Hey readers,
This week proved to be incredibly controversial at my college. Not only were we contending with the whole newspaper expose and subsequent cover-up, but also the board of trustees released their decision concerning a much talked-about by-law regarding the status of religion and our college's leadership. First, a little backstory for those not familiar with the issue:
My college is a religious school that is openly affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, although it follows the reformed tradition. In simplest terms, this means that while the college has a religious affiliation, they do not believe that there is only one true faith or way of expressing one's beliefs, or even that you need to have religious beliefs. As I tell people on my tours, some students would say it is the most religious place they have ever been to, while others would say it is the least religious place they have ever been to. I have met everyone from devout Christians who regularly attend both church services and bible study sessions from atheists who openly declare they do not believe in any form of religion. At times, there can be tension between the two groups (see my second entry, "The Chalk Crusades"), but overall, the two get along rather harmoniously. Among religions, the student body includes Presbyterians, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs...the point is, despite its religious affiliations, the college is rather diverse and open-minded - with one notable exception.
The issue in question is the college by-law that requires that the president is "a loyal and active church member, whose life provides evidence of strong Christian faith and commitment. Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of [the college's] Presbyterian Church." In other words, while you can practice any religion (or none at all) and be a student, professor, or staff member here, you must be a Presbyterian in order to become the college's president.
About a year ago, an alum published an open letter of sorts, calling the by-law discriminatory and arguing that it does not fit the changing face of the college. Certainly, it made sense back in the day when the campus population was 100% white male Presbyterians, but now, considering the large number of students who do not fit that mold, it was time for a change. Naturally, debate erupted (and yes, that's a pretty accurate term) following the letter, leading the board of trustees to launch a committee to investigate if the by-law, and by extension, the college's relationship to the Presbyterian church, needed to be amended or even eliminated entirely.
Fast forward to a few days ago. The board of trustees, in sum, decided to continue the college's relationship with the Presbyterian church and to keep the by-law as is. There has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the decision, to put it lightly, and a petition effort has started online to get the trustees to change their minds and remove the by-law. So far, the petition has, I would estimate, close to 200 signatures, including about a half-dozen or so professors. Their main grievance, it would seem, is that the board of trustees said that there was no "significant support" to change the by-law, and so they should keep it as-is.
Now, here comes the part of my post that may cause some of you to close your browser or tab in disgust (though I hope you'll at least let me explain): I agree with the trustees' decision.
Let me explain. As regular readers of my blog hopefully know, I rarely see things in black and white, and that is the case here. I think that the trustees' reasons for keeping the by-law for the same were, at best, misguided, but I believe that the by-law should remain as-is nonetheless.
First, my issues with their decision: as I mentioned, they claim that there was not enough support to change the by-law, which is simply not the case. Admittedly, the 200 or so signatures on the petition probably should not be considered sufficient evidence - 200 people is about 1 in 9, or about 11% of the student body. While that number may seem important, I would argue that a little over 10% is not really enough to claim sufficient support. However, the results of a student survey, conducted last November, suggest that support goes beyond one petition. In that survey, only 7.7% of students believed that the president must be a committed member of the Presbyterian church, while 59.5% of students believed that there should be no religious requirement at all (for those readers who are interested, I was part of the 32.8% that said "other" - I felt that some kind of change was necessary, but not a full elimination of the by-law). By those numbers, there does indeed seem to be "sufficient support." In other words, the trustees should not have used popular support as their reason for keeping the by-law the same. This does not take into account that the trustees also consulted with alumni, staff, and professors, who may have overwhelmingly supported leaving the by-law as-is, but I do not have access to that data, so I do not factor it into my argument. All I know is that the trustees did spend a year discussing the matter from every perspective, so I know that it was more than a student decision.
For the record, I also disagree with the general message of the petition. Its tagline is "Amend the by-law. Affirm our tradition." I have two main concerns with this message. One, when the petition's creators say "amend" they seem to mean "eliminate." The only other part of the by-law in question states that the new president should be inaugurated sometime within a year of taking office, which would be all that is left after the "amendment." Second, and this gets at my reasons for siding with the trustees, "affirm our tradition" really misses the point of the by-law entirely.
Several of the students who have spoke out against the by-law believe that if the college will admit students of every faith, then the same should be true for the college's policies on the presidency. However, this is to mistakenly equate being the member of an organization with being the leader of an organization. For example, my personal experiences with religion are rather complex, as I mentioned in "The Chalk Crusades." Although I belong to the United Church of Christ, I have attended Catholic and Jewish services with my family, and although I can't say I fully understand all of their rituals, I do my best to follow them, and I respect that these institutions welcome me even if I don't know the proper response to a certain phrase or the exact wording of an important prayer. I belong to the United Church of Christ (which is not Presbyterian, for the record), which is an "open and affirming" church that welcomes everyone - atheists, agnostics, followers of other faiths - so long as they are willing to attend. In the majority of these cases, I respect that while I am welcome to participate, I am highly unlikely to ever lead these services, because these institutions demand that their leaders are committed followers of the faith, which makes sense to me.
The same is true of my college. As the grand majority of the student body knows, aside from one required religion class (which can be about any religion, really), there is no obligation to get involved with religion at all on campus. The chaplains are always willing to talk, even to those outside of their faith (we have three: Presbyterian, Catholic, and Jewish), but if you never even see them, that is perfectly okay too. At the same time, just because a student chooses to not participate in religious activities does not mean that the college itself is not religious. As a school that has an affiliation with the Presbyterian church and has been this way for almost two hundred years, the leader ought to be a follower of the faith. Many students, regardless of their opinion of the bylaw, admit that the school's Presbyterian background has a notable influence on its values, and all students would presumably agree that those values are good, as they chose to enroll here instead of any other college across the country (or even the world). To ask the college, which every student knows has a Presbyterian affiliation, to eliminate a by-law that strengthens that affiliation through its leadership would be to demand that a group change part of its core values to accomodate us. This is unfair.
In conclusion, while I think the popular support argument for keeping the bylaw is fundamentally flawed, I think that keeping the by-law was the right decision. It does mean that neither I nor many of my friends will ever able to be the college's president, but I respect that a Presbyterian school ought to have a leader who is committed to Presbyterian values, just as a Jesuit school ought to have a leader who is committed to Jesuit values (for example). I also believe that we should remember that the majority of us chose the school for its values, which have been shaped not only by the faith, but by generations of Presbyterian presidents, who, even if they practice a different form of religion than I do, have all been committed, first and foremost, to making the institution into something that we all take pride in. While the whole of the college is more than the sum of its parts, the religious part is something that has helped to create that whole, and we should not be so hasty as to remove that part because we disagree with it.
TL;DR: The trustees' reasoning for keeping the by-law lacks evidence, however the religious commitment of our leadership is an important part of the college's values, and it should not be eliminated just because we do not like it.
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment