Oracle Online

Eriksen, et. al complimented my column by demonstrating how threats and exaggeration are attempted to scare critics. Despite overwhelming support for the column’s message, public endorsements are reserved because people are afraid. They are afraid to point out the obvious because of, in this case, a small group of loud, wild, and unaccountable undergraduates.

By coining the term “Diversity Cabal,” I was not targeting students of color as the letter charges, but calling out a stranglehold on discourse held by these fanatics. These people I write of are not “these people.”

On a more intellectual front, Professor Reynolds provided a valid-albeit simple-challenge with his claim that I am dabbling in conspiracy theory. While the students demonstrated symptoms of the Cabal, I am less inclined to consider Professor Reynolds in the same light. Well-known otherwise for fair criticism, I wonder how open his mind was in this case. Reynolds did not buy itčbut, then again no amount of academic credentials will aid a man in understanding something he does not see.

My evidence is accurate, open, and observable, and I stand by my sources. I may not be a scholar of conspiracy, but I ask this-need it only be a theory? Saying such, one has to be careful not to give the Cabal too much credit.

The Cabal is not controlled by set point-people cowering in a cold, dark room below the seats of 100E (though I am sure if one were to ask around he would encounter recurring names), nor is it rational, yet the reality is that there are lines of commonality connecting each of the examples that I provided.

I place the bulk of blame on those members of the faculty and staff that have allowed this culture to fester; the enablers who have not stood up against emotional and intellectual bullying. Reynolds acknowledges the validity of examining restricted conceptions of diversity at Hamline. That begins by exposing the Cabal.

My use of the term is purposefully abrasive, and so some supporters of the concept may stop short of using it. Regardless, the phrase is an accurate portrayal of the movement’s tone. By drawing territorial lines and pigeonholing diversity not only to color, but to a specific interpretation on how to address it, the Cabal is excluding a majority of advocates. This is something we can do without.

I come back to the original purpose for writing the column. When the faculty search process was stopped, a great many of us recognized its similarity to previous happenings. Uncovering how these sorts of events are perpetuated is a challenging question, one that takes more than two pieces from a graduating senior. I am pursuing conversations, and encourage others to do the same. We can shift the discourse into a medium more nimble than the strategic plan.

As Hamline continues forth in its slow, purposeful, institutional change for the better, I call on staff and faculty to support one another in raising the voices of reason. Let us also break the mold of a small liberal arts college, and grow a backbone.

Tim McDonald ’07

Divestment Campaign will act against genocide

As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King’s words ring true with the many horrifying examples of genocide in our world’s history. Atrocities like the Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda leave many of us wondering how people with knowledge of such events could stand by and not take action.

Unfortunately genocide is not a phenomenon of the past. In fact, genocide is currently underway right now in the country of Sudan. We must be held accountable and take a stand against this present injustice. If we do not act now, future generations will be questioning why we did nothing to stop such horrific violations of human rights.

The Sudanese government is currently supporting an armed group called the Janjiweed. The Janjiweed are thought to have killed about 400,000 people and displaced 2.5 million people from the Darfur region in Sudan. Most Sudanese refugees continue to live in inadequate camps and are still under constant threat of violent attack. While a part of the conflict lies in racial and ethnic tensions, there are also strong financial interests at stake.

Targeted divestment campaigns aimed at companies supporting the Sudanese government are taking place across the United States at both the state and university level.

The Hamline University Sudan Divestment Campaign represents a coalition of campus organizations and individuals dedicated to ensuring Hamline’s investments do not support genocide in the Sudan. Divestment is a proven strategy and awards those at Hamline the power to create positive change.

A divestment campaign at Hamline is not without precedent. Hamline has a strong history of activism and participation in divestment campaigns. In the late 1980s, the University divested from South Africa as a way to support the end of apartheid. We feel we must continue this history of social justice action and live up to our mission of a “commitment to making the world a better place.”

Currently, in Minnesota, targeted divestment legislation passed a Senate Committee hearing unanimously and will now move on to a Senate hearing. The divestment issue will be presented to the CLA faculty in May in the form of a faculty resolution.

This is our chance to do something about a grave injustice occurring in our lifetimes. We must do everything in our power to stop the genocide being committed in Sudan.

Students FOR Peace
Commitment to Community Feminist Majority Leadership

Professor expounds on conspiracy denial

I read with interest the letter by my esteemed colleague and friend Professor Reynolds. Unlike him, I am not an expert on conspiracy theories, but as a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union I know that conspiracies do exist.

[For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of a conspiracy or cabal. To paraphrase Marx, “I will not join a conspiracy that will have the likes of me as a member.”]

I don’t know if there is such a conspiracy at Hamline. Unlike Professor Reynolds who wrote that “I would, however, also note that the facts I know run somewhat counter to the ones McDonald repeats, which might suggest that I have better sources than McDonald,” I do not have inside information.

It seems to me however, that if I was a member of any conspiracy, and someone pointed to its existence, I would quickly write a letter to the editor claiming that such a conspiracy did not exist and that I had inside information which proved my point.

I am looking forward to Professor Reynolds’s next letter to the editor claiming inside information proving that there is no conspiracy involving Sanjaya and American Idol.

