God and Man at Dartmouth

<p>Friday, September 23, 2005
SA committee chair resigns after contentious speech</p>

<p>by Elise Waxenberg</p>

<p>One day after Student Body President Noah Riner '06 delivered a
controversial Convocation speech invoking Jesus, the Student Assembly’s Vice President for Student Life Kaelin Goulet '07 severed all ties with the
organization.</p>

<p>Goulet, a Riner appointee, announced her resignation Thursday to
several other Assembly executives.</p>

<p>“I consider his choice of topic for the Convocation speech
reprehensible and an abuse of power,”</p>

<p>You’ve been told that you are a special class. A quick look at the
statistics confirms that claim: quite simply, you are the smartest and most
diverse group of freshmen to set foot on the Dartmouth campus. You have
more potential than all of the other classes. You really are special.</p>

<p>But it isn’t enough to be special. It isn’t enough to be talented, to
be beautiful, to be smart. Generations of amazing students have come
before you, and have sat in your seats. Some have been good, some have
been bad. All have been special.</p>

<p>In fact, there’s quite a long list of very special, very corrupt people
who have graduated from Dartmouth. William Walter Remington, Class of
1939, started out as a Boy Scout and a choirboy and graduated Phi Beta
Kappa. He ended up as a Soviet spy, was convicted of perjury and beaten
to death in prison.</p>

<p>Daniel Mason '93 was just about to graduate from Boston Medical School
when he shot two men killing one after a parking dispute.</p>

<p>Just a few weeks ago, I read in the D about PJ Halas, Class of 1998.
His great uncle George founded the Chicago Bears, and PJ lived up to the
family name, co-captaining the basketball team his senior year at
Dartmouth and coaching at a high school team following graduation. He was
also a history teacher, and, this summer, he was arrested for sexually
assualting a 15-year-old student.</p>

<p>These stories demonstrate that it takes more than a Dartmouth degree to
build character.</p>

<p>As former Dartmouth President John Sloan Dickey said, at Dartmouth our
business is learning. And I’ll have to agree with the motto of Faber
College, featured in the movie Animal House, “Knowledge is Good.” But if
all we get from this place is knowledge, we’ve missed something.
There’s one subject that you won’t learn about in class, one topic that
orientation didn’t cover, and that your UGA won’t mention: character.</p>

<p>What is the purpose of our education? Why are we at Dartmouth?</p>

<p>Martin Luther King, Jr. said:</p>

<p>“But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest
menace to society… We must remember that intelligence is not enough.
Intelligence plus character that is the goal of true education.”</p>

<p>We hear very little about character in our classrooms, yet, as Dr. King
suggests, the real problem in the world is not a lack of education.</p>

<p>For example, in the past few weeks we’ve seen some pretty revealing
things happening on the Gulf Coast in the wake of hurricane Katrina. We’ve
seen acts of selfless heroism and millions around the country have
united to help the refugees. On the other hand, we’ve been disgusted by the
looting, violence, and raping that took place even in the supposed
refuge areas. In a time of crisis and death, people were paddling around in
rafts, stealing TV’s and VCR’s. How could Americans go so low?</p>

<p>My purpose in mentioning the horrible things done by certain people on
the Gulf Coast isn’t to condemn just them; rather it’s to condemn all
of us. Supposedly, character is what you do when no one is looking, but
I’m afraid to say all the things I’ve done when no one was looking.
Cheating, stealing, lusting, you name it - How different are we? It’s easy
to say that we’ve never gone that far: never stolen that much; never
lusted so much that we’d rape; and the people we’ve cheated, they were
rich anyway.</p>

<p>Let’s be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws
as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven’t been given
such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same.</p>

<p>The Times of London once asked readers for comments on what was wrong
with the world. British author, G. K. Chesterton responded simply: “Dear
Sir, I am.”</p>

<p>Not many of us have the same clarity that Chesterton had. Just days
after Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the Gulf Coast, politicians and
pundits were distributing more blame than aid. It’s so easy to see the faults
of others, but so difficult to see our own. In the words of Cassius in
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “the fault, dear Brutus is not in our
stars but in ourselves.”</p>

<p>Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests
down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus. In the
Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed,
“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my
will, but thine, be done.” He knew the right thing to do. He knew the
cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That’s
character.</p>

<p>Jesus is a good example of character, but He’s also much more than
that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums,
looters, and me.</p>

<p>It’s so easy to focus on the defects of others and ignore my own. But I
need saving as much as they do.</p>

<p>Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there
are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that
we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love.
The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for
us.</p>

<p>In the words of Bono:</p>

<p>*f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be
transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all
my s— and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people
have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He
just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question.</p>

<p>You want the best undergraduate education in the world, and you’ve come
to the right place to get that. But there’s more to college than
achievement. With Martin Luther King, we must dream of a nation and a
college where people are not judged by the superficial, “but by the
content of their character.”</p>

<p>Thus, as you begin your four years here, you’ve got to come to some
conclusions about your own character because you won’t get it by just
going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how
will you become what you need to be?</p>

<p>Nothing like shaking things up right out of the gate. Should be an interesting freshman year for a young polemicist, FS. Do you think Noah read this article?
<a href=“http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/07/22/god_and_man_at_dartmouth.php[/url]”>http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/07/22/god_and_man_at_dartmouth.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Driver,</p>

<p>I’ve been asigned to write an article for the Dartmouth Review in October…a book reivew and an article!</p>

<p>I can’t wait.</p>

<p>I’m smiling from ear to ear. That’s great! :)</p>

<p>I was absolutely stunned to see this Op-Ed piece by Dartmouth senior Stacey Kourlis linked on the front page of this morning’s The Dartmouth–not The Dartmouth Review. The PC logjam that has IMO troubled the college over the last 10-15 years must be breaking up. If the college finally provides a link to The Review on their spiffy new website, the transformation will be even more convincing, and it will be that much easier for us all to find FountainSiren’s columns :)</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005092702010[/url]”>http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005092702010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Mr. Buckley checks in. Get out your dictionary.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200509271452.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200509271452.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I read Buckley’s article. In selecting a quotation from Mr. Riner’s speech, Mr. Buckley conveniently – and disingenuously – omits Mr. Riner’s language exhorting each of his fellow students to embrace his personal religious beliefs. According to Mr. Riner, “Jesus is . . . the solution to flawed people…. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. . . Jesus on the cross, for us." So no, Mr. Riner didn’t just talk about his personal beliefs. He told his fellow students that everyone should look to Jesus as his or her savior. Using NOT the words “I” and “me,” but instead the words “our,” we, and “us,” – appropriate for a sermon in church, but not appropriate for a speech made in a secular forum.</p>

<p>That’s the part that surprised me, too. I’m pretty much as Christian as they come, and I adore the fact that Bono talks openly about his beliefs (I always tell people that if you want to listen to a really good Christian band, try U2) but this was not the place for proselytizing, which this young man was doing. It was a really nice speech until then, I thought.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I thought Riner overdid it, too. If he had asked me–which he should have–I would have told him that mentioning the Dartmouth miscreants by name, crime, and class was too creepy; it also seems that one of them has only been charged–not convicted. The references should have been more general. I thought the reference to Jesus in the Garden was appropriate in the overall context, and a good, somewhat subtler way of bringing his faith into the speech, particularly adjacent to his mention of the Rev. King. From a rhetorical standpoint, the end was way too fire-and-brimstoney for me. I think a Convocation speech should be a little more upbeat, even if it is being serious and reflective.</p>

<p>I was more interested in the reaction of the '07 that the appropriate response was to resign her post rather than engage. I thought that was sad, and reflected poorly on her. Which is why I found the Kourlis article trying to tamp down the mob reaction so refreshing.</p>

<p>Oops, I skimmed. didn’t see the references to former students. That was unnecessary, too. I guess I should take back the “nice” part. Some of the other stuff was good.</p>

<p>I disagree with the lot of you. I have not heard enough convocation speeches to know whether or not this one was “appropriate” or not; I leave that to those of you with expertise in this obscure field of knowledge.</p>

<p>WJB, you said
“So no, Mr. Riner didn’t just talk about his personal beliefs. He told his fellow students that everyone should look to Jesus as his or her savior.”</p>

<p>You’ll have to direct me to the passage in the speech that supports this interpretation, as there are no direct words or phrases to that effect. Following I will post the quote of Mr. Riner from which you truncated it to the advantage of your conclusion:</p>

<p>“Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there
are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that
we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love.
The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for
us.”</p>

<p>As a historical point this is all undeniable: Jesus believed he was sacrificing his life for the sins of others, the truth of his stated belief is a different and theological matter, not a historical/biographical one and this is, I believe, what Mr. Riner was referencing. Read in this obvious way, it is difficult to see this speech as proselytizing anymore than references to MLK’s or Nelson Mandela’s life and works would be proselytizing—regardless of the historical outcome of such hero’s efforts. </p>

<p>To sacrifice yourself or your own interests for what you believe to be in the interests of others is what is being called out. </p>

<p>As to the ‘creepyness,’ perhaps Driver is right, but as they say that horse has already left the barn; few would have found references of this sort to condemn the war, or the reaction to a hurricane as being creepy but rather as being poignant and visceral and bringing it all back home.</p>

<p>Driver said,</p>

<p>“I was more interested in the reaction of the '07 that the appropriate response was to resign her post rather than engage.”</p>

<p>Keep the response of the vice president of the Student Assembly in mind, in response to the speech she said :</p>

<p>“I consider your choice of topic for the Convocation speech reprehensible and an abuse of power. You embarrass the organization, you embarrass yourself.”</p>

<p>Now that is intolerant and, if I may say so, a form of proselytizing. Anyone indignant about that?</p>

<p>Oh yes, Woodwork–
I thought my feelings about the behavior of the resigning VP had come through. I should have said that I was “much more disturbed by” rather than “interested in.” (I’m trying to be kinder and gentler in my postings these days). I don’t think the convocation speaker deserves any criticism for the content of what he said. If I were his rhetoric coach, however, I would had advised him to craft it in a slightly different way. That’s all. As many of us have learned on this board…you can make your point quite effectively without necessarily saying things that trigger a firestorm. But perhaps that was his intent. I’m OK with that too. BTW, if you haven’t read the entire article by Stacey Kourlis that I linked, you should. It was brilliant and uplifting. There’s much more to it than the little clip I quoted. <a href=“http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005092702010[/url]”>http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005092702010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Woodwork: I will not address whether what Jesus did is “undeniable as historical fact.” Regardless, Riner was NOT invoking historical fact. He did not say Jesus BELIEVED he died for our sin. He said directly that “Jesus gave His life for our sin.” He stated this as fact. That Jesus died for humankind’s sin, however, is not a tenet that is universally accepted. It is an article of faith of a single religion, the Christian religion. Riner’s implicit message, therefore, was this: It’s a fact that Jesus died for your sin. You better accept that fact and get on board, because accepting it is THE way to develop character. An extremely uncomfortable message for those in his audience who were non-Christians or non-believers. </p>

<p>And now I will leave this discussion. I come to CC to learn about colleges and talk about them. I’m going back to that. But parts of Mr. Riner’s speech troubled me deeply as someone who is a non-Christian, and so I spoke up. If I’ve offended anyone here, I apologize.</p>

<p>Sidebar - Congrats FountainSiren, from a floormate’s Mom, that’s great news about the Review.</p>

<p>I’m with Driver 100% on this one (at least I think I am)
I thought young Mr Riner sounded - young - and he could have shared his faith, and made his point in a slightly different way and still made just as powerful a statement - the difference in a “witness” and a sermon. Too subtle a distinction for those who went bug-eyed at the very mention of the “J-word” perhaps, but a real distinction, and one that I have heard tactfully down at DD’s school a lot. It is an Episcopalian school where they still have weekly chapel and monthly church, but a number of Jewish families still feel comfortable sending their children there. It is not the content of the speech it is the presentation, and the venue - there is a place for a challenge to values, a place for a witness to personal values, and a place for proselytizing - this convocation speech is perhaps not the venue for proselytizing, again he was young (and to this old Southern Methodist - “sounds like a Baptist” ;)).</p>

<p>Anyway, I agree that the article from Stacey Kourlis was great - free speech must be for everyone, even Christians, and the resigning VP accomplished exactly what? Demonstrated her lack of ideas or rhetoric? Intolerance as Woodwork says? (Hi Woodwork, I’m the sweaty red-haired lady that was sitting on the floor).</p>

<p>It will be an interesting year.</p>

<p>I’m with wjb on this issue. I would have been uncomfortable listrning to a speech that clearly violates separation of church and state. The speaker was addressing an entire student body, not a special interest group. His beliefs are so strong that he does not realize they are beliefs, but presents them as facts. I would have been equally offended if he had raised racial issues</p>

<p>Cangel: You got my meaning clearly.</p>

<p>Bookworm,
I won’t even get into the “separation” issue. Dartmouth is a private school. I think you misinterpreted what the speaker said. And you should read the Kourlis article. What if he had been gay and making a statement about that? And even if you’re offended, how does quitting and organizing mass-humiliation squads for the person with whom you disagree fit in with the role of a university?</p>

<p>I loved the naming of former students and their crimes! I think a little booing and hissing at the Jesus parts would have been sufficient . A formal protest and resignation was a bit of an overreaction in my opinion.</p>

<p>If you’re not reading this as proselytizing, I think you’re kidding yourselves. It’s not a matter of church/state, but that Dartmouth, as do all but a few colleges, presents itself as equally welcoming of all members of all, or no, faiths.</p>

<p>If I were a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, whatever, member of that audience, I would have gotten a clear message of exclusion. </p>

<p>I work at a college that was founded by a particular Protestant domination, but the pastor, from that domination, always makes sure that any invocation, etc, he does, is inclusive. I have never heard him proselytize. And it doesn’t seem to damage his feelings about his own faith not to do so.</p>

<p>[Garland, I was a non-Christian member of that audience…I disagree with your appraisal of the delicacy of non-Christian sensibilities. I think you would find that even non-Christians can be edified by moral examples beyond their cultural purview…without suffering psychic damage]</p>

<p>“Jesus gave His life for our sin.”</p>

<p>It seems there is some doubt and much cynicism regarding the veracity of this extraordinary statement.</p>

<p>If not for his (Jesus’) own stated reason (that he gave his life for the sins of others), what other reason comes to mind…unless the answer to the conundrum Bono phrased when musing on the significance of the life of Jesus, “Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut?” is in fact that he was bluntly “just a religious nut”.</p>

<p>Western Civilization (and by extension most of us) would not be what it is today lacking the personal conviction and sacrifice of Jesus, whether one sees him in a mystical or historical sense. It hardly seems peculiar to drop his name at a university convocation—of all places.</p>

<p>One could also wonder whether, say, George Washington offered up his life to the gods of war so that our nation might one day be free or rather that he simply could not get enough of an a s s-whopping and stubbornly refused to give up and go home to attend to his plantation; it may be something of an academic question but even more it is a practical moral distinction. Most would see Washington’s commitment as a moral act of great courage with perhaps no more than a few shrill dissents from the bloated galleries occupied by gender or ethnic studies mavens and professional agitators trying to relieve the garden of democracy of a few of its more elegant and aromatic flowers. </p>

<p>I would say that all that would apply to Washington or Lincoln would apply to figures like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Joan of Arc, Joseph Smith etc., but for the purposes of this thread quite specifically to Jesus. </p>

<p>In which way were any of these figures not prime examples of Riner’s theme: Self-sacrifice as a means to the end of developing a good character?</p>

<p>Who decided that some examples of the same kind would be acceptable and some not…and for what purpose this prejudiced distinction?</p>

<p>I suppose the controversy would have disappeared if Riner would have stuck to secular-patriotic figures like Washington or Lincoln (particularly as regards ‘cherry-trees’ and ‘truth-telling’), but then who would have cared for or even registered that sort of boiler-plate in an attempt to move us to consider the virtues of self-sacrifice and moral character?</p>

<p>Perhaps next year someone will invoke Moses, or Mohammad or Darwin to the same effect to smooth these agitated waters: universities are the last place one should look to find controversy;)</p>