NOVEMBER 8,1991 — THE DECREE — PAGE 5
Student discontent has long tradition
Dear Editors:
I hope the current NCWC stu
dent body will not be disappointed
to discover that the controversies
raging in recent issue of The De
cree did not originate with the
Classes of 1992-1996.
As a member of the NCWC
Class of 1972, I could tell you
who rerouted traffic from the
southbound lane of 301 through
campus during Commencement,
who put Jello in the fountain in
February, which girls owned
men’s parkas to be worn while
leaving the boys’ dorm at 3 am.,
and who baked the brownies with
the extra vegetable-matter ingre
dient that were eaten by the fra
ternity advisor/Dean of Students
during a pledge party.
I remember quite clearly how,
as students, my classmates and I
considered ourselves fully ca
pable of directing the courses of
our lives, without supervision and
especially without interference.
We reacted with outrage when
two of us were badly injured in
an automobile accident after an
off-campus party, blaming the
school’s alcohol policy for the
near-tragedy. We, too, considered
the consumption of alcohol “a
mark of maturity,” without con
sidering that true maturity re
quires accepting the responsibility
for one’s actions.
It never occurred to us that the
administration and staff of this
school, entrusted by our parents
with our well-being, were acting
out of genuine concern and with
a strong sense of responsibility
when they established alcohol and
visitation policies. Nor did we
allow ourselves to realize that if
we were indeed prepared to be
fully franchised members of so
ciety, we would not have chosen
instead to spend four additional
years being education for that
purpose.
As a member of the staff of
this College, I am impressed by
the dedicated efforts of the ad
ministration, faculty, and staff to
improve the quality of the stu
dents’ lives — socially, techno
logically, and academically. Un
like many of my colleagues,
however, I am not surprised that
these efforts are, for the most part,
unacknowledged and under-
appreciated. In my experience, it
has always been the nature of man
to protest those things that are
lacldng rather than to be grateful
for those things he has; it may
even be essential to progress.
As a student, I applauded the
daring of the perpetrators of the
escapades recounted here; during
the intervening 15 years I have
admired their ingenuity. How
ever, from neither perspective did
I expect their behavior to be
sanctioned by the school’s ad
ministration. For while it may be
the inclination of a student body
to test the limits of authority, it is
the province of a school’s ad
ministration to uphold it These
respective roles in the college
experience are not unique to this
generation or this institution, and
the recent barrage of virulent
epithets and condemnations, both
anonymous and attributed, is not
going to alter either responsibil
ity.
Pam Watson
The Insider’s religious
‘knowledge’ amusing
Dear Editors:
The Insider’s insert in the third
issue of The Decree contained
some amusing ideas regarding
Christianity. He/sheAt even went
so far as to attack Michele Car
penter for pointing out that we
are all sinners.
She did not judge anybody, as
the Insider so foolishly asserts.
To judge in Biblical terms is to
condemn to hell. We, the Chris
tians, are bound to point out when
people are doing what is wrong.
If you disagree, check the fol
lowing verses: John 20:23, Ro
mans 3:21-31, and 1 John 1:8-10.
If it is wrong to point out sin,
then Jesus and the Apostle Paul
were pretty horrible people.
While I’m on the subject of
Scriptural quotation, the Insider’s
quote out of Ecclesiastes is very
amusing. Insider’s verse said that
there is nothing better under the
sun than to eat, drink, and be
merry. In the same book, Eccle
siastes 2:II, we find,“...there was
no profit under the sun.” Think
about it.
Insider seems to think that to
say a Christian is on the “outside”
while shut him or her up. Well,
Mr./Ms./Whatever Insider, we
have known we’d be on the out
side for the past 2,000 years. I
can’t speak for Michele, of
course, but I usually take “out
sider” status as an indication that
I’m doing something right.
To make personal attacks be
hind the shield of anonymity is a
mark of true cowardice. I know
of no credible newspaper that
would even permit a direct, per
sonal attack in an anonymous
letter. To criticize policies or or
ganizations is one thing, but per-
Letters to
the Editor
sonal attacks are different, be
cause anyone under personal at
tack should be allowed to confront
the attacker by some means other
than an anonymous name.
I suggest that both you and
The Decree reconsider your tol
erances for anonymity.
W. Kenneth Leonard
Harsh epithets don’t
lead to any solutions
Dear Editors:
When I was in high school I
witnessed an incident which
seems pertinent today, in which
he of the lower locker stood up
and dented his dome on the open
door of his of the upper locker.
He of the lower locker uttered a
manly oath (oaths were consid
ered manly when I was in high
school) and closed the open door
with alacrity and a mighty
roundhouse right, almost ampu
tating the fingers of him of the
upper locker.
He of the upper locker said,
“Look (anal sphincter), keep your
(condemned to perdition) hands
off my (ludicrously inappropriate
sexual adjective) locker.”
Whereupon the discussion pro
gressed through a variety of
variations on the theme, “Oh,
yeah?” and ended with the pro
tagonists pummeling and clutch
ing at each other until the Princi
pal intervened on principle and
evicted them both for an indeter
minate period, which they felt was
dreadfully unjust.
(To this day it seems to me
that if he of the lower locker had
contented himself for a moment
with rolling about the floor and
going, “Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!” it
would have allowed him of the
upper locker to make some inane
but solicitous inquiry as, “Are you
hurt?” and may have opened the
door to a negotiation to avoid a
recurrence of the situation, if not
a bonding experience.)
This incident was brought to
mind by a number of notes in the
Library’s suggestion box, an ar
ticle or two, and a few letters to
the editor in The Decree which
appear to me to be fairly regularly
couched in terms reminiscent of
“Look (anal sphincter)!” and “Oh,
yeah?”
My dears, this is not the lan
guage of moderation. Having
been at both the long and short
end of the shtick, I can assure all
and sundry that the accusatory
finger in the eyeball is not a use
ful opening gambit if one’s intent
is to achieve understanding or a
change in behavior. Remember
that the soft word tumeth away
the slings and misfortunes of
outrageous errors, or something
like that
A1 LaRose
Insider not really fair
but deserves support
Dear Editors:
I was pleased to read the edi
torial in Ae latest edition of The
Decree. I, too, agree that Wes
leyan provides many opportuni
ties to its students. Among those
opportunities is the freedom of
free speech,
I must say I have enjoyed the
recent articles from the Insider.
His/her articles provide an addi
tional humor to the paper. How
ever, I would encourage the In
sider to concentrate on accurate
facts. By stating only one’s opin
ion or what you perceive to be
facts, other students do not re
ceive both sides of an issue. Per
haps you could begin your ar
ticles by stating that the material
is based solely on opinion or
hearsay information and contains
little to no factual information.
I would also like to say to the
Insider that if you are going to
criticize someone, you should be
able to take criticism, too. Do not
get me wrong. I enjoy reading
the Insider’s column; it is the first
article I read when I pick up The
Decree. To the Insider, I say keep
writing your articles so that I can
continue to read them. You have
my full support!
Finally, to the editors, I feel
that if you are going to accept an
unsigned article, whether it be at
your fault or the fault of the au
thor, no materials should be ac
cepted late. The Decree is a re
flection on the Wesleyan com
munity. The latest issue reflected
careless planning by allowing an
insert with typographical errors to
be distribute to the Wesleyan
community.
I hope in the fiiture you will
continue to present both sides of
an issue as reflected in the latest
issue of The Decree.
Tommy Shaw
Real freedom rests
in accepting Jesus
Dear Editors:
In this democratic, free coun
try in which we live, most citizens
do not understand liberty. The
definition of freedom is not the
absence of rules. Even the
founding fathers of our country
knew that as they drafted the
Declaration of Independence.
But even more powerful than
America’s founding fathers, God
has given us plenty of insight into
what freedom means. He shares
with those who will really hear
the description of freedom. To
begin the journey of true freedom,
you have to be a disciple of Jesus
Christ. Following him as the ul
timate model, he said his disciples
will know the truth and the truth
will make those disciples free.
When Jesus said that to his fol
lowers when he was on earth, they
answered, “Wait a minute! We’ve
never been slaves or servants of
anyone. What in the world do you
mean we will be free?”
And then Jesus gave them the
meaning of true freedom and true
bondage. Whoever sins is the
servant of sin. Whoever sins does
whatever the sinful nature com
mands. But, Jesus continued, if
you know me, you will be truly
free.
Knowing God, following
Christ’s footsteps, we are free
from the power of sin, free from
the legalism of religious sects,
free from the rule of our sinful
nature or flesh, free from the
burden of constant guilt, and free
from the bondage that comes from
the fear of death.
To have this ultimate freedom
is simple. Freedom is knowing
the triune God. This freedom is
not unrestrained immorality, not
a world where rules do not exist.
This freedom is the liberty to be
what God wants us to be, free to
serve him, free to honor and glo
rify our creator. After all, that is
the reason he created us in the
first place (I Cor. 6). You either
serve him or you serve the devil.
You are mastered by one or the
other (Mat. 6).
God expands on freedom
through the pen of Paul in his
letter to the Romans. “But God
be thanked, that you were the
servants of sin, but you have
obeyed from the heart that form
of doctrine which was delivered
you. Being then made free from
sin, you became the servants of
righteousness... Now being made
free from sin, and become ser
vants of God, you have your fruit
unto holiness, and the end ever
lasting life. For the wages of sin
(Continued on Page 6)