growing job market, and the rebirth of “King Dollar”.

Let’s start with lower gas prices which began their dramatic descent in the second half of 2014.  The American innovative fracking revolution has led to a worldwide oil supply shock.  The oversupply of oil will continue in 2015 because the International Energy Agency projects that the US, now the world’s largest oil producer, will produce an additional 680,000 barrels next year.  However, the “bears” on Wall Street see the sky falling as lower energy prices will also kill America’s heavily leveraged energy industry and the financial firms that have loaned to them.  Yet most energy corporations are secured in fixed long term contracts and also have hedged against lower energy prices through the futures market.  Economist Larry Kudlow is emphatic that “lower oil prices are unambiguously good for the US economy.”  The extra discretionary income leads to more business saving and consumer spending, quite possibly $1500 in every working person’s pocket at the gas pump.

A second good indicator for me is the strengthening of the US dollar.  We have seen this before in the 1980s and 1990s leading to lower commodity prices such as gold.   The increase in the value of the dollar combined with steady U.S. economic growth as compared to the sluggish economies in the European Union, Japan and China makes the US attractive to foreign investors.  According to Cliff Droke of Kitco, the 1980s and 1990s was a “time the U.S. economy was white hot, stock prices were on a relentless upward march, energy prices were low and the U.S. was the undisputed leader in attracting foreign capital inflows.”  For the American middle class, a strong dollar couldn’t be more welcomed because a strong dollar is one of the best forms of stimulus. According to David Howden of the Von Mises Institute, “Consumers can continue to enjoy cheap access to foreign-made goods, and export-based industries can maintain their stature by shifting their cost base to take advantage of cheaper foreign inputs.”

With the 114th Congress, a new era of pro-growth legislation will be brought.  President Obama can choose the same route as President Clinton did and work with a Republican Congress with the same economic results seen in the 1990s.  As the majority party, the Republicans will first pass the long awaited Keystone XL pipeline bringing an influx of oil from Canada and the North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields.  Congress will also bring tax cuts to both the individual tax code and the corporate tax code, which will help to create more jobs as well as repeal the odious tax on money earned outside of the US which will could repatriate $2 trillion dollars so that capital is invested here in the US instead of abroad.  Congress will also try to severely weaken the negative effects of the Dodd-Frank bill which has crippled our small community banks and small business lending.  Legislation will try to clip parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which is stifling job creation like a wet blanket does to a fire.  The intent of the new bills will be to push back deadlines and change the definition of a full time worker from 30 hours a week defined by the ACA to the traditional 40 hours.  As it stands right now, many companies have simply cut part time jobs or outsourced work so that they avoid benefits they cannot afford.

My only disappointment for 2015 is that I believe our economy could be growing at 5.5% to 7.5% as witnessed in the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s and 1990s.  However, we lack the key ingredients characterized by those decades such as pro-growth-political executive leadership, a strong suspicion of large institutions, deregulation, a tax code driven by incentives to work- save- risk, and an electorate with a strong reverence for liberty, individualism, and with a slight hostility towards taxation.

Possibly 2014 was just a 1979 redux and a very strong economy and political resolve is still just a few years away.  It is my sincere hope in 2015 America can do even better than my baseline economic recovery predictions of 3.3% growth. Our nation has the power to break this 1970s style economic malaise and the crisis of confidence we find our exceptional country in once again. Every January 1st, we make New Year’s resolutions because we believe we can change ourselves.  As a nation, our economic and political resolution should reflect the sentiments of Thomas Paine that, “we all have the power to begin the world again.”  May you have a healthy and prosperous New Year.