Not signed in (Sign In)

Sign In

Forgot your password?

Apply for membership

  • Advertisement

  • Statistics : Page Views

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 20 days, and is thus closed.

General: Critial Observations...

Bottom of Page

1 to 46 of 46

  1.  
  1.  
    Member
     
    As someone relatively new to this forum and not a frequent participant in it I recently have spent some time reviewing your postings and reading the comments left by its members.

    A couple critical observations:

    1: The tone of this forum is very negative. Is it just me or does most comments about Towey have serious hatred for the man. So most people here have an ax to grind about the selection of another lay president (that really bothered me too), but do we still need to debate the Iraq invasion on this site. Towey worked at the White House but he did not make the case for war… he was not the Defense Secretary. Which leads to…

    2: Can we get over the fact that Bush spoke at SVC? It may have been a little while since someone has brought this up on the forum but you can still feel the residual effects from the visit. People are still angry about this. In the long run it is a good thing that the President of the United States spoke at the college. It created debate, student interaction and brought serious discussion about politics to the campus. (Last I checked this was a good thing)

    3: The WVU fiasco being a call to Towey to resign. What happened at WVU is far worse than anything that is happening at SVC. Can we get a little perspective. WVU was whoring itself out and handing MBA out to “friends.” Last I checked this was not the same as some people (students and faculty) being unhappy with selections of administrators, charges of nepotism, internet censorship (that apparently is easily defeated)

    4: Speaking of Internet Censorship: When I was in a sophomore Napster blew up on the campus. Available bandwidth went from 75% to 2% in less than 3 weeks. Students spent all day and night downloading music. iMesh (peer-to-peer) came a little while later and brought downloadable video (read: porn) to your dorm computer. The system was crushed by the constant flow of data. To address the matter SVC admin shut down access Napster and other peer-to-peer systems. Students were very upset to say the least. But in the end it is school who owns the network. They have to administer it. Besides there was a work around for Napster and there is one for this firewall.

    5: A bias on the site: Seems many people posting dissent are from the left of center. The school, and this was the case before Towey got there, is a conservative institution. The college and university system across this country generally has a left wing bias. That is fine with me. Because there are places that are open to conservative thought and ideals. SVC happens to be one of them. In the true name of diversity you need this. You need to have an American school that pushes conservative political and social ideas that are in line with the Pope, Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley. It is not as if SVC only has right wing idealists. There is a certain professor or two that has openly expressed a liking for Marx. Great for him. Great for the students who listen and learn from him. But let the conservative philosophy be the guiding principle of this Catholic institution. In the truest sense of diversity you need to have this type of school available. I am sorry if you feel that SVC being what it is is wrong. But like all Catholic institutions. It does not belong to you; it does not belong to Towey, nor does it belong to any person. It belongs to the Church and to the future students. The Church will have it forever, as will the future; because the future is ever renewed.

    In conclusion I like this site. I enjoy the pictures that other have posted. I enjoy the stories from the alum on their SVC memories… and I look forward to it as a way to stay connected to SVC people.

    My take on the current conditions at SVC are a combination between Rodney King and Alfred E. Newman…

    “Can’t we all just get along?” and “What me worry?”

    Bill Helzlsouer ‘01
    or Billy Bearcat for you that know me.
  2. Member
    • CommentAuthordstillman
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     

    Billy Bearcat

    You have some opinions which differ from many who write here, but not in a category of "critical observations."  I can find some of what you say exclusively on right wing news. So what.
     

     

  3.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorJimmy
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     
    TO - Billy Bearcat

    Your point about the tone of the site, and the attacks on Towey have merit; at least I wonder about it myself. I graduated sometime before you did, and simply do not know the issues or the basis of the attacks, but do need to know them to better understand. Regardless, I think the tone of the attacks, even if completely warranted, could be better to be fully believed.

    However, I'm not sure about your other points. SVC was certainly no "conservative" institution when I went there. It was a progressive catholic institution, with nothing conservative about it. Nor was it on some crazed, radical fringe. Yes, there were conservatives -- at the time the economics dept seemed to be an adjunct of the University of Chicago -- but they and the marxists were all part of a larger mix of the liberal arts college.

    Also, I think you are really missing a point about Towey's role at the White House, and by extension, quite possibly the significance of his appointment to St. Vincent. There are pretty well documented examples of he changing the WH's faith-based program into a political arm of the White House. While it might seem obvious that anything at the WH is political at core, the faith-based program apparently was not this way before Towey, according to his predecessor. If there is legitimacy to the faith-based concept -- and our current Archabbot seems to believe mingling church and state money is legitimate -- it seems to me to be dangerous for it to be blatantly partisan. In the same way the chief Scientist from the White House should not be blatantly political.

    The other issue you don't seem to address directly is the implication on the philosophy of a man of faith-based philosophy on the purpose and identity of St. Vincent. Although in the years since it expanded it is generally recognized by the college and the archab. that the college has weakened since the college expanded, it must be understood that what good reputation St. Vincent has is because of its spirit of inquiry of a liberal arts college. St. Vincent was once proud of being a "community of scholars." As the school expands to take in career education -- such as a business education -- one wonders if it remains committed to the liberal arts ideal that is responsible for its reputation. But the POTENTIAL inference of jeopardy in Towey and his faith-based approach is that it seems to move yet another step away from the independence of the liberal arts college, and the community of scholars. The school, possibly, has decided as a financial strategy to align itself to american christian fundamentalism, and the political movement of the Right. If (and I mean it when I say "if") that is true the tradition of the school as the community of scholars -- and the freedom that implies -- truly is gone or severely threatened.

    The George Bush thing may or may not be significant, I think. If you are wrong and it is troubling, it is because:

    1. Bush came here because he truly was unwelcome anywhere else (except military academies), and/or because St. Vincent could be controlled unlike anwhere else (except military academies), or because the White House considered SVC to be so supine that no critical insight about the President or his performance would be voiced.

    2. If getting the President was a funding strategy (then, ok. . ) why did the event have so little national impact, or funding impact? Where is the followup? How has the college exploited the 'friends of George' to better position the college in its representation on boards, commissions, significant national studies? Are SVC alums better able to be accepted to advance study? Rather, it seems to have been a blip. The concern is, if that is the best we can expect from Towey, why blow it all with the first shot? Is there nothing left?

