OPINION
RECENT STAFF TERMINATION
SHROUDED IN SILENCE,
LACK OF INFORMATION
CHARLES CAMERON
GcesrWRfTBi
In the 1600s, George Fox started a
movement in Northern England that became
known as the Religious ^dety of Friends,
or (takers, (takers then began settling
in North Carolina shortly after the birth of
Quakerism. In the late 19th century, N.C.
Quakers selected Greensboro as a central
location for their New Garden Boarding
School. This school led to the establishment
of what we now know as Guilford College.
The basis of Quakerism is held in Iheir
testimonies of simplidty, peace, integrity,
community and equality. In 2004, Guilford
College established its set of seven core
values of: community, diversity, integrity,
equality, justice, stewardship and excellence.
So in 2004, I was pleased to have the
opportunity to work at Guilford College with
its rich Quaker heritage further affirmed by
its own core values derived from the Quaker
testimonies.
Guilford's recent finandal situation
that created a budgetary shortfall has led
to actions that have caused many among
us to call into question Guilford College's
sincerity with resped to its core values. It
seems the issue can be charadeiized as a
tension between the value of stewardship
and the value of community. Although
stewardship is often not listed as one of the
Quaker testimonies, it certainly is a piindple
that resonates with Quakers. So most of
us have been able to accept reasonable
measures needed to ensure the survival
of Guilford College. We had been advised
throughout the open budgeting process that
a "worst case" finandal situation would
involve position cuts. However, many
among us were shocked in early June to
learn the cuts were now a "done deal," and
employees had been terminated. Some of
Guilford's recent financial
situation (...) has led to
actions that have caused
many among us to call into
question Guilford College's
sincerity with respect to its
core values.
the cuts were in vacant positions, but seven
of the cuts were staff positions that resulted
in community members losing their jobs at
Guilford College. The tricky part is how to
resped and value community throughout
sudi a survival process that involves losing
members of that very community. These
losses and the lack of information unsettled
our college community. We were not
informed of what positions had been cut,
just that positions had been cut. Information
about the positions and the people affeded
had to be learned through the campus
grapevine.
While our adrrunistration has done a
good job in very tough economic times,
did they forget that these co-workers who
no longer had a job had been a part of our
community? On two occasions Friends
Center did convene a Meeting for Worship
in the manner of Friends. However the
lack of information available created a
mood of shodc and confusion rather than
one of understanding and support for each
other. And why not hold a "reception of
recognition" to thank those employees for
their years of service? That could have
been a great opportunity for the community
to gather round in mutual support while
we came to terms with (and grieved) the
losses. The lack of information felt like a
secret purge. I don't believe this has helped
the morale of the remaining community. It
may even call into question how open our
community truly is.
According to the plans presented in the
budgeting process there is still the possibility
of more cuts next year. So, to channel the
recognized founder of Quakerism: What
would George Fox do?
Is marriage privatization for youP
BY ELIAS
BLONDEAU
SwfFWaiBi
Imagine a world where marriage has been completely
privatized, where the government will no longer recognize
people as being legally married. I know — pretty hard to picture
something so bleak. But you might not have to picture it much
longer, because that situation may become a
reality.
Earlier this month, Laurie Shrage wrote an
article for The New York Times blog called
"The End of 'Marriage,'" in which she closely
examined the idea of privatizing marriage.
This idea would call for the removal of the
word "marriage" from any pieces of official
legislation, with the terms "civil union" or
"domestic partnership" to be used in its place.
Essentially, the state would no longer
recognize a couple as being married and
would instead refer to two people living in a
form of legal partnership. This would allow
the government to make sure the well-being of citizens was
maintained without impinging upon the intimate world of
marriage.
This new mandate would not only apply to heterosexual
couples, but to couples in the LGBT community as well. This
would consequently mean that gay and lesbian couples could
raise a family, all while sharing the government benefits given
to straight couples.
Furthermore, the well-being of children in a domestic
partnership would be managed more carefully, as the
government wouldn't have to worry about sticking their nose
in family affairs. Each person would be treated as an individual,
making it easier to ensure children were getting the attention,
care and education they needed.
But this isn't all sunshine and puppies.
Let's pay a little closer attention to the concept of privatization.
Sure, the state wouldn't be able to declare two or more people
as "married" anymore, but private institutions such as religious
and ethnic groups would still be allowed to. This would give
rise to further discrimination upon who can and can't get
married at the hands of groups that the government couldn't
do anything about.
In theory, privatization sounds like a great way of allowing
people to have more freedom. However, allowing a couple,
whether they be gay or straight, to operate and negotiate terms
outside of the law is a terrible idea and gives citizens countless
loopholes to exploit.
For example, imagine a mother who is in a civil union, but
is also married to her partner by way of a shared church. The
husband could ruthlessly abuse the wife, but the state could no
longer charge it as "domestic abuse" and keep the abuser away
from the victim. There would be no laws in place to protect
people in marriages, because legal marriages would be a thing
of the past.
To some, the idea of a civil union or domestic partnership
may be enticing. More power to them, and if that's what they
really want, then let them have it.
But don't force this absurd piece of legislation upon people
who want to get married in the traditional sense, especially
under the guise of "it's for the kids" or "it's to balance out
inequality with gay and lesbian couples."
Privatizing marriage is not a bad idea because it goes up
against old tradition. It's a bad idea because it can be exploited
to the advantage of sick people looking to find loopholes that
protect their abusive ways. It's a bad idea because our kids
should have a standard set of laws that protect them from abuse.
If you really want to help our kids, come up with better laws
for protecting them and keeping them in the hands of the right
parent. And if you really want to make things even between gay
and straight couples, why not just let everybody get married to
whomever the hell they want to?
Hey, it's just a thought.
November 16, 2012
Learning to value community through
Quaker process during a financial crisis
KACEY MINNICK
PHOTO EDITOR
BRUCE WAYNE
LAYOUT EDITOR
S
J
CASEY MORGAN
MANAGING EDITOR
ASHLEY LYNCH
WEB EDITOR
COLLEEN GONZALEZ
SPORTS EDITOR
HALEY HAWKINS
OPINION EDITOR
KATE GIBSON
FEATURES EDITOR
ELLEN NICHOLAS
NEWS EDITOR
IZZYELI
SOCIAL JUSTICE
EDITOR
KORI LANE
WEB EDITOR
REBECCA GIBIAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
TOM CLEMENT
VIDEO EDITOR
LINDSEY ALDRIDGE
EXECUTIVE COPY
EDITOR
CATHERINE SCHURZ
WORLD A NATION
EDITOR