John A. Mazis Associate Professor of History

Language interpretation determines response

I read with great interest Tim McDonald’s guest column (April 10), and found it quite thought-provoking.

I cannot speak to the specific situations addressed in McDonald’s editorial; rather, I would like to focus on the rhetorical contestation of the meaning(s) of “diversity.”

As a scholar of rhetoric, I derive my livelihood from the close scrutiny of words, icons, and other symbols that both reflect and shape our social worlds, our social reality. I’m driven, perhaps even occasionally possessed, with a passion to understand how human language use patterns create, sustain, and/or contest a community’s collective consciousness.

The great ancient teacher of rhetoric Isocrates was of the mind that the rhetorician’s primary job was to “tinker” with language practices in order to improve the human condition-to point out problematic constructions of social reality, and to use one’s skill with words and practical wisdom to reach prudent public decisions about issues of fact, value, and policy. The language used to describe or “frame” a public issue is paramount, so the argument goes, for the ways in which the issue is framed will (over)determine the ways in which citizens respond to the issue and argue publicly about the best means of resolving or managing the problem.

Indeed, public argumentation about “framing” itself is often the source of fascinating conversations. Such questions are not idlečrather, closer attention needs to be directed to the framing of significant public debates.

Doing so will help us understand more deeply our present predicaments, whatever those predicaments might be. And we would also do well to remember that one cannot control the range of meanings that audiences will attach to one’s words, and the two published responses to McDonald’s column (April 17) exemplify this point.

Some rhetoricians argue that significant social change entails radical contestation and eventual alteration of the hegemonic meanings of public vocabularies. But the meanings of words don’t change by themselvesčhuman beings are the agents that drive such meaningful changes in the process of public deliberation.

It is therefore incumbent upon us as good citizensčof our campus community and of our other communitiesčto pay close and careful attention to how we frame our contributions to public conversations. It is also our responsibility to contest those frames we find problematic or harmful in some way, with the understanding that the responsibility carries with it the necessity for providing good reasons and evidence for our claims.

McDonald’s editorial thus finds problems with the various ways in which “diversity” is discussed and handled at Hamline; the article’s conclusion suggests that the (apparently) dominant meaning of “diversity” has become interchangeable with “race.” That may indeed be the case; my point is that perhaps we (members of the Hamline community) should take a step back and think/talk about how the discussion of “diversity” is being framed.

One benefit of working/studying at an institution of higher education is the possibility for robust discussion of controversial and/or unpopular ideas; it is my hope that his editorial and the numerous responses will foster widespread discussion on campus about the range of possible meanings to attach to the word “diversity.”

Jules Thompson
Director, Writing Center, Tutoring,
and Academic Skills Programs

HUSC calls for responsible and considerate students

We in HUSC have been both puzzled and outraged by recent events in the Hamline community. Over and over again HUSC purchases nice things ranging from Ping-Pong Tables to LCD TVs and they always end up being destroyed by people on campus, be they residents, commuters or their guests.

The ironic thing is that all of these items are purchased by student fee money. In other words, these are your things that are getting broken.

The purpose of this letter is not to insult or in any way demean our fellow studentsčinstead we intend to pose a question to you: why do some students repeatedly destroy nice things purchased with their own student fee money?

The best answer HUSC could come up with is this: we as the Hamline undergraduate population are irresponsible and inconsiderate.

In order to fix this we need to decisively change how we live and interact with each other. What does HUSC mean by this? We have to have a student body that is respectful of other students and their communal property.

To put it simply, the student body (HUSC included) has been acting like spoiled children. There is no reason for student money to be spent improving our residence hall amenities if the students act like spoiled children, constantly breaking or losing the nice things bought for them.

HUSC has no interest in being a student body parent, but if children can’t have nice things, then do not buy them nice things.

This is an issue that has permeated Hamline campus for quite some time, and it is time for a real culture change.

We constantly talk about our communal atmosphere at Hamline as if it is a strong point when in fact it is not. There is no community here, just people living next to each other and attending the same classes.

Consequently there is no respect and in order to have a community you must have respect for your neighbors. This means that if your neighbors are homosexual, let them live their lives like everyone else, do not write slurs on the walls. This means respect people’s religious faith and do not insult it, no matter what it might be. This means if you broke a TV in the residence halls, you face up to it and admit it. This means that if someone is having trouble with the door, you grab the door for him or her. This means that if someone is walking by and makes eye contact, you say hello to them. This means if you see a suspicious person on campus, then you should help everyone and alert Safety and Security.

We talk about our small school atmosphere and how close we are and how great our community is. Now is the time to stop talking and start acting. Some of those things mentioned above are a good place to start, but the best way to truly understand what your fellow students are about is to become active in campus life. This doesn’t necessarily mean joining an organization, instead this means just going ahead and attending somethingčanything from a soccer game to a PRIDE event.

We here at Hamline presently lack personal and communal responsibility and now is the time to develop it. It starts with students caring enough to pay attention to what other students are doing.

We have explained the problems, we have explained steps to correct them, now is the time for ALL of us to do it.

With that being said, we invite you to a General Assembly to discuss this issue (e-mail us at husc@hamline.edu).

Remember, if you are not a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.

Hamline University
Student Congress