    3. There is also the issue of judgement. Invitation to a commencement is supposed to reveal the Identity of the school. It should reflect the prowess of the school's outreach ability. But most of all, it should reflect the philosophy of the school. Only the brain dead would not be disturbed at what this President and his Administration have done to the honor and appearance of competence of the United States. He seems to completely lack, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." St. Vincent must have known how deeply troubled most Americans (of whatever political stripe) and most people of the world are with this man. To know that, and still to invite him does send a message about the Identity of St. Vincent. Either people here are truly brain dead (and the Archabbot does not appear to be brain dead), or this was a conscious choice. If it was a conscious choice, what does it say about the future philosophy of the college?

    On the website thing, I agree with you and the Supreme Court that porn is not Free Speech, and your point about the capacity of the system sounds like it may be valid. However, the fear among some is that this prefigures broader restrictions of the liberal arts college ideal, possibly a sign that St. Vincent as a community of scholars may be threatened. We will know if other steps are taken by the President to govern from an inner circle of socially conservative individuals, without a 'decent respect' for the opinion of the whole faculty. A President of talent will seek ability where ever he can find it; a defensive or weak individual without regard for the meaning of higher education and inquiry will seek to narrow his base.

    -- But, Billy Bearcat, I do appreciate you point about the tone of the site from several [BUT BY NO MEANS ALL] of the contributors.
  4. Member
    • CommentAuthorthor
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     
    BillyBearcat: I too am relatively new to the site but have a rather different take on it. I pay most attention to the Raise my Glass section with the focus on memories, especially of the faculty, staff and places that was SVC for whomever is writing at the time.

    I did pick up on the Towey comments and spent some time on his blog and the concerns expressed in this forum. And many (most) of the comments are negative or critical of his presidency. But, this seems to be one place where alums can make these comments especially if they are concerned about the St. Vincent they remember and the St. Vincent they hope for in the future. As for the Bush visit, although you make a valid point about the good results of his trip, it is another part of the whole that is the current presidency that people find at fault.

    I found it interesting that you characterized SVC as a conservative institution and you are backed up by lists of conservative colleges and universities. Perhaps the characterization reflects the different times that we walked the campus: having graduated in 1972, it never occurred to me then or since that SVC was conservative. Indeed, it came as a shock when I saw its prominent location on the lists. Wasn't it in the top 10 at one point? I just did a quick internet check and on 2 or 3 current lists it has fallen from the top 10. I breathed a sign of relief. It may have been a conservative school before Towey but that doesn't mean it always was. Catholic, Christian and Benedictine are not synonymous with conservative.

    The official school website states that: “Saint Vincent is a liberal arts college. That means you'll be exposed to a broad range of subjects.” And it goes on to offer students “the ability to engage the ideas and opinions of people from all walks of life.”

    No school that calls itself a Liberal Arts College should “push…. conservative political and social ideas that are in line with..….. Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley.” I have left the Pope out for obvious reasons but it it should be equally obvious that at a Liberal Arts college anyone should be free to question and/or disagree with the Pope or for that matter, anyone else.

    A conservative philosophy can never be the guiding principle of a Catholic institution. There can only be one overarching principle and then education follows: the exposure to a broad range of subjects, the ability to engage the ideas and opinions of many different people.

    St. Vincent does indeed belong to the current students and the faculty and staff during their time. But it also belongs to the alumni - or why else are we asked on a yearly basis to contribute to the present and future of the college? SVC will always belong to the Church but there is no Church without a community of people. At St. Vincent that community is the present student body but that community will always include past students, faculty and staff and those that will come in the future.

    Many on this forum do not believe that SVC is wrong rather they question the leadership of the current president - but that is to be expected since they received a true liberal arts education.
  5.  
    Member
     

    Well done,  Billybearcat... your are quite correct in many of your points, though I don't agree with everything you say. You have raised a number of excellent points, and what is more, the postings in this thread have generated some civil debate, historical observations, and a number of other matters. Certainly, there should civil debates on many of the issues you raise.

    Ideally, SVC (as it has done pre-say- early nineties) should be bringing onto the campus speakers all pursuasions and beliefs, attitudes, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. There shoud be debate ON THE CAMPUS. Political figures (none ever for commencement, but that is my personal taste) should be regular visitors for student clubs, whether they are pro-choice, anti-war, pro-global warming, etc. But that is not happening, and, in several cases the desires of students in that direction have been thwarted because of the attitude of those who now control the college.

    What does dominate, however, are conservative speakers the likes of Brent Bozell, Dick Cheney, Rick Santorum, etc. No college, it seems to me, should promote any one political view. In the long run, it hurts education. The myth of liberal professors dominating liberal colleges is largely the work of this fellow David Horowitz and far too many people have bought into his nonsense, and it is arrant nonsense.

    On the other hand, what has come to light in recent months concerning the machinations of the Bush Administration as regards both Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, and other matters, makes it even more egregious that the American President should remain dominant on the college website. Not only does his presence there contribute nothing to the well-being of the college, it is indicative of the obstinancy and hypocrisy of a failing college presidency. President Bush will soon leave office. May one assume that his visage will disappear from the college website. It would be interesting to see, even at this point, the number of "hits" the section receives from the public.

    Once again, thanks for raising the issues that you do. Things promise to get spirited, honest, stimulating.

    However, the criticism, the watch, the reporting, the revelations concerning the present administration, the college president, the current VPAA, a prominent member of the coaching staff, and a host of other matters will without doubt continue to form a strong part of this forum until, with God's help, the current administration has faded into the past, and Saint  Vincent College can once again become the open, life-changing, valued place it has been for sixteen decades.

     

  6.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorrandomtask
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     

    Point of clarification - my posting of the WVU story was to highlight an issue going on at a college not too far away from SVC, though vastly different in size and (seemingly) ideologies. Grant it, the situations are quite different; however, some of the actions taken by students and faculty are reminiscent of what is currently happening at SVC. The biggest issue being: Just because you're president it doesn't make you unaccountable for your actions, nor does it allow you to make decisions or take actions that are outside your realm of understanding. Had a Benedictine been president and these same actions occurred, I'm sure that the same people would be concerned.

  7.  
    Member
     
    I need to apologize for one grave error. I wrote much of the criticism without getting more information. Last night I spoke via telephone with a fellow alumnus from the SVC area, a class mate, and a serious SVC supporter. The discussion lasted for nearly an hour following his attendance at the late Fr. Tom's viewing. His description of what the campus has become was extremely disappointing. While I had serious concerns regarding the direction of the school after finding this forum, hearing about the atmosphere within my beloved school was heartbreaking. The school has lost its student identity, institutional identity and inherent charm. While much of my critical review I still stand behind, I can now more appreciate the matters that are facing the institution.

    Therefore, I apologize because I wrote my posting yesterday from a position of ignorance. Given this I offer either clarification or adjustment of my position.

    1. Conservative Principles: This is a matter of my preference. The political science and economics departments (now the McKenna School) had a conservative bend and philosophy during my time at SVC. This was, for me, desirable. It still would be. Should the school as a whole promote this ideological position? Certainly not! I do feel that having speakers that address multiple ideologies and political positions are necessary and demanded as part of a liberal art education. Having a department with a political bend is not a problem. Having the entire school succumb to one is deplorable.

    2. Campus Life: This was in many ways the most disappointing thing to hear about SVC. While there, I felt and strongly believed in the feeling of community. The support that students felt for one another. The fun and memories that we made. It was an experience that made me the man I am today. The idea of “breaking” into the pool for a midnight swim. Is completely out of the question. A student doing this apparently would now be dismissed from the school. SVC many students who remained on campus every weekend. This is no longer the case. Students flee the campus apparently turning it into a suitcase college. I got my nick name (Billy Bearcat) from being a loud and fanatical attendee at men’s basketball games. I cheered on my roommates and friends and heckled our opponents. We felt like we were in it together. The team, AND the student body rose and fell with the outcome of games. Coach Matthews was a great guy. DP is disappointing. Now attending a home game is like going to Mass. I witnessed this myself two years ago.

    3. Rodney King and Alfred E. Newman: “Can’t we all just get along.” and “What me worry?” is no longer my stance… oddly enough. It must be therefore something we all learned during our time with SVC “Forward, Always Forward.”


    The questions then are thus… What are we to do? Will withholding donations make a difference? Will the board work to return the school to its prior identity? More importantly will the Abby take back the school? Do they want to?

    Billy Bearcat '01
  8.  
    Member
     

    Billy... you end your remarks with serious and appropriate questions. As they say, "Money talks, bull--- walks." Forward, yes, forward... nobody complains about that. Backward, yes, back to the cultural, social, spiritual community that is SVC's hallmark, a place where SGA members who speak out are not intimidated by collegel CEOs or spouses, where staff are not bullied, where unctuousness and pietism are not the order of the day. Will the board do something? The Board has already made a mistake, and they aren't very likely to admit it. The Abby has also made a mistake, and it is not likely to admit it. Do the abby and the board want to change things around? Some, well, many do. We'll have to wait and see how the courage comes down.

    Thanks again for your comments. You mention a few things like debating the war, and debating other things of significance... seems to me that if the admin won't allow various points of view on campus, maybe such discussion can take place in some of the threads in this forum...

  9.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorcollege08
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     

    mr. billybearcat:

    I only wish that more alumni would visit the campus and talk to people.  I wish more alumni would have conversations with alum who have visited. Forget the lunches and the alum gatherings... I mean a visit to talk with faculty, staff, students... just hang out for a day or two, and see.

  10.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorSVCbirddog
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    college08,

    As an alum who visits often, I can attest to the tension on campus--hushed tones, closed doors, etc.
  11.  
    Member
     
    For the most part, I have chosen to be an observer of this forum, but at times have felt inspired to post. Above, Billybearcat posed the question, what are we to do? I do offer a suggestion of what not to do.

    The motto that has been developed as a defense against "the svc alum" is that we all want things to go back to the way they used to be. I urge alum who post, to consider their words if only to avoid giving them ammunition. The voice of the message must be clear that you believe that the school is going in a destructive direction, not that you wish to see things go back to the way they were.

    Please do not think that I am making the accusation that posters to this forum are calling for things to go back to the way they were, but understand that is the response the forum gets. Change is often necessary and unavoidable. I am fond of my years at SVC and do not wish to diminish their significance, but understand that svc must evolve much like I have had to evolve over my many years. Chang is going to happen, make sure those w/ influence and willing to listen understand you disagree with the type of change.
  12.  
    Member
     

    Dear Loyal:

    I think it has been made fairly clear throughout these postings that "change" in the sense of progress, increasing excellence, curriculum innovation, developing services, and other matters are one kind of change. No one is against that. SVC has progressed in these areas steadily over many decades.

    Now "change" in the sense of simple, childish theology emanating from the CEO's office, in the sense of the institution of a silly, embarassing, pietistic, sanctimonious misnomered "blog, in the sense of a swing from an open, fair, balanced treatment of important political and social issues to a right-wing ideology of politics and religion, in the sense of religiousity disguised as moral teaching, then, yes, the posters on this forum have made it quite clear that that is the sort of change they are opposed to.

    There are also other corroborative matters that are clearly stated throughout this forum. They may have to do with "change" or  not. How about falsity? How about rank nepotism (and I don't mean some faculty spouse or child working on campus)?

    Who are those willing to listen? Who are those of influence? If they don't know by now the sort of change the majority of people involved do not wish to see come about, then they are either blind, indifferent, or complicit.

    I think is is also very clear, judging from the posts, that the posters to a person feel that the school is going down a destructive path.

  13.  
    Member
     
    Nicely put johnny. It will be hard for anyone to deny your post. Your comment reminds me of Giuliania's short lived presidential campaign. "Of course we all want 'change,' but what KIND of change are we talking about?"
  14.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorDanC
    • CommentTimeJun 25th 2008
     

    BillyBearcat,

    My strategy for the time being is to withhold donations until we see regime change. We can argue that such 'economic sanctions' work as well in this scenario as they do in international politics (that is, not very well at all). But I honestly can't stomach the idea of my hard-earned money furthering a destructive agenda.

    (We can fume about conservatism and liberalism all day in a public forum, but I'd rather not let this forum deteriorate to the level of Fox News.)

    What saddens me the most is that SVC has consciously moved away from education in favor of indoctrination, towards regulating  student behavior instead of fostering independence. This is, to be honest, nothing new: much of this paternalism started when I was there ('85-'89). The level of condescension from The Powers That Be was revolting even then.

    But I've never seen it so bad before. Student life is regulated far more today than in my day. (The repression isn't as bad as what you'd find in West Point or BYU. Yet.)  And academic integrity, which should be a no-fly zone for the ideologues, is now being threatened.

    In short, we're watching the value of an institution being eroded by nothing less than a kinder, gentler fascism. That's not just sad, it's criminal. Until SVC changes course, I'll be giving my money to a non-commercial radio station in Seattle instead.

     

     

     

  15.  
    Member
     

    What would it cost the college to buy out JT's contract? Would buying out his contract cost as much as allowing him to run out his term of office? Someone has to make that choice, it seems to me. Who wants to be faced with that choice? Choosing a buyout would take some courage, it seems to me, and it would take an admission that a mistake had been made in the first place.

    Cash would seem to be the big issue. If a sizeable number of alum held back their ordinary contributions and pledges it might make a difference. I suspect much of that is being done, but do they really care about the $100.00 people, and that's most of us? Let someone come around who has a couple million in their pocket and you'll see a change of tune.

    Still, enough noise from the alum and the $100.00 people who are smart enough to see through the spinning might break the camel's back.

    Bottom line? What can be done? Right now, hold back the cash!

     

  16.  
    Admin
    • CommentAuthorR Fury
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2008
     

    Witholding is the same tact I have taken.  My small gifts to the school mean nothing by themselves (although there was one quite large gift a few years back) but there are strength in numbers.  Just like winning baseball games at SVC 30 years ago... "single them to death"... it works far more reliably than having to rely on a few homers.

    Right now buying out JT's contract would likely be the cheapest thing SVC could do and soon can't afford not to.  If done correctly it would send a message, start re-building, restore credibility.  However remember when the fish stinks it stinks from the head on down. JT is merely the figurhead and unless a lesson has been learned higher up his departure would mean very little other than he's the poor shmuck who had to be the fall guy.

     

  17.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorJimmy
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2008
     
    I don't see how withholding money can work, unless is an organized activity, and it is clear what is being withheld. It would seem that several of the people in the higher-level councils would have to participate, whether quietly or not.

    I think organizations are disinclined to fold in the face of explicit confrontation, they need a back door.

    Surely if the funds to buy out the contract were made available, and someone had the access to negotiate the process with the Arch., perhaps that would work. A resignation and compensation package. Whatever, they will have to buy out his contract under any plausible scenario, if he is to leave unwillingly. It does not make sense that he would leave willingly, especially with a home in the community in this housing climate, unless he were offered a job elsewhere.
  18.  
    Member
     

    Correct, Jimmy. It may be that such processes as you describe are already in the works. "Enough is enough," to coin a phrase. Perhaps JT will become "disgruntled" enough to depart. Stefan Jodlowiski used to say: "Never back an adversary into corner. Always leave him a little room (back door) to get out of."

    As far as the housing goes, I understand that he has a generous housing allowance (upwards of 3k per month) so he isn't or won't be devastated financially. That's 36k per-year. Add to that the salaries of a couple superfluous assistants and factotums.

  19. Member
     
    What GWB and is neocons have done to America during his presidency "suggest that Facism has taken root in the United States, and there is little indication that a reversal is evident. Vice President Wallace wrote in the New York Times on April 9, 1944:
    The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

    Wallace then added:
    They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesman for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective towrad which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

    This was in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol." and in Davidson Loehr's sermon, "Living under Fascism" http://archive.uua.org/news/2004/voting/sermon_loehr.html

    I challenge everyone on here to see how this applies to our society today....... and has disgustingly been brought to Saint Vincent by GWB yes man Jim Towey.
  20.  
    Member
     
    SVC Winston Smith,

    Thanks for helping to make one of my critical observation points about this blog.

    You sound like a lunatic. This is not about 9/11 conspiracies, George Bush, Iraq or neocons. Conservative principles have a place in the institution. People who support the Bush administration have a right to work and attend the school. Towey is not a fascist.

    He may be distasteful to you and I but you belittle and the term by using it so freely.

    Get you mind around an idea that is useful and persuasive. Posts such as yours make the prospect of change all the harder. Your post gives ammunition to those who would dismiss these grievances as coming from the fringe.

    I would suggest finding another forum for your rants.

    Billy Bearcat
  21.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorcollege08
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     

    Billy Bearcat and Winston Smith:

    Actually, you are both right.

    But Winston doesn't deny anyone any rights to attend SVC. And one has to be there everyday to catch the mood of the campus and the behavior of the CEO, and his cronies.

    Conservative views do have a place on any campus. So do Liberal views. Unfortunately, on the SVC campus today, and for the past several years, and worse in the past two years, the far right thought has dominated to the extent that SVC entered the ranks of the Ten Most Conservative Colleges in America and is and has been so publicized on the Internet.  Right-wing Catholicism is also becoming evident.

    Billy, I am sure that you don't wish to  see this happen, but it is happening. That is the concern here. The SVC tradition is a clear one. In the past, the campus has welcomed as speakers Joan Chicester, Ralph Nader, Stokely Carmichal, Julian Bond. It has hosted forums on Negritude, Communism (a balanced program of debate on all sides of the issue), debates concerning Vietnam, etc. You do not see that on today's SVC campus and, things being as they are, you will never see their equivalent again. You will, however, see the equivalents on a regular basis of  Brent Bozell and the "correct" political "thinkers." Occasionally you will see such things as the President's fair and balanced town hall meetings, but judging from comments  on this forum on the last such meeting, everyone pretty much knows that they are an orchestrated joke.

    I think Winston is looking at things from the point of view of the Wallace quote. The title of the book in which the quote appears is irrelevant to his point.

  22. Member
     
    BillyBearcat or Mr. Bill Helzlsouer ‘01,

    How MATURE of you to resort to name calling. Really I "sound like a lunatic"? You are willing to call a fellow SVC graduate a "lunatic" because I post what many intelligent people believe. I think you need to educate yourself and not just believe everything the media tells you.

    You sound like Fox News. Did you even read what I posted? What I posted came from a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol." written by many highly intelligent people with many credentials (I will type the all up if you want me too just let me know).


    You need to read up and see the truth behind 9/11 and the "official conspiracy theory" that 19 hijackers outsmarted the billion dollar US military. Until you read these books below and see that this was IMPOSSIBLE you will continue to just call me crazy. But who is the crazy one? The person who believes that 3 building collapsed when only 2 were hit by planes or the person who examines the overwhelming facts that the building had explosives planted in them. Go ahead call me crazy again but it is due to your own ignorance of the facts.

    "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin

    "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin

    I would suggest that everyone on this site read these two books and become educated.
  23. Member
    • CommentAuthorthor
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     
    Winston:

    I will check out the 9/11 book and the Loehr sermon. Thanks for the references.

    I am not a fan of George Bush: I question his intellect, his global perspective, his decisions and his leadership but not his patriotism. And I doubt that it was his grand scheme to introduce fascism into the United States. I do not believe that the man has ever had a grand scheme in his life.

    I would suggest that although the press gave Bush a pass leading up to Iraq (based in part on the country's 9/11 vote of confidence and perhaps the fear of having their patriotism questioned) that has not been the case for a long time. And this is true for the Democrats and seemingly the majority of the country - as evidenced by polls about Iraq and Bush's job rating.

    Therefore, if the Fascist in America plan was to use the news to deceive the public, that effort has gone bust. In addition, Obama's fundraising combined with the recent election of Democrats in red states has overwhelmed the fascist plan to give its group more money and power.

    I am more liberal than most but have great friends, even some who are SVC graduates, who are conservatives and support the Republican view on foreign and economic policy. They simply disagree with the more liberal Democratic approach and firmly believe that the Bush/McCain economic approach, rather than 'keep the common man in eternal subjection' will better the lives of all Americans. Now, I disagree with them and will debate/argue with them until the cows come home but I have never doubted their patriotism or suspected them of supporting a fascist agenda in America.

    As for Towey - "American fascist.......has disgustingly been brought to Saint Vincent by GWB yes man Jim Towey"...... let us all remember that we are talking about St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. I loved my time there and it will always be a special place for me....but it is St. Vincent College. I would suggest that, if someone had a fascist agenda that they wanted to foist on an unsuspecting America, there are better, bigger, more influential places to plant their flag and influence the larger population than good ole SVC. Forgive me, my alma mater, but this ain't the Ivy leagues, the large state universities, the much better known catholic colleges/universities, the large well known universities in major cities,...you get the point. If SVC were the choice for such an agenda, I would raise the same questions about its President as I raise (above) about our President.

    I have questions and concerns about the President of SVC but patriotism and fascism are not among them. My focus is on his relationship with the faculty and students, hiring decisions, internet censorship, choice of speakers on campus, heaven as a goal (actually it is a gift given not a goal achieved), and St. Vincent's the long term reputation. But on these we're already in good hands as the faculty, student government, student 'underground' paper and the alumni have joined the debate.

    As a wise man once said, let’s not drinks too much of our own bath water.
  24. Member
    • CommentAuthorthor
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     
    college08:

    I am not on campus and get to visit only every few years (given work, family and distance).

    You mentioned that "the far right thought has dominated to the extent that SVC entered the ranks of the Ten Most Conservative Colleges in America and.......... (that) Right-wing Catholicism is also becoming evident."

    If time permits, I would like to learn more about this. For example, does the far right thought come from the administration? The abbott? Is it present in entire departments and or individual faculty members? In the student body?
    Given the faculty vote/letter and the actions of the student government it doe not appear to be widespread.

    Also, given your handle, I take it that you are a recent grad. Can individual clubs, professors, students invite speakers on campus or is it all funneled through the administration? Is there a way around the official speakers?

    Also, the right-wing Catholicism: I have read the President's blog but is it evident with the monks, in the Religion department?

    Thanks
  25.  
    Member
     
    Winston Smith,

    First, I am sorry I offended you with my sentence “You sound like a lunatic.”

    You wrote that you post that what many “intelligent people believe…” Does that assume that not believing these conspiracy theories means you lack the intellectual capacity to understand?

    Secondly to quote you: “I would suggest that everyone on this site read these two books and become educated.” I have not read these books and quite frankly I doubt I ever will so therefore I am too assume I am uneducated?

    Further what does 9/11 have to do with SVC? What does Towey have to do with 9/11? Are you accusing him of being a terrorist?

    I have to believe that you find your name to be incredibly fitting. I on the other hand do not think Big Brother is after me.

    The fact that this is what is discussed on this forum makes my point about the site. It should be about St. Vincent College. It should be about the direction of the college, our experiences there, our love for the community it fosters and, about each other. Instead it often degrades into debate about right wing/left wing issues that are not relevant to the greater debate about the direction of the college. SVC should be open to multiple points of view, political discussions and philosophic ideas. The fact that this is no longer the case is fight we are confronted with in this forum.

    Mr. Smith, I find your writings here today to be troubling because they are not in the name of a cause that is clearly in all of our interests by virtue or our one similarity, SVC.

    Posts that drudge up 9/11 conspiracies, throw mud at Bush, and have comments like “You sound like Fox News” are simply a means by which to degrade the debate. Something I may have been guilty of myself.

    This site is not The Huffington Post, The Drudge Report, Moveon.org or Townhall.com. Those are sites for ideologues to spin their stories about Bush. This site I believe has a smaller more intimate purpose. I think that my starting of this post was a wake up call to people who may have lost sight of that. A call to not cut off one’s nose to spite the face.

    So my question to you Mr. Winston Smith: Are we as alumnus going to enlighten the discussion about SVC or would we rather rehash 9/11, the Iraq invasion debate, Florida 2000 election, Plame and Scooter Libby, Whitewater, Lewinsky, and the list goes on and on…

    Billy Bearcat
  26.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorDanC
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     

    Winston and Billy --

    I think both of you made some good points (some more choleric than others), but I'd like to point out that the "sudden" swell of conservatism.. well, why split hairs, proto-fascism.. on the SVC campus is not sudden at all. It has nothing to do with Bush, neo-cons, the rise and fall of the Right in America, or any larger social, political, or cultural shift.

    It's all about the Church. And in particular, one of its abbeys.

    The evolution of our alma mater into a virtual nanny state has been underway for decades. It started before I showed up there, continued while I stayed, and kept going after I left.

    I couldn't possibly point a finger at any one person, but the agenda of those responsible has been abundantly clear: Catholicism (or at least one group's understanding of it)  is under attack, and must be preserved at all costs against anything the modern world can muster. Even if it means sacrificing academic freedom.

    (I won't name names, but the behavior of some of the younger brothers in the monastery is, shall we say, rather interesting. One wonders if Dan Brown paid a visit to Latrobe a while back.)

    p.s. I'll admit it, I never read "The DaVinci Code". I have, however, read "The Prince".

     

     

     

     

     

  27.  
    SuperAdmin
    • CommentAuthorSuperAdmin
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     

    BillyBearcat: "The school, and this was the case before Towey got there, is a conservative institution."

    Wha! I don't remember that being the tone of the institution. I must have missed something.

    BillyBearcat: "I would suggest finding another forum for your rants."

    Sorry Billy, but Winston has contributed much more meaningful content than you have to this site. You've posted one thing one thing, and all of the sudden you're dictating the tone? No thanks.

     

  28.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorSVCbirddog
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     
    Can I add one caution? Let's try to keep things civil. The last thing we need, assuming we want change at SVC, is to have alums divided.
  29.  
    SuperAdmin
    • CommentAuthorSuperAdmin
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008
     

    "The last thing we need, assuming we want change at SVC, is to have alums divided."

    Agreed. But, I won't stand by while a member claims that SVC was a "conservative institution" prior to Towey, and then takes ownership of this site by suggesting that other members find another forum.

    We aren't all going to agree on everything, but disagreement does not mean division.

  30.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorsvc90
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2008 edited
     

    Now, now Winston and Billy, as JT is fond of saying, “Enough is enough!” Let us remain civil, shall we! Anyway, why not debate the Iraq War with say someone like Barak Obama coming in as part of a panel. What better place to have such a debate but on this forum, because the kids who wanted Barak on the campus got turned down because he had “pro-choice” leanings. It was okay to have Cheney there twice, eh? Or Rick Santorum, eh? Or Brent Bozell (his schedule permitting).

    Now for SVC being traditionally a conservative institution? Wrong! It was not, nor was it traditionally “liberal.” It was balanced, there were balanced symposiums and debates, the commencement speakers were from all beliefs and political persuasions. No disrespect intended, because you are undoubtedly a respected alum, but you did graduate only in 2003, so it is correct to say that your history at Saint Vincent College limited to the period of your attendance when a swing to the right was already fairly well advanced. Remember that many remember it differently.

    There are alum posting here, several who still have close campus connections. It is worth while listening to what they have to say. They were here in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, and the first eight years of this century. At last glance there is even someone posting from the prep and college in the fifties. Birddogg is right, by the way. Pissing contests don't cut it.

    So Billy and Winston, lay the matter to rest.

    More importantly, Thor a few threads above asks some significant questions? They are reposted here. Anyone care to provide answers? " You mentioned that "the far right thought has dominated to the extent that SVC entered the ranks of the Ten Most Conservative Colleges in America and.......... (that) Right-wing Catholicism is also becoming evident."

    If time permits, I would like to learn more about this. For example, does the far right thought come from the administration? The abbott? Is it present in entire departments and or individual faculty members? In the student body?

    Given the faculty vote/letter and the actions of the student government it doe not appear to be widespread. Also, given your handle, I take it that you are a recent grad. Can individual clubs, professors, students invite speakers on campus or is it all funneled through the administration?

    Is there a way around the official speakers? Also, the right-wing Catholicism: I have read the President's blog but is it evident with the monks, in the Religion department?"

  31.  
    Member
     

    The conservative dollars all come from the same "Mc center" on campus... Big bucks from age-old hardy donors. Speaker schedules eminate from there as well.

  32. Member
    • CommentAuthorthor
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2008 edited
     
    What is the MC center? How long has it been part of SVC? Has its political tone changed over the years? And finally, they actually have right of refusal over the speakers?

    Now,to BILLYBEARCAT.

    Simply because he is late to the forum and has contributed less than others does not make his contributions any less worthy of consideration. Furthermore, he should be appreciated for starting this particular discussion. It should also be recognized that Billy apologizes if he feels he has crossed a line. However, Billy did made a good point when he stated that another's comment seemingly questioned, and therefore also insulted, those who were (seemingly) uneducated because they had not read two books that had been cited. I guess it is not acceptable to call a fellow SVC graduate a lunatic but is acceptable to suggest they are uneducated and naive (believing everything the media tells them).

    As to SVC being conservative: I never considered it so in my years (c 72) however it obviously changed along the way (and most in this forum certainly defines it as conservative in 2008), otherwise it would not be listed as one of the most conservative schools in the United States (predating Towey). So it depends which SVC we are talking about. I would be interested to learn when and why it changed.

    Finally, I don't believe that Billy tried to take ownership of the site although he did attempt to strike a tone for a discussion he started: "It should be about St. Vincent College. It should be about the direction of the college, our experiences there, our love for the community it fosters and, about each other. Instead it often degrades into debate ......... that are not relevant to the greater debate about the direction of the college...." Doesn't get much better than that.

    Anyone can write whatever he or she wants on the forum but Billy has really defined the relevant topic. I'm still scratching my head over the relevance of Griffin, 9/11 and fascism in America and how it impacts SVC. As said earlier of all things wrong with Bush, I don't question his patriotism nor do I question the patriotism of the current president of SVC or suspect him of a fascism agenda in the middle of western Pennsylvania. I have read, discussed and debated most things Bush, Iraq, infringement of liberties, etc. with my friends -actually all SVC graduates- but it was not and is not my intention to do that on this forum. As Billy said, " This site I believe has a smaller more intimate purpose."
  33. Member
    • CommentAuthorthor
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2008 edited
     
    DanC:

    When did you graduate? Relevant because you said, "The evolution of our alma mater into a virtual nanny state has been underway for decades. It started before I showed up there, continued while I stayed, and kept going after I left."

    This would go a long way to putting a timeframe on the movement to a (more) conservative institution.

    Also, without naming names, what is it about the younger monks? And who set the agenda, the Abbott? Even with Catholicism under attack, interesting that the change would be so dramatic. In the 60/70s, everything, all authorities, were under attack but I would still define the college, the people as liberal - at least the groups I knew. So what changed?

    Thanks
  34. Member
     
    "2: Can we get over the fact that Bush spoke at SVC? It may have been a little while since someone has brought this up on the forum but you can still feel the residual effects from the visit. People are still angry about this. In the long run it is a good thing that the President of the United States spoke at the college. It created debate, student interaction and brought serious discussion about politics to the campus. (Last I checked this was a good thing)"

    ----My answer to your question is NO, I will not get over GWB coming to SVC and I am still very angry about this. My comments about the evils of GWB do enlighten the discussion about SVC. I do not see what "good" came from having GWB read a speech written by someone else as fast as he could and then taking off? You are right that it did create debate but not in a good way. How is the division of the people at SVC into pro-bush or anti-bush a good thing? It turned SVC into a circus and photo-op for JT's bff GWB.

    "So my question to you Mr. Winston Smith: Are we as alumnus going to enlighten the discussion about SVC or would we rather rehash 9/11, the Iraq invasion debate, Florida 2000 election, Plame and Scooter Libby, Whitewater, Lewinsky, and the list goes on and on…"

    ----President Towey says that he is a friend of President GWB. President Towey helped GWB to get elected president by getting (or tricking) conservative Christians into voting for GWB. This is talked about in another thread on here. All of the things in your quote (excluding whitewater and Lewinsky) above would not have happened if GWB was not elected president. Jim Towey has been rewarded greatly for his supreme loyalty to GWB. I think we all know JT is very wealthy and he was able to get the job as president of SVC with no qualifications just because he worked for GWB.

    ----My problem with JT is that he is 100% loyal to GWB no matter what. JT has no credibility to me as a Catholic until he comes out against GWB and all of th EVIL things he has done.

    ----The Iraq body count estimates between 85,325 – 93,067 documented civilian deaths. So many innocent people have been killed due to GWB and his administrations policies, for what? Here are two articles that suggest the true reason for the Iraq war.

    Iraq's oil fields open to bidders:
    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/30/news/international/iraq_bids/index.htm?cnn=yes

    Bush is trying to impose a classic colonial status on Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/26/usforeignpolicy.usnationalsecurity


    ----Now the quote I had posted regarding GWB and his administration seems eerily true regarding their policies.

    "suggest that Facism has taken root in the United States, and there is little indication that a reversal is evident. Vice President Wallace wrote in the New York Times on April 9, 1944:
    The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

    Wallace then added:
    They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesman for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective towrad which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
  35.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorcollege08
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2008
     

    Winston and Billy Bearcat.

    There are many who are still angry over the Bush commencement invitation, especially since much as been revealed about the Iraq war since then. They are angry as well over the fact that Bush's photo still dominates the college webpage even after those revelations. The real reasons for the war Bush started are were known or suspected then, and as each month passes more and more of the real reasons get revealed. No matter how one cuts it, back in 2007 the Benedictine stance on the war was clear (except for the founding house's refusal to sign the American Benedictine Peace Statements). Bush did not reflect the true Benedictine ideals then, and he still doesn't. That's what the protests were about. They were not about Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal values. And they are not about those today.

     

  36.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorDanC
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
     

    Hi thor --

    I graduated in '89. Did my four years and out.

    Some folks on the inside have told me that some (most?) of the younger brothers are extremely conservative (which you'd have to be these days to be so intimately involved with today's Roman Catholic Church, IMO). They are so much so that they frown upon their fellow brethren who choose not to wear vestments while working in the college. (Can it get any pettier?)

    As for what things were like in my day, well, if memory serves, it was pretty clear that the administration was becoming more and more condescending as time went by. And that they were willing to assert that student freedoms were privileges, not rights.

    A quick case in point: In one of the classes behind me, there was once a student who was not much more than a dumb rich kid with a taste for coke. The administration was looking for any excuse to get rid of him. And they did.  They expelled him for having a girl in his room in Wimmer after 2am .

    Now bear in mind that in that day this was a common infraction, and it resulted usually in only a stern warning. But in this little idiot's case, the Dean of Students' office decided to voilate protocol.

    Now, I don't pity the kid in question; he had his fate coming to him. But the ends didn't justify the means at all.

    My understanding is that SVC students today have to deal with many more intrusions into what should be their private affairs. So it's ironic that we complained back in the day about what we perceived to be creeping patriarchy.

     

     

     

  37.  
    Member
     
    To Billy, read a little deeper on these forums and you will see that this is not political.

    This is about someone (and I'm getting to sound like a broken record here) who is unqualified to hold his post. He just happens to have a conservative bent. HJT shows no desire to learn from the faculty and administration how to run a college--he already knows it all. Plain and simple, the micromanaging, the ruining careers, the cronyism, it all has to stop.

    I, for one, am glad you recognize that SVC does not belong to HJT; I only wish he would realize that.
  38.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorcollege08
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
     

    Well said, Dogmanstar. Maybe Winston and Billy are having a beer somewhere, thrashing out differences in the true Bearcat manner.

    I did some reading up on fascism and it seems to me it can be applied to many different situations with many different meanings and applications, but it need not always conjure up images of Nazism, or Mussolini and people like that. On the other hand there are aspects ascribed to fascism that allow the term to be used anytime there are things like censorship, attempts to control the press, intimidation, uber-moralism, cronyism, development of a cult of personality, fear tactics, and other things. Throughout these postings on this forum there have been many descriptions of such things going on at SVC at that level concerning issues of the Review, intimidation of SGA representatives, cronyism/nepotism, fear tactics, pushing of a moral and political agenda, punitive measures against those who disagree or fear to disagree among many on campus, pushing personality (the BLOG), and more.

    A trip through the archives on this  forum will enlighten many to these things.

    I nothing that is being presented in these posts are truly occurring, then why does the forum exist in the first place. How many are there like it in the world?

  39.  
    Member
     
    I am in for thrashing out differences over beers any time. Anyone in the Harrisburg area I can meet up any time.

    The differences are not far in terms of opinion about the school...I think we all agree that things are not good.

    Back to that beer though... 5:04 and I am getting thirsty.
  40. Member
     
    I entered the college in 1963, a working class kid from a small factory town about an hour from Latrobe. College was a revelation: smart students, good teachers, an introduction to ideas I knew nothing about. As Catholic colleges go, SVC was liberal. There were tensions of course. Among the monks, there were diehard reactionaries who believed that seeing the film Woman of the Dunes was an immediate ocasion to sin. To them Pope John 23 was the devil I suppose. But others were more attuned to the times and liberal in their views. One of the archabbotts (Weakland, who came to the office right after I graduated) was a real champion of the dispossessed (though he had some personal troubles late in his career as Archbishop of Milwaukee), as were some of the monks and lay faculty.

    My guess is that the school began to face some money problems and this provided an opening for the conservatives, who were also helped by the shift nationally to the right by the middle of the 1970s. Business interests and their allies were busy then setting up think tanks, lobbying groups, and the like to prepare the nation for an ideological swing to the right. Colleges came naturally into their sights; the conservatives had access to plenty of money and a willingness to use it. No doubt those at SVC attuned anyway to this ideological shift saw an opportunity to move the school to the right and at the same time raise lots of cash. More conservative faculty were hired and the ball got rolling, soon with a momentum of its own.

    If we look say at the economics department, it is firmly controlled by the right. Through a friend there, I got an invitation to speak in 2003 (maybe it was 2004). It became clear to me right away that my speaking was something very unusual. Also interesting was how little publicity my talk was given (I was talking about a new book of mine, my seventh at the time, so I was a little bit known around the country). The questions from students were all from the right so to speak. I've also noticed that there is hardly a rightwing economic thinker who hasn't apeared on campus, but no liberals much less radicals.

    Anyway that's my two cents. I can tell you this. I would never consider attending SVC today. Towhey, Bush, Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on. Even in 1963 when I knew so little I'd have come to blows with the curent SVC administration.
  41.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorsvc90
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2008
     

    Welcome aboard, Mr. Yates. Your thoughts and feelings are shared by many.

  42.  
    Member
     
    Winston

    Just a tip, when you at least imply you wouldn't let President Bush speak or his like speak on campus aren't you doing the exact same thing you and many others, including myself, are critcizing SVC for doing over the recent past.
    Like I have posted previously, I don't expect to like everyone they bring to campus to speak. I have no problem with that.
    I have no problem if they bring in the top 10 conservative politicans in the country next year. My problem and that which I believe they do deserve criticism on is that they have failed to do a good job in balancing those views.
    There are some on this site who would be angry if they brought or leaned right regardless of how it was balanced.
    But I believe that the angst of the majority of Alum who are concerned about the current direction of the school stems more from a lack of that balance I refered to than anything else.
    I don't agree with everything Billy has said, but I share his concern over alum becoming divided. Noone should give up the good fight but some of you should understand that the ends don't always justify the means.
  43.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorcollege08
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2008
     

    The alum are about as divided as teh faculty is divided, which is not by much.  The faculty is twice as united as it was a few months ago, And the so-called "disgruntled" grow in numbers day by day.

    One hears only about the scattering of positive mail and calls that come in that are positive, and nothing about the great number of critical calls that have come into development and alumni offices. One just needs to talk to the right people.

    Secondly, it is not a matter of doing a good job to maintain balanced views. There is no job being done at all to create balance. In fact, balance is squelched in favor of Towey's moral and political vision.

    The recent changes in the Review are perhaps tokenism and part of the spin. Let us hope it continues... if not, there is Thought Crime to fall back on... and, believe me, it will be a real piece of balanced political commentary, criticism of the current administration, and editorial integrity.

    Towey's recent and inappropriate op eds on faith based to national newspapers will give you and indication of his political posturing and toadyism.

    But in the final look, hawkeye, it is more than a lack of balance that affects the school.  That's just the tip of an iceberg. If you are a regular on the campus, there is no reason for you not to know that.

  44.  
    Member
     
    Never said lack of balance was only problem or criticism of the the school right now but in my view its the main one.
    While many of us including myself are very uneasy and object to the strong conservative bent that has overtaken the school in recent years, its their disinterest, neglect and in many cases an ouright refusal to present or allow alternative views to exist that really puts in jeapordy the integrity of the school.
    I urge many on this website to not just express their views and concerns thru this website or thru non giving or other anti SVC methods, but to actually get involved with the school and let their voices be heard in a manner that forces the powers that be to respond to real individuals that they can't simply right off as a renegade fringe.
    And before the comments come pouring in, I do not believe MOST of the people on this site fall into that classification.
  45.  
    Member
     

    The swing to the right has been going on, Hawkeye. JT is simply pushing the swing higher and higher, not only in politics but in religion as well. Right, it is a main concern. There are others, of course, as expressed throughout this forum.

    Take into account as well where the money comes from and where it goes to support the right wing swing.

    Perhaps those out there who dislike what is happening and who have fairly deep pockets could fund a center at SVC that promotes "liberal" causes and speakers as well... and I mean money that would sponsor colloguia, seminars, and speakers concerning with the current wars, who would challenge the current process of government, who would address real problems of social justice, and so forth. There are faculty there who could head such a center, and it would balance the products of the McKenna Center, etc.

    It only takes money. It would be interesting to see if such a center of liberal studies, or say the Roosevelt Center, or Lyndon Johnson Center or whatever, would be allowed to exist on the campus without micro-interference from the Administration.

    So, getting involved? Right! 200 people with 2,000 dollars each woudl be a step in the right direction, would it not? Restrict the funds to specific parties and specific purposes. 1,000 people with 1,000 each is even better. That would take the whole thing away from indebetedness to any one firm or corporation whose purpose it is to defend and promote certain idealogies.

  46.  
    Member
     

    May I add to my just posted remarks... when I said colloquia and seminars and speakers and debates I mean such things that will in themselves contain opposing viewpoints, pretty much like the school used to do... recall the Forum on Communism back in the late sixties. On the panels were representatives from DC, a communist leader (aptheker), anti-communists, neutrals, etc. Of course, those were the real glory days, interesting times. This sort of thing is a real rarity on the campus today, if it exists at all. It it does, then it involves tokenism. Let's bring back another colluquium on Al Gore's presentations, and let's have a balanced group of debaters. A recent, relatively unpublicized forum on teh Iraq war wasn't enough to cut it.

1 to 46 of 46

  1.  

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 20 days, and is thus closed.